Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-05 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATIONS. a) Sertoma Freedom Week: February 11, 2008 Bailey: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Dennis Mitchell, Representative of the Sertoma Club. (applause) Mitchell: On behalf of the, uh, Old Capitol Sertoma Club and the University Sertoma Club, I'd like to thank you again for the proclamation, uh, and just let you know there are clubs in conjunctions with Sertoma's Freedom Week, uh, sponsor a National Heritage Essay Contest that's open to all 8'" grade students, uh, here in Johnson County. Uh, the,uh, purpose of the essay contest is to try to emphasize, uh, the rights and responsibilities of citizens in a democracy, uh, this year's topic was "Should Iowa Retain the Caucus System," was, at least in my opinion, a somewhat challenging topic, but uh, as usual we received some terrific essays, uh, we have an award's luncheon that is scheduled for February 14t" uh, in which we will recognize the finalists from each of the junior high schools that participated, uh, and also, uh, award the overall finalists, so, again, on behalf of our clubs, I want to thank you for, uh, proclamation. Bailey: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #2 Page 2 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATIONS. b) Hospitalized Veterans Day, February 14, 2008 Bailey: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is V.A. Program Manager, Gary Strank. (applause) Strank: I'd like to thank the City Council for providing this proclamation, and invite anyone who would like to attend our national salute. We'll start this Saturday at 1:00 P.M. at the chapel at the V.A. Hospital. We'll have lots of Valentines there for you to pass out, and give your love to the veterans, and we'll continue that through the 14th, and uh, hope you'll join us. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #3 Page 3 ITEM 3 OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS -Hoover Elementary Bailey: Just for your information, the Hoover students have decided to reschedule given the weather, so we'll move on to Item 4 on our agenda. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #5 Page 4 ITEM 5 COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Bailey: This is a time for citizens to talk to us about items that aren't on tonight's agenda. If you would like to address the Council, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Barnhill: Good evening. My name is Candy Barnhill. I have a question and an issue about snow removal. It's not on the agenda. Am I allowed to speak? Bailey: Yes. Barnhill: I'm here because I spoke with City staff three times in the last four days regarding an ongoing problem that's been going on for the last two winters. The City staff suggested that I request the City Council to direct City staff, legal and enforcement, to review and to tighten up the wording so, on the code enforcement, so that City enforcement staff can respond to the issue. I live on Friendship Street. There's an out-of--town contractor who does snow removal for the condominiums on the north end of Friendship for the five condominiums on Washington that circle around to Cayman. We also believe this same out-of--town contractor does snow removal for the elderly housing, uh, complex that's on Scott Park, the short drive. The contractors come in and remove snow anywhere from midnight to 2:00 A.M. They use a small bobcat, so when they take the bobcat off of the, uh, trailer where they store it on Cayman Street, it's very noisy. It beeps each time when they're clearing the residential area. It beeps when they back up. They also use a pickup truck with a blade on it, so they drop the blade down and they pull it backwards across the cement. Then they use snow blowers. So, in speaking to the City Engineer because I looked at the noise ordinance, this particular contractors has not gotten a permit to do any type of work after hours. I also looked in the, uh, in the noise ordinance. It talks about, in the performance of emergency work, and City staff explained to me that emergency work is very broadly defined, so that might not, might need to be looked up. When I looked at the declaration of a snow emergency, there has not been a snow emergency declared in Iowa. So, therefore, my request is if City Council would please give consideration to asking City staff to look at this and to define it. Simply because the areas where the snow removal is occurring are residential areas. They're not a hospital. They've not a business area. If enforcement could be so that snow removal could be between 5:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M., it might be less offensive, but the way it is now, this contractor has no buy-in to the good neighbor policy and those of us that live in the area and there are multiple people that are aware of this contractor, um, we do buy into the good neighbor policy, and we are affected by this issue. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #5 Page 5 Champion: What was your address again? Barnhill: I live at 154 Friendship. The noise carries from Cayman up to Friendship, and then from the complex that's on Scott Park Drive, up to, um, the Hummingbird Lane. Bailey: Dale, can we simply add this to our snow removal discussion? Helling: Sure. Bailey: Okay. Um, we have scheduled a snow removal discussion later for this spring, so probably won't help in the rest of the winter, but we'll certainly add that for discussion. And thanks for bringing it to our attention. Barnhill: Thank you. Bailey: Anybody else wishing to address Council? Champion: Well, I'd like to just raise a question about that. If you need a permit to work, um, outside of normal work hours, why doesn't this contractor have one? (unable to hear) Bailey: I think we can look into that, as well. I think that's a good idea. Dilkes: My office has looked at this, and it's our, um, interpretation that the code does not prohibit the activity. Bailey: Anybody else wishing to address Council? Okay, we'll move on to Item 6, Planning and Zoning items. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 6 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.40 ACRES OF LAND AT 2815 ROHRET ROAD FROM LOW-DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-1) (REZ07-00016) (DEFERRED FROM 1/29 -FIRST CONSIDERATION) Davidson: Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor, uh, we discussed this issue last week and there were several questions that were raised. I will attempt to, uh, answer those quickly this evening. Uh, and a couple things also that I'd like to highlight that I should have highlighted a little better, uh, last week. Uh, one thing was we were missing the slide that showed the concept plan for the property, and you'll recall that when I went through the, the,uh, conditional zoning provisions that were suggested, one of them was that the property shall be in general conformance with the concept site plan attached hereto and incorporated herein. Well, it was attached hereto and incorporated herein, but not in the slide show, so, here it is, uh, for you to see, uh, and the provision is essentially that significant changes from this concept site plan shall require review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, basically they need to go back to P&Z. If they propose something that was not in the (coughing, unable to hear) site plan. Now I do want to emphasize that although it has been suggested that this may be a childcare center, that is not something that basically the...the applicant, if this is rezoned, can put any use that is allowed in the zone there, in general conformance with this site plan. It is not restricted to a childcare center, so I do want to emphasize that, and in a second here, we'll address, uh, couple of those other uses. So that was one thing that I did want to highlight, uh, for you. A couple of other things, um, in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, uh, for those of you who reviewed those, and there was a request for those, uh, there is a sentence which has a key word missing. The sentence currently reads, "There is documentation to show that the house, referring to the house on the property, is historic." There's a key word missing there, and that word is "no." There is "no documentation" to show that the house is historic, and that is why we have not suggested any conditions in the CZA, uh, to address anything indicating that the house is historic. So I did want to highlight those couple of things. Uh, there were also some questions last week about, uh, some of the screening and setback, uh, requirements, and although I did indicate that those are handled at the site plan stage, where we have a specific proposal rather than a general proposal, uh, we do handle those in the evaluation of the sensitive environmental features at the time a site plan review. Uh, Bob Miklo did provide, uh, information for you, and I think it's fairly self-explanatory, but if there are any questions, I would entertain those, indicating that there is S-3 screening required. Bob has provided you with a general description of what that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 7 kind of screening is, uh, that would be required between the residential use and the commercial use. Uh, there was also a question raised about the uses which were allowed, and Bob has provided a nice tidy summary there of the permitted uses and obviously those are, just like the name says, allowed by right. There are also provisional uses, which would include the apartments on the second floor, uh, and those are evaluated by staff and if they meet certain requirements that are culled out, uh, in the ordinance, then those are allowed. They do not require action by the Board of Adjustment. There are also some special exception uses allowed by special exception that do require the additional scrutiny of the Board of Adjustment to make, you know, they're handled on a case-by-case basis, uh, and...and those uses are indicated there as well. Um, there is concern by some representatives of the neighborhood about the eating and drinking establishments, um, and you know, all of you know, I was formerly on the transportation area. The real high traffic generating uses are not allowed in this zone. I mean, the two key ones are convenient stores and, uh, fast- food drive-throughs. LTh, those are not allowed in this zone, and would not be permitted under any circumstances with the proposed zoning change. Um, there were also a couple of other questions about the comparative tax revenue under the, uh, if it was, if the site was maximized under the current zoning, versus the proposed zoning. Uh, there was about a 65% increase, uh, estimated in the amount of taxes generated, if...if under the proposed use, emphasize please that that is an estimate. Uh, there was also some questions about the highway noise, and... and Bob in his information to you did call out what I think is an interesting statistic, and that is that if we were proposing to use federal funds for, uh, for this property, to build housing on this property, it would not be allowed because of the sound levels that have been, uh, measured. So it obviously is a, uh, site that is noisy because of the highway and for that reason, we feel perhaps non-residential use is appropriate, which is called out in the Comprehensive Plan. Um, that, those are all the points I was going to bring up. Are there any additional questions? Uh, you did close the hearing last week, but deferred first consideration. Bailey: Additional questions? Wilburn: Move adoption of the ordinance. Champion: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Champion. Further discussion? Correia: I just have quick... Bailey: Actually, before we launch into further discussion, let's have, uh, disclosure of Ex Parte communication. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 8 Hayek: I briefly spoke with Regenia last night after the work session, about a minute or two about this issue. Bailey: But nothing really substantive about weighing pros and cons. Okay, any other Ex Parte communication regarding this? Okay. Go ahead, Amy. Correia: So can you, Jeff, just explain the provisional uses. Those would be if, they would come back at the Planning and Zoning level? Davidson: No, actually to staff. Correia: To the staff, okay. And explain how the map works, so that would be.. . Davidson: We basically scrutinize what is proposed against what is called out. I mean, the provisional use, I think the easiest way to describe it is there are uses which are allowed provided some criteria, and we evaluate them against that criteria, whatever it might happen to be, but that is done at the staff level. I did want to make sure that you were aware of that. Correia: Okay. Hayek: And, Jeff, I have just a couple questions. One concerns the HUD, uh, guidelines for noise. Is that offered simply as a comparison? It has no particular relevance, other than just... Davidson: Yeah, that was just kind of, you know, I don't know about you, but the decibel leve168 versus 72 don't really mean that much to me. Uh, we tried to cull out something that would indicate that in terms of the residential development and the justification for changing it from residential to a, uh, commercial use, um, that that indicated it was a site that was considered noisy for a residential use. You will also recall in the Conditional Zoning Agreement that if residential uses are established on the second floor, because they would be allowed under the proposed zoning, that there are conditions that any vents or windows or doors that face the highway would have soundproofing measures taken to try and quiet those units down. Hayek: My second question is this, if, uh, regardless of the ultimate use on this property if rezoned, would the lighting standards... Davidson: Yes, there are lighting standards that are, again, required at the site plan review, uh, stage to reduce light spillage into residential areas. Hayek: Regardless of the ultimate use? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 9 Davidson: Yes, yes, but you know, the light spillage from parking areas, you'll recall that the, the conformance with the general site plan, the site plan includes no parking between the building and the residential uses to the east. That's specifically to for the noise and the light pollution, those sorts of things, but even for that parking area there, we'll make sure that there are not, is not lighting proposed that would spill into the residential area, and you can use cutoff shields and things like that to make sure that that happens. Hayek: Okay. Bailey: Further discussion? Charles: Hi, Amy Charles, 1346 Shannon Drive. Um, I want to say first, thank you for all of your work over the last few weeks. I've become more aware of just how much time and energy you all, and Board Members give, to the City, and uh, we appreciate it. Um, I come here tonight after a few days of complicated and somewhat dismay in communications with staff. Um, I want to say upfront that I'm sure that the confusion here has been unintentional, and that I wouldn't put it down to anything more than a desire to move through a fairly routine matter, um, quickly, and perhaps to some honest errors here and there. Um, as you know, the property that we're discussing borders on relatively few homes, so when my neighbors and I first discussed a zoning protest, we felt that this would be a relatively simple matter. Christy Shelling went to Planning and then to the City Assessor's Office to get the list of properties within the 200-foot line. And the list was larger than she expected. It was over a hundred addresses. The reason that she was given was that there were two condominium associations involved and that all the condominium owners would be partial owners of any common property within that 200-foot boundary. She asked if we really would have to get signatures from them, and was told that if they were owners, then yes, and this was a little daunting, but it made sense to me, um, I own a condominium myself, but before we got started with our mailing, I called Planning and Community Development, just to make sure that this was really how they would define owners of property within 200-feet of the parcel, because obviously if we didn't have to go canvassing a hundred people, I didn't want to do it. Um, and eventually I was told that yes, the condo association was set up so that all the condominium owners had shares in the common property; then for the purposes of rezoning they were owners, uh, within 200-feet of the property. So we went by what two independent City offices told us, and we took the list that we had gotten with the help of City staff. We mailed over 70 owners, and we went out in sub-zero cold and a blizzard and knocked on doors and picked up petitions, um, made phone calls to most of the five-page list, and we got calls back from a number of people who were confused about things. We tried to get back to them all, um, we went This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 10 to considerable effort .and expense, because we believed that the City would count all of these properties in protest, and we did not focus our efforts on the few properties close to the parcel itself. Um, on Monday, I heard from Bob that Planning was only going to count those actual residences within that 200-foot boundary of the property, and um, that they would not be counting all of the residences on the list that Christy had gotten because of difficulties in determining, uh, what the property shares actually were, um, for people with residences, condominium residences, outside that physical line. Um, and I'm willing to believe this is, you know, a simple mix up among City staff. Um, it's a complicated matter and there were a lot of people involved. And, um, while we went on a goose chase, you know, it's over and we're certainly willing to accept that we may not have gotten to the 20% that we were looking for. Um, however, that...that sort of hurry, and if I may say, that sort of confusion seems to be a motif, I think, of this rezoning effort, and I think it's worth reviewing. Um, first the request itself seems to be based on misconception that the limited non-residential uses suggested in the Southwest District Plan, uh, daycare or a religious institution for instance, meant that a commercial zoning had been suggested, and last week we heard Jeff Davidson say that a commercial rezoning had been envisioned by the Southwest District Plan, and I know that at least one Planning and Zoning Member had been under that misconception before the vote. Um, however, the Southwest District Plan never suggested a commercial use for this property, and it's clearly stated on Planning's web site that the Southwest District Plan suggests that exceptional RS-5 residential uses be allowed. Uh, it's clear about the residential nature of the parcel and the surrounding neighborhood. Second, we heard much discussion during both Planning and Zoning meetings, and again tonight, about the unsuitability of the parcel for homes, because of the proximity to Highway 218. Um, although of course many of us already live close to Highway 218 and don't perceive it as a problem. Um, however, last week and again tonight, we...we heard Jeff tell us that building apartments, and indeed building apartment, building apartments above the, uh, commercial use, would be potential uses here, if the parcel were rezoned. So I have trouble seeing how the parcel is too close to the highway for people living in single-family homes, but not too close to the highway for people living in apartments. Um, third, we also spent both Planning and Zoning meetings listening to extended discussions of the design of a daycare center on this site, and I know that Jeff has just, um, gone to...gone to some lengths to explain that this is not necessarily a daycare center, but that is what we, that is what those meetings were spent talking about. Um, there, as far as I'm aware, there is no daycare client, and again, daycares are already permitted under RS-5, so there's no rezoning necessary if this is the intent. And finally the original proposal from Planning and Zoning talks about the lack of commercial property in the area, but Planning again has already conceived a large, handsome and well planned commercial, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 11 neighborhood commercial development, in the Carson Lake area, just across Highway 218, so given that, I don't really understand how Planning foresees a shortage of commercial property in the area. The...these things, and the lack of apparent interest in how this rather large parcel, um, would be integrated with our neighborhood, if it were given a commercial use, leaves me thinking that perhaps the main intent here is to simply give Hodge Construction as much leeway as possible in trying to develop or sell the land. Um, after, as I understand, they had proposed an unremarkable residential plan, um, and in general, I think this is a good thing. I think that a city should try to work with developers and should try to meet them halfway. However, I don't think it should be happening in a sort of higgledy-piggledy way, and I think it must not come ahead of the integrity and sense of community, in the neighborhood that already exists. Um, we have a neighborhood, we have a community, the people that Christy and Lucy and I spoke with were all clear about that, and they were all clear about wanting it to retain its residential character, as laid out in the Southwest District Plan. I understand the change comes, and of course without it we wouldn't have that neighborhood, um, but it's not just houses there. We are now residents, new families, people who've lived there for a while. We care about the neighborhood. We care about Iowa City, and if our neighborhood is to change, then please let us not only be involved in it, let us make it a change that truly serves the spirit of our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Champion: I have a question, Eleanor. Dilkes: Yes? Champion: Some...any time during this process, they can bring objection, isn't that true? It doesn't have to be before first consideration? Dilkes: In order to, um, count towards requiring asuper-majority vote, it must be filed prior to the close of the public hearing. Champion: Oh! Okay, thank you. Correia: And so can you explain for us the decision around the 200, which petitions (coughing, unable to hear) considered and which ones and how. many we've received and what... Dilkes: First of all, let me say that if there was miscommumcation, um, we certainly apologize, um, for that. We haven't been able to find anyone in my office who had a conversation about the condominium percentage, um, but it is a very complicated thing when you have condominiums, because what you're doing is you're, you're taking the 200-foot area around the area to be rezoned, and you're, if a property owner within that area has This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 12 filed a protest, you count that property...you figure out the whole acreage within that 200-foot area, and then you pick the people protesting and you count their acreage, to see if that adds up to 20% of the total acreage. With condominiums, it can be difficult, because often, well, it depends on what type of condominium regime you have. Um, for instance, condominiums often the owner of each unit owns a percentage of the common elements, the ground, the walkways perhaps, that kind of thing. Um, so, you...while it's important if you were gathering protest, I think, to be cognizant of that issue, um, we would wait until we actually got the information to make a decision of how to count it. What we did in this situation, when it came down to our office and in talking with Planning Department, um, we decided, these are side-by-side units, or detached dwellings. It's not for instance a big 12-unit condominium complex, and so what we did is we took the square footage of...of the property being assessed for each of the protesting units, and counted that entire amount. If there was a protest from that property owner, we counted that entire square footage, or if that unit was partially in the, um, 200-foot area, we counted the percentage of square footage of that area, per the assessor's web site. I think it's likely that we actually, if anything, we overestimated the amount that should be attributed to that property, because we did not take into account the percentage of the common elements that would have been owned by other members of the...of the regime. Um, but I think, and we're...let me just give you what I understand the calculations to be. Um, the 200-foot area surrounding the property to be rezoned equals 11.88 acres. Therefore, to require a Council super-majority, we would need 2.3 acres, or we calculated that also as feet, but to file protest, prior to the close of the, um, public hearing. Using the square footage of each protesting lot within the 200-foot boundary, whether or not it was notarized, resulted in 1.06 acres protesting, or 8.9% of the required 20%. Champion: So it wasn't really close. Dilkes: Using only the notarized petitions, and our local ordinance requires that they be notarized, and we've faced this issue before. The State code does not, it says they have to be signed. It does not say that, um, they have to be notarized. Our local ordinance does, and our opinion is that that is, that, um, requirement is consistent with the State code requirement, and not, would not be preempted by the Code. So, if we just count those, we've got, um, .71 acres, or 5.9% of the required 20%. So, again, if there was miscommunication, Ihate to have people doing things that they, they ultimately didn't need to do, but I...but we're not close on the percentages. Correia: But we did consider the condo owners? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 13 Dilkes: I think the point that Ms. Charles is making is that if you look at the map, and I can show you the map here. Correia: Is there an aerial photo of the area? No? Dilkes: Um, well, I can...here's the boundary. Okay? Here's places outside of that boundary, condominiums, and...and the only counting you would do, if you were going to count for those units that protest, would be I/12th of any common, common areas that were within the 200-feet. We actually didn't even separate. We took the whole square footage assessed for each of those units that were within the 200-feet. Um, and I think would have erred on the side of having more space rather than less. But even so, if you took 1/12th of, if you took the 1/12th for the ones that are outside the area that protested, you would not be close to... Champion: Thank you for explaining that. Bailey: Other discussion? Yeah. The public hearing isn't still open, but we're, um, comments from the public are welcome. Digmann: Hi, I'm Kevin Digmann with Hodge Construction, um, well, you know, when we started this process, we...we took a plan to the...to the City staff, with, you know, um, condos, you know, and kind of similar projects that were there. Couple of the issues that came up was the proximity to the highway and the noise that was going to come to it, and it was, you know, actually suggested by the staff based on the Comprehensive Plan in that area, that we would consider, you know, rezoning it to this, and...and you know, as we looked at it, we thought it would be a nice site. Obviously we thought a daycare would be a great location there. Um, but we decided to go with the CO-1 zoning just because it had some flexibility with some, uh, like what we consider other office users, potentially a professional doctor's office, or a dental office. Um, you know, as far as the concerns that we're heard from the neighbors with access in and out, and getting restaurants or whatever there, and I mean, I guess the one thing I would say, you know, I've done a lot of commercial real estate in town, and I'd say given the location, you know, you don't have interstate access. This isn't right off a busy thoroughfare. As far as some of the major type of commercial businesses that are concerned, you know, coming there, I just, my experience in the real estate world would not happen. I mean, this might be an insurance agency. Like I said, a dental office, a daycare, and...and we just felt like, you know, to do something on a commercial site too would have less impact, um, I think that the plan that we tried to do, um, with the residential was to maybe put 20 units in there, and we got into where we wanted to tear quite a bit of trees out and redevelop the whole site and make the, you know, make the whole area look a lot different than it does today, so what we've tried to do is preserve the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 14 landscaping area that there is by just where the house would be removed and limiting the amount of trees that come down and that's how we came up with this...this site plan that we did. So...if anybody has any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer those. Correia: Did I read in the earlier, one of the things that I read, that you...you utilize the good neighbor policy? Digmann: We did, yeah. Correia: So can you tell us what you did and what... Digmann: Well, some things that our engineers set up, they...they uh actually, they had it at the church down at the bottom of Mormon Trek, um, sent out notices to the, to the neighbors. I mean, obviously, you know, the night it happened there was a snowstorm, which there's been one of those every day it seems like, but we did make an effort to do that and explain to the folks what we were trying to do there. Correia: Did people show up? Digmann: I think there was a limited number. I think...I think they maybe emailed Bob Miklo with the results of that, but I think there was like seven neighbors, from what I understood. (several talking) Thanks. Charles: Hi, Amy Charles again. Just to clear up for Amy the issue was that we had gone collecting, uh, petitions from owners well outside that 200-foot residence, so of course none of that counted, um, as for the good neighbor meeting. As I recall, we got that notice a couple days before the meeting, um, I was not able to go. I called in and asked several times, trying to find out what had happened at the meeting, and I never did receive a call back. Hayek: Jeff, is there a height cap on height for our CO? Davidson: There is a height limitation. I can't tell you exactly what it is, but it's, again, tries to be consistent with the lower intensity commercial nature of this...of this zone. You couldn't build a really tall building. Hayek: Okay. Bailey: Further discussion? Correia: I mean, I've read all of the materials, the Planning and Zoning minutes, and all the information, uh, from staff. I appreciate all of the extra information, um, that we received in the memo today, um, and have considered, um, the neighbors, and um, concerns about their This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 15 neighborhood. Although I don't live on the west side of town, I'm certainly familiar with the area, um, and have driven through, to visit good friends that live there, going to the assisted living facility that...that's there, uh, and as I'm thinking about other areas, residential areas of town that have a mix of commercial and residential, um, you know, I've been concerned in the past when we've rezoned, um, at higher intensities closer to residential, specifically the Sonic, um, on the southeast side, um, I'm not as concerned with this commercial rezoning, because of the low impact, um, because of HUD standards around, um, the noise, and I understand that that's not something that's necessarily considered for all housing. It's related to, um, federally funded and trying to protect, um, folks that maybe have limited choices, um, in their housing choice, um...I think we've talked on Council about trying to do infill, and having neighborhoods that have a mix of uses, um, I think that there can be benefits. We certainly, I know that daycare is not a, a daycare center is not for sure going in here. We certainly have needs for daycare, um, in our community and certainly I imagine in this neighborhood there are folks that need daycare services, um, so I would certainly...think there's probably a market, um, for daycare center in the area, um, and would support that, knowing that that's not up to us. We're just doing the conditional, or the rezoning to the CO-1, um, so at this time based on the conversations that we've had, and weighing those things, um, I will support the rezoning. Wright: I have to say, um, I agree with some of what you said in it's...this isn't one of the more clear-cut zoning types of things that I've seen over the past few years, um...when I went out and visited this site, and drove back and forth and probably was seen behaving a little strangely by most neighborhood standards =walking around the property - um, the noise level did not strike me as all that significant, and I actually, they said, what is it 65 to 70 decibels, um, to put that into perspective, that's three people having a conversation at the same time. So it's not a tremendously high, um, volume of noise, but it can be steady, and, excuse me (throat clearing) um, it's not a parcel that probably lends itself especially well to residential development is what I finally decided in terms of the alterations that would be required, particularly on landscape, uh, I think we'd end up changing that landscape much more significantly than having a commercial, uh, despite the, uh, commercial you always think of parking lots and more disruption to a neighborhood, and I don't think that necessarily has to be the case, and I do think that any way you look at it, this land is going to be redeveloped. Uh, one way or another, there's going to be redevelopment there. This, um, this proposal for CO-1 zoning is relatively low impact, and I, uh, with a certain amount of discomfort, I'm going the same as Amy and I will support it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 16 Champion: Well, I think you're right. I think the minute you say commercial people think of Hy-Vee or McDonald's or some big, busy place, but CO-1 is really low impact and I don't think it's bad for the neighborhood. In fact, I think it's an ideal spot for it. Bailey: Other comments? Wilburn: One of the challenges on Council is having to balance, uh, as was pointed out by, uh, um, Amy Charles, I think, uh, is trying to balance the needs, desires between neighbors, developers, um, and just kind of our infrastructure, balancing infill development versus sprawl, and, um, needless to say, it's always challenging. Uh, appreciate your involvement and with the neighborhood, and again, um, apologize for any, uh, misunderstandings and miscommunications that may have happened. Um, but, um, I will be supporting this, um, because as part of that balancing is the conditional zoning agreement, and that's put in place to try and, um, mitigate any challenges, any difficulties, um, and it may not be optimal for, um, anyone in the existing neighborhood, but um, again, it helps, uh, not only with noise, but in this case, some of the landscaping, trying to allow a developer to do something with a property that does have certain features on it, and in this case, they're trying to see to some environmental needs with the, with the landscaping there. Um, but, uh, I think above all, trying to look at some certain types of infill development, and being able to moderate, mitigate what happens there, uh, not only for existing neighborhood, but for the future neighbors that will be coming and joining you all, so I will support it. Hayek: I will as well. I...I don't like seeing historic structures torn down, but the documentation's not in place for this, and that's not what this is about, and I think that would occur, uh, in the event this went through on a residential basis, in any event. This seems to me to be a thoughtful design. I believe there to be sufficient protections in place, um, to protect the neighbors, and one thing that hasn't been pointed out is that Planning and Zoning unanimously support this, and staff recommended it, and those two things weigh heavily in my mind, as well. Bailey: I'll be supporting this rezoning. Um, just because of the low impact nature of the CO-1, and I think that the neighbors have recognized some of the possibilities that this might bring to the neighborhood, um, change is always difficult, but this might present some opportunities for, um, increase sort of community building in the area. Um, that's not really my motivation, but I encourage you to think down those lines, because I know we discussed it when we met, Amy, so I think that there are some opportunities here that can be explored for the neighborhood. Okay, roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #6 Page 17 Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Correia: So moved. Bailey: Moved by Correia. O'Donnell: Second. Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. (several talking) All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #g Page 18 ITEM 8 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FALSE ALARM AND OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENT FEES. Champion: Move the resolution. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Correia. Discussion? We do have members of the Fire Department here for any questions. If there are additional questions from last night. I know we discussed this at our work session. Okay. Correia: I guess just for...for the public. This would...John, would you come forward, so...folks would get two free passes before they would be assessed a fee for false alarm. Grier: Correct. Correia: Okay, and the fees cover our, the actual cost. Grier: Based on actual costs, correct. Hayek: Also for the public, this is an attempt to recoup some of the costs the City incurs due to multiple false alarms at places. Grier: Certainly. Our intention is to promote operational systems, so we want to get people to comply, and sometimes this is a good way to do it. Bailey: Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 19 ITEM 9 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR INSPECTION SERVICES AND A SCHEDULE FOR MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS FOR THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBERS 95-360 AND OS-280. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Wright: Oh, second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright. Discussion? Correia: There was a question last night, Dale, if, um, the budget that we received included these, um, fees. Helling: Yes. The...the proposed budget that you received did include a projected amount for this. Um, and for whatever reason, that was not highlighted as we usually do in the budget. Any time where there are fee increases involved, um, and that should have been, and we'll be more diligent about that, um, however, the overall amount is very, very minor in a $50 million operating budget, so I think it's more of an issue where you want to look at it in terms of the recommendation that you have, uh, to go to a two-year rather than three-year cycle, as well as the Council's previous direction to, uh, move towards move self-sufficiency in there. Um, it will have a minor, very minor impact on the budget, but I think you can be comfortable making your decision based on those other issues. Champion: Thank you. Boothroy: Just for the public, uh, explain how we got here tonight, with regard to the fee increases. Um, back in 2002, um, we started increasing fees, based on, um, the Council's directive to make the, uh, rental inspection program, um, more self-sufficient, and uh, because we hadn't increased fees for more than a decade, um, the first two fee increases were quite sizeable because of that, uh, lack. At that, after having gone through those hearings, uh, it was...communicated to me that we should make sure that we didn't get that far behind again on our fee structure, because that was somewhat of a painful process, and uh, we should be looking at these fees, monitoring these fees, and bringing them back to the Council for consideration, uh, approximately every two years or three, depending on when that need, and so that's why we're bringing these to you at this time. Uh, costs have increased over the last two years. They continue to go up, and this is, uh, basically a proposal to, uh, to get our balance back to where it was, uh, two years ago within terms of how we supported the Housing Inspection, uh, fees, or Division. Um, is there any questions you have about it? It's really not too complicated as far as the fees are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 20 concerned. It's pretty straightforward. Uh, the, uh, there is an estimated percentage increase. Uh, it's about 9%. These are paid on an every two- yearbasis. They get phased in at the time of renewal, so in the case of two-year permits, uh, it takes two years before those fees fully go into effect, uh, those properties that have renewed recently, have a permit that lasts another two years. So it'll be two years, uh, from, uh, whatever date their permit, uh, expires. So it's not as if all rental properties that are on a two-year cycle suddenly, uh, come into compliance or come, start paying this additional fee. So it, there is a transition period. The same is true also for the, uh, duplex and single-family. Typically, uh, when we dealt with a three-year cycle, it would take three years for all duplexes and single- family structures to, um, be, uh, paying the same fee. Now, another part of the proposal, uh, that we talked about was that we have been looking at this for some time, about whether or not duplex and single-family structures should be moved to a two-year cycle, uh, and treated on the same basis as all other rental property in Iowa City, and we did have a, uh, a neighborhood task force that looked into this issue. It was a joint task force made up of various interests, and through that discussion and looking at...at neighborhood issues, as well as other issues, uh, the recommendation came to Council to, uh, move single-family and duplex structures to a two-year cycle. We support that, uh, wholeheartedly. It's our experience that where we do have problems, uh, they do often occur in, uh, single-family and duplex rentals, and uh, and we've had those issues with our nuisance property ordinance, with...with party houses, with other kinds of issues that...that occur, and we believe that having that two-year inspection cycle will, uh, improve the performance of those properties within neighborhoods. So, in looking at what we were proposing to do, uh, we felt this was the time, this was the opportunity to consider bringing that back to the Council, uh, and putting it, moving it from athree-year to a two-year cycle. Um, and that's why that's also on the resolution that's before you tonight. Uh, I wanted to also just make note that, um, I wanted to break down those fee increases a little bit different than we talked about before. Uh, for a, uh, the example that's in your...your, uh, packet, the memorandum that was sent out, uh, fora 12- plex with two-bedroom units, uh, with this fee increase, the...the average monthly increase impact on a per-unit basis is $1.91 per month with this fee increase. With regard to single-family, uh, three-bedroom unit, it would be about $2.72 a month, and with regard to, um, duplexes with three-bedrooms on each side, it would be about $1.67 a month. So that's kind of the measure of the impact on a monthly basis of the increased fee for the cost of that. Another thing that was mentioned last night, and I just wanted to...to clarify that a little bit. It was mentioned that with regard to affordable housing, the fair market rents were frozen in time, uh, that's...they are adjusted on an annual basis, and uh, they have been adjusted, um, they've increased anywhere from 25 to 30% since 2000, uh, what we're talking about here is that HUD establishes afair-market rent, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 21 that is what we use to determine the payment standard for all Section 8 program, uh, units, and that, uh, HUD measures the, uh, rent in the community, and then comes up with what they believe is to be the fair- market rate, and that, um, the Housing Authority has the option of determining whether we, uh, set that fair-market rate at 90% of the fair market, or 100% or 110%. We have it set at 100%, uh, and we have well over 3001andlords participating, uh, and...and uh, and have demand for Section 8 certificates. So, we believe that the fair-market rents are, uh, are, uh, set at the appropriate level, because they're well used. Uh, in the last, uh, the difference between the increases from 2007 to 2008 for atwo- bedroom is that they've gone up about $26.00 a month in terms of what you can realize in regard to athree-bedroom from 2007 to 2008 fair- market rents, they've gone up about $38.00 a month. So when you put that into perspective of $1.67 a month, or the $2.72, you can see that there is some margin that's being built into the, to the inflation rate of the fair- market rents to accommodate those increased costs in the community, and to reflect what the rates are in the community, in terms of what rents need to be charged. Um, if you have any questions about that...I just wanted to clarify that part too, because it's not a static situation. Wright: Yeah, I actually have a couple questions for you. Um, this was first, uh, recommended in 2003? When Neighborhood Housing (unable to hear) (male): (unable to hear from audience) Bailey: You're going to have to come to the mic. Boothroy: 2002. Wright: 2002. Boothroy: Yeah, I wasn't quite sure of the date, but yes. Wright: Uh, and I...I personally am very pleased to see the rentals that are moving from athree-year to a two-year inspection cycle. I'm wondering why it took.. . Boothroy: Well, it was discussed at the time the recommendations were presented to the Council, and some of the recommendations were accepted and followed through with...we had developed a nuisance property ordinance, uh, we developed the information disclosure form, uh, we did a number of other things, uh, as part of that. We developed a, uh, we reprogrammed our computers so that we had direct access, better access between the police reporting and the, uh, HIS so that we could track nuisance property complaints, uh, and all of those things helped improve the, those...addressing those issues. LTh, honestly don't remember why the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 22 Council didn't go forward with...with that change at that time. Uh, I was there, it was six years ago, and I can honestly say I don't know without going back and looking at the minutes, uh, maybe someone else knows, but I don't. And I'm sorry I can't remember. Wright: If I could remember six years ago, I'd be doing just fine so... Boothroy: You know, I...I don't know, there wasn't any...it was at informal discussion and there wasn't, you know, there wasn't a public hearing, there wasn't public discussion of it, uh, as we're going to have tonight, so, you know, it wasn't that it was controversial, that I recall, it was just...it was just not followed through on. There were some Members of the Council that didn't feel that they wanted to change, uh, it, uh, from...from three to two, and...and you know, that's just the way it was. Wilburn: If I remember correctly, there may have been a Council Member or two that had concern about the budget impact and the effect on the, you know, if you're...if it's going to take more staff hours, I understand there have been some technology enhancements that have helped out. Boothroy: Possibly, that could have been part of it. Wilburn: That was around the time we started hearing, um, the initial concerns about police and fire, and adding more salary to the General Fund, um, would have, uh, in fact there were some Council Members that wanted to, if it wasn't police or fire, they wanted to look at putting a hiring freeze, and so... Boothroy: Well, in 2002 we increased...that was when we were increasing our fees to become more sustain, or self-sustaining, and uh, it was all that. There was a lot of stress and unknowns happening at that time about, uh, there was a lot of doubt and question, and I think that's all part of it. Wilburn: So if I remember right, a concern by a couple Council Members was, uh, how are we going to pay for it, and you're not going to get a staff member, and so that's...(several talking) that's my recollection. Correia: So with this proposal, the proposal is to increase the fee, and increase the, um, frequency that we impose the fee, so even if we didn't increase the fee percent, we're going to generate more revenue if we, if people are on a two-year cycle. Boothroy: For those that are going from a three to a two, what you said is correct, yes. Correia: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 23 Boothroy: But multi-family doesn't change. They're still the same. Correia: And so I think that, when it's, when we see a 9% fee increase, um, you know, we all received correspondence from some folks that are showing that it's in actuality, in some cases, it's like a 60% increase, whether it's small in units, depends on how many units (several talking) based on.. . Boothroy: That's absolutely correct. Correia: Because it's based on now they're going to be assessed this fee every two years instead of every three years, so... Boothroy: That's aone-time, that's aone-time hit, so I understand that 60% is still 60%, but once they're all on a two-year cycle, then...then we won't be looking at that kind of...of impact in the future. I mean, you're right... Correia: But we will be generating more fee over time, because we'll be assessing the fee every two years, without having.. . Boothroy: But it will take us three years to get to that point. You understand? Correia: I think I do. Hayek: In the memorandum, the shortfall is apparently around $54,000. Boothroy: Approximately. Hayek: How much extra revenue will we generate without a fee increase, but simply a fee increase in the frequency from three to two for the affected households? Boothroy: Well, Norm did the numbers so let me have him see. (several talking) Cate: Again, this would be something that would be phased in, and we wouldn't see it until two years from now. But, the numbers that I looked at, that after two years, when we start rolling in those properties, would be $60,000 additional in revenue. O'Donnell: That's with everything, right, Norm? Boothroy: He's saying if we don't increase any fees. If we just change it from three to two. (several talking) Hayek: Simply taking the single-family and duplex homes, uh, rental units to a bi- annual inspection schedule. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Boothroy: Without any raising of fees. Page 24 Hayek: Without any raising of fees, do you have any idea how much extra money that generates to cover... Cate: Well, if it's $60,000 with the raise in fees going to two years, then it must be somewhere in the $50,000 range. 50 to 53, somewhere in there. O'Donnell: I thought last night we were told, going form 120 to 130 for the permit, um, 16, no, yeah, $6 per bedroom to $7 per bedroom would generate $35,000. (several talking) Champion: There's some options here too, I mean, we wouldn't have to, because we're going to be having them inspected every two years, we're going to have to increase those fees. I think the other option, and something that was said last night by Doug, is that they can do this without hiring any new employees because of technology. So then I thought, well, if we left everything the way it is, I wonder if we've talked about...don't hit me, reducing the number of people in the department. And then we would have money for another fireman, well, close to one, maybe a half a one. So, that's another idea, just leave things the way they are, and... Boothroy: Let me address that directly. Um, the...well, you know, hate to be penalized for being efficient, but uh, one of the things that, uh, we do by doing this from a three to a two is that increase, uh, the performance of that particular unit, and what I want to say by that is complaint inspections are, we have more complaint inspections when we have athree-year cycle than we have atwo-year cycle, and when we're dealing with complaint inspections, it takes a lot more staff time, so when we balance that from three to two, we're in a sense balancing the complaint, versus regular inspections. Regular inspections generally go very smoothly. They're scheduled. They get done on time, uh, whereas with the complaint inspection, you're chasing people, you're going to court, you're taking the legal time. It becomes much more costly. The second thing we have to keep in mind is it takes three years to go from three to two, so you're not seeing any significant savings in staff time immediately. It takes a while. While we go through that three-year period, we're also growing our multi- familybase. So we are adding, as you can probably see, multi-family units all the time, and so, uh, those units continue to come online, and so we see that that doesn't change as far as our staffing needs are concerned. Uh, what we can do is by having regular inspections of duplexes and single-family structures on two-year cycles, we can be, uh, much more efficient in how we use our time, much like with multi-family, uh, we can, we don't have staff turnover, Connie, so we're not training people. If we were to lose, for example, uh, one inspector, it takes about a year to bring This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Champion: Correia: Page 25 another one online, so then all that gets shifted so we have...we have all of these things going for us -technology, experience, uh, trying to come up with a regular program, looking at transitioning this over three years, and knowing that our complaint inspections should go down. So, to answer your question, I don't think there is the room to take a staff person. Um... Do you have another question? Champion: Well, I'm you know, I totally agree that I think, um, duplexes and houses that are rental property should be inspected every two years. Um, I'm concerned a little bit about the big jump that those owners are going to have to take in that inspection. But I also do think it will be in the long run good for the neighborhoods, and good for the, uh, for the city. O'Donnell: I, and see, I totally disagree that we should go to two years from three years. I... Dilkes: Can I suggest that I think there's people wanting to (several talking) Bailey: Any more questions for Doug? Boothroy: Any more questions for me? Correia: I had one... O'Donnell: I do have a question, also. Bailey: Okay. Doug's still up there, let's ask questions. O'Donnell: One of the complaints that I receive quite frequently is I own a 16-plex south on whathaveyou avenue, and I just got inspected, and it'll cost me a bunch. Champion: So what's a bunch? O'Donnell: Well, that's what I want to know. Boothroy: Well, 12's are easier for us to deal with, but... Cate: If it was a 12-plex with two bedrooms in each unit, that cost is going to be approximately $450.00 every two years. O'Donnell: $450.00 (several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 26 Bailey: Other questions for staff, before we... Hayek: Mike had a question, Mike Wright. Wright: Uh, yeah, I was curious, uh, just going back to this, one of the things you suggest is that this will allow the City to maintain better control of a nuisance violations, you know, the trash, the litter, parking problems. Boothroy: Overoccupancy. Wright: Yeah. How...how would this be more effective? Boothroy: Do you want to...well, with regard to overoccupancy, that's a, that's an ongoing monitoring type of thing. The more times you're in the property, the more likely you're going to deal with that more effectively. Uh, overoccupancy is a complicated issue to get your arms around, and I think that greater presence helps us remind the tenants, helps us remind landlords, I mean, it's not...you know, I'm not here to say anything negative about landlords. Landlords aren't usually, aren't always the reason for overoccupancy, and sometimes tenants are trying to...to bring more friends into the house. They do it unknowingly, uh, and sometimes the landlord is just as surprised as the tenants are when we show up and tell them that they're overoccupied. But those kinds of things require, uh, I think, involvement and...and you can only get that through a regular inspection, more regular inspections. The, in terms of the maintenance of the property, one of the things that works well with atwo-year cycle, and we've had over the years a number of positive comments from the landlords about this, is that, it allows us to be more flexible in how we deal with these issues. Uh, we can see things that are starting to happen, and we know that we're going to be back in two years, and we can say, we can alert them to this particular problem, we can say it looks like this is beginning to deteriorate. We don't have to cite it because we're not going to be back in three to four years. We can cite, you know, we want to bring it to your attention, you can work it into your capital plan, uh, when we come back in two years we'll take a look at it again, and if it has gotten to a point where it needs to be dealt with and you haven't dealt with it, we'll cite it at that point, but it's aheads-up and it's been very effective in terms of working with property owners in the community. Uh, you know, garbage and parking on the grass, uh, probably doesn't make much difference whether it's a three or a two or a one, uh, every year we get an influx of new, uh, folks in the community that don't know what the rules are. We have the information disclosure form that's supposed to help in that regard, uh, but we need to train them about, you know, all these issues, uh, and it takes a while, uh, so that by the time they graduate, maybe they've learned what the rules are, but, uh, so some things do pick up with regards to maintenance of the structure, fire prevention, those This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 27 kinds of issues. Some things like, uh, parking on the grass, uh, garbage, uh, strewn around on the front lawn after parties and stuff like that is always going to be a, uh, a, uh, on-call type of thing. Yeah. O'Donnell: But we address that on a regular basis anyway. Boothroy: Exactly, and I'm saying it doesn't make any difference if it's three or two, Mike, is what I'm saying on that. Correia: I just had...in the, uh, fields of municipal housing inspections, is...are generally these departments self-sustaining through fees, or is it a mix of fees and... Boothroy: Let me just explain what I know about Iowa. Uh, the answer is no. We are probably, uh, to my knowledge, we maybe the only community in the State that does, uh, generate enough fees to be self-sustaining. iJh, I recently met with members of the, uh, neighborhood groups up in Cedar Rapids, and they are looking at increasing their fees and changing their, uh, regular inspection process. One of the problems they have, they're on a five-year cycle and the complaints, they have so many complaints, that they can't get to the inspections. So... Correia: So generally speaking, housing... Boothroy: We're ahead of the game, maybe! (laughter) Correia: Well, but I...but I mean, general practice is that the Housing Inspection Departments are mix of...supported through a mix of fees generated through inspections, and our general.. . Boothroy: That's correct. Most cities do it that way. Correia: Okay. Boothroy: That's correct. We are, we have, we're...we do it differently. Correia: So I just wanted to get a sense of kind of... Boothroy: And up until 2002, that was our model too. Correia: Okay. Boothroy: But it's changed since then. Correia: Okay, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 28 Bailey: I think we have other comments from the public. Boothroy: That's it. Bailey: For now. I'm sure that there'll be more questions. Eastham: Thank you. My name is Charlie Eastham. I'm the President of the Board of Trustees of the Housing Fellowship, anon-profit affordable housing develop, uh, provider. Just wanted to preface, uh, what I have to say to emphasize that we have no disagreement with the Housing Authority and Housing Inspection Services. We have great relationships with, uh, with Doug and the staff, and have done a lot of cooperative projects with them in the past, and we look forward to doing that in the future. Um, just wanted to add some numbers to the ones that Doug has given you already. I obtained these from the Executive Director of the Housing Fellowship, uh, today. We, uh, the Housing Fellowship owns and manages, um, ourselves about 104 rental homes in Iowa City, uh, the proposed fee increase for rental inspections would increase, um, on an annual basis our, when the fee increases are fully implemented, on an annual basis they would increase from $3,706 per year for those, uh, 104 homes to $6,142, an increase of about $2,436 across the whole. And that's, that...the amount of that increase is in large part due to the fact that...that most of our homes, those 104, uh, 85 of them are single-family or duplex types. Single-family and duplex types are the, in my opinion, have been the preferred rental property type by this Council, previous Councils, and the community, for affordable rental housing. And so we've really concentrated on that type, and if this, today we're just talking about an increase in rental inspection fees that's higher for that type than for others. A couple things I would note. One, uh, many of our, uh, clients, uh, receive Section 8 rental assistance and it's my understanding that we, that those homes are inspected annually, uh, not two years or three years, um, and we don't, although as I understand from Doug, we don't pay the, an additional fee for that additional annual inspection, but those homes are inspected very often. Uh, at least in my opinion anyway. Um, also, most of our homes, rental properties, are rent-controlled, one way or the other, either because the tenants receive Section 8 assistance, and we're subject to fair-market rent (coughing, unable to hear) which Doug correctly said have increased percentage-wise over the years, although if you look over a long period of time, the percent of increase and the fair-market rents has been generally somewhat less than the 4.5 or so percent increase in rental inspection fees that this particular budget proposal contemplates. We also have about a third of our homes that are, uh, uh, rent at a lower rent than the fair-market rent, uh, by agreement with the, with the City, in order to get rents lower, and those rents, uh, increase at a somewhat less rate than the fair-market rent, according to the contract that we entered into when we obtained local Home or CDBG Funds, to finance those homes. So, my This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 29 point there is, that over time the rental inspection fees in our opinion are increasing at a little bit faster rate than the, than our rent is increasing. Um, the amounts per month may not seem very much, uh, and they are not very much, but, uh, in the aggregate, they're a significant amount of our total operating budget for providing affordable rental housing. Uh, we're a little bit different than other rental housing providers in that we can't pass these fee increases directly to the...to the tenant (unable to understand) for most rental housing managers. Uh, so if you have any questions, be happy to answer them. While I don't actually have a proposed solution at this point, I'm sorry to say. Champion: Charlie, what would the increase in costs be by just, because you already said anything with a Section 8's already inspected yearly. So if we left the rates alone, what would your increase be for the every two years, actually, rather than three? Did you happen to look at that figure? Eastham: You mean if you left the rate alone and did not, just went to...it would be, uh, I don't have the number in front of me, Connie. I, we could get that to you later, if you'd like. Champion: Yeah, I'd like to know that. Eastham: But it would be...it would be more, uh, than we're paying now, right, but it would not be quite so much as the increase in the rate, and decrease, and increasing the, uh... Champion: You'd also have to separate the, separate out the Section 8. Correia: Well, no they don't charge the fee (several talking) but I think we're.. . Champion: It would be one-third, wouldn't it? It'd be one-third of whatever they're paying now? Wouldn't you have to add a third? Eastham: I'm sorry, Connie, when I was much younger I could... Champion: ...the total that you're paying now, which you said... Wright: 154. For single-family. Champion: Well, I mean, totally. Bailey: He said, didn't you say 3,706? Eastham: Yeah, I...I think it'd be, it'd increase our annual costs by about a third or so, which would be less...at least I think, which would be less than...than the proposed schedule. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Champion: Right. Page 30 Eastham: And I guess one of or other points would be that, uh, the Council of course is, has completed an affordable housing market analysis, which suggests a number of factors to consider in trying to reduce, uh, rental costs for affordable rental housing, and I...I guess we would like the Council at some point to consider, uh, how we really want to use, uh, how we want to charge all kinds of fees to rental housing development and management. And I know that's beyond the scope of this discussion, but something I think to consider. Thank you. Champion: So it would increase anybody now who owns, not just your organization, but any private landlord or landlady or land person, uh, going from three years to two years, would increase their inspection fees by about a third. Over the long run. I...I think I still support that, but I don't, well, wait until (unable to hear) Bailey: We have other comments. Champion: I come from a large family. It's hard forme to be quiet. Buss: Hello, my name is Anna Buss and I live at 525 West Benton Street, and of course I'm here concerning the increased rental housing inspection proposal. The sheet that I've just given you, last night at your work session, I gave you a rate increase analysis sheet, and I hope that you're able to take a few minutes to look at it. Tonight, I've given you some actual figures from Trend Properties that, um, if you run the figures on a yearly budget, the 9% increase, it's much closer to a 66% increase. If you'll notice some of these addresses, they're all very close to my heart because they come out of my billfold. I've run the figures at the top of the sheet, at the top is represents what it is now, and at the bottom of the sheet represents what it will go to. We will soon be experiencing yet another property tax increase. All of our insurance has increased. We are, um, under, we have many new Code items that no one really objects to, but we now have to put additional smoke detectors in each of the bedrooms. This can run $8 to $12. We need to do new fire extinguishers. They have to be, uh, either inspected or upgraded, more often than they used to. That's $28 to $35 per. And many landlords are now putting in carbon monoxide detectors, while that is not a City requirement yet to my knowledge, I know a lot of people are just doing it for additional safety. Those happen to be around $28 to $35, depending on where you can buy them. Everyone wants to provide their tenants with a clean and living conditions, but each year it becomes more difficult with all of the increases that we have to budget for. By this time of year, we as landlords have already sent out our rent notices to our tenants, and have our budgets set for the coming This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 31 year. It was, um, it was not, the information concerning this price increase was not sent out to anyone that I know of. In the last two days, I've called 45 people, which is all I actually had time for, and of those 45 people, there were only five people that had any knowledge of this. I feel that the City should at least notify all of the landlords when an expense of this impact is being presented to you, the Council, to vote on. Whether it's going to take place this year, next year, or the following year, I think we deserve a notice on it. I am in hopes that you will defer this vote to a later meeting, and notify the property owners to give the landlords, your constituents, an opportunity to give you some further input into this matter. Also, since one of the complete things that keeps coming up as a common thread is the lack of money. Well, the Fire Department does approximately 1,450 business inspections each year that currently are not charged for. Just think if you took only, and charged the businesses just $50.00 for that 1,450 inspections -that will give the City $72,500. Now if you want to get really crazy, and really think about the, an inspection fee for the Fire Department, maybe we could do a base fee of what we, the landlords, pay. Our base fee is $120.00. That will bring the City $174,000 each year. Kind of a nice figure to think about toward a new Fire Station. Our inspection fees are higher than most other communities. Maybe we could look and see what the other communities are doing, and think about that. On January 25th, I attended an affordable housing summit at the Brown Deer Golf Course in Coralville. It was real interesting from the standpoint that we found out things that we already knew about Iowa City area, that it's an expensive place to live, and they reconfirmed that fact. Many people are simply priced out of our market for sales, as well as rentals. These are professional people that were hired by the community to do this study. We figured out that to provide more affordable type housing to our firefighters, police officers, teachers, as well as the rest of our hourly pay force, we as a community need to work together, which includes landlords, housing department, building department, and you the Council. So please table this increase and give further thought to how we can solve the money problems that we are all facing at this time. As a footnote, to what Doug has said, the overoccupancy issues, well, that's not going to be helped by even if you went and inspected every single year, because many of the tenants are moving extra people in to help save costs on their rent, because of the fact that we have to have higher rents, and the occupancy versus the zoning. There are a lot of houses out there that are five bedroom houses, that we can only put two or sometimes three people in, depending on the zoning. So now you've got two bedrooms that you loped off because they can't be occupied. Also, the deteriorating items that he mentioned, well, I find that interesting because if you have deteriorating items, they're going to tell you about that, whether it's one, two, or three years. Another footnote that might be interesting to note is that we are getting a lot more housing units coming on the market. There are more being built every single day, and at This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 32 some point in time, somebody's going to say, we need another housing inspector. The Housing Inspection Department already has a $360,000 salary. If you add a 3% cost of living increase to that, there's another $10,000 plus. Inspecting more often is not going to help with the disturbance problem because again, that's going to be handled on a complaint basis. And that's a tenant problem. While, yes, the landlords try to stay on top of it, if someone does not call us right away, we can't get there and help solve the problem. I can tell you that when the Police Department calls me, I'm there, and on most of mine I can see in my neighborhood. So I'm there usually before the Police Department, but a lot of the things that they're proposing, it isn't going to make one bit of difference whether they are inspected on a two or three year basis, only that it's going to cost us more. And if you look at those figures, they come to close to 66% increase, not 9, and over the long period, we're all being nickeled and dimed to death, we too have to cut costs, and we need you guys to help back us up on that. Champion: Anna, your 60% increase includes going to a two-year inspection, but also the increase in the fee, is that correct? Buss: Yeah, it'll be...no matter what. Correia: Yeah, if you do the math though, Connie, on the, the current at the three- year, even if the fees stay the same, and it went to two year, my calculation is that that would be a 50% increase. Buss: Yeah. So, the fees aren't just, I mean, 9% sounds great, but that's not what it is. You know, like I said, I've calculated it out. I've tried to...I figured it lots of different ways, and when you break that down, you're still looking at 50% to 66%, and you're coming down on the properties that are the most desired properties, duplexes and single-family homes. These are what a lot of the kids, and in fact, in the last two years, one of the things I've heard the most is that people don't want to live in the multiple unit complexes. Not the tenants, you know, that I've gotten, and I know a lot of my friends have single-family homes, and that's what we're all hearing, is that they want to be out in one of the houses. But, nickeling and diming us to death... so, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Wilburn: One of the things I would, um, caution the Council on, uh, is I've heard questions about others in comparison to other cities. One of the things that you always, always have to consider, uh, is you have to have apples to apples comparison, because, um, while, um, our (coughing, unable to hear) further ahead of the curve on trying to be self-sustaining, you have to compare it to cities that, uh, another city, Dubuque...Dubuque may not, uh, charge as much~for their housing inspection, but Dubuque's got This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 33 gambling revenue, Dubuque has, um, I think they've got local option sales tax, so they don't have as large a burden on their General Fund, and so they can spread those costs out or pay for them, pay for other services in other ways, so that's it's not as large a burden on their General Fund, so, um, again, I would, before you start...before you draw any conclusions based on comparisons to other communities, you've got to put it into context with their other revenue sources, in order to pay for the services at, that are being provided. Champion: What...I, we're one of the few communities, uh, in Iowa, our size and even smaller, that do not have a 1 % sales tax. Which would make a huge difference in our budget. Bailey: It's not on the agenda tonight. Champion: No, it's not. Wilburn: And I wasn't advocating for one or the other, I'm just saying, before you start making those comparisons, you've got to put it into context...their, uh, you know, this direction from Council about trying to become self- sustaining was in response to some, uh, budgetary constraints, and a huge cut from the state government in our annual allowance, so just throwing that out there for consideration. Bailey: Further discussion on this resolution? Correia: Well, I'm not...I'm not ready to take action on this. I mean, I prefer to defer, part of the reason is, um, we've just spent a month, um, discussing our budget, um, with proposals from other departments on fee increases in there, um, we would have had more time to really hash this out and get answers to questions and look at, um, that policy direction from 2002, does that continue to make sense, given the current landscape of...of affordable housing, other, uh, costs, increases for landlords, other, uh, impacts on tenants in our community, um, and we got this on Thursday and had discussion last night and tonight, um, I just think I would have preferred a different process, um, for this evening, or for this decision, um, I...I like the idea of the two-year inspection. Right now, I don't feel prepared to make a decision on that tonight, based on, um, it's going to significantly impact yearly fee, and I think that the reason behind, um, going from a three to two has broad neighborhood, um, has neighborhood support, and I...I think it has benefits broadly to neighborhoods, which I think then gives us reason to say we should support this with our...our General Fund dollars. It's part of, you know, keeping our community safe and vibrant, um, we give, um, not all of our, as we discussed in our budget process, not all of our enterprise funds are self-sustaining. In fact, we provide more funding to the Airport at this point out of our General Fund This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 34 levy than we are to this departmental area, um, so I...you know, I wasn't on the Council at the time when this policy direction was set, um, you know, I'd like to have a chance to reopen discussion on that policy direction. I'm not sure if it is quite, um, right at this time, given we just received the affordable housing market analysis. We're hearing the impacts on affordable housing provider who has contracts with the City to keep rents even lower than fair-market, and um, we want that, that's a benefit to our population, um, so I would prefer to defer this. Champion: Are you making a motion? Correia: I move to defer. Champion: I'll second it. Karr: Defer indefinitely, or... Wilburn: My...my recommendation would be to defer indefinitely, if you want to have a further philosophical discussion, rather than setting a date and not having.. . Champion: Well, what I have in mind is, I don't think I need a lot more public input. It's obvious to me what this is going to do to rents and to organizations. I would like us to be able to discuss this amongst ourselves, if we have time, at the next work session, so...but I would like it to be on the next agenda again. Wright: Yeah, I would agree. That would give us a chance to talk about some options, working with...(several talking) Bailey: So, you're suggesting deferring to February 19tn~ Champion: Yeah, because we know, it's been made clear to us what this will do. It's quite obvious on pieces of paper what it will do, and you know, it's going to be passed on to renters, in some cases, where it can be, so I think this is something we don't' need to hear any more from the public. I' sorry, you made the good statement, I think we can discuss this among ourselves. Correia: Could we move that this, the, that we would discuss it at our next work session. There's going to be questions; we're going to want to go back, I mean, I'm prepared to compile all of the questions that we have for staff, to then have a work session on the Monday, and then again, vote on either Tuesday (several talking) Karr: You don't have a work session on Monday; that's a holiday, so it's a combined, shortened work session. So that may also... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 35 Champion: Maybe we should postpone this indefinitely, put it on a work session, after...not.. . Bailey: So the motion is to defer indefinitely? Champion: That's what I'm seconding. Is that what you... Helling: If...if there are specific questions or issues that you want to address, it would be helpful to get them to us through Marian's office, just, uh, if you want to put them down on paper, or bring them up on the 19`", uh, so that we can address those, and hopefully have the information you need when you... Champion: I appreciate that. I really don't have any major questions. I have to develop this philosophically in my mind. I mean, you've made it clear that we won't go bankrupt if we don't raise the fees. (several talking) Bailey: Although I do think that it seems, um, and I wasn't on Council when this policy was drafted, and I agree with Amy that this probably should have been discussed more thoroughly in the budget session, but it seems, it seems counter to the direction that we've been going with our budget, and the concerns that we have with General Fund dollars, so I would caution us also, we have to balance a lot of interests here, but one of the directions that we seem to have set in the last month is a little bit more concern about our budget, and so I hope that that discussion takes this policy into consideration, very carefully, and doesn't just toss it out, because of concerns. I mean, we can balance all of this with this current policy, I believe. So, I don't want to go in a completely opposite direction. Hayek: I, uh, I guess I would have to...I'm open to revisiting the, uh, philosophy, policy behind this...self-sustaining requirement we impose upon this department, uh, and it sounds like we're going to do so, um, but we, we do face great budget constraints, and that typically hits us primarily on our General Fund, and uh, I appreciate the affordable housing concerns, um, of an increase like this, but you know, we should have those same concerns when we talk about increasing our emergency levy and going to a county-wide emergency management levy, and you know, all of which, we have talked about in the last month and it appears that the County is moving forward as well, so there are many ways in which local municipalities impact affordable housing. This is certainly one of them, um, but we...our budgets are getting tighter and tighter, we are looking increasingly to alternative revenue sources, our hands of the municipalities are largely tied in the area of taxation, um, so I think we need to keep that in mind as we go forward. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #9 Page 36 Bailey: I think we set a direction, and I want to see us continue moving in that direction, carefully. So, um, we have a motion on the floor to defer indefinitely, um, if there's no further discussion, roll call. Or, motion. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Correia: So moved. Buss: Can I ask one question, please? When this comes back up, and you are going to vote on it again, would it be possible to let some of us know about it, so that we can contact a few of our other friends, that are in the business? Bailey: I noted your concern about...or few people knew, so...(several talking) okay, and I think we're going to end discussion of this (several talking) Boothroy: What we've done in the past is we've notified (unable to hear) Karr: Moved by Correia, seconded by? (several responding) Thank you. Bailey: O'Donnell. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #10 Page 37 ITEM 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION NAMING A PUBLIC STREET NORTH OF THE LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD PUBLIC SQUARE TO ST. PATRICK DRIVE. O'Donnell: So moved. Wilburn: Move adoption...second. Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Okay. Roll... Champion: Who will be maintaining the street? Helling: It'll be a City street. Champion: I have problems putting any religion on public property, as you all know, with the angel in the park and all that, so I... Bailey: I did ask this question, and we do have an inventory of streets named after saints. So, this is not necessarily.. . Champion: Can you give me an example? O'Donnell: Michael Street. Bailey: St. Anne's Drive, St. Thomas-More Drive or Street, um, there's...(several talking and laughing) and I think there was a St. Connie, and maybe we could work on that (laughter). Okay, roll call. Item carries 6-1; Champion voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #11 Page 38 ITEM 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN FIXED FEES FOR RELOCATING HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES. Wright: Move the resolution. Champion: Move the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Champion. Discussion? O'Donnell: I thought we set a dollar figure on this. Champion: We did have a dollar figure. Helling: These are the, um, the things that have a fixed fee. Wright: The fees were specified. Dilkes: What we don't want to have to do is change the resolution every time the amount of the fee, permit changes, and so that...the dollar amount you were given represents the cost of these permits, right now. (several talking) Right, but it will change as the permits go up. Wright: So we don't have to adjust it for inflation every year. Bailey: We're not going to see this resolution every year. Okay. Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #16 Page 39 ITEM 16 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Bailey: Mike Wright. Wright: One thing I just wanted to point out, the, uh, a lot of folks know the Iowa River has been, uh, a very endangered river. It's the second most endangered river in the United States, uh, and on Friday, uh, Barbara Eckstein from the University of Iowa will be leading a bus tour, uh, starting at 3:001 the afternoon. Going out to Coralville Dam for a presentation by the Army Corps of Engineers, uh, talk about some of the, uh, the problems the river faces, perhaps some solutions to those, uh, you'll her about the status of some local creeks that feed into the river and cause some of the problems, um, it's free and open to the public, uh, they just request that you ca11353-1021 to register for the bus and for the box supper. These are really good events. Bailey: Thanks. Connie? Champion: I want to go home and watch TV, which I never do. Bailey: Okay. We'll get you there soon. Champion: I want to see what's going on. Bailey: Mike? O'Donnell: I read in the paper today our, who was our benefactor that gave us (several talking) wanted to thank him, I think that's a wonderful thing to do, um, I don't think anybody anticipated we would snow 27 days of each month, but uh, just wanted to make sure we thanked him. Helling: It was Hubbard Feeds. (several responding) Bailey: Ross? Wilburn: Nothing tonight. Bailey: Matt? Hayek: Nothing, other than, uh, to remind the public that if you have a sidewalk running in front of your house, please shovel it. It's important these days. Bailey: Um, I have a few items. Tomorrow evening the Soldiers of the 109`" Medical Battalion will be, uh, they're deploying to the Sinai Peninsula, and there will be a public send-off at Regina High School gymnasium at 7:30 P.M., and the public is invited, and I think that this would be a great This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #16 Page 40 way to send them off, to serve their tour of duty. Um, I also, um, Council Member Wilburn and I will be going on the Federal Issues Lobbying Trip, the Chamber trip next week, and I just wanted to make a note to the public that we are taking out those legislative priorities that the Council discussed earlier this year, one of which is the First Avenue overpass. I know many people in our community, um, are concerned when they get stopped by that train, taking their kids to school, and so if you're so motivated, we'll be talking about that with our Senators and our Congressmen, feel free to send an email, um, supporting that project, because we would like to have that kind of public support, as well as our words out there in Washington. So... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008. #17 Page 41 ITEM 17 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. Bailey: City Manager? Helling: Nothing. Bailey: City Attorney? City Clerk? Karr: Just a real quick reminder, you have a memo in front of you regarding joint agenda items for our meeting February 20`" in Coralville. Uh, let me know if you have any items, and we can include them in the agenda. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Formal meeting of February 5, 2008.