HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-07 TranscriptionOctober 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page I
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session 6:30 PM
Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Dormell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn
Staff: Atkins, Boothroy, Dilkes, Fowler, Franklin, Helling, Howard, Karr,
Kelsey, Matthews, McCafferty, Nasby, Winkelhake
TAPES: 02-75, SIDE 2; 02-77, BOTH SIDES; 02-78, SIDE 1
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
VACATION OF STREETS ON AGENDA
P & Z Commission: Ancianx, Bovbjerg, Chait, Freerks, Hansen, Koppes, Shannon
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/OK, folks, let's get started. In order to make the transcriptions of the minutes
easier, I'm going to ask that each of us introduce ourselves so that the transcriber
of the minutes will recognize the voices, starting with you Mr. Wilburn.
Wilburn/Ross Wilburn, City Council.
Freerks/Ann Freerks, Planning and Zoning.
Chait/Benjamin Chait, Planning and Zoning.
O'Dormell/Mike O'Donnell, Council.
Hansen/Jerry Hansen, Planning and Zoning.
Bovbjerg/Ann Bovbjerg, Planning and Zoning.
Vanderhoef/Dee Vanderhoef, Council.
Lehman/Ernie Lehman, Council.
Champion/Connie Champion, Council.
Shannon/Dean Shannon, P and Z.
Kanner/Irvin's missing. Steven Kanner, Council. Here comes Irvin.
Anciaux/Don Anciaux, Planning and Zoning.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 2
Koppes/Beth Koppes, Planning and Zoning.
Lehman/OK. We are having this joint meeting, I think, relative to the vacation request
from the University of Iowa for Grand Avenue Court. Is that correct, Ann?
Bovbjerg/Yes.
Anciaux/I thought it also involved the Front Street (can't hear)
Lehman/It can.
Anciaux/And I'd like it to include some of that, too.
Lehman/OK. Fine.
Bovbjerg/Thank you, Don.
Lehman/Ball's in your court.
Bovbjerg/OK. What concerned us was the discussion at the Council formal meeting last
week about the Cannon Gay House and Grand Avenue Court, and it looked as
though the Council might be approving the vacation of Grand Avenue Court
without a specific signed legal document assuring and committing the University
to following the guidelines of the Historic Preservation Council here in Iowa City.
And this was disturbing several of us, and at our last meeting on Thursday night, a
strong majority of us had said that we had voted in favor of this because we had
certainly understood that this kind of signed document would be part of the
negotiating, part of the agreement, and that it's part of our motion here. It will
comply with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Ordinance and subject to the
treatment of the grounds complying to the Secretary of the Interior standards for
historic properties for the Cannon Gay House, a nationally registered listed
property at 320 Melrose Avenue, which Board has requested the vacation area.
Our concern on this piece, and we have concerns on the other two vacations this
same evening; our concern on this piece is whether there would be a binding
agreement to follow these regulations, because without such an agreement, a
majority of us said that we would not have voted to vacate it, which would set us
in opposition in case the Council voted in favor. So that would be our disconnect,
and that would be why we're here for that motion.
Champion/I'm wondering if we don't have four people on the Council who are only
willing to vacate if there is a legal document saying that very thing, because I
know that I was one of the people that didn't think it was important but have
changed my mind since I talked with people from Historic Preservation, and some
people are concerned about that house. I know Mike stated in the paper that he
thought there should be a written document. So I guess I'll ask how the other
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 3
Council members feel.
Pfab/I think that it should be hard to do with a written document, not just a letter.
Champion/Steven, what was your feeling on that?
Kanner/I think we need to take more time on all these vacations. In general, I do have
concern about the house also. I think we need more planning on working with the
University.
Wilburn/The questions I had were more related to the roads as opposed to the house.
Vanderhoef/I have concerns for both. The biggest one, probably, is the road. And the
road may be part of how and what can happen with the house. I would like to save
the house, saved in that location. I don't know how I'll come down on that. That
would--after we get all the planning done for the road, take a look at all of the
"ifs," but I am definitely looking at voting no on vacation until such time as the
road plan has been completed. That will give us time also (can't hear) the house.
O'Donnell/I think that's a delay of about six months or possibly longer. I don't have
trouble with Grand Avenue Court, in particular, the vacation. I'm a native Iowa
Citian and I've walked to and from the Fieldhouse and the football stadium every
weekend my whole life. Quite frankly, I've noticed the street was there but I've
never noticed traffic on it. The University privately owns every structure on it but
one. The Cannon Gay house, they have sent us a letter with their best intentions to
preserve this. What's the name of the house on Clinton Street?
Lehman/Shambaugh.
O'Donnell/Shambaugh house. I mean, that's an example, I think of the University's
commitment to our city. But I'm, I will not have a problem voting for the vacation
of the road.
Lehman/Well, I guess I'm satisfied with the letter from the University indicating their
intent to deal with that house in the same sort of way that they deal with other
historic homes. I don't know that I'm going to be in the majority on this one, but !
think that the University's track record with aesthetic things has been very, very
good, and I, no actually, their letter, stated intent to protect the Cannon Gay
McCloskey house is something we take very seriously, and they indicate two
other projects where they've spent $300,000 on one and $250,000 on another to
relocate historic houses, and that satisfies my concern. It may not satisfy
everyone's concern.
Champion/Really, if they're so intent on preserving the house, then I can't see why they
would have any trouble getting a letter (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City CounciI Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 4
Pfab/I agree with you, Connie, on that. I think that we not only, should the University, if
they're going to do it, what's the problem with putting it in the deed or in the,
developing a contract to that effect. And also, we have an obligation to the
citizens of Iowa City that the University, while they do, are very concerned about
the citizens, they don't have a legal obligation to the citizens that we do. They
weren't elected; we are. And we swear to take care of the confidence of the
citizens.
Lehman/Then I think it would be fair for us to indicate to the University folks tonight
that any consideration of the vacation tomorrow night would require a document
that would, I think, I don't, I think I hear four people or more who would require a
document that would ensure that this property would be protected in the way it
was passed by Planning and Zoning. That does not preclude relocation. Is that
what I'm hearing from Council?
Pfab/But, I think that's not all.
Lehman/All we're talking about is the Cannon Gay house right now.
Pfab/Well, but that's not the only objection there.
Kanner/Yeah.
Pfab/Dee brought up the,
Lehman/The discussion relative to the road is not a part of this discussion. We'll take
that up as another issue.
Pfab/Immediately afterwards?
Lehman/Well, no, we'll be discussing that tomorrow night when we talk about the
vacation. If we're here because of the apparent disagreement between the Council
and Planning and Zoning or the possible disagreement, is relative to the
preservation of the Cannon Gay house. That's what we're talking about.
Pfab/OK.
Lehman/My take is---
O'Donnell/What we're asking for, Ernie, is just a more strongly worded letter.
Lehman/I don't think that's right. I think what we're asking for, if I understand
correctly, is a legally binding agreement with the University to see to it that the
house is preserved.
Bovbj erg/Whatever it takes with our legal staff and our people to make it binding---
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 5
Lehman/A binding agreement.
Bovbjerg/Right, a binding agreement.
Chait/Wasn't it preserved in that location? I mean, I just don't recall.
Bovbj erg/As I recall, if it had followed Historic Preservation, it would be, the preferable
thing is in that location because the grounds are part of it. It is possible, from what
I understand, from what we were hearing from Historic Preservation people that
relocation is not out of, you know, off discussion. But keeping something where it
is because it is where it is is the most ideal.
Chait/One of the most significant arguments that was made about that house had to do
with the way it, the context in which it was set, the vista, the view from the house
and to the house. And I think that's going to be very difficult to preserve that and
move it. In terms of best effort to save the house, is a standard that is very, very
difficult to, you know, assess in any way. So it seems to me that it needs to be, the
way that we presented it was that this house stays here and gets preserves as it is,
to the best it can be. I'm not sure about the additions or things like that, and then
you would vacate that street.
Wilburn/Is that the bottom line of the Commission--it stays there or all efforts to keep it
there and if possible, save the house if it's relocated? Is that an option, so that it's
clear to the University what is there.
Shannon/I don't think it would be an option to me because my understanding is if you
move the house, you might as well get it out in the street and take the rights to sell
it because once you move something, it's lost its charter on Historic Places, from
what I understand. And I think, my feeling, is that it should stay there at all costs.
Originally, I was willing to maybe talk about maybe trading. But I've changed my
mind on that because we don't know what we need for the traffic over there. It
was brought to my attention that maybe we should be, slow up to look at that. If
we're in a big hurry to give that street away and we don't know if we need that
street or not. I've seen the City gives streets away before and then later on we
regret that we did that. But my question to you, the Council, is would you a
private manufacturer or any entity do what they've done? They just closed the
street off, put a fence across it, and that's where my problems start is they didn't
ask. At least they didn't ask you that I know of. Maybe they asked somebody in
the City but I don't think it's their call. I think it's your call.
Lehman/I don't know. My guess is that any construction project that would require--
well, I don't know that. I don't know what the process is for a temporary closing
of a street.
Dilkes/The Council has given the Public Works Director the authority to grant that
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 6
right.
Lehman/So they do have permission to close the street for construction. And I think
that's probably not uncommon.
Pfab/Was it, I mean, has it officially been granted?
Champion/Of course.
Pfab/Well, I'm asking.
Dilkes/There's a temporary use of right-of-way agreement, as I understand it.
Pfab/That agreement was---
Chait/To answer your question, Ross, I believe that the Commission did agree to vacate
the street if an agreement was in place to preserve the house in its current
location. That xvas our sentiment. And that if the house xvasn't in that location,
then we wouldn't agree to vacate the street.
Wilburn/OK.
Hansen/That would be my opinion, too. I just don't understand why we have a Historic
Preservation Commission to preserve these treasures of ours if we're going to
them. Why don't we just buy some land outside of town and move ali of them out
there and we'll just go visit them once in a while. You know, it just makes no
sense to me whatsoever.
Champion/I think you could be right about that. And maybe leaving the house in that
location also adds a little preservation to that neighborhood which is quite fragile.
Hansen/Well, you know, we have a Sensitive Areas Ordinance in town. And it doesn't
allow a developer to go in and just flat bulldoze an area and then build what he
wants. And yet that's what the University seems to want to do. They buy a piece
of property and they understand the City laws, but they just don't care about what
happens. They do it on their own.
Bovbjerg/We had been told then that's the way it is. The University doesn't necessarily
have to follow City ordinances, and that's understandable. And this is why we
said specifically that we wanted, the Commission, to comply with the Iowa City
Historic Preservation Ordinance. I don't know that ordinance well enough to
know that it absolutely precludes moving or relocating, but if they follow the
Iowa City Historic Preservation Ordinance, it seems to me that then there is an
understanding of what might or might not be done. But that is for these concerned
parties to look into and to hear from the Historic Preservation people because they
know; we don't know all the ins and outs.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 7
Freerks/The house is listed in the Southwest District Plan, which you'll be voting on
specifically by name. And, you know, there's at least a page about the Melrose
Avenue neighborhood, the need for the University and the community to work
together to try to tackle these issues. And with a growing University and I just
think we need to kind of stand by what we've decided and then take a close look
at the traffic issue.
Bovbjerg/On page 21 of the Southwest District Plan it talks about as property is
converted to University use, it will make this area less viable as a residential
neighborhood and asks the City to work on this. The City has little regulatory
power over the University since it's a state institution; however, it's an important
goal of the City to preserve and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods. The
City must make an assertive role in zoning and regulation of University properties
if it is to achieve these important goals. And later, on page 30, there are a number
of recommended actions for historic properties, one of which is: Encourage the
University of Iowa to balance expansion needs with the community's goal to
preserve existing neighborhoods. That kind of has it as a nutshell. How that is
done and what the rules and regs are might differ according to the property and
the neighborhood, but as you are servants of the people and we are a Commission
for the people, we try to look at the people's stake in all of this. I mean, yes, we
get the planning, we get the traffic people, we get'the engineering, but what we're
looking out for is the good of the City, everybody who lives here, including the
University people. And a lot of us are directly or peripherally part of that, trying
to look at the whole city as an entire thing, working together, living together, and
succeeding together.
Chait/I know what we're talking about specifically is this house and this location and
the vacation of this street. I think as a consequence as a tip of the iceberg, what
has started to surface, is the University's interaction with the City, in general, and
the planning that happens at the University and the perception of lack of
integration with planning that we do as a City, and those are much bigger issues
than--that's not an immediate thing that we can talk about. But I would certainly
like to see a little more ability on the part of us, the City, to have some interaction
with their plans. And, you know, I think one of the things done has some concerns
around this, you know, and in a different part of the community the same kind of
thing. Many years ago I heard somebody talk about the DOT in St. Louis area, as,
you know, they would roll out their plans and they would get all this opposition;
they would roll up their plans and they would pitch and haul them for, you know,
five or ten years till everybody was different, different population, different
issues, and they'd roll them out and then they would keep moving their issues
forward, and you know, I think the University kind of has the same ability to do
that--have a big plan and just whittle away and whittle away and we never know
what it is. And I don't think that that's something, from what I've heard,
anybody's very comfortable with except maybe the University.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 8
Bovbjerg/Aren't the letters from the University and their examples and ones that we've
seen also about moving houses--and Shambaugh is a wonderful example--I think
that shows that the intent and the spirit is there. What we were looking for was
something hard and signed and legal, just so that everyone isn't running around
assuming or thinking or waiting.
Lehman/I think I hear four Council folks who would also like something that is binding.
Is that, you would like something binding? You would? Steven?
Kanner/Well, and---
Letunan/We're only talking about the house now.
Kanneff Right, but then we have to, let's say they come up tomorrow with something,
there' s other issues---
Lehman/ Those we'll deal with but the issue we have tonight is whether, is the historic
house. And you would prefer a binding agreement with the University on the
house? This doesn't mean we're going to do the vacation. This means we
wouldn't consider the vacation unless we had this.
Kanner/I think that's a minimum.
Lehman/All right. You've got that.
Pfab/I think also, I think I'm hearing, there really is a consensus around this table that
preserve the house at that location. I think that that's what I'm hearing the vast
majority here saying, and I think that's what we should vote for, because the site
is an unusual site over there. It's next to the Law College. It has a lot of history. I
think, that's what I'd say, preserve the house at that location. At least the original
house.
Dilkes/It is unclear to me, as I've been listening, whether a majority of Council is in
support of, that there must be compliance with the Historic Preservation
guidelines or there must be compliance with the Historic Preservation guidelines
and it must remain in its present location. So, that we need to clarify.
Lehman/OK. Let's clarify that right now. This is strange, because there's so many other
issues that are going to have to be discussed tomorrow night.
Dilkes/Ernie, and you can discuss those other issues later on tonight, because the zoning
items are on your agenda tonight as well.
Lehman/Right. Right. But as far as the recommendation from Planning and Zoning was,
well, they're here, so obviously, following the guidelines as we have set down
could possibly enable them to move the house, and at the same time, follow the
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 9
guidelines. Is there support for an agreement that would allow--if there's a
binding agreement to follow the guidelines as set forth in our ordinance which
may or may not include moving the house, are there four people who would
support that?
Champion/I need to find out. I'm willing to (can't hear) the guidelines of the Historic
Preservation Commission and then this stays on National Registry---
Lehman/Which might mean that it might be moved.
Champion/What is that called?
Bovbj erg/Special register.
Champion/The standards of---
(Can't hear)
Champion/I'm not so sure. I guess I'd like to have somebody from the Historic
Preservation Commission address this issue for me on whether that means they
have to stay in that location or whether the house can be moved. Forcing it to stay
in that location in 50 or 100 years may not be the best thing for the house.
Lehman/Or for the University.
Champion/So, I guess I'd like to maybe have somebody here tomorrow night from
Historic Preservation Commission to help address that issue.
Pfab/I think there's another party at the table; that's the citizens of Iowa City. It may not
be the best for the house; it may not be the best for the University; but here, we're
addressing what is best for the people of Iowa City. And I'm not so sure
preserving that house there isn't the best for the people of Iowa City.
Champion/Well, I'm not so sure it isn't either.
Lehman/Eleanor?
Dilkes/Is there anyone here who can speak, staff, that can speak to the issue of what the
regulations are about moving a house? Is that--no? OK.
Lehman/Karin?
McCafferty/Yes.
Kanneff Could one or both of you come up to the podium, if you wouldn't mind?
Thanks.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 10
Michael Maharry/Questions? Regarding the Secretary of Interior standards, they don't
have specific guidelines you must move a house here, here, and here. What the
standards are is that even with the Shambaugh house, you can move it to a certain
location, meaning if you moved it to a brand new suburban development, that
would sort of remove the historic aspect of it, and it would thus no longer have
historic preservation standards. If you moved it into a location that is still within
the historic aspects of the house, which there, in the inm~ediate surrounding
community area, there could be, then it probably still would retain its historic
accreditation.
Lehman/But, I guess the question is if they follow the guidelines as set down in our
ordinance, would it be possible to move the house and still be within the
guidelines?
Maharry/Correct. And the major factor then is where it is moved.
Lehman/Right, right, but it would be possible to move it and still comply with the
guidelines?
Maharry/Yes.
Lehman/So I think that's the question that, we have the answer to that.
Vanderhoef/That would have to be in the agreement with the University then that we
would have to approve the location so that it maintains its historic---
Lehman/That would be automatic if they agree to go by the guidelines; we wouldn't
have to approve anything.
Dilkes/Yeah, I think you're looking at two basic options. You're looking at compliance
with the existing historic preservation regulations or compliance with those
regulations and some additional restriction that you all want to put on it, such as it
must stay in its present location, not withstanding the review by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Pfab/I'm going to offer a suggestion here. If we put the binding on, in the deed, and the
University has a great location that they want to move it to and it's agreeable to
the City, then I think we as a City could remove that. And then, so I would say,
let's start out with a stronger statement that there is no moving, and then at some
point in time, we can, it's a contract, it can be renegotiated, but I think it more
typifies the interest and the consensus here that we want that house to stay there.
Chait/Irvin, what i'm hearing is that it may be possible to comply with the guidelines
and move the house, until somebody makes a proposal about how that would
happen, we can't really judge whether it works or not. But being open to the
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 11
possibility that it could be done and comply with the guidelines, I think that the
mayor's recommendation of having it be written so that it needs to maintain
compliance with the guidelines is probably a more reasonable declaration as part
of this agreement than simply saying, "No way," you know, and that's just my
opinion.
Pfab/OK. All right. But at the same time, is it any different if the University came to the
City and said we have this terrific location. It's right in the middle of (can't hear).
It exemplifies what Iowa City looked like or whatever it is. We decide to move it
there. Is there any reason the City wouldn't give them permission to do it?
Chait/Yeah, as long as it, you know, complied with those guidelines, then we've already
decided that---
Lehman/Right, but then it becomes a political decision, and if the requirement, if
they're willing to sign an agreement to abide by the guidelines as set out in our
ordinance, that takes the politics out. From there on, it goes by the guidelines, if
they choose to relocate it, it has to be relocated with certain guidelines. Council is
out of the equation, which is probably where they ought to be.
Dilkes/The decision would be made by the Historic Preservation with a potential appeal
to the City Council, but as you know the City Council's review is very limited on
that appeal.
Lehman/Right.
Bovbjerg/I wanted to say that I think this makes it not only legal and safe, but it also has
us following ordinances so that anyone and everyone who has a property like that
has to go through the Same thing. And since it says preserve where it is, relocation
has certain restrictions, that would be redundant for the Council, I think, to put
that in. So, if it's there in the books, then nobody has to worry about it.
Kanner/Well, I would like to know also what are the standards for relocation that
Historic Preservation uses in determining whether or not something can be
moved?
Lehman/Why do we need to know that?
Pfab/Well, because we're going to vote on it---
Lehman/ No, no, we're going, they either follow the regulations or they don't. Now
those regulations have been set up, ! think, by the Secretary of the Interior; a lot of
hard work has gone into setting those regulations up. Either comply with them or
they don't. Correct?
Dilkes/I think, what I understand the chair is saying, is that there are not specific roles
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 12
and regulations that govern moving. Shelley, am I correct about that? There
would be some requirement of application of the guidelines to the request to
move.
McCafferty/Within the Historic Preservation Ordinance, within our guidelines, we do
not have guidelines specifically for moving. So all items that we don't have
specific guidelines for, we refer to the Secretary of Interior's standards. I've been
in correspondence with the State and the State has sent me a National Park
Service bulletin, preservation brief," regarding moving a house. What would have
to happen is, if we want to retain the National Register status, we would have to
prepare an amendment to the National Register nomination and that amendment
would have to be approved by the State. And the State would have to approve the
move. Basically, based upon that it's an appropriate location, siting, setting, etc.
So, that's the process that we would go through if we require the house to comply
with the ordinance.
Pfab/I bring, I mention what she just said here. Is there any less politics involved if we
decide it isn't going to be moved until something is brought to us or go through
that process?
Lehman/Well, I guess the question is, and we can belabor this all night, first of all, we
don't even know, I think we do know, we were told a week ago that the
University is not willing to give us a binding agreement. Well, I mean, we were
just, but if they'd choose not to give us a binding agreement, then all of this is
moot. But I think I hear a majority of the Council saying that if we have an
agreement that agrees to go along with the guidelines within our Historic
Preservation guidelines, that they would not consider the vacation in the absence
of such an agreement. Is that accurate?
Pfab/I would like to review in a little more detail precisely what you just said. I might
be able to go along with that by following---
McCafferty/Well, basically, in following the guidelines, the decision to move the house
if we maintained the National Register status, abide by the Secretary of Interior,
which is who we go by in absence of a specific local ordinance, guideline for
moving, the State would have review of it, as well as the Commission. So, really
it goes to a body higher than the Historic Preservation Commission itself, and so
that would ensure that it's moved to an appropriate place. At our last Historic
Preservation meeting there was sentiment that we wanted to provide some
flexibility for the University. And so that was, you know, based upon the Historic
Preservation Commission's last meeting.
Champion/So, if we do what Ernie said what we said we would do, would they have to
come to you before they move that house? Or would they say, Well, Iowa City
doesn't have other ordinances not about moving a house. So then they don't need
to talk to you?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 13
Lehman/They'd have to.
McCafferty/They would have to prepare an amendment and bring it to us first and then
we forward it to the state.
Lehman/Right.
McCafferty/OK?
Lehman/All right.
Wilburn/That'd be fine with them?
Lehman/I think we've dealt with that issue. OK.
Bovbjerg/Ready for one more vacation? Everybody in the mood for a vacation?
Lehman/Yes.
e. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF FRONT STREET
AND PRENTISS STREET GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
BURLINGTON STREET AND WEST OF MADISON STREET. (vac02-
00004) (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Bovbjerg/This is the one that was a request by CRANDIC Railway to vacate portions of
Front Street and Prentiss Street, and we had a couple of weeks discussion on this.
The motion was denied on a vote of 3 to 4. So there were 4 in favor of denial and
3 in favor of approval. And both this one and the other east of the river had
Commission concerns about, several concerns, one of which was access to the
river. And I wanted Don Anciaux to talk to you about that. He was a member of
the prevailing side.
Anciaux/OK. I'I1 pass this around. The City of Iowa City owns Prentiss and Street right
now. We have access through to the river but it's been fenced off by the
University so if a person wants to go down there fishing or something like that,
they cannot get through to the river. My main concern with vacating any of these
areas in here is that the University, as in this drawing here, is going to put a fence
up, the length of the thing between the river and the (can't hear) Now, on one of
our memos from John Adam, we are requesting that there be a blanket easement
so that we can get through to the river to go fishing or utilities or anything like
that. And, I think, the University's feet should be held to the fire on this also, just
like the house, like the street vacation. That they live up to their agreements and
not go back nn them at a later date at their choosing.
Lehman/Does the vacation, as it is proposed, require an easement? Is that not correct?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 14
Dilkes/Correct.
Anciaux/It does, but again, I want an easement in writing.
Lehman/It would be in writing.
Anciaux/Coordinated with the, or you know, recorded with the courthouse so when
somebody needs to or wants to go down there 50 years from now and the
University has blocked it off, they can come back and say, hey, we have access.
Dilkes/I don't think there's been any dispute that that would be a blanket easement in
writing, recorded, would mn with the land.
Lehman/Right. So, if we pass this, there would be an easement, and if we chose, let me
ask you this, if we chose, could we request that the fence be removed from our
easement?
Dilkes/Yes.
Lehman/OK.
Anciaux/The fence should be removed from our property right now.
Lehman/Right. No, no, I'm just asking, but if we have an easement all the way down to
the river, which we would have, even if we vacated, we could require that that
easement be kept open?
Dilkes/If the fence interfered with your access, yes.
Anciaux/Now, the other issue involved in this is we are vacating land to the CRANDIC,
and again, this is not really our bailiwick, but it appears we're vacating land to the
CRANDIC so that they can sell it to the University, which, I believe, was their
main concern.
Lehman/Mm..hmm.
Koppes/River access is very important. I think the blanket easement is a reasonable way
to go. I do have concerns of the fencing on the plan that you have here. It shows
the future where there is a fence across there.
Lehman/No, no, but I understand that.
Bovbjerg/My thing, I was borderline on both of them, and it pushed me over the edges
that the CRANDIC was asked so they could kill it. And it just seemed like a
wrong precedent to set, that you're selling property that's not yours.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 15
Franklin/If I could interject here, I can clear this up.
Lehman/Please do.
Franklin/The intent is to dispose of these vacated rights-of-way directly to the
University. The CRANDIC has agreed to that. That would be what our, that
would be in the---
Pfab/I would like to make a correction. The attorney for CRANDIC was here last, the
other night, and he said that some of these have been abandoned and pulled up.
There were no tracks pulled up. I just walked that thing this afternoon. All those
tracks are still in place. So, I, and then I have more questions because that part
isn't correct. There's all, there's three or four tracks there, and there's no sign of
anything that's been removed on this side, south of Burlington, as far down to the
trestle there.
O'Donnell/Irvin, did they say they removed them? Or did they say they abandoned
them?
Lehman/Abandoned them.
Pfab/No, they said they were--and removed.
O'Donnell/I don't recall that.
Pfab/No, the minutes will show that. So, I mean, I think the attorney probably thought
they were. But I went down looking for them, but they're still there.
Hansen/I'd like to jump in here for just a second. The City wasn't looking to vacate this
property, OK? The CRANDIC and the University got into a deal where they
couldn't do their deal unless the City got them into a position to do it. And, I
guess, you know, the best interests of the people of Iowa City is what we are
supposed to be voting upon. And I fail to see what's in the best interests of Iowa
City in this vacation.
Vanderhoef/Well, I would like to interject something because I agree with the majority
of P and Z that we shouldn't be vacating or if we do vacate, not convey. And I'll
tell you what my thoughts have been, and they've been swirling around now--I
just came back from a national transportation meeting, and I constantly hear the
conversation of the cities trying to get right-of-way from multi-modal. This is at
the end of Harrison and Prentiss is where the City has access to the CRANDIC.
And we heard Mr. Wilson say something the other day about still hoping at some
point in the future of having some sort of train connection perhaps from Oakdale
down to campus. I know this is visionary in looking in the long-term, but in my
mind, I was looking at where all of this could happen as I was looking at the
This represents only a reasonable accurate t~anscription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 16
University's plans for buildings. And what I see, the present use that the
University is wanting some of this vacation for, is possible to do and also do what
I think we should reserve for future inter-modal kind of transportation for the City
and the University, and that would be that, if you can envision a small train
station at the Prentiss Street right-of-way, and you use Harrison Street and the
alley as a one-way way to get to the station, we know just to the north of Harrison
Street is where the University is planning to build a parking ramp, which is part of
an inter-modal kind of transportation, that if you trained people in and they had
bicycle parking in their parking ramp, the bike would be there for anyone that
wanted to bike or someone certainly could catch a Cambus or they could catch a
Paratransit bus or they could catch a City bus, all in this area. So, in visiting with
Karin this afternoon about this idea, she said that vacation which means that you
no longer have it open for public use, can happen, but we would not convey the
land to the University. But all of that land that we wouldn't be presently using but
might be reserving for later use as an inter-modal, could be used as that surface
parking lot, as what they envision for the near future. The next one of the maps
that shows the railroad track and the alley better. Try the next map, the one that's
got the 02 on it. OK, that shows Front Street and then just to the east of Front
Street is where the alley comes down, so if you could; so, from Madison Street,
you would go west on Harrison and it doesn't show the alley coming down that
next block, but it's there. And then, where the arrow is right in there is where we
could have an inter-modal station and then put traffic right back out onto Madison
Street. So, my suggestion, if we did anything, is do the vacation but not the
conveyance, and that would serve the purpose of what you're talking about, Don,
that we still own the land and we can allow people to get to the river if that's what
we want them to do, and we will also reserve this land for future inter-modal.
Pfab/Dee?
VanderhoefJ Yeah?
Pfab/What would be wrong with just leasing the land to---
Vanderhoef/That's what I mean.
Kanner/That's what she's saying.
Vanderhoef/That's what I'm saying.
Pfab/So, don't vacate---
Lehman/You have to vacate to lease.
Dilkes/No, you have to vacate it before you leased it.
Vanderhoef/But you don't convey.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 17
Pfab/But, instead of just leasing, why don't we just lease it rather than---
Dilkes/You can't lease right-of-way.
Lehman/Public right-of-way.
Dilkes/You have to get rid of the public's right of access and then you can continue to
own it and lease it, if you prefer, rather than sell it.
Pfab/ Say that again.
Dilkes/You can vacate. You get the public's right of access across the area, and you
would continue to own it and as you can with any property the City owns, you can
either dispose of it by lease or dispose of it by sale.
Hansen/Eleanor, how can you get rid of the public's right of access and still maintain a
blanket access agreement?
Dilkes/Well, we're talking about a different situation now. We're not talking about a,
needing a blanket easement, because the City would continue to own that
property, and let's say the City would lease it to the University for a period of
time, one year at a time, two years at a time, I don't know, whatever you're
planning provides for. At the end of that lease you could do whatever you wanted
with it.
Hansen/But during that time then the public could not use that as access to the fiver?
Dilkes/Well, I suppose you could provide for that in the lease.
Lehman/I have a question about the little slivers that are showing on that map adjacent
to the railroad tracks. Now, we're being asked to vacate those. Who--the railroad
gets them, is that---?
Franklin/No. Remember, vacation merely takes away the public fight of access. So we
got the request on those from the CRANDIC Railroad.
Lehman/Right, to vacate them, but then---
Franklin/But then the next step is disposition, and at that point you dispose of to
whomever you wish. It does not have to be the applicant for vacation; it usually
is.
Lehman/Right. But no one, the railroad wants us to dispose of that property to them?
Franklin/No. The railroad has agreed that we can dispose of that property, if we dispose
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 18
of it, directly to the University and CRANDIC need not be an intermediary.
Lehman/So, they're not a party to this at all?
Franklin/No.
Lehman/OK. So there is no sale of property through this University from the
CRANDIC that was previously owned by the City.
Franklin/They're--no. Correct.
Lehman/Thank you. All right.
(Several talk)
Dilkes/Can i just?
Lehman/Please.
Dilkes/I think what happened is that the University and the CRANDIC entered into a
purchase agreement for the sale ora piece of property and which included these
pieces that CRANDIC is trying to vacate. And when the title work was being
done, as it is after a pumhase agreement is entered into, the examining attorney
determined there was a title objection, i.e., the little slivers were not owned by
CRANDIC and therefore CRANDIC had to obtain ownership of them in order to
convey them to the University, and as a result, CRANDIC has been going through
this process to try and do that.
Chait/When we got this issue, there were two different vacations, and this is what I sort
of want clarification on because I think I have it, but I'm not positive. One of
them had to do with the slivers, the pieces that everybody thought CRANDiC had
and when they tried to convey it, they realized that they didn't have it. So, it's just
a technical cleanup thing in terms of the best interest of the City or however those
concerns are raised. Everybody thought this was CRANDIC and they were just
going to sell it to the University. That was one of the vacations. The other one had
to do with the streets, and everybody always knew that the City owned the streets,
so I mcan, the cleanup is different than the streets.
Vanderhoef/And the alley.
Karmer/Karin, could you show what is CRANDIC hoping to sell to the University, with
your arrow there?
Franklin/Whoops, wrong direction. Let me go to this one.
TAPE 02-77
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 19
Franklin/...portions in your packet. That there's some property along here that
CRANDIC owns, here, and something up here. And these slivers are ail attached
to pieces that CRANDIC owned, which is how the whole story progresses that
Eleanor just conveyed to you, that they found that portions of those properties
they did not, in fact, own and are trying to clear title to.
Pfab/Question. If CRANDIC doesn't own it, who does own it?
Franklin/The City. The City owns the little slivers and CRANDIC owns the other part.
The University will buy from CRANDIC the other part. That's not something we
need to concern ourselves with.
Bovbjerg/Karin. So, technically the City will end up selling it to CRANDIC who will
sell it to the University.
Franklin/No.
Lehman/No.
Franklin/The City will convey it directly to the University because the concerns that
were raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission about the CRANDIC
Railroad and the potential conveyance to the University, we talked to the
CRANDIC Railroad and said, Can we assuage these concerns by just having the
disposition directly to the University of Iowa. CRANDIC had no problem with
that. They just wanted to get the whole thing done.
Bovbjerg/It looked to us as though what had been a two-step should have been a three-
step (can't hear) us to the CRANDIC Railway to the University, and so I don't
know---
Dilkes/But there's no difference in result. In fact, you can just, you can avoid doing one
extra deed as long as CRANDIC, as long as everybody's on board.
Bovbjerg/If it's legal and proper.
Dilkes/Yeah.
Pfab/Can someone tell me how big those slivers are? How many square feet are
involved in that? I walked down there--they look like they could be pretty large.
Anciaux/One's 300 feet long by about 70 feet.
Bovbjerg/Football field.
Pfab/300 by 70.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 20
Anciaux/It's sort of a triangular shape.
Pfab/That actually should have some value, shouldn't it?
Franklin/I don't know what that could be because a block is usually 320 feet by 320
feet, so I don't know what one you're talking about there, Don. Because, I mean,
even this one, the largest piece would probably be 80 by 150.
Anciaux/On Prentiss Street, right there?
Franklin/Yeah.
Anciaux/Where your arrow is, going up the thing there. I believe we own about a 300-
foot piece of property right in there.
Vanderhoef/That's the piece that I asked you about today.
Franklin/That's owned by CRANDIC and would be sold to the University. That is not
the City property. That's part of that block and it is not owned by the City. What
we're talking about in terms of what the City has control of are these little blue
things, OK? These little pieces.
Freerks/There's also the second, would be the pink. I mean, isn't there a slide of them
together? Right.
Lehman/Right.
Franklin/The pink is what the CRANDIC requested vacation of. The blue is what the
University requested vacation of. All of them in the end are for the use of the
University of Iowa for a parking lot on this block here and for access to their
power plant.
Pfab/My question is if we are looking in a visionary mode here, looking at some point
planning to put some kind of a depot, I guess it the right term, is there a better
term?
Franklin/No, that's fine.
Pfab/Maybe this is a time we should be doing some bargaining here.
Franklin/That's, I think, what Dee is suggesting. That you vacate these pieces but you
do not convey them. You vacate them such that they cannot be used as a street or
for vehicular traffic. You retain public pedestrian access over these to get your
access to the river, you retain ownership of them, and you allow the University
through some sort of arrangement--whether it's a lease or an agreement or
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 21
whatever which the Council would negotiate with the University or agree to with
the University--to allow them to pave this. That's their short-term goal. And if
you remember the long-term plan that you got, showed the chiller plant on this
piece fight here. That as such time as either a depot was ready to be constructed or
the University was ready to build their chiller plant, there would be a subsequent
discussion about this. But what Dee has described to you does not encroach upon
the use of any of these properties down here as the University has their plans. Ali
of this ground right along here, if you look in their plan, is not shown for building
space.
Wilburn/But it allows the legal title work to be clean so that CRANDIC continues
(can't hear) with the University.
Chiat/When land is conveyed, if it were to be conveyed, I mean, it's purchased, it's
bought at fair-market value or some assessed values, isn't it? It's not just given.
Franklin/Typically, but these are two public entities. The City cannot dispose of public
property to a private entity without that private entity paying fair-market value,
whatever that's determined to be. Between public entities, it's a little bit different
and I think I'll just defer to Eleanor on that.
Dilkes/There's no requirement that there be fair-market value for transactions between
public entities.
Franklin/I mean, the philosophy being it's all the taxpayers that are the original pot
anyway.
Lehman/Right.
Pfab/At the same time, has the University ever transferred any property that it owns to
the City? It looks like it's a one-way street.
Franklin/Yeah. We get (can't hear) Tower Place. When Tower Place was constructed,
that was University property on Gilbert and Iowa and we had a swap with them
on the water plant site and there were some, you know, there were complicated
negotiations.
Dilkes/There was payment for that site, but I think the better example is we do in our
public works projects all the time, we often get easements from the University and
we don't---
Lehman/Mormon Trek is a huge example of a lot of property that was transferred for
the boulevard that was built out there.
Champion/Right.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 22
Lehman/That was all University property.
Freerks/Well, Dee, I think your idea is a very good idea because it can meet the needs
of everyone. It addresses the concerns that Don has, it addresses your concerns
and the fact to have a vision for the future and it also would allow the University
to create a parking lot and have a storage---
Pfab/I guess I'm not concerned about the University using it or if and until the City
decides they're in a position to put up a depot there or whatever you want to call
it. At that point, how do we get that back from the University if we want to put a
depot there.
Lehman/If we vacate it, we haven't transferred it, we still own it.
Pfab/Well,---
Kanner/One thing is, Irvin, we want to make sure then that our leases are not too long.
We want to do something that's in our interest and keep it perhaps at a five-year
length.
Pfab/But, what I'm saying is how many city blocks are those little pink slivers worth?
How many housing blocks--eight, ten of them? 20? I don't know. Five, one, I'm
just looking for a number. Those are not, those things look small there, but when
you go down to walk them, they're not so tiny.
Lehman/Well, I have just a quick conmaent, well, I guess first I will ask the question. If
we were going to build an inter-modal station, a train station, would we build it
clear down there or would we build that somewhere along Burlington Street
where it has access to buses and taxicabs and whatever, why would we even
consider sticking it at the very south end of the University property? What I don't
understand--I understand the interest in an inter-modal facility, but if we were
going to plan this thing, would we plan to put it clear down there? I don't think
SO.
Pfab/Now you're getting to my point. That little sliver up there might be big enough to
put a depot on.
Kanner/That's right, next to the power plant. But---
(Several talking)
Pfab/Well, it's not that close, it's probably 150, 200 feet from there.
Kanner/But, Ernie, I think that--no it's on Burlington Street there.
Pfab/So how big is that, 70 by 100, or whatever it is?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 23
Lehman/Well, never mind. Steven---
Kanner/The point you're making, Ernie, is I think ~vhy we need to hold onto this
because whatever leverage we have with this small amount, we know that we
can't regulate the State. We don't know exactly where we want to place that or if
we're going to add that. We need to work with the University more in-depth to
talk about these issues. Also, we need to talk about the concern we have on and
losing housing sites. What happened on the Court, Grand Avenue Court, and is
happening up and down now. We heard screams on Lucas and Governor for the
same type of thing happening, housing, traditional housing sites, being torn down
and being replaced with large facilities. And we don't have any kind of ability to
regulate the University except with some of these things as negotiating chips and
say, Hey, let's sit down and talk and see what's going to be best in the future for
both of our entities, a year from now, five years, 20 years from now.
Transportation, housing, we need to talk more, and that's why I think it's not
appropriate now to convey these. Maybe vacate, but certainly not to convey, and
we need to talk about visions like Dee is proposing and others have proposed.
Vanderhoef/Ernie, in answer to question, why would you ever put a depot down there, I
would envision that we heard Mr. Wilson say two weeks ago about the place over
where the bridge is at the International Center and the new parking facility, that
they have a location planned out there. I would suspect that if this were to happen,
there would be something near the main campus, near the Union, and this would
be down near another parking center. And as I see the plans for the building of
University, they're coming south of Burlington all the time. So, there could be
three stops or four stops along this.
Lehman/OK. I think we've done ali we need to do at this site. We're going to talk about
this tomorrow night.
Bovbjerg/Don had one more thing and we're going to give him a chance.
Lehman/Don, yes.
Anciaux/If what Dee states happens and what the City Attorney has stated happens, I'd
be happy, just so there's an access down there. That's the main thing. The other
thing is I would like to lodge a complaint, so to speak, when the University comes
to Planning and Zoning, we get a piece of paper, no presentation--they seem to
save that for the City Council. We're making decisions in the dark, and I think the
City Council needs to stress to the University that they need to follow the process
to come in with a PowerPoint presentation that they give you, given to us; it's like
I say, we had no idea what's going on right now.
Vanderhoef/Well, Don, we didn't have one either until we asked for it, and we got it on
the night of the public hearing.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 24
Lehman/Right.
Anciaux/Well, I think it needs to be coming to us---
Vanderhoef/(can't hear) the maps and the planning.
Pfab/I guess I'm going to make one final plea here. I think that what we should do
before we move on any of these is sit back and say, What are the University plans
and ~vhat are the neighborhood plans and what are the City plans? Why don't we
put this down on a piece of paper so everyone has their input and we all know
where xve're going.
Lehman/OK. We're going to talk about that tomorrow night. I thank you folks from the
Commission for being with us. We appreciate it, and I think before we start the
next item we're going to take about a five- or six-minute break.
(BREAK)
REVIEW OF COUNCIL ALCOHOL INITIATIVES
Lehman/OK. Eleanor, we are ready.
Dilkes/I don't have a whole lot more to say than what I said in my memo to you. I can
review it briefly if you'd like.
Lehman/Why don't you go through it briefly.
Dilkes/OK.
Lehman/Thank you.
(Laughter)
Lehman/I'm sorry. I apologize.
Dilkes/I let (can't hear) speak for me.
(Laughter)
Dilkes/Now in 2000 and 2001, as you no doubt remember, the City Council went
through a lengthy process and considered a number of mechanisms to address the
problems of underage drinking and binge drinking and arrived at essentially two
initiatives that the City Council decided to pursue and implement beginning in
August of 2001. Those two initiatives were to begin to pursue administrative
penalties and as we discussed at some length back then, the administrative
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 25
penalties are already authorized by the State Code. Essentially, what they are, it's
an attempt to hold establishments or owners accountable for the actions of their
employees. And, for instance, if the employee serves an underage person without
making reasonable efforts to determine whether the person is of drinking age,
there is a criminal charge that can result from that against the employee of the bar
which then upon conviction can be followed up with an administrative penalty,
and those penalties are graduated for first, second, third, and fourth convictions of
employees of the bar, and the penalties are set forth in the memo. Essentially, 500
for the first conviction, 30 days for the second within a period of time, 60 days for
the third, etc. Technically, a conviction is not required in order to pursue an
administrative penalty. By law, criminal conviction is not required. The system
that we have set in place in working with the Alcoholic Beverages Division is to
pursue those administrative penalties--for the most part, there have been some
exceptions to this--but for the most part, upon conviction. And the reason for that
is upon conviction the State Statute and our local ordinance is very clear about
what administrative penalty then kicks in. You'll also remember that after going
through the ordinance process and talking about administrative penalties, it was
the Council's direction that my office refer those criminal charges to the State
Alcoholic Beverages Commission, rather than having the City Council initiate the
penalties, which it could choose to do. I think there were essentially two reasons
for that. The City Council was of the mind that the State Alcoholic Beverages
Division, whose only focus is compliance with alcohol laws, would be less
susceptible to political pressures than would the City Council. In addition, there's
an automatic appeal, or there's an appeal to the Alcoholic Beverages Division if
the Council would do it initially anyway. Those were factors that you remember
canoe into play with the Etc. fire. So, I think, my initial impression is that the
enforcement effort by the police department is having the intended effect; i.e., the
intended effect is to have the establishments take responsibility for the actions of
their employees in allowing underage persons access to alcohol. The actual
compliance checks that the police department has been doing did not really start
until April of this year, so we've only had seven months of those twice-monthly
compliance checks. And we've gotten the results that you see attached in the
exhibit. My recommendation would be that to truly evaluate the effectiveness of
this, you'd want to give it some additional time and reevaluate it after that period
of time. But, it appears anyway at this point, to be having the effect that you all
intended when you implemented this. Let me just talk briefly about the specials,
and then we can have questions. The Council's second initiative was to put in
place some limitations that are not in place at the state level but to put in place
some limitations on drink specials, two-for-ones, all-you-can-drink, as well as
out-of-sight sales. Out of site sales and drink specials have two different--the
intention in those provisions is different. With all-you-can-drink and two-for-
ones, the intention is to get at the over-consumption or the binge drinking. With
out-of-sight sales, the intention is to get at the underage person, how many
servings or drinks or whatever you want to call it, one person can purchase or be
served, and then take them out-of-sight of the bar staff and distribute them to
underage people. That was the intention of that provision. As you know, there's
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 26
been difficulty with the use of the term "serving." I think if you want to continue
to have that provision on the books, we probably should change it to "container,"
which I think is an easier term to define and less susceptible to different
interpretations, which I think "serving" is. As I said in the memo, I think there's
going to be some difficulty with that provision from the perspective of the bar
owners who we talked to when we first started this provision and they brought up
issues about, you know, drinks that arc served, typically served in more than one
container--there's something called a "shot," or a "stoplight," that's got three shot
glasses stacked on top of each other. That would be three containers, arguably one
serving. And we had told the bar owners we would treat such a thing as one
serving, a shot with a beer chaser, that kind of thing. But ! think if you want to
clarify the ordinance and make it less susceptible to ambiguity, then we want to
change it to "container." Those are my recommendations. Sergeant Troy Kelsey is
here, who has been heading up the enforcement effort, the compliance check by
the police department. He can answer any questions you have. Chief Winkelhake
is here.
Pfab/I have one question. You mentioned thc fact that one of the things that we were
working on was out-of-sight sales was to keep, prevent sales to underage people.
Well, but not---
Dilkes/No, not sales. It's to prevent access.
Pfab/What about, and I'm asking this as a question, this is one of those questions I don't
know the answer to. What--is that also not a way to help the bar from getting in
trouble from serving to people who already have the capacity of alcohol? Reached
their capacity of alcohol?
Dilkes/That's not how I view that provision.
Pfab/But is there not also a connection that way?
Dilkes/You may see one; I don't.
Pfab/OK.
Lehman/Why don't we have Officer Kelsey---
Vanderhoef/I want to ask one question.
Dilkes/OK.
Vanderhoef/You just mentioned the container versus the serving. When you were
talking about the shot plus the beer chaser. How are you counting that now?
Dilkes/If you change it to "containers," I'd say that's two containers.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 27
Vanderhoef/And as it presently is, it's considered one.
DiIkes/Well, I think there's some ambiguity there. What we had told the bar owners
when you passed the ordinance and we started talking about enforcement is that if
there was a serving or a drink that was typically served in more than one
container, like the examples I gave you, that it would not be our intention to treat
those as two servings or three servings.
Vanderhoef/That was a misunderstanding I've had then since the beginning, because I
would have counted them each, because of the amount of alcohol per container
there, I would have counted that as two drinks.
Dilkes/Well, your example illustrates the difficulty in other words.
Vanderhoef/I get it now.
Kanner/The recommendation that I agree with that Council should consider whether
limiting two-for-one and all-you-can-drink specials has the intended effect when
an establishment can reduce its prices in such a manner that encouraged over-
consumption, the ordinance is limited, is intended to limit. You go on to say that
remove (can't hear) or remove language which would have prohibited
establishments from reducing the price of alcoholic beverages from that
customarily charged. So that's a thing I think we should reconsider and if we
implement that, perhaps we don't have to deal with these issues in any substantial
way, because you get a beer and a beer is a dollar, and you can have two-for-one,
they could just lower it to 50 cents. We just saw recently 50 cents for a pitcher in
a new bar opening up.
Dilkes/I did suggest that you might want to consider that, but that is distinct from the
serving container issue because that's the out-of-sight sales portion. That's really
not to do with the specials.
Lehman/Why don't we get Officer Kelsey's take on this and then we'll get into a
discussion.
Wilbum/As he approaches, I wonder, Troy, if you could maybe give us a picture too of,
during this period of time, I know the rates of compliance, you gave that in your
memo, but has there been consistency in terms of effort by you all in doing those
checks, and what efforts have you seen in some of your relations with the liquor
license holders for them to, you know, increase their compliance, whether that's
more training with staff or asking for you all for--could you paint that picture for
us?
Kelsey/Can I start with Ross's question while it's fresh in my mind?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 28
Lehman/Sure.
Kelsey/My efforts have been fairly consistent since April. Up to that point I was trying
to draft a letter and meet with the bars and make sure that they understood the
ordinances and the laws the same way I did and that we were all on the same page
before I did enforcement. If they had any questions, I wanted them to be answered
before I started enforcement. Since April I have gone out--it's usually two or three
nights a week once a month--and tried to hit at least the core downtown bars. I
have limited resources. I've tried to focus where I perceive the problem to be.
This is with some discussion with my command staff and with City legal. I have
gone around to the bars; the compliance checks consist of me sending an
underage person, a 19- or 20-year-old in with their real I.D. They present that I.D.
They present that I.D. at the door or at the bar whenever they're asked. If they're
asked their age, they tell them how old they are, they accept whatever stamp or
wristband they get, they proceed to a server, a bartender, a wait staff at some
point, and order a bottle of an alcoholic beverage. If they are served, I have a
plainclothes officer who is in there witnessing the transaction and also as a safety
valve, if you will, in case something would go wrong. My buyer leaves. I go in.
The plainclothes officer points out who did the service. I then make contact with
either a bar owner or bar management and tell them what happened, answer any
of their questions, allow them to see my buyer, allow them to see how that person
was stamped or marked, versus my of-age plainclothes officer, how they were
stamped or mark. So there is some feedback, if you will, as to their door-check
procedures. I explain what's going to happen as far as the charge and what the
civil penalties will be some point down the road. Once they don't have any
questions, I ask them to bring their employee out, so that I'm not just going in on
a busy night and yanking staffoff the line and leaving them in a lurch. I then deal
with staff. I have intentionally, Ross, taken away any discretion I have in the field
because I don't want it to be a case-by-case basis at the bars where there can be
any suggestion or perception that I'm showing favoritism to Billiards Club or to
Vita's or to Enc.'s. I'm treating everybody the same. I don't want to hold court on
the sidewalk. That's what court is for. What am I seeing as a result of that? Yes,
the bars to varying degrees have been responsive. Some bars had decent systems
in place; some bars didn't at the beginning of it. Some bars, as a result of me
sending out that letter, contacted me and said, What can we do? They had me in,
they had me do, I went through what I understand the ordinances and laws to be
with their staff, what I expected of them as the person who is overseeing
enforcement. I again answered any question that either management or staff
would have. As a result of failing these compliance checks, there have been more
bars that have stepped up and said, You know what--we thought we had a good
procedure in place. Our door check worked perfectly, but maybe there's problems
inside. So, to varying degrees, either as a result of violation or a result of just the
dialogue that I've opened with these bars, I've had them contact me, I've gone in
and done talks to staff. I have learned from the bars. We've brainstormed ideas
and they have on their own, some of them, come up with some innovative
solutions, I think. In addition to my external audits, or checks, of them, some bars
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 29
are now doing their own internal audits where they will send someone around
without, say, a wristband that says they're legal. It doesn't matter whether that
person is 40, like me, or that person is 19. They go around; they should not be
able to order and receive a drink without a wristband, if that's what it takes, no
matter how old they look. And that is an internal check that the bars have come up
with--I will credit that to George Etre at Etc.'s. That was his idea. I had not
thought of that. They, some of the bars, have incentives for their employees.
When they pass my checks, there's some monetary incentive. That incentive is
anywhere from $25 to $300. Other bar owners and staff feel very strongly that
they hire their employees, part of what they're supposed to be doing is checking
I.D.s and therefore they're not going to reward an employee for doing his or her
job. That's a business decision. I personally like the incentives. I think, I don't
think that there should be an adversarial relationship, me against them, or the
police against the bars. I think we should be working together toward compliance.
If that makes an employee try that much harder, then so be it. George Etre,
another thing that we talked about just today, that he's come up with, again, credit
where credit is due--is they're instituting a practice where even if I, as the
bartender, Eleanor comes up and orders a drink, and I can see as she is sitting
there or standing there that she has a wristband, I need to say, Will you hold up
your wristband for me? What that does is it enables the managers who are
working the bar to identify employees who are not following through and
checking I.D.s. From across the room, I can see that Angie isn't holding up her
hand back there when she gets a drink. Or if she is holding her up, I know my
server is doing a good job. Again, I think that's a very simple approach, I think
it's very innovative, and I wish I'd thought of it. I didn't. So, bottom line is, yes,
the bars are making an effort. They've changed, some of them have changed the
way they stamp and mark. I really think that most bars are not doing business as
usual as it was done 20 years ago when I was here in school. I think that most bars
are making an effort, some more than others, some maybe are a little late getting
on the boat, but they are that direction. My enforcement efforts have been
consistent. I did not do any enforcement in the month of August. I had it set up;
my volunteer that month came down with tonsillitis and it was too late for me to
reschedule. But other than that, I've been out April, May, June, July, and
September. I've been hitting for the most part the same core bars. There's a few
that I don't hit; there's a few that I do hit. It's not the exact same sample month to
month. The first month 30 percent of the bars failed; the second month 50 percent
failed. That's abysmal. That's poor. The last two months 16 percent have failed
both times. I think that's a good improvement, and I think in a large part it's due
to increased efforts on bars. I am not doing anything different. I do follow up
when they fail. I do follow up if they pass. I come in and I identify to
management who it is that passed so that they can either give that monetary
reward or at least give some recognition to the employee. There are some bars
that look for~vard to seeing me. The staff looks forward to seeing me come in;
their employees look at it as a money-making opportunity and they beg me to
check them next time. They say, Look, this is my area. Here is where I work; I
want you to check me next time. Other bars hold their breath and hope that they
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 30
pass. Even if you look at the bars that have had trouble, and I will for the sake of
this discussion, single out, say Morgan's in the Sheraton. I've had dialogue with
Kevin Franks, their manager, with Chuck Goldberg. As a matter of fact, when I
finish here, I'm going to go up and meet with Kevin Franks and set up some
training. Is it too late? Yeah, it's unfortunate that it didn't happen earlier; but it is
happening. Vito's has not had a very good record either, but I met with their
attorney today and talked about it and we went through some different
suggestions on what has worked in other bars and while they have reacted to
every time that they have failed, they have done so without consulting me.
There's nothing that says they need to consult me, but I can at least give them
some guidance at what has worked in other bars. Atler this discussion with their
attorney, that's pretty much what he said, too. You need to talk to them. Some of
these extra people that they've hired, I'm going to start having them do these
things that other bars have instituted successfully and I'd like you to come in and
talk to their staff. So, I do think that there is a move toward more responsible
serving, long story short. Questions? I'm sorry, someone else had one and I forgot
what it was.
Lehman/You covered an awful lot of ground there.
Vanderhoef/Yes, you did. IfI counted correctly, I see 14 of the cases right now are set
for trial. And I know that a couple have not, have been thrown out. So I'm curious
whether this is a possibility that we're going to see more and more legal challenge
to this as time goes on; what are your expectations here?
Dilkes/The ones that were thrown out were the specials, the new law that you all
enacted at the local level. One point that I wanted to make earlier: remember, the
law that makes it illegal to serve an underage person without making reasonable
efforts to see if they're of age has been on the books for years. The only thing that
changed in August is that Council said start enforcing it. That's what changed. In
terms of the cases that have been set for trial, I think we, those are mostly now,
the sales to underage or the serving of underage people. And I think we will see
more set for trial. I think you will see them contested at the criminal stage,
because once there's a conviction, the way the Code reads is the penalties are
almost, virtually automatic. So, if you contest the charge, you need to do it at the
criminal level. So it makes perfect sense for the bars to be contesting at that stage.
Whether, you know, I don't think we're going to have some of the issues with
semantics; we shouldn't have the issues with semantics that we had with the new
legislation.
Vanderhoef/OK.
Dilkes/But, you know, I think there will be some acquittals.
Kelsey/May I add to that?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 31
Dilkes/Mm..hmm.
Kelsey/If you do look at the sheet that Eleanor provided, that I believe you're referring
to, there are some of my charges; the staff providing persons under legal age that
have also been dismissed. Again, as I've said, I've tried to take any perception of
favoritism away at the street level. IfI did a check, and let's say, the doorman
mismarked my underaged buyer, my underaged buyers come from Kirkwood
Community College in Cedar Rapids. They would still proceed in with whatever
mark they're given. They aren't regular bar-goers down here and they would try
to order a bottle of beer, for instance. If that bottle was served and the bartender
then told me, you know, look, I checked, I saw that he had an I.D., Iarn still
issuing the citation that night. That is still the person who provided the alcohol to
my buyer. I also give them a referral to, I suggest they contact their own legal
counsel. I refer them to my contact at the county attorney's office and before I go
home that night, I send an e-mail to my contact at the county attorney's office
saying, here are the particulars of that case. If this person and/or his or her
attorney contact you, I don't have any problem with letting this charge go. There
are potential problems with this. So that is why some of even my charges have
been dismissed. As far as going to court, yes, the businesses and their legal
representation tell me that they think that it's business, good business sense that
they need to contest all the charges on the chance that they beat them. Because, as
Eleanor said, if they allow their employee just to plead guilty to it, the sanctions
are automatic.
Dilkes/It's really very similar to the tobacco penalties that you deal with now. You
know, once there's been a conviction, that's basically all it takes to administer the
penalty so the place to challenge those for the people who are being charged is at
the criminal court level. The dismissals that Troy is talking about are different
than the ones you've read about in the paper where the judge has tossed them out.
Those are dismissals by the prosecuting attorney, the Johnson County Attorney's
office, in a way that's not uncommon with ail sorts of charges; i.e., you look at the
charge after you sit down and you say, Oh, I think we've got problems with this
charge; I'm not going to pursue this particular one because I think it's going to be
difficult to get a conviction.
Kelsey/There's a difference between the proof level I need to charge or the evidence
that I need to charge and the evidence that I need to get a conviction.
Lehman/I'm sorry, go ahead.
Champion/When your minor gets the wristband and it's a legal one to drink, like you
said happened, then why doesn't that person get charged? 1 mean, I don't
understand. Somebody's got to be responsible for that minor being able to get a
drink.
Kelsey/The way the Criminal Code is written is I, as an enforcement officer, can charge
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 32
the bar and/or the employee responsible. Now, in discussion with both City legal
and the County Attorney's office, there is some hesitation, a lot of hesitation on
filing a criminal charge against the bar when it's say a 20-some-year~old
employee who for whatever reason, whether it's an honest mistake or just poor,
you know, they aren't being diligent, for me to charge a bar, I would need to
almost be able to show that they, that this is what they encourage. You know, if
Lou back here is the owner of Billiard's Clubs and Fieldhouse, ifI went in to Lou
and my buyer every time he went to Lou, Lou said, Oh, I'm letting you in anyway
and giving you a stamp, then maybe the bar would be culpable because he is the
owner of the bar. In the examples that I've given you, my doorman made an
honest mistake or a not-so-honest mistake but he put a wristband on. He is not
providing alcohol. He might be allowing a person into an environment that they
then may use that wristband to get alcohol, but for me to charge him, I'd have to
show that, for me to be (can't hear) that that was his intent, was that he
mismarked that person so that they could go in and get alcohol. That's more of a
breakdown in the system, and I deal with that again with my immediate follow-up
to the bars. And if it's a chronic problem and I address it to the bars and I address
it to them repeatedly and it continues to be a problem, then I think that you have
made a case possibly for charging an establishment in that I've identified this
problem month after month, you haven't resolved it, at this point I'm going to file
charges.
Dilkes/Just basically, there's not criminal vicarious liability. You have to be, you
personally have to have an intention to act, in order to impose criminal liability.
That's not so with civil penalties which is the way this system works, is the bar
owners can be held civilly responsible for the actions of their employees but not
criminally unless it's very egregious as Troy was explaining.
Lehman/Eleanor, you said in your memo that, well, I guess to quote you "the pursuit of
administrative penalties is having the intended effect." Would you concur with
that? I think I heard you say that compliance is much better today than it was a
year ago today.
Kelsey/I think that my enforcement efforts have resulted in better compliance, whether
that is my enforcement efforts or the fear of administrative penalties, because
there really haven't been that many administrative penalties that have been
handed down yet; it takes a while for them to happen. But yes, my personal
opinion is that fear of administrative penalties is what is compelling many of the
bars and the management to do the better j ob that they're doing. There are some
businesses that did a good job from the very beginning. There are some bar
owners and managers that again want to continue to do business status quo--this is
the way we've always done it. This has encouraged, I believe, those people, who
on their own didn't take action. I believe that it has encouraged them to try harder.
They do not like to face a 30-day shutdown or a closure.
Lehman/I think I also read that the compliance checks, although they've been limited to
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 33
downtown bars at this point, there are plans to do those other places within the
community?
Kelsey/Correct. I am not getting any special resources to do these, Mayor. I am pulling
from my officers, which is why they're being done after 11:00 and why they
aren't being done, for instance, on restaurants that close before 11:00. At this
point it has been most efficient to go out on foot patrol with my buyer and my
plainclothes officer and circulate among the bars that I perceive there to be a
problem. I have tried to check the outlying bars and in meetings with City legal,
City manager, and the chief and the captain of field operations, it was decided that
I now should expand that, and if that means checking the downtown bars less
often so that I can bring in the outer-lying'bars, that's what needs to be done.
Hopefully, I'll be able to do both.
Lehman/OK.
Kelsey/Yes, sir.
Pfab/I have one question. (Can't hear) You say that there were some bars that were in
compliance before you (can't hear) them. Why is that?
Kelsey/Some bars made a better effort before I started.
Pfab/Some are now catching on to, might be, are you aware of any that are saying this is
loss of business? Is that, is there a possibility in your mind that this will make
(can't hear) some officer that are not (can't hear)?
Kelsey/No.
(Laughter)
Kelsey/I think that they are concerned, even the ones who think that what we always
did was good enough. And even the ones that have passed all my compliance
checks, those bars, many of those bars have still taken the offer of dialogue that I
have given them and have contacted me and I work with them. I'm downtown
almost every night that I work, and I have an open dialogue with them, and we
talk about what works and what didn't. And these are bars that have passed all my
compliance checks. They are very aware of what's happening and is a motivating
factor, I believe.
Lehman/All right. You know, when we passed this ordinance a little over a year ago,
we indicated that we would like to have an update at the end of a year to see
whether or not it was doing what we intended for it to do. This is time we've
gotten a report. I think Eleanor's indicated that she feels that it is having the
intended effect; Officer Kelsey also seems to say the same thing; now there are
some issues that we need, I think we need to answer. Are we interested in
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 34
continuing, let the ordinance continue the way it is for another year, which
Eleanor kind of indicated that more time would be appropriate. Is that something
that we are interested in doing?
Vanderhoef/I was just thinking since we've had basically six months of compliance
checks that at least send us a review in another six months on what's happening
and what the percents are, and by that time, more of these will have gone through
the court and we'll have a better idea and we'll decide then whether we need
another conversation.
Lehman/However, I do think we need to address the concerns that Eleanor pointed out.
Vanderhoef/The container.
Lehman/The container wording.
Vanderhoef/I do, too.
Lehman/Would Council concur that you, Eleanor, would draft changes to that ordinance
that would address the issues that you have relative to the words "container,"
instead of "serving"?
Dilkes/Right. That's one of the issues you need to decide.
Vanderhoef/I would like you to go forward with---
Dilkes/There's a couple other minor changes that I would make, too.
Pfab/That was my next question. Are there any other things that might---
Dilkes/I'll take a look at it. There may be a couple very minor things that I'll change in
the process, but they'll be very minor.
Pfab/And before you do, you'll get back to us.
Dilkes/Well, it would be an ordinance change, you'll have to pass it.
Lehman/Do we concur in that?
Wilburn/Yes.
Pfab/I support that.
Champion/Yeah, I do.
Lehman/Status quo and you make---
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002. Council Work Session Page 35
Kanner/(Can't hear)
Lehman/The consensus of the Council seems to be that the ordinance is producing the
intended effect that was envisioned when it was passed, that we proceed for at
least another six months getting numbers back at the end of that period, such as
we received in this report, and Eleanor be directed to make those changes, which
are of a rather minor nature, but would come back to us in the way of an
ordinance amendment.
Champion/I also would just like to say that I'm happy to see that we're doing some
compliance checks and I'm glad to hear that the bars are making an effort. I still
think that we're not really attacking the underage drinking problem that we have
in Iowa City. We're certainly attacking the ability of the powers to give minors
alcohol, but we're not attacking how their friends get them alcohol or how they
get alcohol once they're in a bar. That's something we haven't attacked at all,
because it's impossible to attack.
Lehman/Well, we have when they get in the bar, that's precisely what we're doing.
Champion/No. I'm (can't hear) about going to get your two drinks or two containers,
you're taking them back to the table, and you're giving them to your minors.
Lehman/Oh.
Champion/And that's still going on full-force. So, although I still think we still have to
seriously consider--but I'm willing to wait--to see what happens at the end of six
months. I think we need to seriously consider making our bars 21. Making it,
taking away this great opportunity we have for minors to be abusing alcohol and
probably making it easier for bartenders to deal with the minor situation.
Pfab/I would ask you, and I---
TAPE 02-77 SiDE TWO
Pfab/...it follows up on what I was--are we putting enough resources, are enough bar
checks being done, at least as we're starting to change the attitude of the people
that are running these, so that they will be more, they find it to their advantage to
comply.
Lehman/Did you see in the packet the number of charges that have been filed? And you
heard Officer Kelsey indicate that change in attitude.
Pfab/Well, but I heard him say something else. He said with my limited resources---
Lehman/His limited resources have been incredibly successful.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 36
Pfab/And again, Connie is saying but I know there's other things going on. So what I'm
saying is should we be directing more resources so he can get on top of it---
Champion/ We can look at that at budget time.
Lehman/That's coming up pretty quick.
Pfab/But, is this generating funds that can help do this and increase the enforcement
level?
Lehman/I don't think this is a fund generator. This costs us money.
Dilkes/And the charges are State charges and the civil penalties are being administered
by the ABD.
Pfab/So, where do the civil penalties go to?
Dilkes/To the State.
PPab/To the State? I thought they were coming to---
Champion/ No, I wish we were getting them.
Dilkes/If you want to impose the civil penalties, then they'll come to you. Correct.
Vanderhoef/Eleanor, could we have a breakdown. We get e-mails and there are letters
to the editors that talk about don't you have something better to do than charge
140 or 150, I mean there's different numbers that show up, for charging an
underage drinker. I would like to see either from you or from the police
department, where those monies go in a breakdown so people are educated about
where the monies are because I'm real clear that we're not making money off of
it, but that seems to be the story that keeps circulating.
Dilkes/Well, the (can't hear) charges are for the most part City charges.
Vanderhoef/Yes. And where do the dollars go? Oh, here comes Andy.
Kelsey/With respect to criminal charges, if it's a City charge 90 percent of the fine is
returned to the City. There are separate court costs and surcharge that stays with
the State, 10 percent gets placed in the State Court Administrator's fund. It's the
same numbers if it were a State charge; in that case, the City wouldn't see any of
those fines.
Vanderhoef/Could we just get a memo on that so that it's clear for everybody?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 37
Dilkes/Yep.
O'Donnell/Do you have any idea the total number of PAULAs we had in the year prior
to the alcohol ordinance?
Lehman/You have to speak in a mike. Marian can't hear you when you don't do that
and she gets really kind of irritated. She gets mean.
(Laughter)
Kelsey/I do have that information. I did not bring it with me. Last year our PAULA
numbers were the lowest that they had been, I believe, in four years. That may be
good; that may be bad. If you look at the numbers, there was a gradual decline
and I'm telling you that this year our numbers are very high again. Part of that
may be change in attitude; part of that may just be change in personnel that are
downtown. As an example, I returned to late nights as a sergeant at the very end
of last year. I know where I have dedicated my resources to and I know what I
have had my downtown officers doing. If they aren't out answering calls, I'm
having them in the bars doing alcohol enforcement, mostly PAULA enforcement.
I figure that they can respond from there to a call for service in the downtown
area. As a result, because of that emphasis, and this was a conversation that I had
with Captain of Fields Operations, Captain Johnson, before I ever did this--but
because of that emphasis, I know that this year we have written probably already
twice as many as we wrote last year. But I can get those numbers for you and I
can get them distributed, if you'd like.
O'Donnell/The purpose of the alcohol ordinance is to stop binge and underage drinking.
Now, I think an interesting figure for me would be to see, indeed, how the effect
of the alcohol ordinance has been. I realize we've had more enforcement, but--I
had problems with this alcohol ordinance at the start. You can only buy two beers
or two drinks at a time, but you can make 20 trips. That is a problem with me.
You can only buy two beers downtown but you can stop at a grocery store and
buy 10 cases. That's a problem. I'm really not certain. I would like to see some
kind of evidence that this has been effective.
Kelsey/Mr. Philip Jones---
Atkins/Yep. They've received that.
Kelsey/OK.
Atkins/What we need, Troy, is from July on, the last couple of months or something
such as that.
Dilkes/We can put that information together, but I think, I'm not sure that looking at the
number of PAULA arrests across time is going to tell you whether things have
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 38
changed, because there's a lot of things, as I understand it, that affect that, as Troy
just said: the personnel downtown, the resources the police department devotes to
it, etc. So, I'm not sure that that's going to be a good indication. I actually think in
terms of the initiative that the Council began, i.e., charging the serving of
underage people, that a better way to assess that is to look at the compliance rate
like we do with cigarettes.
Kelsey/Again, ifI had unlimited resources, sir, and I have two officers in every bar
every night from 11:00 until 1:30, I think those numbers would be meaningful.
But right now, I'm not even close to hitting what would be at all a saturation
level. They can write them the same as I could have the traffic officer write
speeding tickets all day long on North Dubuque Street. But, I can get those
numbers together for you.
O'Donnell/OK. Thank you.
Lehman/All right. Anything else? Thank you folks, very much.
Vanderhoef/Yes, thank you to the police department for their diligence on this.
Dilkes/So the only change I'm going to make in the specials ordinance is "serving" to
"container," a little bit of minor tweaking, but I'm not going to address the thing
you talked about at some length last time about reducing prices unless you all tell
me that that's something that you want to pursue again. It's something we decided
not to pursue last year.
O'Donnell/I'm learning more about alcohol than I think I ever wanted to know.
Dilkes/You and me both.
(Laughter)
O'Donnell/Explain to me just one more time this red light or stoplight, whatever this is.
It's three shots--is that the way I understood it?
(Laughter)
Kelsey/Yes, it's three shots stacked, their each one is a different color, and---
O'Donnell/And are you counting that as one drink or is that three drinks?
Vanderhoef/That's three.
Kelsey/That would be one drink or three drinks, depending on how you interpret it and
by changing the language to "container," they would be making it three drinks.
The beer and shot chaser is often referred to as a "boilermaker" and depending on
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 39
how it's served, it may be a glass of beer and a shot glass, and the shot glass is
actually dropped down into the beer and the whole thing is---
O'Connell/Is that two drinks?
Kelsey/Right now, that would be one serving or that would be my interpretation of it,
but that is open to interpretation. And under the new law, or the new ordinance, if
it would be written as "container," that would be two drinks because there would
be two separate containers.
Dilkes/We no doubt will get some challenges to the "container" as well, but I think it's
clearer than "serving." I also think that when you look at dedicating your
enforcement resources to serving to underage people or the specials restrictions
that you put in place, it makes more sense to concentrate your enforcement on the
serving of underage people because of the way the administrative penalties work.
Lehman/Thank you very much.
Kelsey/Thank you.
REVIEW ZONING 1TEMS
Lehman/Karin Franklin.
(Several talk)
Franklin/Are we ready?
Lehman/Yes.
a. CHANGING THE ZONING DESGNATION 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.
Franklin/The first item is a public hearing on changing the zoning designation from
RM-12 to OSA-12 of a 1.06-acre parcel on First Avenue, south of Stuart Court,
and this is to construct a 14-unit apartment building. This site plan that is before
you on the screen now is first one that was submitted and you can see that it
consumes practically the entire lot in terms of the buildable area. This is the
construction boundary here. We worked with the applicant on this. This all started
in May of last year and we've gone through five iterations of this plan, and this is
the project that is before you for consideration that was recommended 6-0 by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. What it does is it pushes the project to the
north of the site out of as many of the critical slopes as possible, and this is with
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 40
the understanding that this project, 59 percent of the lot is covered by either steep
or critical slopes, and so our effort was to get it out of the critical slopes as much
as possible, compact the development by having the parking underneath, which
means that the height of the building is higher than what you would normally
have in this district. So, there is a height variation on this project from the normal
35-foot height to 56-feet, 2 inches on the east side and 46 feet, 2 inches on the
west side. It is built into the hillside; this is the hillside on First Avenue, and the
illustration shows the property line. It is a wooded area, and this is to denote the
entrance drive, and then there is a schematic of the building tucked in to the
existing vegetation; obviously, some of this over here would probably not be
entirely there as thick as it appears in this rendition. But this indicates a berming
that would be toward the front of the project and then vegetation on top of that
berm. This is a south elevation. This is the east elevation which would be as it
faces First Avenue. Because of having to work this around on the site, what is
happening here is something that noimally we wouldn't want to see happen in
that the east elevation is the one in which all of the garage doors are. Behind here
are the garage doors for the entrance to one side of the building, the underground
garages. But the effort here will be to mask that with the berming and the
vegetation along First Avenue. Let's go back to---
Pfab/Before you leave that, I have---
Franklin/OK. This is the site plan which shows the garages underneath, the east face,
the drive comes in First Avenue here. You go underneath for the garages there or
proceed to the back for the units in the back. There are also garages on the back of
the lot, up against Regina. What did you need, the elevation on First Avenue,
Irvin?
Pfab/I was going to say it looks to me like, the overall concept I like but since then,
there's a lot of the lands you don't have to disturb, right?
Franklin/Mm..hmm.
Pfab/And because you don't have to disturb it, it's common property for everyone.
Franklin/That's correct.
Pfab/I mean, so, I think that's where you can reach through that, is there any other way
to get--now, are those garages on the (can't hear) left up there---
Franklin/These?
Pfab/Right.
Franklin/Mm..hrnm.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 41
Pfab/Are those necessary or are they a nice, is that a good place to build it back? Is it
level or is it relatively level?
Franklin/Well, there will have to be some grading done in here to get it level for the
garages, but it is trying to minimize the grading as much as possible,
understanding that this lot has a lot of topographic variation to it.
Pfab/OK, now, the problems with the compliance there is that it's higher than it ~vould
normally be, right?
Franklin/That's correct. That's one of the things the Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows
is that you have a height variation to bring in the (can't hear).
Pfab/I think that's a great idea, because you preserve a lot of the natural beauty there in
the vegetation and the topography there. Are there anything else, any other down
sides or pluses as you go through it?
Franklin/Well, in pushing this to the north end of the lot, this area is open here and it
abuts then an area that we tried to keep some opening that is not developed on the
lot to the south of it, Lot 2. That's this one down here, which the building is
already constructed on. So, it's kind of keeping the open spaces together and I
think that that's also an advantage of this. This was a very tough one---
Lelwnan/Right.
Franklin/...to work in. It is zoned RM-12.
Pfab/Just the overall arteries, first impression (can't hear). It looks like it works well
(can't hear).
Franklin/Mm..hmm.
Kanner/Well, some of, a couple of issues that I am concerned with. There was
discussion about trees, I believe, and the picture you have there would be a mature
tree and would mask some of the height and there is the question of how soon will
it look like that? It could be years and years. And how much ora guarantee are we
going to have that those trees on the left are going to be there? As you said, there
could be a lot more disturbance, so that's---
Franklin/Mm..hmm. The zoning is subject to staff approval of a landscaping plan when
they bring in the site plan, so that we will be looking at the caliper as well as the
species of those trees with the City forester, particularly the ones here along First
Avenue. I mean, the--in terms of the disturbance--let me go back again here.
There's going to be some disturbance here because there's a--oop, I didn't mean
to do that--there's a storm sewer line that goes through here, but you stilI have all
of this distance in which the trees will stay in place basically along--this is an
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 42
easement and construction line here--so all of this back here doesn't need to be
disturbed. There's a portion here that doesn't need to be disturbed. And then
you'll have your cut in here for the storm sewer and of course, the driveway is
right here at this point.
Kanner/We're going to be disturbing~~I think you said 45 percent of the critical slopes?
Franklin/If that's the number in the staff report, yeah.
Kanner/And then 74 percent of the steep slopes.
Franklin/Mm..hmm, right.
Kanner/And when we say "disturb," what extent is ground removed and impacted?
Franklin/I can't tell you that specifically without going over the grading and erosion
control plan in detail. What that means is that there is some disturbance to those
slopes. By the very fact that you have construction in this footprint, including the
storm sewer, there's going to be disturbance of those slopes. But I can't tell you
whether that's 10 cubic feet or 1,000 cubic feet of dirt that is going to be moved.
The engineers might be able to tell you that. But the point is in the ordinance, it
directs us to try to minimize grading on steep and critical slopes or on critical
slopes, and so that's why we approach this from trying to stay out of the critical
slopes as much as possible.
Kanner/We've talked about this before, what "minimize" means, and that's---
Franklin/It's a judgment.
Karmer/....comparable to a certain, their decision to a certain extent. But if we said
"minimize" was 10 percent of the critical slope, what could they build there?
Franklin/If you could only grade and disturb 10 percent of the critical slopes?
Kanner/Yes.
Franklin/Maybe a single- house. Maybe. No, you could probably put a single-family
house up in here. Anything else? Dee?
Vanderhoef/There's talking about setback. Has that been determined yet?
Franklin/Yeah, the setback, because of the way First Avenue goes, it's 45 feet in this
area and 65 feet here. Our usual setback on an arterial street is 40 feet and a
typical residential street it's 20 feet, just to give you a reference.
Vanderhoef/And that's from the center line of the---?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 43
Franklin/No, that's from the property line, which is the right-of-way line, back to the
building line.
Vanderhoef/Where is it that there has been discussion but no action about an entrance to
Regina off of First Avenue?
Franklin/North of here.
Vanderhoef/How much further north? Quite a ways?
Franklin/The next lot.
Vanderhoef/The next lot.
Franklin/The next lot. It's owned by the Boyds; we do have an application in for
rezoning of it; the Boyds do not have an intention of having a drive to Regina.
OK.
Karmer/We bought some land for parking here so that people can have access. Where is
the plan for people to have access to the park in relationship to this?
Franklin/It's right up here, I think.
Kanner/So the park at the "P" and then walk up First Avenue to an entrance way there--
Franklin/Park at the what?
Karmer/Where is the land that we bought?
Lehman/Right there where the arrow is.
Franklin/The parking--yeah.
Kanner/What is the "P" down---
Lehman/Public.
Franklin/Oh, here? That's the water storage tank, yeah, mm...hmm.
Kanner/OK, so people would park up there?
Franklin/Mm...hmm. And that's where the pathway is into Hickory Hill. OK?
Champion/On that, could you show me the front of that building again?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 44
Franklin/You bet.
Lehman/This is also asked for expedited consideration--is this to get their foundation---
Wilburn/Construction going?
Lehman/...foundation in this fall?
Franklin/They want to get construction, yes, yes.
Champion/Steve--never mind.
Franklin/OK, that's the side that faces First Avenue.
Champion/Right.
Lehman/Can't hardly see the garage doors, can you?
Champion/No. Well, I was wondering when I (several talk) --yeah, it really does help. I
just wondered did we ever ask if they'd plant evergreens because, you know, trees
are nice but in the winter they're not there.
Franklin/Mm..hmm.
Champion/That's all i wanted to ask.
Franklin/Right.
Vanderhoef/Or a combination?
Franklin/Mm..,hmm. I think that was discussed in the Planning and Zoning Commission
about the deciduous and evergreens.
Vanderhoef/(Can't hear) maybe the evergreens can go out?
Pfab/! have a question. Is there, are there some trees that have, that grow relatively fast?
Franklin/Yes.
Pfab/...but have a relatively short life. Is there any reason to expect that, ?
Lehman/She's recording this.
Franklin/I think we want them to grow fast and have a long life.
Pfab/Right, but at the same time, keep the ugly off of First Avenue as much as we can
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 45
and as soon as we can.
Champion/I don't think it's going to be ugly.
Pfab/Just look at that the concrete garage doors, I don't think that's--it's nicely covered-
-but how do you minimize that over time, and is there a temporary and then
something that's more permanent?
Franklin/When we look at the landscaping plan, we'll be looking a mixture of
vegetation that the evergreens as well as the deciduous. We'll be looking at
something that has a fairly, that some of them have a fairly fast-growing, but we
want something that's going to last.
Pfab/Right. Well, but a combination of maybe both.
Franklin/Sure.
Kanner/Can you show the west elevation or the view from the west? The section that's
called the west elevation.
Franklin/That is the south. Isn't that right?
Karmer/Do you have a view of (can't hear) someplace---
Franklin/From Regina? Oh, that would be the north view.
Kanner/Through to the northwest kind of view, how much would it stick up? Is that the
view?
Franklin/Let me see if I--no. No, we don't but I think that---
Vanderhoef/It's at the garage doors down below.
Franklin/...you could look at it like this without this part.
Karmer/So it would be pretty prominent coming in if you're walking from that path
north of Regina looking sort of south---
Franklin/Yes.
Karmer/...southeast.
Franklin/If you're coming from the path from Hickory Hill, looking south, because First
Avenue starts to go up also, yes. There'll be a building there.
Pfab/But it also provides a very pleasant view from the (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 46
Franklin/Oh, very. Mm..hmm. It'll be a nice place.
Lehman/OK. And we are going to have first consideration tomorrow night as well as
the public hearing?
Franklin/Yes, that's been requested.
Lehman/And expedited if we see fit.
Franklin/That would be expediting it to have public hearing and first consideration and
the next time you would---
Lehman/Right.
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 HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF
MILLER AVENUE; 2) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CC-2, TO
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-20 WITH A
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT, FOR A 1.45-ACRE PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE;
AND 3) MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RS-8, TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CC-2, FOR A 1.45 ACRE PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE.
(REZ02-00013) (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Yeah. OK. Item b is first consideration on the Ruppert rezoning. Do you need
any refreshers on this at ali?
Wilburn/Nope.
Franklin/OK, cool.
Lehman/We've got that conditional zoning thing is all done---
Franklin/You're happy as clams, everybody's happy. OK, the vacations we've talked
about, right? We're done with that.
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
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 47
CONSIDERATION)
Frmnklin/OK, item f then is second consideration on Windsor Ridge Part 15. They have
also requested expedited consideration to start construction this season.
g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION
14-16h-1, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, TO ALLOW REPAIR OF
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS AS A PROVISIONAL USE.
(SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Second consideration on the auto-truck repair in the industrial zones.
Resolution: adopting the Southwest District Plan. Irvin, what?
Pfab/You're talking about the truck repair. You had a comment, what, what was your
comment?
Lehman/Second consideration.
Franklin/No, second consideration, that's all.
Pfab/OK, OK. I thought you had made some public connnent.
Franklin/Nope, nope.
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.
Franklin/Item h is the resolution adopting the Southwest District Plan. We're all cool
with that?
Lehman/Fine.
i. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE
GREEN, PART XXII, A 9.31-ACRE, 24-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF WELLINGTON ROAD AND
WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD.
Franklin/Item i is a resolution approving the final plat of Village Green Park 20, and the
legal papers and everything are done on this. It's ready to go.
Wilburn/OK.
Lehman/OK.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 48
Franklin/OK.
Karmer/Thank you.
Lehman/Thank you. OK.
REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS
Lehman/Agenda items.
ITEM 13. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14,
ENTITLED, "UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER FIVE,
ENTITLED, "BUILDING AND I-lOUSING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED,
"ItOUSING 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)
Atkins/A couple things, Ernie.
Lehman/Yes, sir.
Atkins/If there's, and you saw you received the information about the lease addendum
asking that, Doug is here if you have any questions for him on that. It's pretty
straightforward what you---
Lehman/Lease addendum.
Atkins/Yeah. Well, the task force recommendations---
Lehman/Oh.
Pfab/Oh, oh.
Atkins/Yeah, remember that? Folks, I'm sorry, I've caught the wrong (can't hear--
date?)
Lehman/We do have some questions still.
Atkins/Well, Doug's here for that.
Pfab/I think that I'm very reluctant to support the request from the Apartment Owners
Association because I believe that the addendum is probably the heart of what--or
the best thing that we have going to solve some of the problems which appear to
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 49
me to be the biggest problem in the neighborhood because of over occupancy, and
I believe that it was something that was brought on because of abuse. And I think
that we should not back away from that in any way, shape, or form.
Champion/That's not going to (can't hear).
Kanner/So you, I do have some concerns. As it's written here, if you're living with your
16-year-old child, you have to put their name and driver's license, it seems a bit
intrusive. If we're concerned about intrusiveness, I think this part is one that we
might want to consider re.
Vanderhoef/I had a call today about the driver's license thing, and the concern was what
other identifying number might you be able to use for, say, a foreign national?
And then they also questioned, I think, the wording on the application is that all
members of the household, their driver's license number.
Champion/But not everybody has a driver's license.
Lehman/That's the issue.
Vanderhoef/So that's the issue.
Champion/Then you obviously wouldn't have to have the number,
Pfab/But doesn't the State issue an I.D. card and on it, you do not even have to use your
Social Security number.
Lehman/What if you are 14 years old?
Champion/Your Social Security number.
Lehman/I think there are a couple of questions that we have from some apartment
owners that are legitimate questions.
O'Donnell/What if you're younger, what if you are 8---
Champion/You're not put out of the house?
Boothroy/What we're talking about is unrelated individuals, so I don't even--the first
question is not about a family and a 16-year-old son, that wouldn't even be part of
the, well, that's not even on the ---
Lehman/ No, no, but the ordinance says we want identification from unrelated
individuals.
Boothroy/Right. Everybody that signs the lease.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 50
Lehman/What happens if they are--do not have a driver's license.
Boothroy/Then we wouldn't have that information.
Lehman/And all the information required?
Boothroy/It is on the lease addendum and it helps us to get more information---
Lehman/ i understand that---
Boothroy/...where the tenant may be located or---
Lehman/ But if it's required and it's not available?
Vanderhoef/What do you do?
Letunan/What do we do?
Boothroy/We just won't have it.
Karmer/It's required, Ernie, by only those who sign the lease.
Vanderhoef/But the landlords are concerned that they aren't getting it filled out
properly because there's no number---
Boothroy/Well, I think we can put on the lease addendum that we create, something that
qualifies, "if available," or some parenthetical statement that makes, ! think that's
just a---
Lehman/ OK.
Vanderhoef/OK, add that. That will take care of one of their---
Boothroy/We don't have to put that in the ordinance, we can put it in the model lease
addenda, OK?
Vanderhoef/OK.
Pfab/So, in other words, if it exists, not if it is available--somebody may not want to
make it available.
Boothroy/Well, we can come up with the right language with that, yeah.
Kanner/I'm not sure, but ! thought that not only people who sign the lease, but who live
there are required to sign up for this. Not everybody signs the lease.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 51
Champion/Only unrelated people.
Kanner/What?
Boothroy/A family would not be--every member of your---
Kanner/I don't know if it says it, and I don't know if we should get into defining what a
"family" is.
Boothroy/But we already defined it.
Lehman/We already have done that.
Dilkes/We define it by Code.
Lehman/That's by Code.
Boothroy/Right.
Kanner/OK, unrelated people, we have that. But I don't think we should go past that.
We don't want to be even more intrusive recording this information. Why are we
delving into two unrelated people, if only one of them is signing the lease and
requiring both of them---
Lehman/Are we?
Kanner/...to sign up?
Boothroy/The reason the committee wanted to have the people who are living there to
sign the lease addendum is that under our zoning ordinance, you have five
unrelated people, four unrelated people, so they wanted to make sure that they had
all of the people that are legally supposed to be in that particular property
identified on the lease and have as much information and when they look at that
lease addendum, they're also getting notification as to what some of the rules and
regulations in Iowa City in terms of trash pickup and snow removal. If there are
people that are living on that premises that are not on that lease, then we would
follow that up, just as we do today, which is to contact the landlord and get them
removed, however he or she chooses to do that. But, that's not going to change;
the dynamics of that will not change.
Lehman/I understand that, but ifI and four of my closest friends decide to rent an
apartment, for which their occupancy is five, I could sign that lease and be legally
responsible for the payment of rent and the other four folks would have to sign
acknowledging that they know the regulations that have been---
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 52
Boothroy/Right.
Lehman/...but they would not necessarily, depending on the way my lease is written, I
could be the only one financially responsible, but all are responsible for following
the ordinance.
Boothroy/Right. They all have to sign that and basically it's a way that they
acknowledge that they know what the rules are. And that's what this lease
addendum is, it just sets out existing rules.
Lehman/All right.
Pfab/In other words, it takes away the opportunity to say, well, I didn't know,
understand---
Boothroy/Exactly.
Lehman/Right.
Wilburn/OK.
Boothroy/That's exactly what it does.
Vanderhoef/OK. While we're on that, this one caller also wondered why it had to be a
lease addendum versus a notification sign up similarly as required either by State
or Federal law for lead-based paint, where you have to notify, the landlord must
notify the leasee that there is lead-based paint, and they both have to sign off on it.
And that is a separate piece of paper, it's not part of the lease.
Boothroy/That didn't come up in any discussion at a task force. The lease addendum is
used by a number of other communities. The East Lansing one was sent to you.
There's a number of other communities that use that same vehicle, or instrument,
and they just--no one--I don't recall any discussion about using some other way of
notification that there would be signing off on. It's certainly--it appears to work in
other communities. It is not a problem in terms of litigation or confusion. I don't
think. I think--it's a matter--I don't know the legal application or differences
between maybe a notification versus a lease addendum.
Dilkes/You kno~v, I don't know that the effect of them is that different.
Boothroy/I don't either.
Dilkes/I think they call it a lease addendum because it's a convenient time to do it when
the tenant and the landlord are signing the lease, it's an appropriate time to do this
acknowledgment or addendum or whatever it is you want to call it. I mean, it's
really more like an acknowledgment of the rules than it is an additional
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 53
contractual agreement.
Vanderhoef/And I agree. I guess the follow-up question then when you researched this
in other communities, the concern of the individual who called was that this was
opening the door, setting a precedence for government to move in and start
dictating all sorts of things that go on a two-party lease, basically. And was there
any other community that came up with any other things that the City regulated
along with these nuisance ordinance kinds of issues?
Dilkes/Well, that raises a whole host of issues. There are some things the City could
regulate and doesn't; there are some things the City couldn't regulate because
they'd be preempted by State law. There are a lot of things the City already
regulates which is all this lease addendum does is acknowledge---
Boothroy/Existing regulations.
Dilkes/...existing regulations. ! don't have a hard time characterizing it as a kind of a---
Wilburn/! think it's more of a perception thing, because I was contacted by that person,
too, and I thought about it and it's like, well, if the effect is the same, it's more a
perception. And then, I suppose, if you sat down with anyone and asked anyone
who might say, well, we're concerned about too much government regulation or
coming in and saying this, when if you walk the person through or anyone who is
a property owner what they have to go through in terms of permitting and
licensure that it's present anyway. So I suppose it's more which Council would
prefer to have included.
Lehman/It's really a notification procedure where they acknowledge notification, which
is pretty simple.
Vanderhoef/I'm OK with it. I just wanted to, you know---
(Several speak)
Boothroy/Hopefully, by being proactive we'll reduce enforcement in some of these
areas, like over-occupancy. I mean, that's the bottom line. And it should be, it
may be of education to both the landlord and the tenant.
Vanderhocf/Then there was another question that had to do with occupancy and I'm not
sure how it's worded, but it was told to me the lease agreement will show
maximum occupancy, but it doesn't address less than that. And this particular
landlord is looking at even though the square footage and number of bedrooms or
whatever would allow an occupancy, and the landlord is choosing only to have
two.
Dilkes/That's absolutely not a problem. The lease could say only two can occupy. By
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 54
agreement they would say that. But the addendum would simply say what the
maximum occupancy is, again---
Boothroy/Which is the ceiling. Maximum means the "ceiling."
Vanderhoef/OK. Just so that it's clear that that's maximum. But the concern of this
landowner was that if they put three in it, even though he only wanted two in
there, whether they could use this to go back and say, but the City says we can
have three in here.
Lehman/It don't make any difference what the City says if they sign the lease.
Dilkes/Would someone perhaps make that argmnent? Maybe.
Boothroy/Sure.
Dilkes/I don't think it would be a successful one.
Boothroy/No.
Dilkes/And I don't think anybody at the City would object to, you know, somebody
writing on the lease addendum.
Vanderhoef/Maximum or less.
Dilkes/This is maximum by City law.
Lehman/Or "up to."
Dilkes/Or we can address that---
Pfab/Or "maximum" itself, it tells you that.
Boothroy/That's what the word "maximum" means, it means "no more than."
Vanderhoef/If that's what it says is "maximum"---
Boothroy/It does.
Vanderhoef/...and is there a place then obviously that the property owner can say and
this lease is for two occupants?
O'Donnell/You'll be able to tell that, Dee, because they'll be the ones whose signatures
are on the lease.
Lehman/No, no, you specifically in many leases, specifically limit the number of people
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 55
that can be in that apartment. It's a special clause in the lease.
Boothroy/We'll have both documents. So if the lease only has two, and you have the
other one, then it's, by comparison, you'll know, I would think.
Vanderhoef/But the lease is for two even though maximum occupancy could be three.
Lehman/Right.
Boothroy/Well, we're not going to be involved there in any enforcement issue with
over-occupancy if they've only got two. So we're not even going to be there
questioning the issue.
Vanderhoef/You won't be, but---
Boothroy/Who would be?
Dilkes/It sounds like the landlord was concerned that the tenant would use the lease
addendum specifying maximum occupancy as a way to finagle an additional
occupant.
Boothroy/Oh, I see.
Karmer/What's the maximum occupancy Doug per room for RM-12, for instance?
Boothroy/Well, I don't have, I don't know off the top of my head, to be honest with
you. I'd have to look it up, and I don't have that information with me.
Kanner/You could have more than one per bedroom, correct?
Boothroy/In your upper multi-family zones, I know, for example, in the RM-20 and
above, you can have up to five unrelated individuals. I'm not quite sure where that
break comes between RS-8, RM-12, and RM-20. What the requirement is in the
RM-20 zone.
Karmer/It doesn't depend on the number of bedrooms, just on square footage?
Boothroy/It's based on the number per unit, as I recall.
Karmer/Do you have a brochure, Ann?
Lehman/But the unit is not measured by number of bedrooms? It's so many people per
unit.
Boothroy/Parking is required by number of bedrooms.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 56
Lehman/But occupancy is--in an RM-20 you could have one unit with one bedroom and
legally be able to have five people.
Boothroy/Well, there is a square footage requirement in a house because it's extremely
minimal.
Kanner/One hundred square feet for each additional occupant---
Boothroy/It's very minor.
Karmer/...floor space per dwelling unit versus 120 square feet for the first one which is
20 by 6.
Lehman/None of this changes existing law. This just acknowledges existing law.
Vanderhoef/No.
Boothroy/No. Doesn't change.
Pfab/In other words, the landlord and tenants will both have read it when they sign it
that they are going to be held accountable.
Boothroy/We've never really had any problem with that particular standard in terms of
over-occupancy.
Lehman/This doesn't change---
Boothroy/If you're thinking that that's too lenient because some people do think that
that's a pretty lenient standard.
Kanner/No, no, this is the standard---
Boothroy/For square footage.
Kanner/...that we're putting in---
Lehman/ No, it's already there.
Kanner/Yeah, that's already there, I mean---
Boothroy/No, that's not the standard that's being used to determine maximum
occupants. The Zoning Code. The Zoning Code says that in certain zones you can
up to within a dwelling unit up to three unrelated or four unrelated or five
unrelated. What that particular standard does is say, OK, if you've got one
bedroom dwelling unit and you want to put five people in there, do you have
enough space within that one dwelling unit to put all of those five people in that
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 57
same trait? That looks at it from a little different perspective, but that's not
something we're changing. Does that make sense?
Lehman/OK. Any other questions for Doug?
Kanner/Doug, could you get me a list of what the maximum occupancy is for different
places? Is that hard to do?
Boothroy/No, we have--it's in the zoning ordinance, so--I don't know if you mean per
zone, is that what you're saying?
Kanner/Yeah.
Boothroy/Yeah, we can do that.
Lehman/OK.
Kanner/Well, tomorrow I'll be offering an amendment to remove the part about having
to require the register. I don't have that many---
Lehman/That register, the City does not get that information relative to those folks that
sign that.
Kanner/I think it should be between the landlord and the tenant.
Lehman/It is.
Champion/It is.
Lehman/The information doesn't go to the City.
Kanner/No, whether it's required or not.
Lehman/Oh, well, obviously, and that will be your amendment. Is there any other
agenda items?
ITEM 9. PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION NOT TO EXCEED
$1,155,000 GENERAL OBLLIGATION BONDS; ITEM 18. CONSIDER
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SALE OF UP TO $10,980,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002; ITEM 19.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SALE OF $8,500,000
WATER REVENUE BONDS
Atkins/One other, I just want to bring to your attention, Ernie, we received our bond
rating this afternoon on our general obligation bonds of Triple A. And in these
times, I'm really quite pleased to report that our water revenue bonds have been
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 58
upgraded. So we went up another notch.
Vanderhoef/Whee!
Champion/And it's good news.
Karmer/Great.
ITEM 3 d. Setting Hearings
(1) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
OCTOBER 22 ON AN ORDINANCE REGULATING AND RESTRICTING
THE USE AND HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS OF
NATURAL GROWTH IN THE VICINITY OF THE IOWA CITY
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY CREATING APPROPRIATE ZONES AND
ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES THEREOF; DEFINING CERTAIN
TERMS USED IN SAID ORDINANCE; REFERRING TO THE IOWA
CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPOT ZONING MAP AS PART OF THE
ORDINANCE; ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION;
ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT;
PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT AND IMPOSING PENALTIES.
Vanderhoef/I have a question and it's in the Consent Calendar, setting this public
hearing for ail this stuff around the airport and then it gets down to establishing an
Airport Zoning Commission and establishing an Airport Zoning Board of
Adjustment. And it's like, we already have them.
Dilkes/No, no, it's just, it's the same language. It's the way the Code amendment had to
be done. It was all mushed in there together; we had to put it back. There's no, it's
nothing substantive.
Vanderhoef/We're not re-creating the world again?
Dilkes/No, we know that we already have those.
Vanderhoef/OK.
ITEM 2. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS.
a. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH--OCTOBER
Kanner/I had a couple questions. We're doing a proclamation tomon'ow for Domestic
Violence Awareness Month. And it says an elected, this is number 2a, to elected
officials of Iowa, the City reaffirms the commitment to respect and enforce
victims' rights and address their needs throughout 2003. Do you have any
thoughts on that, Emie, what that means for us in actual concrete things? Does it
mean anything in concrete terms to you?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 59
Lehman/What I, well, obviously I support it very strongly. In fact, we're having a
kickoff luncheon on October--I can't even--yeah, it's a Monday at the library.
Yeah, I certainly support this very strongly. I have not spent a great deal of time
looking over the proclamation or, you know, evaluating it. I just think it's
something that the Council should obviously be very supportive of.
O'Donnell/You say Oct. 8th, Emie?
Lehman/It's October--it's a Monday like two weeks from today, I believe.
Karmer/Yeah, I think---
Lehman/At 12:00 at the library.
Kanner/But it's something that we want to reaffirm in more than words that perhaps
you want to talk eventually with this group or among ourselves what that might
mean in terms of legislation if there is any legislation or direction of staff.
Because I think it is a good proclamation and is a good cause, and perhaps,
though, we need to put some more teeth to it. So that's perhaps something we
could ask of them tomorrow when they receive that.
Lehman/OK.
ITEM 3. fi CORRESPONDENCE.
(6) TOM HARKIN: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
GRANT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROVEMTS
Vanderhoeff I would like to know--we got a letter that said we got Federal Emergency
Management Agency grant for the fire department, but it didn't say how much we
got.
Atkins/If you don't hold me to it, it's about $35,000, and I believe it's for our safety
trailer thing we have.
Lehman/Oh, the thing? Good.
(Laughter)
Atkins/If she can say "mush," I can say "thing."
Lehman/Pretty worried about the "thing."
Boothroy/I heard "mush."
Dilkes/Mush? On what? Oh.
This represents only a reasonable accurate Iranscription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 60
Atkins/It became available and Andy applied for the grant, and we were successful.
Dilkes/Good!
Atkins/Yep. I'll get you the specifics for tomorrow. I'll give you a better answer.
Lehman/OK.
ITEM 3. f. CORRESPONDENCE.
(4) KAREN DAWES (REPRESENTING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SAND PRAIRIE PRESERATIONS):
SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT
Kanner/This is (4), and we got correspondence from the Concerned Citizens for the
Sand Prairie Preservation, which I understand you're going to, you're drafting a
response, and I look forward to that. But I had a question. It mentioned a P and Z
resolution of April 2002 in regards to a, I think it was a plant survey of some sort,
and---
Franklin/That wasn't actually a resolution. It was a motion. It was a request from the
Planning and Zoning Commission for the staff to pursue delineation of thc prairie
on this property. And what needs to be done in order to establish the delineation
of the prairie is to---
TAPE 02-71 SIDE ONE
Franklin/...the prairie is and where it is.
Kanner/So that goes to their point. They're saying that the mounds that's being
protected with this central development by Southgate is very small, a smaller
amount than they'd like, of what they consider prairie. So I assume that's why P
and Z is saying we need to define what the prairie is.
Franklin/Well, P and Z's request predates any plan that Southgate put together. And so
their request was at a time when it was apparent that some sort of development
was going to happen in this area, and that they had been made aware that there
was an area which is described as approximately 55 acres, and the question was
exactly where is the prairie? What is the nature of the prairie? Is it a prairie, in
fact? And in order to make that determination, one needs to do a botanical survey.
Kanner/So, is it a moot point then what P and Z requested? Now do we have that
information?
Franklin/We do not have that information. To do a botanical survey, you must go onto
the property and we do not have the permission of Southgate to go on the
property. Southgate has a preliminary plan for this that they have hired Randall
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 61
Arendt to do. It's been presented to the neighborhood, and it preserves 18 plus 55
acres. The Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation are still asserting that
we need to do the botanical survey, to take it a step further. And the dilemma is
not being able to get onto the property.
Kanner/And so you'd like, staff would like to do that at the request of P and Z and for
other reasons, perhaps?
Franklin/We have that direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission. If there is
going to be a designation of a prairie the on Sensitive Areas inventory map, there
needs to be some sort of scientific basis for making that delineation. Because once
we put it on the map, it is subject to Sensitive Areas Ordinance and we go through
a zoning process.
Kanner/And so in your letter, you'll go into this a little more?
Franklin/Although I've done most of it right now.
(Laughter)
Kanner/That's it for me.
Lehman/No other agenda items? OK.
COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (1)
Lehman/Council appointments, Housing and Community Development Commission? I
liked Hayek. What's Hayek's first name?
Vanderhoef/Matt.
Lehman/Matt?
Vanderhoef/Matthew.
Lehman/Thank you.
O'Donnell/Very good, I like the idea of a (can't hear)
(Can't hear)
Champion/The woman who was on (can't hear) for two terms---
Lehman/Yeah, and done a great job, yeah.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 62
Champion/...and done a great job. But I think we are trying to change after two terms.
O'Dom~ell/(Can't hear) a local boy, a local kid, it'd be good on it---
Lehman/ Well, I think we've also had several different occasions we've tried to
encourage younger folks to become involved.
Vanderhoef/That's exactly right.
Lehman/Is there any other---
Wilburn/His Peace Corps work might be interesting (can't hear) project.
Champion/Yeah, right.
Lehman/Do we have consensus for Matt Hayek?
Yeah.
Lehman/OK. That's fine.
Kanner/Did his confidential sheet show up on it by accident?
Vanderhoef/It's in the packet.
COUNCIL TIME
Lehman/OK. Council time.
Vanderhoef/I have two things. In looking at the timeliness of getting finalized minutes
from some of the Boards and Commissions, I visited with Marian today about
getting them in a more timely fashion for our own knowledge. And she suggested
that perhaps we could ask for a draft form of the minutes within three weeks.
Therefore, it would be timely and at the same time we could accept it as final
unless they made corrections and chose to resubmit it as final. But I'm offering
that as a possibility for a policy change.
Champion/I think that's a good idea. Some of those minutes that come from the
commission are really late by the time we get them. And sometimes we've been
making decisions (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/Or, it has already happened, because we haven't seen the announcement of
certain things. So I would like to see if there's enough interest that we could have
a policy drafted for us to put on the next agenda.
Karr/I don't know that you need, typically, and I defer to Eleanor, but typically we've
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 63
just communicated the consensus of Council to the Boards and Commissions;
we've not ratified by resolution unless you're so inclined to do this at this time.
Or if it presents a problem, we just go, we just send a memo to the staff.
Lehman/Do we concur that---
Wilburn/I think it's fine as long as we recognize they are in draft form; they haven't had
a chance to look at them.
Vanderhoef/And that's fine, and we'll look at all corrections if they have any.
Pfab/Is three weeks for a draft form, is that a little bit (can't hear--expensive?)?
Kanner/How long does it take to get out?
Karr/Well, I think Dee's question to me was right now the procedure allows for the
Boards or Commissions to finalize their minutes. So if they meant monthly, for
instance, they would be a month behind in coming to you. Dee's concerted
observation to me was she would like, before it's finalized, to be able to respond
in case there would be some direction Council would like to give before it be
undertaken the next month by the Board. So the only way to assure that is to get it
to you before their next meeting when it's finalized and before any actions in
there are implemented.
Kauner/My question is but what do you expect your minute takers to turnaround time
after a meeting?
Karr/Well, as I explained to Dee, I have one Board or Commission in addition to City
Council. So, I'm going to be speaking from a narrower point of view but from a
tighter schedule. I'm required by State law to do it in 14 days and have it in the
newspaper. I'm required by law.
Kanner/So---
Kart/ So, they are not required so, I mean, when you're asking me if21 days is doable, I
think the answer is yes. Is it something they're used to? The answer is no.
Kanner/Is 14 days doable? I agree with Irvin. I think that if we're going to get a draft,
why not ask for seven days or 14. Some of them are going to miss our packet
Karr/Well, my response to that would be quite candidly, and I know from personal
experience there--the Planning Department, for instance, shares minute takers.
And I know personally that in one week one minute taker had three meetings. The
chances of that one individual turning around those three in 14 days and having
any break is highly unlikely. So, if Council were to say, and feel very strongly
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 64
that they wanted 14 days, I think they might put a burden on some departments
that might have to hire an additional minute taker.
Lehman/Go for 21. If they can get it quicker---
Kan'/It's certainly doable. I only have you folks and PCRB.
(Laughter)
Champion/But you've got a lot more than anybody else.
Karr/No, but what I'm saying is with the scheduling of monthly meetings, some of them
could all happen at once, and with the current schedule that is pretty hard to do in
14 days. Now I wanted to clarify the 21-day turnaround time also accounts for
their schedule and your schedule. So the 21 days is from their meeting until it's
filed in my office. No~v if it's filed in my office, it might not mean that you're
going to get it until the 10th, until the next meeting when you have it on your
Consent Calendar. You know, there's still that possibility they could meet again
before you meet. I mean, there's no way of guaranteeing that.
Vanderhoef/Unless we put them in the off-week.
Karr/Yes, and then you'd be getting them twice to accept them the next time. Unless we
accept them by reference. We could do that.
Kanner/Yeah, I'd like to get them as soon as possible.
Vanderhoef/Accept them by reference?
Karr/Accept them by reference, I'm just trying to figure out that how we, ~vhen you go
to retrieve them, when we're looking for Board or Commission minutes, you
would no longer find them in one spot.
Kanner/Well, do we have to accept them? Couldn't we just wait until they're final? Say,
get them in our info packet---
Karr/I believe Dee's scenario does not having them coming out to you twice unless
there's a change.
O'Donnell/I think 21 days is fine.
Lehman/I do, too.
Vanderhoef/Let's try the 21 and---
O'Donnell/I think that's fine and we get only the rough, we get the draft, and then we
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 65
don't get the final copy, is that it?
Lehman/Only we would get the revision, just the copy of the revision, not a---
Vanderhoef/That leads me into what really brought this to mind, and it was PCRB
minutes of July 9, which are very far back. And they're still talking about doing
the video, and now they're writing letters and sending them out to organizations
so they can show the video. And I thought, I had a presumption that that video
would come to Council for us to review and see it just like we do minutes before
it went out to the public. So, in speaking with Marian and checking to see if there
was any conversation about it being sent to Council for review, she didn't recall
any and Kelly, the other minute taker, didn't either. So, before those letters go
out, I would like to have Council review the video at a work meeting before it
goes out to the public, because it seems a little strange that we're the last ones to
know or hear about it and see it.
Wilburn/I would presume and I've seen other videos on Public Access that we haven't
seen.
Vanderhoef/Well, I'm not even clear what's on the video.
Wilburn/Mm...hmm.
Vanderhoef/You know, in the minutes they keep talking about it, and there will be a
snippet about dialogue and sending it back to change something because the
impression, and if this is characterizing the PCRB, then it's like, I'd like to see it
and know what's happening and what the townspeople may be starting to talk
about before we've even seen it.
Karr/I just wanted to clarify, as I said to Dee, the Board may not have talked about it,
but certainly in their minutes for several months it was mentioned. And as I
mentioned to Dee, there was no communication from Council indicating an
interest to see it before it was released either. So I want to put the perspective on it
both ways.
Vanderhoeff (Can't hear) both ways perhaps, that we should have spoken up and, no, I
did not speak up and say, and I went from the opposite presumption so I'm
making a request now that we view it at the next work meeting.
Lehman/How long a film is it, do we know?
Karr/I believe it's 12 minutes.
Pfab/I would say tomorrow.
Lehman/I would presume that we would like to see it.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 66
Karmer/So, this was what was brought up--I brought this up about two or three months
ago - - -
Karr/Yes, and Dee and I chatted about that last time. You brought it up and asked to see
it, and there was not a majohty who wished to see it at that time. And the City
Manager also reiterated that maybe the Board would like, has a plan in mind. The
Board did not have a plan in mind, and it just got dropped.
Lehman/It just got picked up.
Atkins/Picked up. We understand.
Karr/Do you wish the Board members to be here?
Lehman/If they want to be, I mean, I think we'd---
Vanderhoef/It'd be fine.
Lehman/There's another film that was made by the police department relative to the
enforcement of alcohol laws that is a great film. It's on PATV, but I saw it. It's
like five or ten minutes.
Pfab/It's called "Stepping Up."
Lehman/That one is so well done.
Kanner/We'll have video night.
Lehman/We can do up our own popcorn.
Vanderhoef/No, pizza and videos.
Atkins/Oh, video night.
Lehman/That's a film that I think most of the Council would like to see. The alcohol
one? Isn't that a good one? They did a great job. Well, can we get that video for
the next--we can maybe--during intermission we could play it or whatever.
Atkins/How about "My Summer Vacation"?
Champion/When we're on our break, we should play those things for the public.
Lehman/There you go.
Kanner/Dee, I think your point has some merit. At least for discussion's sake about
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 67
when Commissions are putting out things, how much control do we want? Maybe
we don't want some control, some other places we do. I don't know if there have
been other Commissions that have put out videos. They have put out written
information. But I think it merits some discussion.
Atkins/There's some staff that is too, I'm thinking of the water plant video.
Champion/Historic Preservation---
Kanner/But it seems a little different from a Commission produced (can't hear). This
was produced at the, it originated from PCRB as opposed to staff. A different kind
of thing. I think we should allow some freedom. I don't know where we draw the
line. But we need to.
Lehman/Why don't we look at the film and decide after we look at it?
Vanderhoef/Sounds like a winner.
Wilburn/Good idea.
Champion/OK.
Lehman/Yes?
Champion/Is it my turn?
Lehman/Yes, it's your turn.
Champion/OK. (Can't hear--Bert On?) I have another jail task force meeting
Wednesday. We have about four of our meetings left if anybody has any input
they want to give me on any questions that should be asked or ideas they have, I'd
be glad to listen to you and take them and put them in my mind.
Karmer/Could I get a copy of the minutes? Do you give minutes from the meeting?
Champion/Sure.
Wilburn/(Can't hear) if other people want them?
Vanderhoefd That might be kind of interesting because people ask every once in awhile
and I'll say no, I haven't been at a meeting.
Atkins/Connie, do they send them to us? I don't recall getting---
Champion/I don't think so.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002.
October 7, 2002 Council Work Session Page 68
Atkins/I'll find out. I don't recall getting them. OK. We'll get---
Lehman/Do you want the abridged copy or the unabridged?
(Laughter)
Champion/It's a four-hour meeting so---
Vanderhoef/(Can't hear) any transcriptions?
Lehman/Do you want this before it's confirmed or a draft?
Vanderhoef/Oh, the draft, please.
(Laughter)
Lehman/All right, any other Council time?
Atkins/Good night all.
Lehman/Good night, guys.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of October 7,
2002,