Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-08 Transcription# 2b Page 1 ITEM 2b MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS Founder's Day - October 20 Lehman: (Reads proclamation). Karr: And here to accept is Mark Latta, Area 36 Governor Toastmasters International. Karmer: Speech. Speech. Lehman: (Can't hear) your speech okay? Mark Latta: Honorable Mayor and City Council members, as Toastmasters International Area 36 Governor I'm excited about this proclamation. I'm excited because it means that you're showing the same commitment to better communication and better understanding in our community as we show in Toastmasters. You see, ~ve have the same goals. We want stronger businesses. We want good education. We want solid families. Toastmasters just helps deliver on that goal in a different way. The way that we help deliver on the goad is by helping people communicate better. When you communicate better you understand better. For example, let me tell you about how we're helping in the community right now. Over at NCS Pearson they said, "We need powerful presenters to keep businesses." So they started a Toastmasters club. The University of Iowa College of Business the students said, "Hey we need to be effective communicators in our future careers." So they started a Toastmasters club. Of course we have Old Capital Toastmasters which has been serving Iowa City for years. We even had an advanced Toastmasters club over in the Amanas that once you hit a certain plateau you can take that next step and become an even better communicator. That's how we're helping you deliver on an effective community. Now that we have this proclamation let's take the next step. Let's attend a Toastmasters meeting. Let's even bring our friends and family to the meeting or start a Toastmasters club right here because as I said with better communication comes better understanding. This is our commitment and I believe this is your as well. So, take that next step. Go out to www.toastmasters.org and find a club that's meeting near you like Old Capital. It's www.toastmasters.org. Thank you again for making this proclamation. I think that by working together we will have a community of effective communicators. Thank you again. Lehman: Thank you. I believe one of our Council Members is a member of Toastmasters. Is that not correct, Irvin? Pfab: Yes that's correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 2b Page 2 Lehman: That's what I thought. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 3 Page 3 ITEM 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move adoption. O'DonnelI: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: Just wanted to mention that we have correspondence from Karen Dawes representing the Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation and our Staff is drafting a response to that and we should be getting that soon. Atkins: Soon? Kanner: I would imagine. Atkins: Soon. Kanner: Just to let the public know. Lehman: Any other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 4 Page 4 ITEM 4 PUBLIC DISCUSSION Lehman: Item number four is public discussion. This is a time reserved on the agenda for the public to address the Council on issues that are not otherwise appearing on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council please sign in, give your name, address, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Michaelanne Widness: My name is Michaelanne Widness. I live at 629 Melrose Avenue. My remarks may go a tiny bit longer than five minutes. I hope you'll indulge me because I think this is a really important issue. I'm here to speak about the order to vacate Grand Avenue Court. Lehman: That's on the agenda and that will come up at... Widness: Oh, that's on the agenda? Lehman: Right. Widness: Okay. I'll be back. Lehman: Okay. Any other public discussion? Larry Svoboda: My name is Larry Svoboda and I live at 16 Cherry Lane Iowa City. I also want to address an item that happens to be on the agenda tonight that you're voting on. It doesn't have a public discussion period. Lehman: No, when it comes up for a vote you may discuss it at that point. Svoboda: You may at that time? Lehman: Yes. Svoboda: Okay. Thank you. Lehman: Anyone else? Item five are planning... Pfab: Wait Emie. Lehman: i'm sorry. Almost missed it Dawn. Dawn Mueller: Can't do that. Good evening Council. My name is Dawn Mueller and I live at 1220 Village Road. I have three announcements for Council tonight and for the City. The first is that along with the proclamation of Domestic Violence Awareness Month I just wanted to say that as somebody who has received services from the Domestic Violence Intervention Program and also from the City through the services of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 4 Page 5 Officer Nicole Bock who does an excellent job at what she does helping persons in such situations I just want to emphasize how important these services are to our community. I listened at the work session last night to the question that one Councilor posed as what can we do concretely as a City to enhance the services in this area. And I just wanted to say that my personal vote would be if and when resoumes become available if the City can find an assistant for Nicole Bock. I think that having spoken with her about her case load it's quite large and I think that some help for her would be a wonderful step in that direction. My second announcement has to do with the group Citizens for Public Power. And that is just to let the Council and City Staff and Citizens know that Citizens for Public Power has an established a web site so that persons interested can obtain information regarding the project and the potential benefits for the City. So we have a sign here. I'll just show this up to you folks. The web site is www.icpublicpower, orq and I'll just show this to the public here. It has contact information for our group if anyone is interested. Along the lines of the issues concerns energy I just wanted to make the announcement that next Monday in Ames there will be a gubernatorial debate regarding the candidates' energy policies and I wanted to invite the public to attend that debate if they are able. There will be carpooling from Iowa City. The debate is sponsored by the Iowa Sustainable Energy for Economic Development Coalition otherwise known as SEED S-E-E-D. One of the things they will be discussing will be a move to try to increase the amount of renewable energy resources the State is using. Another is also towards energy efficiency programs and I will leave some pamphlets regarding this debate next to the door if anyone is interested. Kanner: Dawn is there a contact number that people can call for carpooling or location? Mueller: People can contact 354-8116 or visit the website www.iowacan.orq. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: Thanks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5a Page 6 ITEM 5a PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS a. Changing the zoning designation from Low-Density Multi- Family (RM-12) to Sensitive areas Overlay Low-Density Multi- Family (OSA-12) on 1.06 acres to allow a 14-unit multi-family building located on the west side of First Avenue south of Stuart Court. (1) Public hearing. Lehman: (Reads item). This is a public hearing. It's open. Public hearing is closed. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: We have a motion to accept correspondence from Mr. O'Donnell seconded by Mrs. Champion. All in favor? Opposed? (Motion carried). (2) Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration). Lehman: Now do we have a motion for... Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Kanner: I have some reservations about this that's going to lead me to vote no. I think there's some positive qualities in it, but because of the amount of critical and steep slopes that are going to be removed or disturbed - perhaps not totally removed, but disturbed - I think that's a major concern. I think it's much more than minimal which is what our Sensitive Areas Ordinance talks about in avoiding more than minimal disturbance a critical slopes. And another concern I have is the height of the project and our Sensitive Areas Ordinance does allow extra height to conserve space and that's what this is doing. But it's very close to the proximity of Hickory Hill and we've had concern before about buildings mining the vista of Hickory Hill. Because of those reasons I'm going to vote no. I may change my mind on a second or third vote. I think there are some positive qualities about this and good use of density, but I don't think this is the space for it right now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5a Page 7 Lehman: Other discussion? Irvin? Pfab: I went out and inspected the site and I'm a little less enthused than I was last night when I looked at it. And I don't know what the answer is. I'm going to probably be voting no this time, but that doesn't mean I won't... Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5b Page 8 ITEM 5b PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS b. Consider an 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 Itighway 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) (First Consideration). Lehman: (Reads item). O'Donnell: Move first consideration. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, second by Champion. Discussion? Robyrm Shrader: May I say something briefly? Lehman: Yes please. Shrader: I wasn't able to be here at the public hearing and I really just want to add my thanks to Council for prioritizing this district in the planning process. And I really hope that Karen Howard gets the credit she deserves for leading an excellent process and really being willing to go however far it took to make sure this highly contentious area in my neighborhood was covered. I had some observations through the process and one was that we had an attorney who was genuinely interested in a meaningful dialogue with the neighborhood and also a developer that was willing to sit down with the neighborhood at the very conceptual stages rather than, you know, so far down the road that it's too expensive to change things around. And I think that had a lot to do with this delicately crafted CZA that I hope you will approve. But the thing that struck me the most was the leadership role that Staff took. And I just leads me think that the Good Neighborhood Policy might ought to have more teeth in it then just being a voluntary policy. Staff was really able to, I think, guide and bring the three.., four actually parties really together on this and I'd like to see them have the kind of power to back that up in the future when they see the need for it. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5b Page 9 Lehman: Thank you. Vanderhoef: Thank you. Lehman: Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 10 ITEM 5c PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS c. Consider an ordinance vacating Grand Avenue Court from Melrose Avenue to a line 295 feet to the north of Melrose Avenue (VAC02-00003) (First Consideration) Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move first consideration. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Wiriness: I won't sign in again. Lehman: No and after you...we will limit you to five minutes, but then after someone else speaks you can come back again. Widness: Okay. Lehman: Okay? Widness: Okay. I'll talk really fast. First of all I would like to applaud the courageous action you took last night when you required the University of Iowa to adhere to the Historic Preservation ordinance as it applies to the Cannon-Gay House. Were this the only issue I would be up here congratulating you on having done the fight thing. However, I believe there are two other issues that really affect this decision concerning the order the vacate. And I'm here actually to ask you to deny the order to vacate all together. The first issue has to do with Grand Avenue Court itself. I have heard, I think, three arguments supporting the idea that this street should be closed. The first one is it's avery narrow street. By way of comparison Melrose Court is the only thru street from Melrose Avenue south to Greenway Drive, Myrtle Avenue, the Roosevelt School District and Benton school. It carries a lot of traffic. It's 18 feet wide. Grand Avenue Court, we read in yesterday's papers, is 23 feet wide. I think the width of the street has nothing to do with the decision. The second issue is presumably not many cars go on this street although to my knowledge there's never been a traffic count. We do note the people who probably use this street are people who live east of the fiver who come across the river to go to the south end of Melrose to go to the Law School, to drop their kids off at the daycare center, to use the Mormon Institute Building and off course there are the residents on Lucon Drive. And I believe you've all received a letter from Jean Walker in which she lays out in great detail her arguments about the closing of the street. I think This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 11 it would be wrong to dismiss this street as being something that doesn't really function very well in the street system until we have some hard numbers. Third I've heard this street described as a cut- thru street which implies this is a street that carries traffic thru a residential neighborhood that would otherwise be carried by an arterial street in this case I think we would be talking about Grand Avenue. And of course as you all know there is no residential neighborhood on Grand Avenue Court anymore because the University owns all of the buildings except one. Leola Burgrnan has never complained to me that the traffic on Grand Avenue Court has been a problem. So again I really think this is really a non-issue. There is another point that I want to make about Grand Avenue Court and that is it is closed. The people who do use this street will have to after they cross the river - continue up the hill on Grand Avenue. They'll have to make a left turn in front of the Field House. They'll have to go to the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Grand Avenue which is at the comer of the surface parking lot by the Field House. And they'll have to make another left turn. I don't know if you're familiar with this part of town, but at certain times of the day - normally it's when classes get out and the surface parking lot empties - this is a very congested part of town. People waiting at that intersection to make a left turn can wait a long time. And they can tie up traffic behind them. So I would argue that this is not a good place for...to direct more traffic. We seem to be asking the question about Grand Avenue Court why shouldn't we close it. The University has come and asked you and we're saying well why not do it. But it looks to me that we have a street that works well, that carries traffic, that isn't disturbing the residential neighborhood, and it's taking some pressure off an already difficult intersection. So it seems to me the more appropriate questions would be why should we close it. I don't see any real compelling information so far to lead me to believe this is the right case. And I will say the University's argument as I understand it is not compelling at all. I have read that the University has said they want to close this street because traffic will be traveling too close to the building. But I mean the street was there before the building construction began. If the footprint of the building had been moved several feet to the west this would not be a problem. Should I quit? Lehman: Well, does anyone else wish to speak to this and then of course you can come back or we can just finish. Champion: Why don't you just let finish. Lehman: Take a couple more minutes. Widness: Couple more minutes. Okay that's the first issue. The second issue is the really cosmic issue. This is the one that came up with the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 12 widening of Melrose Avenue and this has to do with the effect of the plans that the University made public two weeks ago on this part of town. This will certainly affect the neighborhood and the residents, but make no mistake this will affect everyone who drives across the river west into the west part of town. It will affect as we know this is one of the major attractors of traffic...all kinds of traffic in Iowa City. It attracts patients to the hospital, people to the law school, students, people going to daycares, kids going to school and so forth. So many, many people will be affected. In 1993 and '94 the City spent more than $100,000 to have an environmental assessment done to assess the impact of widening Melrose Avenue from two lanes to some other configuration. This is a copy of the Environmental Assessment - very thick as you can see. There are still people who chaff at the notion that the City spent so much money on the EA, but it is my firm believe - and I know I am not alone in this belief- that this money...not only was this money well spent, this was a bargain. Because what we got out of this deal was a street that worked. The problems that existed at the time were largely eliminated and no new problems were created. I am suggesting tonight that what needs to be done is a similar sort of study. We certainly don't need a full blown EA. We don't need to look at the impacts on the flora and the fauna. We've already done that. But we do need to look at the impacts on the people. We need to look at the human affects from what the University proposes to do. And we need to do this before Grand Avenue Court is closed. What we don't want to do is start playing this game of incremental planning - we'll close a street here, we'll do a little bit there and before you know it in five years or ten years the nature of the landscape has changed dramatically. What we need to do is sit down. We need to get all the facts. We need to look at the entire proposal for the changes to this part of town and then we need to have experts give us their advice as we did in '93/'94. Do we need to hire somebody to do this? Well, I vote yes, because the three lane configuration we ended up with on Melrose Avenue had not been advocated either by the University of Iowa or by the City Planning Department. I would vote that we go back to our friends at BRW - the guys who did this in the first place. They're familiar with this part of town. They should be able to hit the ground running. Will it cost money? Sure it'll cost money. The University should defray part of the cost. Better yet the University should foot the bill - they're the ones who want to change the road configuration. One more point and then I'm done. You're going to talk about the Southwest District Plan tonight. There is a paragraph in the plan that refers to the Melrose Avenue neighborhood - the fact that it's very vulnerable due to the University's continuing encroachment and the fact that we have these historic properties that need protection. There are actually three National Register structures in less than one-hail mile of Melrose Avenue which is pretty amazing This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 13 when you consider this is not the oldest part of town. So you have written about the need to protect Melrose Avenue. Ifyou...the question we need to ask here is do you really care what happens to this neighborhood. Because if the answer is yes then we've got to do more then write about it. It's time to act. In my opinion this is where the rubber hits the road. There, you know, no matter how closely aligned the fortunes of the University of Iowa and Iowa City are there are going to be times when they diverge. The University of Iowa wants a pedestrian campus. It pushes all of the traffic out into the adjacent neighborhoods and the rest of the City. The University of Iowa doesn't want to build dormitories. It puts pressure on the residential rental market driving up the costs of rent for everybody in town. The University of Iowa wants to grow. It wants to build sleek new buildings that will attract students and world class faculty and research money and it wants to do this by going into neighborhoods which makes them de-stable. It degrades the neighborhood. It makes it much more difficult for you to do your job which as you have stated it to protect older neighborhoods. And so what I am suggesting that you do tonight is go to bat for us. Neighborhoods cannot do this on their own. Those of us who still live in our neighborhood carmot go up against the University of Iowa. We are a flea on the dog's back. So we are coming to you and asking you to help. And it's not just our neighborhood who needs your help. There are other neighborhoods under pressure from the University of Iowa and from other pressure all over town. I'm summing up. So what I would like to do is thank you for letting me speak and I hope you will at least consider denying this order to vacate. Thank you. Karmer: I'm sorry. I didn't get your name. Widness: Michaelanne Widness. Lehman: Okay. Discussion Council. We received today a letter. Larry are you going to address this letter? Larry Wilson: Yes I would like to please. Lehman: Please do. Wilson: Well I won't go through all the reasons why we think that the traffic in the area is independent of closing of Grand Avenue Court. I've been through that already and you've heard it. I just want to point out that both Melrose and Grand Avenue are City arterials and it doesn't seem fitting to use a short, narrow street to solve an arterial problem by cutting through. Outside of that we've tried again to address more directly your questions about preservation and commitment to that as well as the traffic study. So I think that we've addressed the concerns This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 14 of the Council. Lehman: Larry for the public's information we received a letter today from Andrew Ayes indicating the City is willing to enter into a binding agreement with the City so th~it this property is...will apply the guidelines of the City Historic Preservation Ordinance to this property. Wilson: That's correct and that's the letter I was referring to. Lehman: Right, right. Champion: I thank you for the letter. Lehman: Are there questions for Larry? I'm sorry... O'Donnell: There's also another paragraph Emie where they're talking about partnering with the City in a traffic study and sharing in the costs in that. And I appreciate that also. Wilson: That's correct. Kanner: In another sense is you would retain the option of relocating the house so you wouldn't totally abide by a possible historic mission ruling which might go up to the State and might say you can't relocate. You won't abide by that ruling is what you're saying? Wilson: No, that isn't what we're saying. What we said in the letter is that we would apply to guidelines from the City ordinance. It's my understanding that those guidelines don't have specific requirements for relocation and then when that occurs the City passes on up to the National Register of Historic Places for them to judge if a suggested alternate site is acceptable. Then it goes back down through the State for approval there. And what we're saying is we understand that that's part of the process. Kanner: So, what if they say no to your relocating? Champion: No they don't. They don't say no. They're... Kanner: What if they don't say what's acceptable to you - they say that what you want to do is not acceptable? Wilson: We would have to find another location - an acceptable location. Karmer: An acceptable one to the State? Wilson: Yeah and what we're saying is we understand that's part of the process that the City typically... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 15 Lehman: The ordinance requires that. Wilson: Pardon? Lehman: The ordinance that you're agreeing to requires that. Wilson: Yes. Pfab: Okay I'll move that question one step farther what if they say no you can't move it. Champion: No they don't. Lehman: That's not our call. Champion: That's not our call. Pfab: No, no, but no I'm just saying I think a good gesture from the University would be to say yes we will leave that house there and I think that you would probably build a lot more good will because otherwise I think there's going to be a lot of opposition. And I'm going to be very difficult to support this and I think that house is one of the last few pieces that are historic value and that has a tremendous sense of value to it - historical. Champion: Irvin, you don't...they can move the house. There is no reason why they can't move it. The obligation is to move it to a site where it will sit presentably and that is what the State determines. And if the State says no you can't move it there they will simply have to find another location in town to move it to. So I think that's really good faith and I'm very excited about this letter and I know it probably wasn't easy for you to get it for us. But I think that I'm totally comfortable with this criteria. Pfab: I beg to differ with you Connie. I think that your point is right, but does the State care or does the City care about where the house is? I think it's a City issue and I think pushing it off to the State is not a leadership position that the City Council is taking. Champion: That's fine. Lehman: Is there other Council discussion? Champion: The other thing that I'm...I like the idea that we're going to get together and talk about traffic and share financially in determining that configuration of traffic over there. The other thing that I would like the University to do - and it's not anything to do with whether I'm going to support the vacation of this road or not - is I think it would be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 16 a good idea to meet with the Melrose neighborhood and tell them what your future plans are. I think they feel like they're really left out and it does effect them and I know there are long term plans that are readily available to show to the neighborhood and discuss with them. I would like to see the University do that. Lehman: Well Connie I also think that the City is going to partner with this study - traffic study and I would think Steve it would be incumbent on us to make sure that the neighbors are included in that work from the start. Atkins: I understand that you want us to partner with the University and then with us. You have not officially made a policy decision that you actually want a study done. You need to clarify that for me. Lehman: I'm sure that we will, but when we do. Atkins: That's your indication of what you want done so that I know that I can meet with the folks at the University and begin framing this study for you. Lehman: But I think the important thing as Connie mentioned is that the neighborhood folks also be included. Wilburn: I would support a study. I would like to see that done. But a question is - and the concern is related to long-term - I understand from the master plan the University has a not made final decisions about Grand Avenue and ail of that, but from my point of view in order to be able to answer questions when the public comes to me and say does what's going to happen in the arterials, then we need to have some type of indication of what's going to happen. And I think that would come up through participation in this study. The question is and maybe somebody on Council or maybe Planning Staff I didn't really get a strong indication that vacation of this road will affect layout or design as Melrose as it comes around. If someone could walk me through how that will happen. And I think the study would need to occur sooner rather than later so that folks who are using the road who may have some temporary dislocation if they didn't have access to this road that's why I think it would be the longer term plan needs to move along a little quicker. Would someone walk me through how getting rid of this will affect the alignment, the width of other road? Vanderhoef: Well I have had different people speak to me about the road and I had thought about it quite a bit prior to that and I can see probably three different possibilities up there that I would like into the study. Obviously we're going to have to have if Grand Avenue were closed then we'd have to have four lanes - two going east, two going west on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 17 Byington which I think is a very steep and difficult hill and depending on what angle we get across there the angles that are on that road right now are not acceptable in today's standards. There is a possibility of doing a couplet of one-ways and one of them might use a piece of Grand Avenue Court. Another possibility is that Melrose would as it heads east from approximately Melrose Court could take the angle and take directly to Grand Avenue and become...use all of Grand Avenue as it presently is which has two lanes up, two lanes down. And that probably is the best grade that we could ask for. So all three of those things are things that I would like studied and until I get information on what is the best alignment to do this I'm not willing to vacate Grand Avenue Court. Pfab: Mayor? I'm supporting what Connie's saying. I do not believe it's possible for me to support and I believe others here until we know what the future alignment of the traffic pattern is there and also the...I want to know what are the City's or the University's plans. What is their grand plan there? And I want some details with the traffic pattern worked out before we move any farther on Grand Avenue Court...or that little street I think it's Grand Avenue Court. We're kind of moving in the dark and the fog as a City as the City's interests are concerned and I just feel very uncomfortable with that and it's just a piece and what next, we don't know. First we find out there's a gate, there's a fence up and down the street and it's plugged in and there's a building foundation going in. But I just don't think that's the way that we want to work as partners and not saying the University is wrong, but I think there's a mistake been made and I think we better put that mistake to halt that mistake as soon as possible. Until we see a complete plan of what the University plans to do there and how they're going to handle the traffic there's no way that I can support closing... Lehman: Right. Dee? Vanderhoef: Okay. I think one of the points that's being missed in this whole conversation we have heard very eloquent opinion and proposal coming from the immediate neighborhood. But when you look at the City of Iowa City and the arterial plan we have three bridges that allow workers to go from each side of the river to the opposite side. We have a larger neighborhood than what is on Melrose Court. We have a neighborhood that is to the west - it goes further west. And what I see if we don't make a good plan here is that more and more traffic is going to pushed down onto Benton Street because it will be the easier road to travel. We don't have choices on bridges. We are not going to build another bridge in this area and it's pretty obvious we've vacated over the years all those possibilities. This has got to be for the entire community. This is notjust the University community. Itisthe This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 18 University commtmity, the Iowa City community, the neighborhood that's in the immediate area and all the neighborhoods that have to use this as their commuter plan. Until we have a large plan this...we can't allow anything else to change in there. And I...until we have the study and I believe Mr. Wilson said to us two weeks ago he thought the study could be completed in six months. And I think that's a reasonable amount of time if our engineers agree and I would be willing to defer this whole vacation until we have the study in hand. Lehman: Larry I have a couple questions. As I recall the alignment of Byington and Melrose as you have it presently with the City is similar configuration to what you have not is that not correct? Wilson: That's true and as you recall Jeff Davidson joined in at one of the work sessions indicating that Melrose is widening with the understanding that Byington would be the continuation of Melrose. He also agreed that the problem with Melrose at this time is at the bridge or at Burlington and Grand Avenue the capacity of that intersection is a problem. So, you know, until that's solved. Lehman: But I think you have said and I...I guess I hate to assume things, but from what I saw and listened to Jeff the Grand Avenue Court has nothing to do with the alignment of Byington and Melrose or Grand Avenue. Wilson: And that's truly what we believe - they're not connected. Vanderhoef: But it hasn't been studied has it to do a couplet of two one-ways. Wilson: A couplet of two one-ways? Vanderhoef: Using Byington as it is and... Wilson: What studies we have done - we've done some traffic studies recently that we offered to share and we will as part of this study goes on is that it will work either way with the paired one way. Vanderhoef: Using Grand Avenue Court? Wilson: No. Using Grand Avenue and Melrose or using Melrose as itself without Grand Avenue. Lehman: No. Using Grand as it goes up past the Field House and around and then Melrose being one-way to the east only. Wilson: Right. That will work. Lehman: That's one of the options. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 19 Wilson: That's one of the options as well as just using Melrose by itself without Grand Avenue - ~vith Grand Avenue closed it would also work. And we have those studies. We'd be willing to share. Lehm an: Well I don' t think there' s any question that there' s... Steve the Council I'm sure whether or not we pass this vacation I do think this study needs to proceed and needs to proceed rather quickly. You know, there's a lot of things that have occurred on the west side of town and Councilor Vanderhoef is exactly fight that there is only three bridges across the fiver. It just so happens that one of real problems with traffic happens to be in your backyard. Now I don't recall that we've discussed building West High School with you before we built it because the traffic was going to go through the University. Nor do I think we discussed Walnut Ridge or other subdivisions on the west side of town with you even though the traffic does run through the University and you have to deal with that traffic. Wilson: That's right. Lehman: I mean that were in this thing together whether it's the University or the City. This is something that we have to work out and I do believe that the best planners in the world are not going to come up with a solution that's going to make the traffic coming in on Melrose move smoothly. Some will move smoothly more than others, but the tie up at Riverside Drive is going to be a bottleneck forever and the fact there's only three crossings is going to be a problem forever. I don't see the vacation of this street as having any impact on the traffic situation and I will support it. Wilson: And if you want to start the study tomorrow well we're ready whenever you are. Atkins: Emie, one of my concerns about it is I'm getting sort of mixed signals from you on the scale of this study. If it's a comprehensive review of the arterial street plan on that part of town... Champion: No. O'Donnell: No. Atkins: ...well, but I think there's interest that that has to be dealt with. I see Dee's nodding her head okay. And then if, you know, say it's a specific site study which I think I can imply from Drew's letter - the Melrose area, Byington. That's a little different. Champion: That's what we have in mind. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 20 Lehman: Steve you're right except that we have two givens here. We have Riverside Drive is not going to move. We have a rebuilt Melrose that's not going to change. We need to design what's in between. I'm sorry, but we're not going to redesign Melrose. Atkins: No apologies. (Can't hear). Lehman: Nor are we going to move Riverside Drive. Atkins: Okay. Lehman: I mean I don't see this as complicated as a comprehensive plan. We have got a section of City between Riverside Drive and the newly constructed Melrose that has to be designed to move traffic as efficiently as possible. Champion: That's the study. Lehman: I don't see where we go beyond that. Vanderhoef: Well I see a piece there that as I said the less capacity that's on Melrose is going to be put onto Benton. So the two of them, in my mind, are connected and anything we don't provide for on Melrose is going to go down to Benton. And at this point it's on our out years to do some work on Benton, but I think we need to have some traffic counts and look at our (can't hear) area and our development area and how it's zoned out there and see exactly what kind of traffic we're going to be generating in the next 10 to 15 years that is going to be on those two streets. Dilkes: Sounds like you need to schedule a work session discussion about the scope of this traffic study. O'DormelI: Alright. Good idea. Lehman: Okay. Is there other discussion on the motion? Karmer: Sure. Lehman: Yes. Kanner: First in regards to what Dee said I think we need to look...I think she's heading the right direction. I think we have to go further and using the term that she used yesterday we have to look at a multi-model plan more in depth. I think we have to work in greater partnership with the University and the neighborhoods and in looking at what we can do not only to build streets to increase capacity for cars and car speed, but also to look at what can decrease possible growth or decrease what's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 21 going thru there now through other alternative means of transportation. It's being done in other cities around the country, around the world and we should look at that. In regard to the immediate issue I think that what Larry and the University brought to us is a good start and I appreciate that - that willingness to work with us on the house. But I thought it was also well put by Ms. Widness in her remarks that there are a number of other concerns in regards to this area. The Southwest District as she mentioned did have concern for the neighborhood taking out a neighborhood street like that, taking out housing like is being done there is cause for concern. And as I mentioned yesterday when it was done...when we saw it being done in Lucas and Governor and that area there was an outcry and Council responded by having a conservation district. Now we don't have that authority over the University, but we do have a little leverage by whether or not we're going to vacate these streets and these areas. And I think it's in our best interest to defer this motion - to not vacate at this time. And so I will make a motion to defer the vacation for six months from now. Lehman: We have a motion to defer. Do we have a second? Vanderhoef: I'll second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to defer for six months. Discussion? I'm sorry. Pfab: One second. I also think what I'm looking for is a more complete design of where the University is planning to go in that area because I believe there's going to be a lot more traffic generators coming into that area and as a result what are we going to do with the cars. Until I can see a plan 10, 15 years out in that area south of the south end and east of the Field House I'm...six months may do it and I hope it does. I hope we come with the plans and we can look forward to how this thing is going to work out. Lehman: All in favor of a deferral for six months indicate by raising their right hand. All opposed to a deferral raise your right hand. The motion carries 4-3. Lehman, O'Donnell and Champion voting in the negative. Wilburn: If I could just add, you know, after kind of walking through this one 1 want to be able to say yes let's go ahead and we may end up... (End of Side 1, Tape #02-79, Beginning of Side 2) Wilburn: ...the neighbors after the study is done. I may go ahead with it anyway. He may not like the option, but at current I probably not that's it's not going to affect, you know, this street or the alignment of the arterial. But I really don't have a firm answer or something that I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 22 can say as a result of this study at least from Staff that I can go ahead. So just heads up. I may end up doing this anyway regardless of based on what I see. Vanderhoef: And I may also. It just depends on what the study shows up. If we work everything else out satisfactorily and we're not using Melrose Court I will vote to vacate at that point in time. Lehman: Steve you'll get together with Larry and get a process? Atkins: ! want to understand one thing on the vote is that as Eleanor suggested we need to take this to a work session because I think we need to prepare for you in writing a memorandum outlining the parameters or whatever because I'm hearing all sorts of differences of opinion about what the study is suppose to do. And clearly as again Drew pointed out in the letter so you're aware I committed us to be a partner in the study. So financially we have to share in the cost of the thing. Vanderhoefi Right. Champion: But the University is not interested in a study of all of our arterial systems. That's not what they're interested in. We're interested in a study of that immediate area. Atkins: Well we need to prepare something for you to respond to. You can embellish it however you want, but right now I'm not real sure what this study is suppose to do so I need to prepare something. O'Donnell: Does this do anything to the project that started right now Larry? Champion: No. O'Donnell: No. Wilson: At this time we have a construction permit or permission to close it for construction so we're temporarily can move ahead. Kanner: And just to reaffirm before we're committing in a sense perhaps to some study, but we're not at this time. We're waiting for a work session. Atkins: Yes. Kanner: Before we talk about if we're going to do a study or not. We're not committing to the study right now? Lehman: Oh I think we're committing to the study we just don't know what the scope of the study. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5c Page 23 Kanner: Okay alright so there's a majority that wants the study, but we don't know the scope of it. Lehman: Right. Karmer: We're going to talk about that at a work session. Lehman: Right. O'Donnell: You know I wonder with 70,000 people coming to a football game and 17,000 going to basketball games if we can ever expect to move traffic flow in that area. Lehman: No. O'Donnell: I... Lehman: That's an answer for the work session. O'Donnell: Yeah okay. Lehman: And that won't be smooth. O'Donnell: No it won't be smooth. Item d. Kart: Excuse me, motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoefi So moved. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Pfab. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5d Page 24 ITEM 5d PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS d. Consider an ordinance vacating portions of the Harrison Street and Prentiss Street right-of-way and an adjoining alley~vay, ~vest of Madison Street (VAC02-00004) (First Consideration). Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move first consideration. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Vanderhoefi Last night's work session we talked quite a bit about this vacation and the next one and they are all in the same area and sort of overlap. One is brought to us by CRANDIC Railroad and the other one is brought to us by the University. As I said last night I will be willing to vacate these areas, but I will not be willing to convey the Harrison and Prentiss right-of-ways and then on the subsequent one the Front Street alley...or not the Front Street, but the alleyway between Front Street and Madison Street. And why I say this is that I vision at some point in time it may be 10 years, 15, 20 years an inter-model kind of transportation that involves the railroad. Harrison and Prentiss go down very closest to the CRANDIC railroad. We know this connects with Oakdale. It goes through Coralville. It also goes on up to North Liberty. These are the areas where we are growing and we don't have space for lots of cars. And we don't necessarily want lots of cars at the University or in the downtown area for students and faculty and staff who are working in that area as well as all of our local people. We want short-term parking who do business down there, not long-term parking. So my idea at this point in time is that the City will retain ownership of this land. I will be very willing to enter into an agreement with the University for a lease to use this land for surface parking right now. I understand that if we need it in this point in time I finally saw their plans to build a parking ramp one block north of this area and what year that's going to be they probably don't know yet either. But in the meantime we're well aware that they have just started the new journalism building and it's being built in the parking lot of University library where a number of student, faculty, I don't know who all park in there, but it's taking a number of parking spaces out of use right now and certainly a construction zone down there. So I'll enter into a lease for all of the City owned property that we do not convey to the University, but we will vacate it so that it will not be public use as a street. Lehman: That discussion will take place when it comes to the vacation...or to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5d Page 25 the conveyance. Right now we're talking about vacation. Is there any other comment on the vacation? Pfab: I have a question. I'm...w/th the idea that Dee came up with and the fact that we're working to solve a long-term transportation problem with the University which is on both sides of the river and also Iowa City, I would like to ask the...I would like to ask Larry is there something that's really pushing this? I would almost like to see this be deferred too unless there's something going on that I may not be aware of or that maybe other people aren't aware of. Dave Ricketts: My name is Dave Ricketts and I'm the Director of Parking and Transportation for the University. Mayor, Council, this project was initiated by Parking and Transportation Department. It's on land recently acquired from the CRANDIC Railroad and some land previously owned by the University and a private parcel of land to expand parking for employees in the short run. Any surface parking in the center of campus is like a bookmark - it goes away eventually to something more important. In the long-run this whole area is destined to be either academic or service facility expansion site. And so what we're trying to do right now is take advantage of land on the periphery of the campus which, by the way in 1993 an awful lot of it was under five or six feet of water so it's not really good for much else right now without some other improvements, to make good use of it - to clean it up. If you go down and look at it this project will actually improve - it's not often that a parking lot improves the appearance of something. Pfab: And I do agree. I did walk that...I walked about every foot of that space. Ricketts: In this particular case it does. Pfab: I agree. Ricketts: And also if you concentrate I also run the motor pool fleet and we have a lot of vehicles back that we're going to try to concentrate those back into a smaller area and make it a safe place for employee parking. This, in essence, is kind of the southeast periphery of our campus. We have bus service there that goes from there up into the main campus. As you know we acquired land...or not land, but office space downtown in Plaza Center One and we'll be transporting people up in that area. A lot of the people who park there will work in the center of campus so it's now become one of our new peripheral lots. For awhile it will expand although it's almost at its limits now and it will start to contract as new buildings start to go down there and sooner or later it will force that into a parking structure and people who pay for permits will probably be pushed further out and then more and more will This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5d Page 26 become hourly parking. It's kind of a short-term thing. It's very important however right now because we've been out of parking on the east campus on the last few years. Pfab: With the idea of looking at maybe a shorter timeframe of working into inter-model transportation here where people that have to be in the central campus area they could come in another way besides automobiles in either shuttle buses or rail from some place out this whole thing it ~vould solve the problem. And I want to see the...your campus scroll over there which your plans are, but you have to find a place for people to get in and out of there. And if most of them come with automobiles you're going to have some really...there's going to be a lot of space taken up for parking whether surface parking or parking ramps. But my point is if we all step back here unless there's something that can't wait and which I don't know if there is and there might be that I'm not aware of. Your mess isn't going to go away, but you are surviving down there for six months or something like that. Ricketts: First of all there's one other piece of this project that's important to Cambus. Cambus' fleet is expanding as part of your shuttle system. We don't have capacity inside our facility. We can't put anymore buses inside our facility. In fact, we couldn't put bike racks on our buses because we couldn't put anything else inside our faculty. So we need some outside parking. A big piece of this is outside parking for Cambus because our fleet is expanding to deal with increase ridership. The other part is about alternative modes. You're talking to the combat veteran of alternative modes. Pfab: Great that's who I want to talk to. Ricketts: We, we...I'm very proud of what we do. Pfab: Okay. Ricketts: We have a 770 participant van pool program - 59 vans all over the place. We have over 2,000 people in bus pass programs with the City of Iowa City and Coralville. This year we expect to account for one- half a million of your rides on your system with subsidized bus passes to our people. We're very aggressive on that. We do carpooling. We have Cambus. We do bicycle programs. It's a very tough nut to crack. We have probably some of the highest percentage of participants of any place in the country. It's very difficult to get that extra percentage or two. We're doing a lot, but you can't force people to do these things. Their lives are very complicated. There's people' kids who go to daycare and do all of these trips and alternative modes of transportation have not yet found ways to address all of those issues. I'm a big fan of keeping that corridor open for a rail line, but This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5d Page 27 it's not as simple as all that. We did a survey a few years ago about all the people who live in the North Liberty zip code about why...not one person in the zip code participates in our van pool program which we found very interesting. It was like 700 people up there. It wasn't convenient enough. What they would need is very frequent service - not a train that leaves once an hour on a 50mph track. Pfab: A shuttle. Ricketts: Well a shuttle, but something every few minutes - very expensive entity. So there's a lot here. I don't want to ramble on and on like I am, but just... I'm very committed to that, but in the short run you do these things - you build these surface parking lots to address particular changes in the environment. They go away. All surface parking lots on the center of campus go away and this is just a process. Pfab: Are we getting to a point where in spite of the many very good programs - your Cambus, your van pools and what have you - bus passes and what not is there a time where now something another has to be taken and made possible a shuttle on a train track there and parking someplace farther out? Ricketts: In general I think yes. Specifically I don't think it's that rail line. In general we have a peripheral parking system we're relying more and more upon. Pfab: Right. Ricketts: The challenge to that is people don't want to wait a long time. Time is... Pfab: I know. I agree. Ricketts: When you talk about convenience time is probably one of the most central issues. Pfab: Well they can't...people can't get anymore of it. They've only got 24 hours in a day. Ricketts: Right. People don't want to drive to a parking lot, wait for a bus, ride 10 minutes and do all that over again at the end of the day. We think one of the great challenges to make peripheral parking effective is getting people quickly in and we have been toying internally in my department with the idea in some cases an overhead monorail which sounds Buck Rogers to some people. But actually there are systems around the country that are fairly practical. And every time I bring this up they ask me why not a dedicated transit lane on the ground and I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5d Page 28 tell them that would be harder to do in Iowa City than an overhead monorail. Champion: There's not enough lanes. Ricketts: So we're looking at that generally yes. We're at a point unless we want to do what every other city in the country has done. To do something different we have to look at some different alternatives. I think the peripheral parking not for everything. It doesn't work for patients. It doesn't work for all faculty staff, but an increasing percentage. You work on the margins and someday that margin ends tip being 30% or 40%. Pfab: Because I'm very sensitive... Lehman: We're not going to discuss... Pfab: No, no, no, no. Lehman: We're talking about vacating a piece of property and I realize that alternate transportation is important, but that probably is another discussion. Pfab: Well, my point is should vacating this also be postponed until this other study...because they may be a lot more connected. Ricketts: I would ask please that you not do that. This is a...! don't think this hurts any of your traffic issues. I don't think this gets in the way of the long-term plans of the City. This helps us solve an immediate problem. We're very committed to working with you on traffic studies and problems. I mean at a Staff level we work with you guys constantly and I hope that's true with at this 'level as well so. Kanner: Dave, would you accept a lease instead of conveyance? Ricketts: Well, for my project it probably doesn't matter. In the long run it gets in the way of the University's ability to utilize that land for something more substantial - say a chilled water plant. Councilor Vanderhoef talked about a rail station down there. I've long thought a rail station should be in that area. Not that far south because that brings it into the heart of the academic center, but up a little further north. Either way along Front Street. I'm very supportive of the idea of a rail station. I would rather that you - I don't know the terminology - vacate it and conveyed I guess is what we're asking for. That would be preferable to us because it allows us to use that land which I don't think you'll find usable for a rail station ultimately because of its location. It allows us to use the land more fully and keep our service facilities out This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5d Page 29 of site and away from the center of campus. Champion: I don't have any problems with it. Kanner: If we go to a lease I would assume we want to keep our options open and I'm wondering if we get the vacation three votes down the road for vacating will there be big pressure then to convey. I'd also want to ask Council here are there people...a straw poll perhaps. Ernie, I think it is important if there is a majority that is not in favor of conveying at the end of the vacation because I can see if we don't take this poi1 that there could be strong pressure for conveyance at the end of the vote. Lehman: I have no problem with conveying the property. That's not a problem for me. I don't know if the rest of the Council wishes to indicate their feelings at this time. However, I think that whether or not we convey or lease we are dealing...we're dealing with probably the largest industry in the State of Iowa - it's right here in little old Iowa City. The University of Iowa has hundreds of millions of dollars they spend in this community. Thousands and thousands of people who work here. They're trying to work in an area of the City that is basically not very developable for much of anything - it's got a railroad track, it's got an ugly river bank, it's got a riprap side. I mean that side of Iowa City is not a particularly desirable part of town. They are trying to do something to benefit not only themselves, but us as residents of Iowa City. They're trying to find a place to put their buses, to put their cars, to pick up the parking that you're talking about Dee when they build the new journalism building. I can't imagine that we as a host city economic development minded community are fighting these people in trying to improve our community. So I would convey the property with...I have no problem with that. I have no problem believing that the University and I see what they've done, we've all seen what they've done. They do things right. They probably do things better than we do and I know you're tight on money, but you seem to have more than we do. You do it, you do it right and I'd rather have you paying for it than us anyway. Now does anybody else wish to comment on whether or not they're interested? Champion: I have no problem with conveying it too. O'Donnell: I would convey also. Wilburn: I would also. Lehman: Alright. You have your answer Steven. Karmer: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5d Page 30 Lehman: Is there other discussion? Thank you Dave (can't hear). O'Dormell: Thank you Dave. Pfab: Thank you. Kanner: Emie, just to answer your comments I think that they do a lot of good things - the University. I think there's room for improvement and there's also the possibility of using that area perhaps a trail down the road and other things. And there was a poster that the City put out a few years ago talking about how that area could be developed and it was pretty exciting talking about a possible ice skating rink and other developments down there. Lehman: I think that was a block east on the other side. Kanner: But in that general area. Lehman: Not in the area we're talking about. Kanner: But I'm saying there's a lot of possibilities down there and one of the concerns of the planning and zoning ~vas keeping this area open for access to the river for a future date. Lehman: Which this does. Champion: It does. Lehman: You know that. It has a blanket easement on both streets. It will be open. We know what the University does along the river. We know how the University feels about trails. What's our concern? Karmer: I think not leaving it open for possible development that is not exactly for the wishes for the University I think... Champion: But you'd have to get rid of their power plant to make it beautiful. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 6-1, Kanner voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5f Page 31 ITEM 5t' PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS f. Consider 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) (Second Consideration). Lehman: (Reads item). And we've been asked to expedite this consideration. Champion: Are you going to read that? O'Donnell: Is this second consideration? Wilburn: It is second. You got it. Moved and second? O'Donnell: Go ahead, yeah. Wilburn: I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which this can be finally passed be suspended, that second consideration and vote be waived and for the vote to be...the vote has to be voted on for final passage at this time. Lehman: Moved by Wilburn Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef for expedited consideration. Roll call. Pfab: No, discussion here. What is the reason for this...I'm reluctant to take away the chances for other things to come up. Lehman: Well my suspicion is this has to do with weather and getting construction started. Karin Franklin you may nod your head in answer in this... O'Donnell: Time of year. Wilburn: That was mentioned last night I believe. Lehman: This expedited consideration item f is primarily due to construction season constraints trying to get this thing in the ground and I understand to my knowledge there's been no controversy or objection to this of any kind. Pfab: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5f Page 32 Lehman: Roll call. Pfab: If that's the case then that's fine. Lehman: Motion carries 6-1. (Kanner voting in the negative). Wilburn: Move that the ordinance be voted on at this time. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roi1 call. Motion carries. Item g. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence? O'Donnell: Moved. Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by O'Dormell, seconded by Pfab to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 5h Page 33 ITEM 5h PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS h. Consider 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. Lehman: (Reads item). Pfab: Move the resolution. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by Pfab and seconded by Champion, Discussion? Roll call. (Motion carries). Kart: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoefi So moved. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by O'Dormell to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Vanderhoef: I'd just like to thank the public and our Staff for getting this plan through and I know it was difficult and everybody worked hard and I appreciate their efforts. Lehman: Yeah I agree Dee we went through that in a matter of about 40 seconds and that's.. ,there was just months and months of work by hundreds of people. Really a big thank you in is order. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 6 Page 34 ITEM 6. A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST THE SUMMIT, 10 S. CLINTON STREET, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2) a. HEARING Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. J. Patrick White: My name is J. Patrick White. I'm the Jolmson County Attorney actually here to appear on items 6, 7 and 8. This is the time you have designated for hearing on the matter of whether a resolution should be adopted which imposes a $300.00 civil penalty against The Summit. On June 28th of this year an employee of The Summit was convicted of or plead guilty to selling tobacco to a minor in violation of Iowa Code Section 453A.2. I provided a copy of those conviction documents to your City Attorney and your City Clerk. This is the first incidence of an employee at The Summit violating that provision. Based on those facts under the State Statute I believe it is appropriate that you adopt a resolution imposing a civil penalty of $300.00 on The Summit. You should inquire Mr. Mayor whether The Summit has a representative her to present information which you should consider first. Lehman: Is there anyone here to speak for The Summit? If not I would entertain a resolution. b. CONSIDERA RESOLUTION. O'Dormell: So moved. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. i'm sorry. Kanner: Patrick can you give me quickly the details of the sale that was made? Is there a cigarette machine? White: No this was part o£their compliance check. A young woman entered The Summit, observed by two Iowa City police officers, approached the bartender, asked for a cigarettes by brand name. The bartender replied that they were out of that brand, but had another brand, handed them to the young women who paid five dollars and she left. There was no attempt to check identification. Kanner: So they have a display of cigarettes behind the bar that they sell like any retail shop that sells cigarettes? White: Cigarettes are behind the bar. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 6 Page 35 Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 7 Page 36 ITEM 7. A CIVIL PENALTY OF 30-DAY PERMIT SUSPENSION FOR NORTH DODGE EXPRESS, 2790 NORTH DODGE STREET, PUSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2). a. HEARING Lelmnan: (Reads item). Hearing is open. White: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council on June 10th of this year an employee of North Dodge Express was convicted of or plead guilty to selling tobacco to a minor in violation of Iowa Code 453A.2. We've provided certified copies of the conviction to the City Attorney and the City Clerk. They have a prior incidence of violating 453A.2 within the last two years which is the measure that is included in the statute and therefore based on those facts in this case we believe that the appropriate civil penalty is a 30-day suspension of their license of their retail cigarette permit. Once again Mr. Mayor you should inquire whether North Dodge Express is here to present information to you. Lehman: Is there anyone here from North Dodge Express? Then I would entertain a motion. b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ASSESING Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. O'Dormell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Vanderhoef: Was there a fine that goes with the suspension? White: No. The employee was fined, but the penalty for the second violation is the 30-day suspension. Vanderhoef: Thank you. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. (Motion carries.) White: I might add just as part of your understanding of these issues in this particular case basically it was the same scenario. The individual went in, the employee actually looked at the ID, but apparently looked at it quickly, didn't pay attention, didn't count, didn't factor in the age and sold the cigarettes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 8 Page 37 ITEM 8. A CIVIL PENALTY OF 30-DAY PERMIT SUSPENSION FOR SUBURBAN AMOCO - KEOKUK STREET, 1905 KEOKUK STREET, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2). a. HEARING Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. White: In this case on July 9th on 2002 an employee of Suburban Amoco - Keokuk Street was convicted of or pleaded guilty to selling tobacco to a minor in violation of Iowa Code 453A.2. We've provided the City Attorney and the City Clerk with a certified copy of that conviction. Here too there was a prior incidence of a violation within the last two years. There actually were two prior violations at this location, but one of the prior violations came before we actually had a first hearing and penalty and so by operation of law we've treated this as a second violation. And we think the appropriate penalty and the resolution so provides hereto is a 30-day suspension of the retail cigarette permit. And as always is the case Mr. Mayor the Suburban Amoco at Keokuk Street should be given an opportunity to present information to the Council. Karr: Mr. Mayor just for the record there is correspondence in front of you this evening to be received as part of the record. Letunan: Can we have a motion to receive. O'Donnell: So moved. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab to receive correspondence which is in the form ora letter from these £olks. Is there anyone here representing Suburban Amoco? Well you need to come up to the microphone anyway. John Cress: Yes, I'm John Cress co-owner and I really don't have any more other than the letter that I presented to you. Okay? Karmer: What are the three dates you recall... Cress: I don't recall the three dates. No I don't. I know one of them was like Patrick White said that it was actually my nephew that worked and he checked the ID, saw the iD, but he looked at it too quick and, you know, made a mistake in not looking at it long enough to see the date. But he swears the date was right on it, but you know that's neither here nor there that you know mistakes were made. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 8 Page 38 Lehman: Has Council had an opportunity to read the letter? Champion: Yeah I did. Lehman: Is there a motion? Champion: Could I ask a question to Pat White? Lehman: Why don't we get to the motion and then we'll... Champion: Oh, I'm sorry. b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ASSESSING Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Go ahead Connie. Champion: Pat, is the crime the actually selling of the cigarettes or is the crime the omission of not understanding the date on...what am I trying to say...the intent was not to sell the minor cigarettes. So does that alleviate the criminal part of it? No? White: Not in our judgment, Connie. In this case the court has entered a conviction. The crime is in selling, giving, or otherwise supplying any tobacco, tobacco products or cigarettes to any person under 18 years of age. And in this instance I believe...now perhaps he was referring to an earlier offence. In this instance I don't believe there was an effort to check at all. There could well have been in one of the prior ones. Unfortunately it is not uncommon to find both with regard to these violations and even sometimes alcohol that people check and it's hard to tell whether they're paying lip service by looking at the ID, whether their math isn't very good, or what happens. But they simply need to take time to check and this is a very serious effort obviously and these suspensions are very serious penalties. Champion: They are. White: But they are easily avoidable. Champion: Right. Totally. White Because these compliance checks make no effort to trick anybody. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 8 Page 39 Champion: I know it and I say to people who complain like they're caught the second time selling alcohol to a minor or cigarettes is my favorite story about that and is that when I was in Chicago not too long ago and I went to buy a bottle of wine I was asked for ID because that was the rule. They'd had problems so everybody was ID'd. They didn't care if you were 80 or 100 or 10 you got...everybody was asked for an ID and I think that's what you have to do. White: And certainly I would...I've lived here all my life Suburban Amoco with a variety of ownership has been a good business citizen of this community. Champion: Sure. White: But... Champion: I don't think it was intentional, but it did happen. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. The motion carries. White: It was good to see you. Thanks for your time. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you Pat. BREAK (problem tape; new tape 02-80) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 11 Page 40 ITEM 11. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE FY03 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN BUDGET, THAT IS A SUB-PART OF THE IOWA CITY'S 2001-2006 CONSOLIDATION PLAN (CITY STEPS) AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT SAID AMENDMENTS AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVLEOPMENT, AND DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE AUTHORIZED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. Wilburn: Due to a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest I will not be participating in this public hearing. Lehman: Thank you Ross. We're kicking and screaming coming into the (can't hear). Kanner: You're looking for postage. Vanderhoef: $2.74. Kanner: (Can't hear) the memo. Lehman: Okay. Bob Burns: Good evening. My name is Bob Bums, 319 East Washington Street and I'm here representing the Garden Prairie project. First of all I'd like to give you an update on the Garden Prairie project. Our target number of dwelling units for this project has always been 20 units and as of this time we have purchased lots for 14 dwelling units and have in negotiations an additional 4 units for a total of 18 towards our target. With the funds though...secondly with the funds that you're considering tonight we would use those funds...our plan is to negotiate a purchase of a lot which is vacant currently on Cross Park Avenue across from the Villa Garden Apartments. We would use that lot to build a two-story structure of which the ground floor would be a community space for our project and a site manager's office. And on the second floor we would build a three-bedroom apartment for the site manager as a resident site manager apartment. So we would have office and community space on the ground floor and a site manager's apartment on the second floor if you choose to award funds that you are considering tonight. Pfab: I have a question. How large a community space are you thinking This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 11 Page 41 about? Bums: The total ground floor area would be 1200 square feet. Pfab: And how much of that would be you know you said an office... Bums: All of it would be community space. Pfab: All of it would be community space. Okay. Bums: And the apartment above would be an additional 1200 square feet. We have a similar building with this design at a project in North Liberty at Penn Oaks and it works out very well with the site manager in close proximity to the property and we'd like to be able to do that with this particular neighborhood. We think it would be an asset to the community. We'd be willing to at least have discussions with the City regarding having law enforcement in the community space somehow at some point in time it would certainly be available if we could work out the details for that. Our project is a scattered site project, but we still would like to have a community space and a resident site manager to serve the residents that.., so anyway I'd like you to give that consideration for this evening. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you Bob. Anyone else like to speak to this? Mary Ann Dennis: I'm Mary Ann Dennis and I work for the Housing Fellowship and I would just like to encourage you to accept the recommendations of the Housing and Community Development Commission. Kanner: Do you...explain what's different from the previous proposed project on this site? Dennis: The previous proposed project was offered rental units. Our project in partnership with the Housing Authority is for a mix of owner occupied and rental. And I believe our project is...the total project cost is quite a bit lower. Champion: I think also the neighborhood is very happy with the project that you are going to do and I commend you for working with them. Dennis: Yes. Charlie has been the President of our Board of Trustees. He's been working very hard with the neighborhood association and the Longfellow Manor Home Owners Association. Thanks. Lehman: Thank you Mary Ann. Champion: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 11 Page 42 Karmer: Is there anyone from the Association that would like to speak? I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say if there's anyone? Champion: There was a letter in our packet. Kanner: I did get one... Vanderhoef: From the Chair of the neighborhood association. Lehman: Anyone else like to speak? Public hearing is closed. We don't take action on this? Champion: No. Lehman: Even though it says action that just means that we look at it and pretend it isn't there. Okay. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 12 Page 43 ITEM 12 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, ENTITLED, "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTERS, ENTITLED "CITY PLAZA," SECTION 9, ENTITLED "CITY PLAZA USE PERMITS," SUBSECTION E, ENTITLED "PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES" AND AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "LAND CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED "DESIGN REVIEW," TO ELIMINATE REQUIRED APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISIONS AND GRANTING APPROVAL POWER SOLELY TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (FIRST CONSIDERATION). Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move first consideration. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Daryl Woodson: Good evening. My name is Daryl Woodson. I speak to you tonight as a former member of the City's Design Review Commission. A brief history - very brief- Design Review was established under the urban renewal project in Iowa City. And I believe, although I'm not sure, that it was required by HUD as part of the urban renewal project. And the process initially was a Design Review Commission - a public commission made up of architects, professional designers and the citizens. And that commission operated to consult on the design of projects with private developers and to make suggestions to seek public input especially on major projects and then to approve or deny the design of the project. Most of the time the Commission served a consultive function rather than a regulatory function. I don't recall in my short tenure on the Commission that we ever denied anybody's design, but there were some serious modifications to some in the terms of the process. Fairly recently, I believe it was a couple of years ago, the power of the Commission...the Commission was disbm~ded, the power was transferred to a design review committee made up of City Staffmembers. As a City Staff committee those bodies meetings are not open to the public. Transferring sole authority for the design review to this committee effectively removes the public from the process and this happens at a time when we're developing the last of the urban renewal parcels, the second largest parcel and possibly the largest building built in downtown Iowa City. And I would like to see the Council retain the authority to approve or deny the decision of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 12 Page 44 design review committee and keep the public in the process by having our elected representatives actually vote. Pfab: Thank you for your comments Lehman: Discussion? Kanner: I think Daryl put it well. I think things are going well now. Most things get approved without much controversy, but it's good to shine a little light on it in case the public would like to hear about it. It's very unlikely that the public would hear about it with the proposed resolution. I think we should keep it where it's at. Let us make the final decision. Pfab: I think the fact that we would keep by...by keeping it as it is or voting no on this we would allow the public more access to it and I would strongly support that. So I'll be voting no. Lehman: Other discussion. Most of what we've seen as a Council from design and review at least in my recollection in the last several years it's been relative to... Vanderhoef: Signs. Lehman: Signs and whatever. There is an appeal process provided for in this ordinance. Any applicant agreed by a design by the design and review committee may appeal to the City Council. But according to the ordinance only the applicant could appeal which means that the public themselves would have no input would the Council...well what's the Council's thinking on that? Pfab: I think that it's something that affects the public and I think the public should have access to that. Vanderhoefi Well I think there's also neighboring properties that are uncomfortable when they don't know what's happening next door to their property. They may or may not like it, but this certainly would take those folks out of the loop of infoImation or any kind of negotiation if they wanted to work together to create a more pleasing effect for everyone in "their neighborhood." So I'm really torn with this one. I agree with Steven that usually we agree with our design review presented to us by the Staff~ but there is a perception that the public isn't included in these decisions or looking what's happening there. So I think I'll be voting no on this one. Lehman: Would you be more comfortable if the appeal was available to the public as well as the applicant? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 12 Page 45 Champion: The public doesn't really get to see the design. When it comes to us for final approval then it's in our packets and it becomes public knowledge. Lehman: Right. Champion: So I mean I think I'm probably going to vote no on this too. Lehman: They would have according to the appeal process here 10 business days in which the appeal could take place. I think anything as high profile as the last urban renewal parcel is certainly going to have some very close public scrutiny. I love the concept because I like the idea of not having to deal with the things that we've had since I've been on Council relative to design and review have probably been as much a nuisance for Council as it has been for the Staff. Anyway...other comments. P fab: No. Vanderhoef: Well I think it was proposed in general trying to expedite action so businesses could move forward with their projects and I understand that and I don't know how to get around that. So if somebody could come up with a better idea of how we can expedite that I'd certainly be willing to listen, but still keep the public in the loop of the information. Pfab: I think Dee that we've made a number of accommodations for a number of things and there's no reason why we can't make accommodations if that's necessary for the success of their...I just don't like to see the public be shut out. Lehman: I would support that if the public had the same right of appeal. I think that would cover all the bases. Any other discussion? Roll call. Motion is defeated with O'Donnell and Lehman voting in the affirmative. O'Donnell: Say that again. Lehman: That's a shorter way of saying it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 46 ITEM 13 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, ENTITLED, "UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER FIVE, ENTITLED, "BUILDING AND HOUSING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED, "HOUSING CODE," TO REQUIRE THAT ALL LANDLORDS AND TENANTS EXECUTE A LEASE ADDENDUM AND BY DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF HOUSING VIOLATIONS BEFORE ISSUING A MUNICIPAL INFRACTION. (SECOND CONSIDERATION). Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move second consideration. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Anna Buss: Anna Buss. I live at 830 Miller Avenue. While in the big picture the University of Iowa has about 28,000 students everyone living in the area enjoys the benefits of the University of Iowa being here in our community. Has the creation of jobs, the sporting events, the cultural attractions, we have a world renowned hospital and writer's work shop and the list just continues to go on. All of these things contribute to a very positive climate in our community. However, there are some negatives associated with having 28,000 young people living in our community. We can't expect to have all of the positive aspects ora major university without having any of the negative side effects. I do not believe that this ordinance that is now before you will be effective in solving the problems of the party houses and the over-occupancy issues that face you. This amendment if passed may quiet the voices of some while in reality will solve nothing. This is just a placebo to help certain groups in our community to have a "feel-better we've done something" effect. It will be very difficult to enforce this. It ~vill create hours of extra work for the Staff and all of the paperwork that this creates still will not change behavior of 18-22-year-olds. To think that we can legislate this behavior in this area is an exercise in futility. Please consider some of the following points. Many tenants never read their leases or the rules - they just sign them. And many find out later when the landlord or the property management person says to them, "there's a problem - it's in your lease, didn't you read it." Do you really believe that there is...that if there is an extra addendum attached to this lease that they're going to read it or understand it. I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 47 doubt it. Are we as owners and managers to read these to everyone? Are we to have a lease policy? How does the City with the existing Staff plan on enforcing this amendment? Does the City plan to hire more people when we have an already stressed budget? And where will the money come from? Will this be a blanket policy that is to be placed on everyone who owns or manages rental property in the City limits. For example, the Iowa City Housing Authority, senior type housing facilities, and how will the condo associations be handled? Many of these units have no leases at all. The issues that brought us to this point will still have to be handled on a complaint basis. The City Staff has put together a very good brochure on occupancy guidelines and many of the other items and the zoning laws address many of the same issues. The laws concerning police enforcement are already in place. All we have to do is let the police do their job to the fullest extent that the law will allow. I ask each of you to reconsider your vote and vote no on this amendment and allow a stricter enforcement policy of what we already have available to us and I thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Larry Svoboda: My name is Larry Svoboda and I was one of the members of the nuisance committee that went through this problem and tried to come up with some idea. I was told tonight that I was wrong by another member of the committee as to what I was voting on and perhaps I didn't do my homework by reading my minutes as well as I should have. I want to kind of explain that by starting out by explaining what I thought the intent of the committee was that I was on and that was basically I thought we were kind of directly the occupancy limit question toward having the occupancy limit printing on the rental permit when it was issued by the City and then having that permit posted in a public place where landlords, the tenant, and even people in the neighborhood could go to that place and find out what the occupancy limit per unit was. I guess the committee was taking a different approach to that by wanting to put this in as a lease addendum. So ifI did my homework poorly I'm sorry that I didn't read the minutes as I said before, but that was not my intent and I can rest assured that it's not the intent of the other landlords that were on this committee. Our idea was much different and that was primarily to have this information published, but have it in a publicity area - in a brochure - to be handed out to freshman students coming into the University and to our tenants - our new tenants - as they would come in so that they would have something to read if they're going to read it. Like the previous speaker said you don't know whether they're going to read it - you can't force them to read this stuff. And I had that same problem people simply read what's on their lease. And sometimes when they do they go into a state of denial and don't believe that it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 48 applies to them anyway. And that's a tremendous problem. I think the...let's see...the actual limit is determined by the City Code not by the landlord in the first place and I think it should be the City's responsibility therefore to put that on the City permit that's issued to the landlord. I think also that it has to be pointed out that probably a lot of people don't even understand what occupancy limits are. On the face of it, it sounds pretty simple. If you're in a certain neighborhood, such as an RM-44 district you're limited to 3 roomers per dwelling unit. That sounds pretty dam simple. But when you start reading the definitions that are in that zoning code it becomes very unclear as to...or not unclear, but it becomes very much a different story by the time you get to the bottom line as to how many people can occupy a unit. You could have 8 or 10 people living in a one-bedroom unit technically under our zoning code and be very much legal. So I think just there's a lot of misunderstanding what occupancy limits are. That understanding then if it's put into...or that misunderstanding if it's printing in the lease. The lease is a contract, an addendum to the lease is a contract. That misunderstanding can grow into a lawsuit. That's the thing that really scares me about this. I know there's going to be people that may address you a little later on this evening who are actual attorneys that may disagree. But the proof is in the pudding. I think until the situation is tried we're going to end up having many lawsuits over definitions that are in this addendum. And that's why I think it's much better to have it in the policy and a brochure and not on the lease because like I said the lease is a contract. An addendum to the lease is part of that contract. For instance what is habitable space? Is it a closet? Is it a hallway? Is it a bathroom? It is a kitchen? A kitchen with a window is a habitable space, but a kitchen without one is not. Lehman: Larry you know this doesn't change any existing regulations what-so- ever. You know that? Svobada: It doesn't. No that's true. I understand that. Lehman: Okay. So when you're talking about habitable space that's not relevant to what we're talking about because that law is in effect as we speak and that won't change. Svobada: Well my thing that I'm trying to get across here is that the way the landlord may construe this and his lease may become a misrepresentation of what the law is and if he does that then he is opening himself up to litigation. So he almost needs to have an attorney interpret every clause here as to how he's going to print it in his lease to protect himself liability wise. That's my problem. If it's in a brochure, it's not a legal and binding instrument and that makes a whole different ballgame out of it. You're still accomplishing the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 49 same thing. You're just not doing it through.., you're just not doing it through a legal instrument which the lease is. So that's the point I'm trying to make. Lehman: I believe...I really don't (can't hear) engage the public in this discussion, but Doug it's my understanding that according to this lease that the City will provide for a period of over three years. What the occupancy is you will not put a number on your lease. That number will be provided to you by the City. Svobada: So is the entire addendum going to be made by the City? Lehman: It is now. That part doesn't change. The only difference is your tenant will then know and so will you the maximum number of people that can be in that apartment. Svobada: We don't have an addendum now. Lehman: You have the law covering you right now. Svobada: But we don't have an addendum. Lehman: No, but you will have. It's kind of like a policy that you can sell beer. Our policy is that you can't sell to someone under 18. We found folks who didn't believe that. It has always been the law and it is the law right now. You're apartments as with everybody else's have a maximum limit. The problem we have is people don't know what those are. Svobada: Alright then I'll give you an example where you have one limit under the P&Z Code and you have another limit under the building code. Which one you going to follow? Lehman: That's Housing Inspection's problem. Svobada: Yeah, but what if we get sued because we misrepresent one code because we're representing another code? Lehman: You will get the number...you will get the number from the City. Svobada: If we get sued will the City defend us? Champion: Who is going to sue you? We're not going to sue. Svobada: (Can't hear). What about the landlord. I have a tenant say yeah five of you guys can live here okay. You meet the P&Z code, but all ora sudden the uniform building code you're in violation of that code and so all of a sudden the tenant says I could live here under...you said I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 50 could live here...the five of us could live here and now you're telling US... Champion: The addendum. Lehman: No, no when you finish Larry I'll have Doug address that. Champion: Right. Lehman: Because I think that's an issue that needs to be addressed. I think it can be. Svobada: Right because I think we're going to get ourselves snagged in some nets of misrepresentation that can get us into court. That's the point I'm trying to say. If we had it in a brochure then it wouldn't be a problem. It's that simple. Pfab: But we don't want it in the brochure. We want signatures and initials on it. Champion: Is he going to explain that now? Lehman: Doug would you? Are you through Larry? Svobada: I'm pretty close. Yeah pretty much so. One other question I have is who is going to be held responsible if some of these.., some of these rules are violated and if the landlord is trying to comply and the tenant doesn't comply. Who are you going to cite? I mean there's nothing in here about who gets cited under what condition. That's a problem you got in here the neighborhood association has to be in my lease. I really object to that. Those people do not make my policy. They do not pay my property tax. It's fine that they have a concern about what I'm doing on my property. I appreciate that. I encourage that. But I don't think that I have to...that they have to be represented in my lease. I don't agree with that at all. Ijust...there'sjust some things here that strike me that could be so easily changed and still meet the intent of what the committee tried to put forth and not get into legal aspects. So that's the point I'm trying to make. Pfab: My point Larry and ! know you're a good landlord and if every landlord followed the rules as well as you did this wouldn't be necessary. Svobada: Well nothing is going to change Irvin. That's the point too. You know besides when you get all of this done those of us who comply will just work that much harder trying to make...trying to comply with what we have to do. And the people that don't comply the landlords...you're still going to be chasing them anyway. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 51 Pfab: I was hoping that they might be a little easier to find. And I think that's what we want to do. We're looking for the people who are not complying and it's just like selling tobacco, selling beer to different people. You have to do something to get some of these people's attention and I think that's what we're doing. Svobada: I agree. I was a champion of a lot of these things in that committee that are being presented here. I just don't want to see them in the lease. Pfab: I wanted to see the posting of the occupancy where the public, the landlord and the tenant could see it, but that was voted out. So I think...I don't think we have much other options. Unless somebody comes up with another option where you hold people accountable for that then if you got something better I'm listening. But I haven't found anything better especially after you took away...after it was voted not to post the occupancy of a unit. Svobada: Well I don't think it's the substance of what we're arguing about or indiffering about it's just how it's presented and I think that's a major issue. And I think it's going to rear up and bite us in the face. I can tell you one thing if I get sued because of a misrepresentation in my lease that was forced on me by the City - if it becomes a misrepresentation - somebody else is going to join me in that as a defendant and you know who that's going to be. Lehman: Doug would you explain there's a couple issues. I think that probably need to be explained. First of all I think Anna brought up an issue relative to the amount of staffing and the amount of effort this is going to require if any from your office over what you do now. The second one, I think, that Larry brought up is where is the number derived? Who derives the number that goes in the lease? Doug Boothroy: Presently we...well we will deny...not deny excuse me. We will compute the number. Lehman: That will be the number that will be used. Boothroy: Right. We're going to post on our web site all the rental permits and that information that we talked about just a minute ago - the maximum occupancy will be on that particular permit that you can see and available 24/7. And also people can HIS and get that information directly. And so there is a couple different ways in which they can find that information. Lehman: Will the property owner be notified as to the maximum occupancy of each of these apartments? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 52 Boothroy: We will...our intent is to determine that occupancy as we do our renewals. That's why it's going to take at least three years. And that will...they'll be notified at that time when we do that renewal. It allows us over a three year period of time to have the time to work through it because as Larry and Anna mentioned it is in some situations complicated and you do have to look at the various codes you have an apply and come up with the correct computation. And the most restrictive would apply. So if there's a conflict we always apply the most restrictive. Lehman: But that number will be a hard number that will be (can't hear). Boothroy: That will be what the City...the City will be in effect designating what that occupancy is - what the maximum occupancy of that particular unit is and that will be the official number. Lehman: Okay. I mean that's not a number hanging out there it's mi actually number. Boothroy: Right. If we get a complaint or we were dealing with a matter of occupancy we're the ones who make that determination now. So that determination and who makes that determination is not changing. Lehman: The only difference it's going to appear in the lease. Boothroy: The big difference is that it's going to be not only on the lease addendum, but it also will be available on the web. And the third thing is that right now we don't...we haven't predetermined or we haven't...we haven't taken the time to determine the occupancy of every rental unit in the community and that's why it's a large task. This will have that in a database and it will be available and we'll have more information. It should help us in terms of code enforcement once we establish that across the board. Vanderhoef: So what do you anticipate for time and staff time. I think this is where some of the people were getting at is that as you're doing the renewal and the inspections and then the computation. Boothroy: It's...staffing is an issue right now for us. It's something that ! expressed to the committee. I've expressed it all along. It's something that has to be addressed. I assume that as we come into the budget process you folks will address that. I'm going to make a very strong appeal for that. We're in desperate need in order to maintain our routine inspections. So we do have to keep this in mind as we go fonvard. Stretching it out over three years in part addresses that particular issue because it doesn't require us to try to get everything done within a year period of time which would be impossible with This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 53 existing staff. Pfab: I have a question. Boothroy: Yes sir. Pfab: How are you going to determine which units you're going to designate a number for? Boothroy: Every one. Champion: Every one. Pfab: But in what order? My question is, are the units that come to your attention because of other reasons will they immediately get a number once you make that inspection? Boothroy: They do now. If we get a complaint inspection...right now we don't have it recorded in a lease addendum or anything like that it just goes into a paper file and it's microfilmed. The difference now is it will be available on the web site which it will be more accessible than coming down to our office. Every unit...we'll make a determination on every unit in this community and that's why it's a large task. So it doesn't make any difference what order we take them but we will...the sequence will be if your rental permit is renewed in the month of January then that building and those units will be reviewed during the month of January to determine what that occupancy is. So that we're not doing all -well we have over 15,000 units -that we're not trying to do all 15,000 units in one year. That would be just an overwhelming task. Pfab: I guess maybe I'm going to focus my question a little bit finer here. And that is if you are required to inspect a unit because of some other problem not just renewing the rental permit, at that time will you also designate the number? Boothroy: Yes. Pfab: Okay. That was my question. Lehman: I have one other question that is a big part of this ordinance that the requirement that written notification won't be necessary before issuing a municipal infraction. For my own purpose I understand why this is in there. I understand that there are certain infractions that written notification sometimes it's not timely at all. But this won't remove our policy of giving written notification of violations will it? Boothroy: Absolutely not. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 54 Lehman: I mean I'm thinking of to me that verbal notification should be appropriate for things that are time sensitive. Boothroy: Well let me explain. Lehman: Okay. Boothroy: Our regular inspection program when we find deficiencies in the property they will still get a notice of violation with a punch list of things that need to be corrected. That procedure is not going to change. What...this is going to be very consistent with what we have. There is no requirement in the zoning ordinance that we give written notice and so in the case...and that may also...I think that's also true in the nuisance ordinance so we're just making this consistent with our other areas. We do give notice in the zoning ordinance for most violations, but when we have a temporary sign that is illegal we typically call the person, tell them to remove it, if they don't remove it, they may get a municipal infraction that same day. A temporary sign is easy to remove. We're looking at this being in the same kind of process with blowing trash. If somebody has got blowing trash most landlords that we contact are very good about getting out there and taking care of it, but there are buildings on North Dubuque Street that we have more difficulty with particularly after home football games and this would help in those situations. Lehman: These are primarily time sensitive issues where you need to be able... Boothroy: That's my point both with the zoning ordinance and with the housing code we're talking about time sensitive issues. Lehman: Okay. Thank you, sir. Kanner: Eleanor... Boothroy: Can I make one more point? Lehman: Sure. Boothroy: Just we're already offon the wrong foot on this (can't hear) thing because already we're talking about occupancy and the term that we're suppose to be using is roomers and it's a whole different world between an occupancy ora unit - you can have a maximum...you can have an occupancy in a unit of 10 people, but only 3 roomers can reside there. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't know if you're getting what I'm saying. Lehman: No, I wasn't getting nothing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 55 Kanner: You mean a temp...someone who comes here for a party you could have...you're saying the occupancy... Boothroy: No I'm talking about the people who reside there regularly. The occupancy of a one unit A at 527 North Dubuque Street could be 10 people, but the roomers that can reside there are only three. Kanner: I'm not following the difference. Boothroy: Well first of you got to read the definition in your P&Z book about what it's all about. That's the point I'm trying to get at. That's why it's so confusing. Lehman: Well, Doug how would you deal... Boothroy: Occupancy is determined by zone not by unit, not by the square footage in the unit. Lehman: Depending on the zone it's in. Boothroy: It depends on the zone. Lehman: How will you address the issue we're talking about Doug? I don't understand exactly the issue. Boothroy: A fmnily that meets a definition of a family there's no limit on the number of people that can live in a unit or a house or whatever. And these cimumstances are not changing. You know we run into situations where we get an over-occupancy complaint - we had one recently on Sandusky where we had at least 15 people living in a house. Come to find out they were all related. Okay that is not over- occupancy and the definitions are not changing. It is complicated sometimes, but you have to investigate it and you have to make a determination as to, you know, whether they're all unrelated. If they're all unrelated then it becomes a little clearer because you can have in some zones up to five unrelated. A family can be two unrelated and the roomers could be the other three. Therefore you can have up to five. So most of your downtown zones, like on Iowa Avenue where they're building some units there. They can build five bedroom apartments and have unrelated individuals. Lehman: All of this is going to be spelled out. Boothroy: It's already spelled out in the codes and regulations. Lehman: Alright. Boothroy: We're not changing any of those standards. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 56 Lehman: Right. Boothroy: It's a matter of application. It's a specific fact situation. Lehman: Right. Dilkes: I'm not sure the discussion about how one determines occupancy is really relevant to the lease addendum. Lehman: You're right. Dilkes: Because for one the lease addendum need not specify maximum occupancy unless that number has been provided by the City, unless that number is available. That is what it says. Lehman: And that will take years. Svobada: Not occupancy, roomers, not occupancy. Dilkes: Well, let me talk to the Council. That's what the ordinance says is that the maximum occupancy need only be specified on the lease addendum. If that occupancy number has been provided by the City and it says what that means what provided by the City means says in the ordinance. It seems to me the discussion about misrepresentation doesn't make a whole lot of sense because frankly if the City is providing that number and the landlord disagrees with that number that's a time when there could be discussion about that. And in essence there is a meeting of the minds between the tenant and the landlord when that number is put in the lease addendum about what the occupancy number is. And that's the purpose of the lease addendum. Boothroy: And we're talking about zoning issues and if there's a disagreement as to what the maximum occupancy is of the zoning code they certainly would have a right of appeal to the Board of Appeals...Board of Adjustment. Lehman: Okay. Boothroy: If they disagreed with our determination. Champion: Okay. Boothroy: So they have an appeal process. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: Eleanor, on page 2, item number lc there was a question raised about This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 57 who gets the fine, what's the current procedure for who do we bring charges against in this -Owner, operator, tenant, all three? What has been the common practice? Dilkes: Doug can probably address that better than I. Boothroy: Owner. Landlord. Kanner: So you never bring charges against the tenants. Boothroy: I didn't say never, but you said the common practice it's the owner. Kanner: You try to determine if the tenants knowingly violated it? Boothroy: That sometimes is an issue that comes out when we're dealing with over-occupancy. In some cases the remedy is they're evicted and you know we don't site the tenants typically because it's difficult to trace them, find them, get any kind of reaction. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the premises and the occupancy of the property and that's been a pretty effective in dealing with over-occupancy where we've had to deal with situations. Lehman: The landlord would have the opportunity to correct the deficiency prior to being cited. Boothroy: That's correct. They could evict the tenants or ask them to move. Kanner: How many... O'Donnell: Go ahead. Kanner: How many cases typically go to the fining level per year? Boothroy: I can tell you this that we inspect multi-families every two years and there are situations on a monthly basis where in our inspections we find over-occupancy- not a lot of situations. We may talk about three or four out of 100 properties that we inspect on a monthly basis. So it's a very small amount. And in most of those situations in working with the landlord well over 90% of those situations we get correction. Some of the ones that are more difficult that appears are the complaint ones we get where we're not doing routine inspections, but we get a complaint from a neighbor or neighbors about something that's going on. And in some of those situations it's a surprise to the landlord and they didn't intend it to be over-occupied and they reduce it. Sometimes we have...well there's a whole bunch of scenarios. Sometimes there's collusion between the landlord and the tenant. It happens annually. We always find a case or two of that. Sometimes...I mean there are just all kinds of different ways that this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 58 can happen. And the vast majority of our over-occupancy cases end up in being downsized. The cimumstances that sometimes become frustrating for us is they'll downsize and then six months later it'll be back up again to an over-occupancy issue. And what that really requires on our part is persistent inspections which is a lot of time to go back out to a property and continue to look at it and follow up to try to get over-occupancy under control. So if the landlord is on our side on this particular issue, is cooperating, it's a lot more effective and less Staff intensive to try to get a hold of over-occupancy. If not, then it can be a protractive enforcement process. Kanner: So it sounds like not more than one a month gets to the fine level. Boothroy: I don't know what the numbers are. Karmer: Just approximately Doug. Boothroy: Certainly not more than one a month. Yeah. I'll qualify that with I believe. O'Donnell: That' s good. Champion: Good thanks. Anna Buss: Well let me take you out of the Land of Oz and put you into the land or reality for few minutes. Lehman: Let's not take too many minutes. We've had a public hearing. Buss: I've got five. Lehman: Okay. Buss: The bottom line is that we're also subject to 562A. Maybe all of you should pick that up and read it. I know she has. We have to give a tenant if we get an occupancy notice violation we have to give the tenant a 7-day notice. We go out within 7 days we see if the tenant has corrected that problem. He says it's the cat chasing its tail try being one of the landlords or the managers. We go out tenants out. They're right back to where they're supposed to be. You turn around and a lot of times this can be a real safety hazard to the managers or the owners of the property because I've been in a position where I've had some section 8 folks that have had a person move in and they're not willing to move out. And it's turned into a real nasty situation and we've ended up before a mediator and we've ended up in court. (End of Side 1, Tape #02-80, Beginning of Side 2) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # I3 Page 59 Buss: As clear as you want to make it seem because we're still subject to proper notice. In between times the City is writing us a ticket. I don't see the problem and why it would take three years on the occupancy levels because it's already spelled out. You've got it before you. There's no way it should take three years. And the bottom line is the budget doesn't have the room for the extra staff. Mike Haverkamp: Hi. My name is Mike Haverkamp. I live at 109 North Van Buren. I just wanted to address the Council briefly because I think in the last two months I've hit the three major items in this ordinance in dealing with some of the neighbors...some of my neighbors. I had my annual conversation with a landlord in August well actually I started off meeting my neighbors asking if they realize that the landlord had told them that where they were parking was actually my yard and an easement into their single stall garage and they said no the landlord told them us we had five spaces. Okay. So I called the landlord and said do you know the tenants are parking there. Oh I told them they couldn't, I told them they have the one single stall garage and just an easement to it. So that's one of the big issues that you saw. We had some problems with disorderly house. The police ended up coming in and other people ended up coming in and other people contacted the police as well. I tried to talk to my neighbors about it and got the answer from one of them: "We're 21, we've signed the lease, we're going to party." You know why do you live in this neighborhood everybody knows this is a party neighborhood. I've lived there 16 years, they've lived there 6 weeks. I think if this were spelled out in the lease addendum it would be a lot easier for these people to realize what's going on. The other one had been when I went to talk to my tenants...they're not my tenants - my neighbors in the neighborhood, I noticed there are seven names on the mailbox. How many people live here? Oh six. Oh, I talked to the landlord about some problems with the partying and well that will happen when you have six girls living here. Oh, well I've had two guys tell me they live here. I think it would be to the landlord's advantage to know who's actually living in their property. I think this lease addendum would help settle that. I see nothing in this lease addendum that as has already been stated by Doug and the Staff that it's already in code it's just a matter of making it a little more available to the people signing the lease. Dennis Mitchell: Dennis Mitchell. (Can't hear) 122 South Linn Street. I'm here on behalf of the Greater Iowa City Area Apartment Association and my primary purpose tonight was just to make sure that you didn't collapse the readings and it's my understanding that you have absolutely no intent of doing that. I think that we can come up or at least the association can propose something that's going to meet the needs that the taskforce came up with. It, you know, we've been sitting here This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 60 discussing it, it seems like most of what everybody's after is notification making sure the tenants and the landlords know the law that's already on the books. So we think we can probably come up with a proposal that's not necessarily something that has to be part of the lease as far as the lease addendum that would still accomplish the same goal. So we'll hopefully have something to City Staff within the next week and would at least ask that you duly consider that. Pfab: I have a question for you. Are you asking something that does not have a signatures or initials on it. Mitchell: No, the...I think that what we would end up proposing is that the tenant would have to sign basically a disclosure statement that would be given to the tenant. Pfab: What about the landlord. Mitchell: Well that's something we'll work on as well to see if we can come up with something. Lehman: You'll have something for us prior to our next meeting. Mitchell: That's right. Lehman: Alright. Thank you Dennis. Other discussion? Vanderhoef: I have a question for Steve actually. When I look at the request that we're going to get for budget and looking at 15,000 units and a proposed three year could we just take a look at numbers of what might happen if we hired an independent contractor to do only this and then when the job is done the contract will be gone. Atkins: Actually go out and establish the occupancies? Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. Atkins: I hadn't thought about it. That's something Doug and I can talk about. Vanderhoef: If you'd look at that as we're looking at budgets because I know you're started in on that at this point and that might be one way to accomplish it a bit faster and have real consistency. Lehman: Other discussion? Atkins: We'll pose the question and see what we can (can't hear). Karen Leigh: My name is Karen Leigh. I live at 809 East Bloomington Street. I just wanted to say that I support the lease addendum as it's proposed. I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 61 believe that it speaks to accountability and I can only think of one reason for objecting to that and that's not wanting to be held accountable. DaLayne Williamson: My name is DaLayne Williamson. I live at 830 Ronalds Street and I'm just here to voice support for the lease addendum as written and encourage you to support it as is. Regenia Bailey: My name is Regenia Bailey. I live at 430 Church Street. It concerns me when I hear business people in our community seemingly to back off about transparency in contractual relationships. It seems to me that this lease addendum simply spells out what is expected of the tenant and what is expected of the landlord. And it just brings clarity to the situation. Sure these may be young people who are signing this contract, but it still is a legal contract. And part of an experience of going go a wonderful university town is learning how to enter to enter into contractual relationships and to be held accountable for what you sign. So it concerns me to hear all these roadblocks and not wanting to make it part of a legal contract because I think this would simply clarify for the neighbors, for the tenants, for the landlords. And I think it would be beneficial to well our community. And I think it's a good thing and I support it. Lehman: Thank you. Jerry Hansen: My name is Jerry Hansen. I think you're all aware of who I am and what I've been doing for the last four years. You just heard from the Greater Iowa City Landlords Association attorney that they're going to bring you a proposal. This is the same group of landlords in town that I went to three years ago and asked what are the tools you need to better control your tenants and better provide a safe neighborhood where your property is located to which I got no response whatsoever. This group had multiple members on the Neighborhood Housing Relation Task Force who ali agreed to what's in front of you tonight. And yet now you get a letter from Ann Vestba that I've seen stating that this group is in opposition to this proposal. And Arm Vestba is one that's been named to the new committee. And I've respectively submit that she be removed. This over-occupancy issue has been a problem in many college towns. We did a lot of research into different communities like our own and found that lease addendums provided a great deal of cover. The biggest problem that we've had is that we've had at different neighborhood representative meetings that have been held a city manager tell us that we're only going to do things on a complaint basis. And yet complaint about some of these different problem apartments in town is out of the question for some people. They are afraid of retaliation. We've had the head of Housing tell neighborhood representatives that he is unwilling to prosecute over- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 62 occupancy because it's just too difficult and the reason that he says that is that they all go well I didn't know. Well signing this lease addendum will make everybody know what's going on. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you Jerry. Pfab: Thank you Jerry. Lehman: Let's take a little more. We're going to need to wind this one up. Go ahead. No, no Barbara you're next. Barbara Buss: Okay. My name is Barbara Buss. I live at 747 West Benton Street. And I would like to preface my remarks by thanking you for approving the Southwest District Plan. And I would like to point out that part of that plan was a recognition of a kind of renewal or a support for individual renewal for the part of the Southwest District which is the neighborhood at the east of Benton Street. And I believe that one of the things that is very important that it be done is deal with over- occupancy in this area and poor landlord policies in this area. And I believe that this addendum speaks to that and will help with the enfomement. And when it comes to dealing with the cost of extra staff and that sort of thing, it takes extra staff to take care of underage drinking, underage smoking, speeders and the way you measure if it is money well spent is to ask what it is that you are achieving. And I would like you to see this as a sort of neighborhood support that you are doing if you do hire extra staff and in the meantime please approve this addendum. Thank you. Lehman: Any Council discussion? Kanner: Yeah I have a question for Eleanor. The definition of tenant under number 1 does it mean they're a signer to the lease? Dilkes: It includes there person who has signed the lease, but it also includes those persons who have a right under the lease to occupy the premises. Kanner: So they don't necessarily have to sign the lease. Dilkes: No. One person could be financially obligated, but there could be additional people who are obligated to reside there...or entitled to reside there. Kanner: I'd like to offer an amendment to this that number lb that the names of the tenants pursuant to the rental agreement who may occupy said unit and their driver's license numbers and the State that issued said licenses be removed from the proposal. Pfab: I'i1 second that for discussion. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 63 Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Karmer: I think that we're always trying to balance the right of individual's privacy versus the common community fight to certain standards in their neighborhoods. And for the most part I agree with this proposal, but I think that's going too far in requiring everybody that's in the apartment to have their name listed and their driver's license listed. I think that should be left to the discretion of the tenant and the landlord if they wish to require that, but I don't think as agents of the State that we should require that be put in there. That's too much of an invasion of privacy. So I urge that we remove this from an otherwise pretty decent document. Lehman: Other discussion? All in favor of the amendment raise their right hand please. Opposed same sign. The motion is defeated 6-1, Kanner voting in the affirmative. Further Council discussion? Champion: Well I am going to support this addendum to the lease and anything that I can to protect our neighborhoods and keep them intact. I totally believe that students belong in neighborhoods or young people belong in neighborhoods. I think it's very positive. It's positive to everybody. There's always a few people, a few tenants, and a few landlords who don't make living in the neighborhood very nice for the neighbors. I happen to have tenants in my neighborhood who are actually good to work with. And when there's a large party I don't mind. They don't do it all the time. And when they have their stereos too loud I just go over or I call and they turn it down immediately. Once in awhile they forget that they're living in a neighborhood. But we have neighbors and neighborhoods in Iowa City that are being destroyed by poor tenants and poor landlords. And I think if landlords don't want to be responsible for their tenants I think they're turning their back on the neighborhoods. And if you were living in that neighborhood you would not turn your back on it. And I am going to support this amendment and anything I can to protect our neighborhoods. Lehman: Other Council discussion? I just want to say that I believe the vast majority of our tenants and our landlords are very good people. Champion: They are totally. Lehman: I have been contacted by four or five different landlords who frankly do not object to what we're trying to do here. So I don't want to paint the picture that we got a bunch of folks... Champion: Oh I agree. The very small number. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 13 Page 64 O'Donnell: But you know I've heard today that six kids living a basement by furnace. That's wrong. What's that. Lehman: Bet they're warm. O'Donnell: Yeah it's warm. Vanderhoef: And it's illegal. Lehman: That's the trouble with (can't hear) it's warm. O'Donnell: I've also heard that and I've walked through neighborhoods and I've seen houses that are very definite party houses and not particularly an asset to the community. I know that they don't have any number, and idea of how many people live in this house. And they're disruptive, they're destructive and I think most good landlords are not going to have a problem with this. And I think it's a very positive thing for the City and I am going to support it. Lehman: Okay doke. Roll call. Motion carries. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Pfab: So moved. Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: We have a motion by Pfab, seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 14 Page 65 ITEM 14 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, CHAPTER 7, SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, SECTION 5, EXCEPTION, TO CLARIFY THAT EACH ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY ONE TEMPORARY ONE-YEAR EXCEPTION. (SECOND CONSIDERATION). Lehman: (Reads item). Wilbum: Move second. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum. Right? Wilbum: Yep. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. O'Donnell: I will continue to vote no on this. It's being consistent. We changed the rules and I do not feel that we're giving adequate time to let people get their house in order. So I'm going to be voting no. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries 6-1, O'Donnell voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 17 Page 66 ITEM 17 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CItANGING TItE NAME OF THE OLD ALIGNMENT OF SCOTT BOULEVARD BETWEEN ROCHESTER AVENUE AND DUBUQUE ROAD TO HARVEST ROAD. Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Pfab: Just where is this or where are what are we talking about here? Lehman: Is that the old Seven Sisters Road? Atkins: The old Seven Sisters gravel road Irvin. Pfab: Oh okay. Atkins: That's the one. Kanner: Say this again. Atkins: It's the old Seven Sisters Road. Kanner: Parallel to 1-807 Lehman: Right. Champion: No. P fab: Perpendicular. Atkins: Perpendicular to 1-80. O'Dormell: It's seven hill. Atkins: Runs up to... Vanderhoefi It's the extension of Scott Boulevard as we knew it until we started building the new road. O'Dormell: It's closed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 17 Page 67 Kanner: We're going to keep this open? Atkins: We have to keep it open because of the Hunter farmstead is there. They need access. Lehman: We're just changing the name. Atkins: Yeah we're just changing (can't hear). Kanner: Where are the names come from? Atkins: We searched around. We were going to name it Hunter and we thought that was a great idea until we realized we got all kinds of Hunters on the west side of town. Lehman: Hunter's Run. Atkins: And then we were going to name it Crawl Road and it just didn't seem to fit - Crawling Road. And that was the name of the family. Champion: What was wrong with Seven Sisters? Atkins: There is apparently another Seven Sisters somewhere in Johnson County. Lehman: You won't change this one. Atkins: A year ago we got to Harvest. Lehman: It's that time of the year. Atkins: I pick a name. Kanner: (Can't hear) keep Harvest from in there. Vanderhoef: It's part of our rural heritage. Atkins: Them you go. O'Donnell: Sounds great. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Okay motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 18 Page 68 ITEM 18 CONSIDER RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF UP TO $10,980,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002. Lehman: (Reads item). Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: I think the recommendation is sale to Hutchinson, Chalky, Early of Chicago. Interest rates from 2.5 to 4.0 percent for 2003-2015 maturity. A net interest rate is 3.0468%. And we have a motion from Mr. Pfab. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Mr. O'Donnell. Discussion? Champion: I think we should have Mr. Atkins point out to the public the good new that we received yesterday on the bonds. Atkins: Mr. O'Malley can do that. He deserves the credit for that. Champion: Okay. O'Donnell: We're getting very formal this evening. Pfab: Well it's getting late. Kanner: Kevin can you explain the definition of a refunding bond. Kevin O'Malley: Sure. We have four issues that we...one in '92 a capital loan note and 1994, 1995, and 1996. These are small issues that have been eligible for refunding meaning that we can call them in advance and those first three issues I mentioned had call dates of December 1st of this year. The last issue, the '96 issue, will have to set up an escrow account because the call date isn't until 2006, I believe, and then we can redeem them. When we issue bonds, Steven, we always put provides on there after 8 to 10 years we can call them if the interest rates are favorable. And so that's what we're doing in this point in time. These are great rates. Lehman: We're basically refinancing at a lower rate. O'Malley: That's correct. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 18 Page 69 Vanderhoefi And most of these bonds were at what rate? O'Malley: 5%. Five and six percent. Lehman: Quite a bit less. Vanderhoef: Quite a bit less. Almost half. O'Malley: I believe the savings on this is $650,000. Vanderhoef: Great. O'Malley: Present value I think that equals about $567,000. Lehman: Cool. Any discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 19 Page 70 ITEM 19 CONSIDER RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $8,500,000 WATER REVENUE BONDS. Lehman: (Reads item). The bid was 4.1463 percent for Harris Trust and Savings Bank of Chicago. Do we have a motion to sell bonds. Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Atkins: And Connie this is where our credit rating was upgraded. Kevin can tell you that. Vanderhoef: On what our revenues. Champion: Why don't you tell us that. O'Malley: Yes this is very gratifying that we got an increase. We were an A2 and they look at all our water debt. We have about 29 million total in water debt. And they upgraded all of it to an A1 which reduces our interest rate. So we're very happy to get that. And they pretty much said that Iowa City has got strong financial conditions, good economic growth and good financial management. Kanner: Kevin? Champion: That's great. Kanner: Why...can you explain - in lay person's terms - why these rates we got are higher...why we didn't get the good bids? O'Malley: Good bids? We got good bids. Kanner: No, no compared to the other one. O'Malley: Oh, revenue bonds versus the GO bonds - the GO refunding. Mainly because the GO bonds are...the credit worthiness of that is all of the property within Iowa City which is about 2 billion dollars. That is pretty stable. Whereas ~vater revenues or any revenue bond requires other credit enhancements and the water system could have a failure and so you wouldn't be able to sell any water. So we have to put in there credit enhancements such as one year's debt service. That's one interest. And we also have rate covenants. We have to maintain This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 19 Page 71 1.25% on our rates. Which essentially means another Council can come in and we want to lower the rates they couldn't lower them past that 1.25. So because it doesn't have as much credit enhancements it'll sell at a higher rate. Kanner: Thank you. Lehman: It's a collateral issue. There's better collateral with the real estate (can't hear). O'Malley: That's correct. Real estate is a better collateral than the water plant. O'Donnell: Very good. Thank you. Lehman: Okay. Champion: Good news. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 21 Page 72 ITEM 21 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CHAPTER 28E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND JOHNSON COUNTY FOR THE PROVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES. Lehman: (Reads item). O'Donnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Dormell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Kanner: This has been a long time in coming is my understanding. Atkins: That's correct. Kanner: It's good to see this. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 73 ITEM 22 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO REMOVE COUNCIL MEMBER STEVEN KANNER FROM THE JCCOG URBANZIED AREA POLICY BOARD DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FORMAL CITY COUNCIL POLICY Lehman: (Reads item). O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: We'll wait until we get on the floor. Moved by O'Donnell. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Marian Michael: I'll refer to my notes, but I will not be long. I'm Marian Michael. We've lived at 915 Fairchild for 40 years. I am a middle-aged housewife and a taxpayer and a voter. I follow the City Council business somewhat at a distance because we do not have cable. But I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of Steven Kanner. He's my friend. I also cherish the friendship of his mother and his sister, but that's not why I'm here. The important thing is I voted for him and I would like to support the things he's doing. Because I'm not able to follow City Council proceedings closely I need to first thank Ross Wilburn for pointing out to us the error that he thought Mr. Kanner had made. If it were not for watchdogs and whistleblowers anything can happen. Thank you for Mr. Wilbum. People like you are needed to keep us in line. I voted for Mr. Kanner because he's intelligent, tolerant, and well informed just like the rest of the City Council members. But Mr. Karmer goes a step further with his intelligence. He questions decisions. We get impatient when a small child continually says why, but the child learns that way and the adults get a fresh perspective on a subject that way. But people get impatient with Mr. Kanner when he looks not at the obvious, but deeper and further. Does it need to be this way? Is there a better way? We also could be learning. There's absolutely no progress in this world in the field of science or in the humanities or any other area of learning if someone does not question the status quo and say is there another way, would another approach be better? We'd still be back reinventing the wheel. I think governments need that searching approach. This council apparently does not find that approach useful. That takes time and time is priceless. And I can understand that impatience. But when I think of time both spent and saved I raise of question of why you're now even to vote on this issue tonight. What's to be gained? You've pointed out to Mr. Kanner his mistake. He's apologized. What's the big deal. How much further This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 74 ahead will we be if you remove him the Johnson County Council of Governments. At the next election let us see if he is to go or to stay. When his action which is at issue here you've lost a person who looked realistically at the timeframe and it can't be done in five years. It can't. If you don't want someone to think you might as well send a robot off to those meetings. A robot would carry your message to the group. It would save some lunch money and everyone would be satisfied. Think how much precious time would be saved. To use an analogy which almost fits here let me speak about the recent corporate meltdown. Over and over the persons involved have said to their underlings just go along, don't question anything, we know best. And accountants and boards of directors and attorneys and MBAs and everyone else has just gone along, don't muddy the water, don't ask questions, just go along. They did. Are we the better for it? Are they the better for it? In a wider field of our own Federal Government since 9/11 the thought of decent from the administration is viewed as disloyalty. The leaders are determined in their direction and many people who ought to know better are falling in line like a flock of sheep. We don't want to be disloyal to our government. But people ought to be raising their questions and saying wait a minutes let's take some time to look at this. Is there another way. That's what democracy is all about. But for Mr. Kanner you don't like dissent. There would be city governments from New Jersey across this whole country that would look at your agenda tonight and say you call that a problem. Would that we had a problem like that instead of the ones we have. Lehman: You need to wrap this up pretty soon. Michael: Very quickly. Mr. Kanner hasn't received a Rolex watch or Italian suits or made off with the money bags. There's a legislative intern...no legislative intern behind a door. His integrity is intact. What has he done that he desires the punishment you're handing him tonight. Read the papers, surf the net, speak to neighbors, listen to talk shows. One would think the world was going to hell in a hand basket and the Iowa City Council spends time on minutiae that isn't worthy of your time and effort. You should applaud Mr. Kanner for his attention to detail instead of punishing him. I support the retention of Mr. Karmer on the Johnson County Council of Governments. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Thanks Marian. Pfab: I would like to make a motion... Lehman: We have a motion on the floor. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 75 Champion: We have a motion. Pfab: An addendum to the motion. Lehman: An amendment? Pfab: Yes. That we postpone action on this resolution until the December l0th meeting because I believe the hubris of the majority of the Council has kind of gone a muck and this is kind of a lot of unnecessary politicking going on. Lehman: Is there a second to the amendment? Kanner: Sure I'll second it. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to postpone this to the l0th of December. All in favor of that amendment say aye. Pfab: What about discussion? Lehman: Discuss it. Go ahead. Kanner: Irvin why do you want to push it to the December... ? Pfab: I think we're...this whole atmosphere is pretty charged. I sat and watched the taping of the work session and that is really something that kind of turns your stomach when I watched what went on there. And I just think this is too emotionally charged at this time and I think a month or so of Ietting the dust settle. And then I read the letter to the editor in the paper today it's almost like you expect a lynch mob to come in and get Steven and I don't think that's right. I don't think we should make a decision at this time because of that. And I guess I would ask also is the rule...I would ask Eleanor is the rule that Council person has to follow that. Is that legal? When the vote and the person cannot...has to vote as the Council? Dilkes: You're asking me whether the resolution that Council passed requiring their appointees to vote in accordance with their formal policies legal? Pfab: Right. Dilkes: Yes. Lehman: Other discussion on the amendment? Pfab: Well I have one other question. Is them any question that the item that was being voted on... ? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. g 22 Page 76 Lehman: lrvin we're talking about the delay now. Pfab: No, no. Lehman: Yeah the amendment is that we postpone it. The discussion is on that motion to postpone. Pfab: Okay. I agree. Okay. Go ahead. Lehman: Is there other discussion on the amendment to postpone? All in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign. The amendment is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Now discussion. I don't know...let me just...I don't know Council how do we want to handle this? First of all I think Steven...I think this vote tonight is going to be a matter of voting on finding the facts are here that are given to us both in resolution form and from past action. I think Steven if you choose you have the opportunity to do as you suggested a memo to not take a lot of Council time on something you thought wasn't important and you could choose to resign. If you choose not to do that and you choose to - and I would like to know this and Council would like to know this. If you choose not to resign and the Council in fact does ask you to resign and you will be exercising your right to a public hearing how would you like to handle the discussion relative to this? I don't know that we want to discuss this on three or four occasions. Dilkes: Let me just clarify because the terminology you used wasn't exactly right. Lehman: You're probably right. Yes. Dilkes: The way you set up the initial resolution it's patterned after the State code provision which allows appointees to boards and commissions to be removed after hearing. The way this will work is that if you pass a resolution of removal tonight then Steven has the right to request a public hearing or a hearing in which he can respond. Lehman: Right. Dilkes: So you certainly can talk about resignation outside of that process, but a request for resignation isn't really part of that process. Lehman: Oh it isn't. Alright that's not an option. Go ahead. Dilkes: Well it is an option, but it's not part of the process that kicks in after there's a removal. Lehman: Oh no, no I understand that. I just wanted to make that...obviously This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 77 that is an option if you would choose to do that. Go ahead. Katherine Westholm: Council, Mayor my name is Katherine Westholm. I reside at 420 East Jefferson Street. I would also like to thank the Council for its concern about adhering to its policy. Like she said it's very important. But I'd also like to say I think Councilor Kanner had the intent that his vote was in line with that policy. Thank you. Lehman: Do we have any discussion on the part of Council? Kanner: Yes I have something I'd like to say. Lehman: Go ahead. Kanner: On June 12th, 2001 City Council passed resolution 01-169. The resolution requires that City Council members who are appointed to serve as City Council representatives to other organizations or entities shall vote in accordance with formal City Council policies established by motion, resolution or ordinance. On May 21st resolution 02-183 was passed. It was a Clear Creek master plan memorandum of understanding that outlined the Southgate initiative plan for Camp Cardinal Road to be built. An amendment was passed by Council which was not included in the resolution in the formal body but was part of the attachment in Clear Creek. It was passed by Council that removed attachment J proposed schedule for Camp Cardinal Road. This amendment was passed 5-2 with Champion and O'Donnell opposed. It seemed apparent to me that this amendment was crucial in eliminating the timeframe for when the road was to be built. It established a new formal City Council policy by resolution. At the formal meeting of May 21st before the final vote was taken I said -and these are taken from the City Clerk's transcript - "I'm not sure...I think I'm going to vote for this because the timeline was taken out and pushing it back...my hope is that we'll push it back to at least 2005 if not further back so I think that's a good thing to push it back that far." I was not corrected by anyone on City Council at that time about the timeframe possibly getting set back past 2005. Ernie replied - again from the City Clerk transcript, "Well the details will get filled in later there's not (it might have been a mistake) question about that." Not is a sic. That was from the transcript. On June 1 tth at the City Council time I raised a clarifying point in regards to Camp Cardinal Road - again this is from the City Clerk transcript - "so there's no definite date for the starting time? It could start in 2005. It could start in 2003. It could start later." Mike O'Donnell responded, "That was my understanding." Steven Atkins replied, "There's nothing planned right now. Correct Steve. There's nothing we agreed to right now." That was from the City Clerk transcript. Contrary to the Council vote on May 21st the JCCOG vote of August 8th, 2002 on agenda item 4b This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 78 consider amendments to the JCCOG arterial street plan which were offered up basically as one whole unit called for "Southgate Development Company to build this road Camp Cardinal within the next five years." A vote in favor of the JCCOG arterial street amendments which included a five year timeframe was contrary to the latest formal Iowa City Council policy regarding this issue. In this case before us tonight I did not oppose City Council formal policy when I voted in the minority at JCCOG on August 8th. Council indeed would do well to remove this odious resolution 001-69. It is unclear in its application and its core proposition making sure everyone votes in lockset does a disservice to the citizens of Iowa City and the Johnson Cotmty region. My opposition and vote should be looked upon as a positive critique that only strengthen the ultimate decision making votes of Iowa City and JCCOG. And in conclusion I'll quote from Emma Goldman who was one of the great early 20th century social justice activist. She said, "The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought. That this should be so terribly apparent in a country whose symbol is democracy is very significant of the tremendous power of the majority." Let us encourage independence of thought and vote. I would urge you to vote no on this resolution. Lehman: Steven, the resolution that you voted on at JCCOG had no timeframe. Kanner: It did in the explanatory. Lehman: The resolution had no timeframe. Kanner: (Can't hear). Lehman: It included two projects both of which had been approved by Council and you didn't make - apparently and I wasn't at the meeting - did you make any objection to those as personally being opposed to these projects. Kanner: Say that again. Lehman: Did you say anything during the discussion on those as to why you didn't - you voted no - did you indicate why you voted no? Kanner: Yeah and it's in the notes - the minutes of Jeff Davidson and he can testify at a later date. Lehman: And you also had the opportunity to separate the items because that was asked at the meeting if you wanted to handle them separately. One of these obviously what had been adopted with no controversy whatsoever. The other one I disagree with you that it's controversial because there is no timeframe in the resolution. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 79 Kanner: Well in the notice that we got listing it, it did mention a timeframe. But let me answer your question about the bundling. It's also true that no one from Council if they had such great concern offered the opportunity to unbundled it. I think that you could expect some help. But also there's perhaps if I had to do it over again I would be insistent on unbtmdling it. But I felt it was offered as a total bundlement and that it was being pushed through in - the sense that I had - was that it was being pushed through as a total package. So I felt that I had to vote down the whole thing. If it were offered again if you want - if we offer the chance again I would vote for the other parts of it, but would not vote for this because again the resolution that I saw in the JCCOG gave the context of a five-year timeframe and that's what I felt we were voting on in part. Lehman: Other discussion? Wilbum: If I could just add just for the record a couple things that the resolution in front of us represents the events that occurred - the facts if you will as I experienced them. The second thing that I'd like to point out just so the public knows that deliberation and policy making occurs here and that's where that minority voice is represented. JCCOG is a point there are times when we're voting on things that aren't policy. In other words they haven't come here. There are times when it is policy as was the case here. I think it's important to have this policy in place so that it's explicit so that at the JCCOG meeting when we're voting on something that Iowa City Council has voted on that Council members do not have veto power over the will of majority of Council - of established policy. If you've been on....that's essentially what it does. If you've been on a church vestry, if you work for an organization, if you're a director of an agency and the board passes policy and you go out and do something contrary to that policy then there's a consequence for that and that's what I see this as being. Again it's policy at this point. You can deliberate. You can discuss. You can go out and lobby the other entities at JCCOG. You can talk to the County Supervisor. You can talk to Coralville and North Liberty to vote against it. But policy is established at that point. So we have to support this. Champion: I also think it's important that people do tmderstand that Steven does have a lot of great ideas and he does question everything and that's a plus. And it's good to have somebody that does that. That is his right and his right to do it here. It is not his right to change a Council decision because he doesn't like it. He can state the fact that he doesn't like, but he still needs to vote the Council decision and I think that's a real problem when you don't. O'Donnell: I'm going to support this also. When you go to JCCOG - and I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 80 chaired it last year - you represent your city and you represent the Council's will. This wasn't the first notice. It was the second. I think it's crystal clear when you go to JCCOG you represent the will of the Council. I really don't see any need for further discussion on it. Lehman: Well, the way our ordinance is written if the Council feels that the actions of Mr. Kanner are contrary to the resolution that was passed by Council a year and a half ago. We are entitled to vote yes and remove Mr. Kanner. If on the other hand we do feel his actions were not in violations of the rules adopted by this Council then obviously we should vote no. But I think in no way, shape or form was that resolution passed by this Council a year and a half ago ever intended to curtail anyone's right to dissent or anyone's right to express a contrary opinion. We represented only an obligation on the part of the person who represents... (End of Tape #02-80, Beginning of Tape #02-81) Lehman: If there is no further discussion I'm... Pfab: I just have one question. I...as I listen to and I went through the different items here I can't be certain that he voted against it or it was as he stated that he was voting according to what the Council did. Lehman: There were two items Irvin. One of them is Camp Cardinal. The other one is...both of these, both of these have been adopted by the City Council. Pfab: Right. Lehman: One of them by a 7-0 vote. The other one I don't recall the vote. But both of them were adopted by the Cpuncil and both of them he voted the negative on them. Pfab: If one of them was voted...if the...since Solomon isn't here I have to make a decision and i'm struggling with this because if there was a question as to his vote being what the big discussion we had about this Camp Cardinal Road and when I went to it I read it several times. There's a question on whether he voted correctly on that. I can't be certain. The other one I have no question on that. But they were voted as a package and if one of them was wrong then there's a certain mount of doubt there. So I won't be able to support it. O'Donnell: How did you vote Irvin? Pfab: I wasn't there. O'Donnell: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 22 Page 81 Lehman: Okay. Pfab: So I can't speak from that point. Lehman: Alright. Let's have a roll call. The motion carries, 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 25 Page 82 ITEM 25 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. Lehman: (Reads item). Animal Care and Adoption Center Advisory Board one vacancy to fill a three year term January 1, 2003 - December 31st, 2005. Board of Adjustment one vacancy to fill a five year term January 1,2003 - January 1, 2008. Board of Appeals - two vacancies, one representative from the Home Builders' Association, and one Licensed Plumber to fill five year terms January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2007. Human Rights Commission-three vacancies to fill three year terms January 1,2003 - January 1, 2006. Parks and Recreation Commission - three vacancies to fill four year terms January 1, 2003 - January 1, 2007. Public Art Advisory Committee has two vacancies to fill three year terms January 1, 2003 - January 1, 2006. Senior Center Commission has two vacancies to fill three year terms January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2005. Those applications must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 14TM. Previously announced vacancies Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment one Vacancy to fill an unexpired term ending December 31st 2003. Airport Zoning Commission two vacancies to fill unexpired terms. One ending December 3 I, 2003 the other ending December 31, 2005. Those applications must be received by 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 30. Certainly an opportunity for folks to become involved in City government. So I would encourage anyone interested to contact the City Clerk's office and get an application and get it back to us. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 26 Page 83 1TEM 26 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION Lehman: (Reads item). Irvin? Connie? Mike? Dee? Vanderhoef: I have one thing. I would like to thank the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce. If you haven't seen it they have produced, along with the support of many advertisers from the Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty area, but we have now a new map now that's available. It covers all three cities. It has street locators. It also has Johnson County map on it so you can locate the streets and the roads out in the County. It's a wonderful addition to our City and thanks a lot. Lehman: Okay. Ross? Wilbum: Nothing. Lehman: Steven? Karmer: Is anyone else planning to go on the Parks and Recs tour? Lehman: I'm not. Kanner: Wednesday I think. Vanderhoefi I'm out of town. I can't. O'Donnell: I have to work. Champion: It's tomorrow right? O'Donnell: Yeah. Kanner: Yeah tomorrow. I'm planning....Steven if you talk to Terry tell him I'm planning on to go. I don't know ifI called him or not. Atkins: Okay. What time is the tour? Karmer: 4:00 p.m. Kanner: And what about the Chamber award? Is there anyone accepting the award in the name of the City that we're receiving? Atkins: I'll be there and Ernie will be there. Lehman: I'll be there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002. # 26 Page 84 Atkins: Right. I informed them that Ernie would accept on our behalf. Kanner: So if other people go that's a social event. It's okay if more than four...if four or more people go? Okay thank you. Two other things. One is on Sunday I went along with State Senator Joe Bolkam, and David Osterburg - a professor at the University on their mini- renewable energy ride they did for a couple days in Iowa. I joined them in Cedar Rapids and it was quite interesting. I went to the Prairie Woods retreat center in Hiawatha. I went to the Alliant Plant on 6th Street in Cedar Rapids and went to the UI Power Plant here. And it was quite interesting at the UI Power Plant in their co-generation which means they're boiling water and the steam is being used to turn turbines is being used to turn turbines to generate electricity and also providing hear for all of the University and it's something that's not being done in a lot of places and it should be. It makes the use of energy much more efficient. And the other thing they're doing both places are doing is they're burning oat holes from Quaker Oats up in Cedar Rapids. So instead of going to the landfill it's going into the power plant to burn instead of pulp. Champion: Burning what Steven? Kanner: Oat holes. Lehman: when they make Cheerios the holes come off. When they make oatmeal they get rid of the holes. Kanner: So it's very interesting and I appreciate it being able to take pa~ in that. And finally I wanted to thank U.S. Representative Jim Leach for his vote so far in saying we should not go to war with Iraq and opposing the President's resolution and I hope that more representatives will follow his lead. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 8, 2002.