HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-14 TranscriptionJuly 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 1
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session 6:30 P.M.
Council Present: Bailey, Champion, Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright
Staff: Lombardo, Dilkes, Helling, Karr, Davidson, Yapp, Fosse, Howard,
Nagle-Gamm, Miklo
UISG: Absent
Planning and Zoning Items:
b) APPROVING VACATION OF THE NORTHTOWNE PARKWAY
RIGHT- OF-WAY AND PARTIAL RELEASE OF PUBLIC ACCESS
EASEMENT WITHIN HIGHLANDER DEVELOPMENT, THIRD
ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (VAC08-00002)
Davidson/ Good evening, Madame Mayor, Members of Council. First item on your work
session agenda this evening is Planning and Zoning items, and we have items b, d,
g, and h to consider this evening. Uh, Item b is approval, or consider approval of
a vacation of the Northtowne Parkway, uh, right-of--way and partial release of
public access easement within Highlander Development, third addition, Iowa
City. This, uh, should be familiar to you. We discussed it a couple of City
Council meetings ago. Uh, since it's been a couple of meetings, let me just run
through it real quickly again. Uh, Northgate subdivision, uh, that you see here,
official name Highlander, Third Addition. What is proposed is what you see
before you there, with the arrow, is the existing stub of Northtowne Parkway,
which was to be, uh, well, what currently is a public city street, excuse me, that
was intended to...well, it stubs at the property line now and was eventually,
pardon me, intended to, uh, extend to the future Oakdale Boulevard, which will
then be extended over, uh, Interstate 80 and I think...okay, there's an aerial of the
subdivision and you see the, uh, stub of Northtowne Parkway right there. Uh,
here we've added, uh, well, you've got the property lines within the subdivision
here, um, and this is the future Oakdale Boulevard, uh, portion of which of course
is already built in Coralville at this time, and by 28E agreement between Iowa
City, Coralville, and Johnson County -that is an existing document - we have all
agreed that this is where this road is going to go, and at the time the subdivision
was platted, uh, and Northtowne Parkway was built in this location, we did not
know where Oakdale Boulevard was going to go for sure, and there was
consideration given, I think, at the time that people thought it would be a lot
further out here and we would have a lot more flexibility, uh, in how we would
hook into that from this subdivision. That is something that we consider
important because at the present time, uh, this subdivision just has a single means
of access, uh, this property here is already owned by the developer of this
subdivision, and once this is all online, uh, we need to have more than one means
of access, uh, than currently just Highway 1 right here. Uh, this we intend to
extend up and connect, and then we would like to have the ability for, uh, these
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 2
lots here to have access to, uh, Northgate Drive. At this location here, um,
the...the street will be quite elevated, uh, because, again, that was something else
we weren't sure at the time this was platted, we weren't sure if Oakdale
Boulevard would...the future Oakdale Boulevard, would go over or under, uh,
Interstate 80. We are now thinking, and according to the plan that we have in
place, that it would go over, which means that the embankment for that would be
quite elevated in this area, and, uh, this street in this area would be almost
impossible to tie into Oakdale Boulevard, because of that elevation difference. It
would provide access to this lot, by what is proposed then is to move it to this
location here, which I guess maybe would show better on an aerial, which would
be right there, uh, it'll function the same way, uh, and...and as the future Oakdale
Boulevard will not be nearly (coughing, unable to hear) area will be much easier
to tie into it with an at-grade intersection. iJh, let's see, a couple of other things.
We evaluated this according to the factors that we always consider in any
vacation, uh, impact on pedestrian and vehicular access of circulation, impact on
emergency and utility vehicle access of circulation, uh, access to adjacent
property, desirability for circulation, location of utilities and other easements, uh,
potential, uh, other public use, and any other relevant factors. We've considered
all that. We are recommending approval of this. Uh, see if there's anything else.
Oh, the vacation would be subject to retention of certain easements that are
already built. We've got a storm sewer, for example, already built along the old
road and we would keep an easement for that. It is contingent then on the
dedication of this right-of--way, and according to the new agreement then, uh,
once this area develops, they would be required to construct this road as this one
is currently constructed, whether it's the current property owner or any future
property owner, that would be an encumbrance on this property, the requirement
to do that. Um, the reason that you considered this a couple Council meetings ago
and deferred it was that there were some issues between the owner of lot 12 in this
area and Southgate Development Company, in terms of the impact on lot 12 of
this vacation. They did not have that worked out. We basically said, `Don't come
back to us until you have it worked out,' and they've indicated to us, the
developer has, that they have it worked out. We are hoping to receive
confirmation of that from the owner of lot 12, Mercy Hospital, uh, by the meeting
tomorrow and we'll let you know for sure by then, but it does appear to have been
worked out. Any questions on that? Okay. Uh, let's move on then.
d) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 15, LAND
SUBDIVISIONS, BY REPEALING TITLE 15 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
REPLACING IT WITH A NEW TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS.
(FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 6/17 and 6/24)
Davidson/ The next item is...not this one. This is a rezoning item. The next item for us
to consider this evening. Marian, if you could put the lights up please. Um, are
the subdivision regulations, and adopting the ordinance. Karen, could you come
up please. Uh, we discussed the subdivision regulations with you. Karen Howard
made the presentation at that meeting, uh, and you also received public input and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 3
received public input, uh, prior to taking first consideration, uh, you did indicate
that you had some specific questions that you would like addressed, uh, and I
think there were eight items, and you have a, uh, memo in your packet from
Karen, uh, going through each item that you asked for additional information on,
uh, and basically attempting to resolve the questions that were raised, uh, at that
time. So you have it on for first consideration tomorrow. Uh, Karen is here this
evening, uh, and will not be here tomorrow evening. I will be here...I will there
tomorrow evening. I guess what I'm trying to tell you is, you've got the varsity
here tonight. You've going to have the JV tomorrow night. So if you have any
questions, or if you would like Karen to...Karen would be happy to run through
point-by-point the points, if you'd like. If you'd like to just, uh, have, uh,
questions, uh, we'd like to clear any issues you have up, uh, this evening. Um,
when...if you do decide to take first consideration tomorrow, obviously you have
the opportunity, you know, I won't go into everything you heard last time about,
you know, this...this is supposed to represent, you know, our priorities as a
community, um, clearly we've tried to specifically address some things, like
pedestrian accessibility. Some of the points that you raised last time, such as the
mid-block crosswalk requirement specifically, you know, gets into, uh, issues of
pedestrian accessibility. Ultimately you all have to decide if we've done a good
job or not of coming up with something that regulates the subdivision of property
while representing our community values. So, um, should you decide to make,
uh, any changes on the floor tomorrow, uh, to these, what we would probably do
is, I mean, we would prefer to have you consider first consideration. You can
always defer it again if you'd like. If you did modify it and then take first
consideration what we would probably do is between readings we'd take it back
to the Planning and Zoning Commission and just see if they had any desire to
meet with you, which is kind of the standard policy if you change something on
their recommendation, um, and...so we would do that in between the readings, if,
uh, if you decided to change anything. So with that, um, Karen, you want to...
Bailey/ Questions for Karen?
Correia/ I have a question about the approval process, um, the recommendation that we
received from the Homebuilders Association, um, was a recommendation that,
um, the City and all departments of the City reviewing the plan must provide
written comment to the applicant within 20 business days. Is...in the current
practice, is there a specific amount of time.
Howard/ Well, there is in the fact that, um, the Planning and Zoning Commission meets
approximately every two weeks, or twice a month, um, and we have...so we have
two application deadlines per month. So, if we receive an application that is all in
order basically, has all the documents submitted, has, you know, generally
complied with the standards, um, we're not missing anything. There's not a lot of
inaccuracies, that sort of thing, uh, then it goes to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, um, we basically have to review that within ten days, because
there's really only two weeks, meaning it has to get in the Planning and Zoning
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 4
packet within ten days. So actually it's less than...than what they were asking
for. I think the difference...the discussion centers around whether we get an
application in and what form it's in when we receive it. If we get everything from
an application that's submitted on the back of an envelope, I mean, so to speak,
um, it has, um, a lot of inaccuracies. Maybe they've tried to get it in quickly to
meet the deadline. There's missing documents, uh, the engineer's department has
trouble reviewing it because it doesn't have, uh, storm water calculations. You
know, there's a lot of inaccuracies. It's not going to drain properly. That sort of
thing. It's really hard for the Fire Department, the Water Department, Public
Works Department, Planning Department to review something that's inaccurate or
incomplete.
Correia/ And do all those departments review before it goes to Planning and Zoning?
Howard/ Yes.
Correia/ So it's in that...so it's the deadline of what the first deadline of the month is.
Let's say it's on the first, so between the first and the next Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting all of those staff do reviews.
Howard/ Right. We send out the...the application comes from the Clerk's office. They
forward it to the Planning Department, and we route...they have to give us
ten...ten plans. We route it to all the departments who are reviewing it, and then
we have a joint staff meeting that next week, and if everything's all in order, it
will go on the Planning and Zoning Commission that next week.
Correia/ And so...and if there are deficiencies listed, those get communicated in writing
to the applicant, within a certain amount of days after that staff review meeting?
Howard/ What we try to do, I mean, there's lots of different issues that come up, uh, we
get the comments back say from the Water Department. A lot of times they'll
write them right on the plat itself. You know, the illustrated plat. Um, the Public
Works Department, the City Engineers Department will, um, you know, mark it
up in red, you know, all the different parts of the plat, um, also give written
comments about inaccuracies or missing storm water calcs or whatever. Um, the
Planning Department, we typically run through zoning requirements and
subdivision planning requirements and list out in writing anything that's missing.
Um, and then if it's a complicated plat, we'll meet with the developer. If it's
something that's fairly simple, one or two lot subdivision, we'll just forward the
Engineers', you know, written up plat to them, um, usually they'll have a
consultant, an engineer that's a consultant. MMS Consultants, basically, does a
lot of the plats, um, so our engineers give it to their engineers, and then they're
asked to provide revisions. I think where it gets a little bit lengthier process,
particularly if it's technical issues with the plat, um, our engineers don't just look
at it and say, `Oh, looks pretty good.' You know, they have to go through all
those calculations, and so if something significant changes to the engineering of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 5
that, um, storm water, uh, piping or, um, sewer, water lines, that sort of thing has
to change, um, based on the engineers' comments, uh, their engineer has to go
back and change things, and then when those documents get back to the City,
those revised documents, the engineers here have to go back through those
documents again, um, with afine-tooth comb basically. So that's what can make
it, particularly if properties have woodlands and wetlands and, you know,
complicated topography.
Bailey/ So, um, it was felt in the subdivision regulations that to address the concern about
the timeline, rather than putting a deadline on it, to outline what would...a
complete application would be, and that would get the process moving along in a
much more meeting-of--the-minds sort of way. Is that how I understand.. .
Howard/ Right. So what we've added to the code is basically a checklist, both for what
has to be...the documentation that has to come to the City, which we did have
before...we have currently in the code.
Bailey/ Uh-huh.
Howard/ We tried to update that, make it a little more explicit, plus we added a definition
of what a complete application is.
Bailey/ Okay.
Correia/ And then when the comments go back from the different City departments, do
they all go back as a group, or could they, you know, one department sends it in
one...because there's a comment in here about, um, receiving comments from
multiple departments at different times.
Howard/ Um, well, what we try to do is work with the applicant, and we accept...we're
pretty flexible if it's, if you've got just a few deficiencies, we really try to get it on
Planning and Zoning Commission's agenda. Those deficiencies might be
Engineering deficiencies, they might be the Planning deficiencies, might be the
Water Department, so we'll work with them and say, `Okay, you know, turn it in
by noon tomorrow; packet has to go out by 2:00,' um, so we really try to work
with the applicants to really get those...those applications on the agenda for the
Planning and Zoning Commission. So, I can't say that all the comments go to
them at once. If there's only deficiencies in one avenue, we may just be working
with the Water Department to get things cleared up, or the Engineers, that sort of
thing.
Davidson/ Um, I would add, Amy, to Karen's comments that the joint staff process that
she, uh, referred to is specifically designed to get at what you're getting at, and
that is that the City, even though it's through out department, that the City speaks
with one voice, that...that we have everybody sitting around the table so...so that
the Engineering review and the Fire Department review and all that is...is...we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 6
can get back to the applicant with one voice then, without worrying that
something's inconsistent. Eleanor's office is, uh, part of that, as well.
Correial Okay. So, applicants don't get...
Howard/ I would say after the joint staff meeting, they get all the comments.
Correia/ All...
Howard/ At one time.
Correia/ Okay.
Howard/ But after that, if they have to send in revisions based on specific comments, they
may come in (mumbled)
Champion/ Oh, talked about two things...one was the, uh, utilities beyond the property
line. I can understand why that might be necessary some times, especially if
you're going to build a road over it or something, but it seems to me that that
would be the City's responsibility. The next developer would be responsible to
pay the City for that extension. Doesn't seem fair to me that a developer has to
put in longer utility services to make the next development easy. I'm not...that
kind of bothers me, it seems unfair. Because it's not part of their development
really, it's part of the next development. Did I make myself clear?
Howard/ Well, sometimes it's for their own development. I mean, for example, the
example I put in my memo was...was to serve that specific development they had
to extend the sewer line underneath Sycamore to tie into...
Champion/ Right, but.. .
Howard/ So that was to serve their own development.
Champion/ But that's their own development.
Howard/ Right, but that would...it was extending beyond their property boundary to do
that.
Champion/ But into their own property.
Howard/ The part that they had to extend beyond their property was on City property.
Champion/ But it was so they could develop their own property.
Howard/ Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 7
Champion/ So they weren't doing it so another developer could develop that.
Dilkes/ But they were still...your question was why would we ever require them to
extend beyond their own boundary lines. In this case they had to go beyond their
boundary lines in order to serve their own property.
Champion/ I understand. I don't have any problems with that.
Lombardo/ Another instance would be...if they didn't, uh, terminate it in the next
property, then any time the next development would come by, you'd have to open
up that...that other property's, um, well, in this case right away again, and so
you'd have additional costs for the prior, um, to do, you know, to open up the
ground again and if they've heavily landscaped or other things, and there are a lot
of combinations where...where you'd be incurring additional costs because
you're opening up that existing land again.
Howard/ I think the reason it says "may," and you have to remember, this is not an
administrative process. This gives the Council the option to examine each
situation specifically to that...and gives you the option to pay for it or not,
depending on the situation.
Wright/ Would you remind us what the extension would typically be, how...what length?
Howard/ I think it just really depends on what...what they're extending to. I think
they're not typically.
Davidson/ In the case of the example that Karen gave, uh, on the project on South
Sycamore, extending the sewer to the property line, which the developer of course
would do, did not make the sewer system work. In other words, for that
subdivision to have sewer service, the developer had to pay to extend it under the
street to tie in with the trunk sewer that was on the other side of the street, and so
that was an instance where because of the "may" provision it just benefitted solely
the developer and the developer's subdivision, and so it was appropriate, we felt,
and you all felt, for, uh, for the subdivider to pay that, even though it was beyond
the property line.
Champion/ Right. That seems totally logical to me. That particular example.
O'Donnell/ But I don't believe that was the case down on, uh, Whispering Prairie.
Wasn't that where we extended...
Correia/ That was a street.
O'Donnell/ That was the street, where we required the developer to extend well beyond
his property line.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 8
Correia/ But that was because we made that decision, and we weren't required to do that.
It was a "may" not a "shall." So this is a we could do it, we don't have to do it
case by case.
Dilkes/ If you want to tie the hands of future City Councils, you'll use the words "shall."
If you don't want to do that, you' 11 use the word "may."
Correia/ It sounds like you don't want to tie any hands.
Champion/ Right, no.
Correia/ So "may" would be better.
Bailey/ Other questions? Matt? You had something?
Hayek/ Um, this dovetails more with Amy's original questions. Um, one of the, uh, one
of the requests is for a mandatory staff review, and I'm still not following exactly
what that is, and how that would differ from the status quo.
Wright/ What's the matrix number on that?
Hayek/ Uh, it's five. If you can shed some more light on that, and explain the difference.
Howard/ Well, I think it's a matter of...I think we would do one mandatory staff review,
and they always...if everything's in, and complete, and accurate...we give them
our staff review, um, there may be subdivision design provisions that they...that
we may disagree with and...but they always have the option to take it...if
everything's accurate and complete, they have the option after that initial staff
review - we give them our recommendation. They have the option to take it to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. It's just that a lot of times they don't want
to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission without staff's recommendation for
approval. So, I think the difference is if we don't have something accurate and
complete, we will not take it to the Planning and Zoning Commission, um,
because, you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission shouldn't be asked to
review engineering standards, for example.
Wright/ Yeah, I think there'd be in everybody's interest to...to prevent, um, applications
with more than six deficiencies from going on through.
Howard/ And that was a policy that's been in place for some time, um, some years ago,
um, it wasn't the case. We had a lot of applications go to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with, you know, 10, 20 deficiencies, and finally the Planning
and Zoning Commission said, `Enough is enough. We don't have the expertise
here to be making decisions on incomplete and inaccurate applications. Please
don't send us anything that has more than six.' So what we're doing here is
basically codifying what current practice is.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 9
Hayek/ Right, and the deficiencies are not of a design nature or a subjective nature. They
are...
Howard/ We're talking about...
Hayek/ ...meets and bounds errors and things like that.
Howardl ...right, right.
Davidson/ Yeah, we had a situation, and it's many years ago, uh, where there was one
particular developer who was basically having the City do a lot of the engineering
design of the subdivisions. They'd do a very cursory amount of engineering work
up front and present these to us, and we were investing a lot of time in, `No, this
doesn't work this way. Here's how it works,' and give it back to `em. We finally
realized that we were kind of assisting in designing the subdivisions, and that was
the reason for the six deficiencies thing. Once...once for example the
Engineering Division hits that point, it...we feel like it needs to be re-engineered
by the developer's engineer in order to get us something that we can evaluate.
Bailey/ Other questions for Karen?
Champion/ I did have another one...let me find it, sorry.
Bailey/ That's okay. (mumbled)
Correia/ I had a question about, um, this...I didn't ask you about this last time. This
came up from reading the comments that we received at the last meeting about the
neighborhood open space, the recommendation that we received to, um, incent
and reward subdividers who voluntarily create open space by providing credits
towards the required fee in lieu. Um, what was the...
Champion/ (mumbled)
Bailey/ Where are you?
Correia/ Page 8 in the...in the...
Bailey/ Okay, got it.
Howard/ The neighborhood open space, the intent of that, is to create usable recreation
space for the people in the neighborhood. Um, and so if the developer wants to
dedicate land to the City for...to pay, you know, to put the open space, um, the
Parks Department reviews that and decides whether it's suitable for park space.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 10
Correial But if the developer wants to set aside land, that remains owned by the
Homeowners Association or the developer, to be open space.
Howard/ I guess the question...and I think Planning and Zoning wrestled with that a little
bit, because sometimes it could be something that might be somewhat use...you
know, like natural open space, that sort of thing, but the question is does it really
fulfill the intent.
Correia/ Right. Well, so I have a question, and I don't know if you'll have the answer to
this. I was biking through Windsor Ridge the other day, um, I hadn't realized that
those, you know, bike paths, big sidewalks were public. So, are those...those
were neighborhood open space, trails dedicated to the City?
Howard/ That's a park. That's a City park. (both talking) that goes through Windsor
Ridge.
Correia/ And so, on the...on the side, on the, I think it's the Arlington side on American
Legion Road, there's sort of a pond with a trail. Is that maintained by the City?
Miklo/ Where again?
Correia/ Um, so on the American Legion Road side of Windsor Ridge.
Miklo/ Yes, that is...that was dedicated to fulfill the neighborhood open space
requirements.
Correia/ And so, I mean, the other question that we've talked about is that we're getting a
lot of open space in our Parks Department, and the ability to care, you know...
Miklo/ There was quite a bit of discussion of this question at Planning and Zoning that if
there is open space that's, uh, not being accepted by the City, not being added to
the public park system, but is somehow incorporated into the design of the
subdivision, should there be some credit for that, and there was some interest in
Planning and Zoning in possibly examining that, in conjunction with the Parks
and Rec Commission, after they complete their Master Plan. So the, as I recall,
Planning and Zoning voted on the subdivision regulations, not wanting to slow it
down to look at that detail, but then instructed us to put on the pending list to
examine that question. In some cases it maybe appropriate to give them partial
credit, if it is indeed usable open space that's beneficial to the neighborhood. In
other cases, it'll be not usable because of terrain, whatever, and...and might not
be worthy of getting some credit. So, in other words, putting that question off for
more study.
Correia/ Okay, that makes sense. Um, just sort of an aside then, if all those trails are part
of our Park system, I think we need to have some signs, so, I mean, there's really
no directions. There's lots of turns, you know, how we sign our trails. I mean,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 11
that's a whole separate conversation, but I mean, I got a little lost. Didn't quite
know, you know, would be kind of nice to have, if that's part of our...not lost, but
wanting to know which way I should go to where I wanted to go. If it's part of
our trail system, I think we should sign it with trail signs. That's just an aside,
and so it's not really...
Howard/ Well, that does feed into one of the recommendations in the subdivision code
was to make public open space more apparent, that not to hide it, so they
subdivide the lots so that a public park is not all in somebody's backyard. That
it's very apparent to the public that it's for their use. Um, and that's a platting
issue. And we gave the two...two different views of what the Windsor Ridge
park versus, uh, Willow Creek Park, which has asingle-loaded street on one side.
It's very clear that's a park and.. .
Con eia/ I mean, even from Scott, there's an entry to the trail from Scott Boulevard, or
not Scott Boulevard, from Court Street, but it just looks like it's a sidewalk going
into the neighborhood. It doesn't really look like, `Oh, it could get me all the way
through to the other side,' um, and it doesn't really flow all the way through as
you have to go on some streets to hook up and it's a little bit difficult to figure out
how to hook into it. So, if it's a City park, I'd like it to be signed so you would
know the trail, how to get through, but...
Dilkes/ Just for...just for, I'm sorry, just for future reference, the matrix addresses your
question about open space and additional space being provides at number 24.
Basically summarizes what Bob just said.
Bailey/ Connie, did you have another...
Champion/ Well, I think the...the, I mean, I like the idea of exploring the possibility of
some credit for the open space, but I think the problem we can get into is...is if all
the space is in a valley behind the development. You can have a lot of open
spaces undevelopable. Now how do you prevent that from conflicting with the
(mumbled) space? But I would like to see it explored as a possibility. I think it's
a great idea.
Bailey/ And, Bob, you said Parks and Rec was going to take that on after their Master
Planning process?
Miklo/ The, uh, discussion was that Parks and Rec, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission, would look at it after the Master Plan.
Bailey/ Good.
Champion/ Then why do we, why don't we pull that out and let them work on it and then
bring it back as a separate item?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 12
Howard/ We have existing language for public open spaces, both in Zoning Ordinance
and the Subdivision Code, currently. So we're just going to leave the language as
it was, and then.. .
Champion/ Um, I also wanted to talk about the buffer for, uh, residential property. I
mean, I personally think that should be market-driven, and I noticed in the memo,
um, can you explain to me how the taxpayers would be obligated to put that
buffer in later, if we didn't demand it now? I think in the memo...
Wright/ You talking about the noise buffer?
Champion/ Yes.
Bailey/ ...highway noise.
Dilkes/ That was Karen's memo.
Howard/ It wasn't that you would have to. It would be that you may receive public
pressure to do so. Um, that...the idea is that you have a neighborhood that
becomes unlivable, um, people start complaining, and, you know, it's one of those
issues where is that the right place for a residential subdivision, um, the idea is
that in times where there...the housing, um, market is booming, um, you know,
there's a lot of pressure to develop every piece of land, and um, do those
neighborhoods eventually become neighborhoods that are abandoned or, you
know, disinvestments because of the livable situation there, and when people
purchase, you know, and different times of year the noise is different, when the
trees are in bloom the noise is different. And...we negotiate that buffer right now.
Champion/ I know you do.
Howard/ But, um...
Champion/ Um, I don't...I just don't think we can protect everybody from everything.
It's not possible.
Miklo/ A good example of...of the need for a buffer would be Mackinaw Village up off
of Interstate 80. When we were going through the rezoning process, we worked
with the developer and tried to get a buffer. We ended up with a 150-foot buffer
and some trees, that hopefully over time will...will provide some protection, um,
we've had several requests from that developer exploring other land uses because
he has found that single-family lots are not selling in that location, um, so if you
don't design it into your subdivision, I think you open up to once your subdivision
is laid out, having to redo it and having to introduce land uses that may not be
compatible with other parts of the neighborhood. So...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 13
Champion/ But that's market-driven, and not City-driven. I mean, that's perfect example
of being market-driven.
Miklo/ But the situation there is the houses are closer to Foster Road. There are single-
family houses there, and in order to deal with lots up against the interstate, one of
the issues we've looked at is, or one of the requests we've looked at is for a fairly
dense multi-family zoning that would then go through the existing single-family
houses there. So, the initial buyers bought into the neighborhood at Mackinaw
Drive and Foster Road, thinking they were buying into asingle-family
neighborhood, and then this change comes about because those lots next to the
interstate aren't marketable, and the initial buyers...what do you tell them? You
know, that zoning doesn't matter? So that...that's why it's a concern from an
urban design policy, uh, issue.
Bailey/ But this creates a consistent standard, rather than something that's negotiated
case-by-case, which seemed to be more...more friendly to developers, because
they know what to expect. (several talking)
Wright/ I think this better protects the City's interest.
Bailey/ Well, it also seems if I owned the land, I would know exactly what to expect. I
don't know.
Champion/ How does it protect the City's interest?
Wright/ Um, Bob talked about the possibility of neighborhoods coming back for
mitigation against sound, that they'd be asking the City to pay for. Um, that does
happen. It's happened in Des Moines. That's happened in Minneapolis, because
the increased noise on a freeway. Um, I think it's probably protecting long-term,
it's protecting the property values in those areas a little better; then when
developments get close to the freeway, historically deteriorate much more
quickly. Houses that back up to a freeway that are really right on it, deteriorate
more quickly than houses, uh, further in. They're not seen as desirable. Their
property values are lower.
Dilkes/ Well, remember there's also a provision that allows, um, the buffer to be reduced,
if the developer can show other means of correcting for the noise.
O'Donnell/ Well, I have a couple things. I...I don't, uh, I don't really like narrowing of
streets, you know, I think that's a safety issue, and I really don't.. .
Wright/ How so?
O'Donnell/ Excuse me?
Wright/ How so?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 14
O'Donnell/ Safety issue?
Wright/ Yeah.
O'Donnell/ Bicyclists. Um, any time you narrow a street and you can have parking on
one side of it, I don't care if you have an eight-foot bicycle path, the bicyclists are
going to use the street.
Wright/ Uh-huh.
O'Donnell/ And any time you narrow the road, then that's a concern, uh, with safety - in
my mind. iJh, I...I'm not fully understanding this, um, the mailbox cluster and
the 12-feet from it. I'm...I'm not getting this. I've read this over and over, and I
think that is directly related to how you cluster them and the width of the lot in the
front and so forth. I'm not understanding what I'm reading here.
Howard/ Um, the idea is that you keep, because the clusters can be quite tall and large,
depending on how many mailboxes they have in the cluster, and it's a site issue.
When people are pulling out of their driveways, the idea is to keep the driveways
at least 12 feet away so that when people are backing up out of their driveway,
then they can't see down the street because of the mailbox cluster. It's also a, it's
just a safety issue is all it is.
O'Donnell/ So it's a sight issue.
Wright/ (mumbled)
Howard/ Yeah, it's asight-distance issue.
Wright/ And the Post Office requires the clusters, is that correct, rather than the...
Howard/ Right, we're responding basically to their (mumbled)...rather than the
individual delivery.
Hayek/ Mike, did you have another one or did.. .
O'Donnell/ Go ahead, yeah, I did, but I...
Hayek/ I'll jump in then while you're looking for...
O'Donnell/ Do it.
Hayek/ Um, this goes back to the, uh, technical deficiencies and...and staff review. Do
we have...do we have any protections in place to avoid situations in which further
staff review reveals additional technical deficiencies that weren't caught the first
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 15
time around, or additional design, uh, recommendations that weren't flagged the
first time around?
Howard/ I guess I don't understand your question.
Hayek/ Well, let's say, uh, I submit an application and, uh, staff finds a handful of
technical deficiencies -measurements and what not. I get it back; my engineers
work on it; I resubmit a new and improved application, uh, and this time staff
notes new problems that might have been caught the first time around, spits it
back to me and now I have to go back to my engineers and do it all over again. Is
there...is there anything to prevent that, so that we don't have...so the developers
aren't facing what they would probably describe as a "moving target."
Howard/ Well, I think our engineers are pretty, I mean, maybe Rick can respond to that,
if he wants to respond to that, um, I think they're pretty detailed in their review,
um, I think what sometimes happens is we get, I mean, the Neusil property is one
example. Um, they submitted a plan, the storm water management met the
standards, but the neighborhood complained that there was this drainage problem
and so to respond to that the developer said, `Well, we're willing to try to deal
with that,' and so they got together with engineers and came up with a different
storm water, so they had to redesign, basically, the storm water system. But, uh...
Hayek/ And that's fine, but that's an instance where something was caught in the first
round, so to speak.
Howardl Yes, I guess I'm not aware of...
Hayek/ Okay, and that may not happen. I mean, maybe we catch.. .
Howard/ ...I'm sure everybody makes mistakes, but...
Hayek/ ...immediately, um...
Howard/ Maybe Rick can respond.. .
Lombardo/ More often than not, you'll find that the...that the added, um, findings come
from changes that were made to the...to the proposal, and not things that were
missed on the front end. So they'll go back, redesign something, resubmit, and
now you'll have a list of additional questions or things that need to be addressed,
based on your redesign, not necessarily the...the initial (mumbled)
Fosse/ That's a good point, and then also the, uh, if it's related to the engineering design
of say the storm system or sanitary sewer system, that obligation for good design
remains with the engineer of record, and that's the engineer that designs it for the
subdivider, and if...if a mistake is made and we miss it the first time through,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 16
it...it doesn't make that mistake permissible. You would still have a problem
with the performance of that utility, and it would need to be rectified.
Hayek/ Right, right, yeah, and I'm not suggesting we, you know, we let bygones be
bygones if a glaring error was missed and then caught later, that we say, `Well,
we'll waive it,' just to cut you a break and results in something that, you know,
for the City for decades to come, but some means of...of...of avoiding that
instance, and I don't know how, uh, frequent it occurs.
Howard/ I think the point is the City's not supposed to be in quality...I mean, we review
it to make sure that everything's the way it should be, but...but it's their
obligation to make sure it's designed correctly. So if it's not designed correctly,
according to their engineer, it should be...even if it's caught later, um, you know,
because it causes all sorts of...of problems in... for drainage and, you know, years
and years to come, and the City has to accept that public infrastructure and we
need to make sure it works.
Hayek/ Okay.
Champion/ And how do we decide that amid-block connection is necessary? I
understand...we've had a nice picture like a school across the street or something
like that where you might want to...and, a mid-block connection and a long city
block, and then, how does that work with the safety issue of jaywalking?
O'Donnell/ Good question.
Champion/ Are we going to...crosswalks there, um, are we going to sign it? I mean, I
would think...I wouldn't want my kids crossing the street in the middle of the
street to get to school.
Davidson/ Yeah, those are all options, and in the case of you have a specific destination
such as a school that's exactly what we would do. You almost have to evaluate it
on a case-by-case basis, because it maybe that it's just because of some
topographic feature.
Champion/ Uh-huh, uh-huh.
Davidson/ There's a particularly long block, and so we require a pedestrian, uh, mid-
block pedestrian crossing, just for convenience of pedestrians. It's not tied to a
specific destination, uh, we might not go to all the trouble of a marked crosswalk
that has ongoing maintenance expense, but we would clearly do that if, for
example, a school was involved, because if you go to virtually any neighborhood
in Iowa City, all the school crosswalks are marked.
Champion/ So then I have a question for Eleanor. If we insist, or shall or may or
whatever, that there be a crosswalk there, and it's because it's...I can see if you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 17
have a long block, if you had a long cul-de-sac and there wouldn't be any streets
coming in because of topog....topog...you know what I mean, topography
(laughter), um, no, so if you have somebody crossing that street in the middle of
the street because there's a sidewalk there and they think that's...they can cross
there, and they get hit by a car, who's responsible?
Dilkes/ I can't answer that question. That is so dependent on whatever the facts are, what
the design was originally. If the...if the traffic signage was appropriate, not
appropriate. If it was designed in accordance with, um, normal engineering
standards at the time - we have immunity. I mean, it could depend on all sorts of
things.
Davidson/ And I mean, I believe just very generally in terms of State law, in terms of a
marked crosswalk, uh, at an intersection, pedestrian always has the right-of--way.
Champion/ Right, but this is not.
Davidson/ And in the case of a, what you would call jaywalking or a mid-block crossing,
those are legal. A lot of people are under the impression that those are illegal.
Unless you pass a local ordinance, it's not illegal to jaywalk, but, the vehicle has
the right-of--way then, not the pedestrian.
Champion/ Right, right! So, that's my whole problem with that, `cause to me, a sidewalk
cut means you can go there, or you should go there.
Dilkes/ I think we...we have an obligation to design that in accordance with all the traffic
manuals and...and make it safe, pursuant to those manuals, and if we do that, I
think our liability exposure is very low, and I assume that we normally do that.
Champion/ Well, I can see if we made it into a real crosswalk, where we had you
know...all that stuff you do.
Howard/ I think the current code we require 800...I think it's 800 feet, so we have that in
the...in the code already. Is that right, Bob? Um, I guess it's in lieu of a street.
Champion/ Uh-huh. I understand.
Howard/ Um...
Champion/ You might not be able to get a street in.
Howard/ Right, um...so, and this is one of those cases, again, where it doesn't tie the
Council's hands. You can evaluate that on a case-by-case basis, decide whether
it's necessary or not, and then chose or not to have it there.
Bailey/ Other questions?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 18
O'Donnell/ I have a problem with discouraging cul-de-sacs. Um, you know, people
chose to live on cul-de-sacs, there's less traffic, it's...it's slower traffic when you
have traffic, uh, you know, and I think any time that we use that kind of language
and say we're going to discourage it, sooner or later it's just really difficult to get
a cul-de-sac anywhere. You know, when you say discourage it, I just think that
somebody'll have a real problem when they submit a plan that shows cul-de-sacs.
Correia/ So other cities are going to this type of...were you saying at the last meeting?
Howard/ Having some sort of connectivity standards?
Correia/ Right (both talking)
Howard/ ...discouraging cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets. Yeah, I would say that's the
trend, to try and connect...just because it makes your city much more efficient,
more efficient public service provision, uh, cost less to, uh, run buses and pick up
garbage and uh, emergency service times are less, um, and it doesn't mean you
can't have cul-de-sacs. It just means...
O'Donnell/ We discourage it.
Howard/ ...need to make sure that your streets are connected.
Wright/ There ought to be a reason for a cul-de-sac.
Bailey/ Well, and there are reasons for cul-de-sacs.
Wright/ Yeah, topography.
Bailey/ Right.
Davidson/ ...remind the City Council that the street in Iowa City which basically led to
you establishing the traffic calming program was a perfect example. John,
where...the west side by Willow Creek? Teg Drive, thank you, Amy, uh
(mumbled) that basically that...that's a street that has a number of cul-de-sacs
feeding into it, which created a higher amount of traffic on the...Karen pointed all
this out in her presentation, which then led to the neighborhood saying there's an
undue amount of traffic, it's going too fast, and...so, I mean, it's all kind of
related when we talk about those issues and, you know, certainly what's in there
is to discourage cul-de-sacs, but allow them where we feel...where you all feel
they're appropriate.
Wright/ I just...as an anecdote, I had the opportunity, I was in a plane that had to circle
for a while, and we were circling the Orange County, Riverside County,
California. I was looking down, and the newer subdivisions had markedly fewer
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 19
cul-de-sacs, and I...that got me watching, and I noticed the same thing over
Chicago. I've done a little bit of reading, and cul-de-sacs are falling out of favor,
a lot of the reasons folks were just talking about. LJh, including walkability and
bikability.
O'Donnell/ I...I still say a cul-de-sac is safer to live on, Michael, and that's odd, because
I was in St. Louis last weekend, and I noticed just the opposite. The beautiful
new neighborhood with wonderful cul-de-sacs and, um, it's a matter of...it's
topography of the land, it's...it's the best use of the land, and it's, uh,
developable.. .
Wright/ Sometimes a cul-de-sac makes perfect sense, I agree with (mumbled)
Champion/ Well, I agree with you, they are quieter, Michael. I don't think they're
necessarily safer, because it only takes one car. It doesn't take a hundred.
O'Donnell/ Well, they're certainly safer because there's less cars, I would think.
Champion/ I don't know - it just takes one!
O'Donnell/ Well, you have better odds with a hundred.
Champion/ iJh, I'm not sure. I think you're more careful when there's a hundred.
O'Donnell/ We can talk! (laughter)
Bailey/ Other questions about the subdivision regulations, rather than how many cars it
takes to run somebody over? (laughter and several talking)
Hayek/ I think we're running into a dead end here! (laughter)
Bailey/ Okay, other questions?
Champion/ I think I might be done.
Bailey/ Are you done now?
Hayek/ Yeah, I am.
Bailey/ Mike, are you...
O'Donnell/ I'm finished.
Bailey/ Amy? Ross? Mike?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 20
Davidson/ Certainly have the option to raise questions again tomorrow, and I will attempt
to answer them as best I can, but the experts are here this evening.
Bailey/ Okay. Thanks for being here this evening. All right.
Hayek/ Bring your JV game tomorrow.
g) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF HENDRICKSON LYTHAM CONDOMINIUMS, IOWA CITY,
IOWA. (SUBOS- 00002)
h) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF
KENNEDY'S WATERFRONT ADDITION PART FIVE, IOWA CITY,
IOWA. (SUB08-0007)
Davidson/ We've all seen it. Uh, the next item then is item g - consider a resolution
approving the preliminary plat of Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums. This is
the project that had extensive discussion at your last meeting, and a first
consideration was approved. The developer in the preceding item has requested
expedited, uh, consideration, and should you decide, uh, tomorrow with item f to
give expedited consideration and do both the second and third readings, then and
only then would you consider this item, which is the preliminary plat. Um, I think
I did put...yeah, there's the plat, which you saw extensively at your meeting the
other night. Basically two lots formed by the street here, this was lot l; this is lot
2. A couple of small, oops, a couple of small outlots over here. Does anybody
know what I press to get rid of that? (several responding) Thank you. A couple
small outlots here, just to even up the frontage of these lots here, um,
pretty...pretty straightforward. Any questions about the plat? Okay. And then
the final item is, uh, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, final plat, which is
a...let's see. Four-lot commercial subdivision off of Gilbert Street. LJh, the staff
report did call into question a couple of things that were unanswered in the staff
report -one pertaining to drainage issues and the other the legal papers. Uh,
according to Engineering, uh, the drainage issues have been worked out, and they
are satisfied with the drainage plan, uh, and according to First Assistant City
Attorney Holecek, who I believe was going through the legal papers, she thought
they looked okay, but will give us the final word by tomorrow. Uh, there are the
four lots. The only other thing I'll just point out quickly is that we were able to
basically negotiate with the property owner a single access point for both lots 2
and 3, and then lots 1 and 4 will have their access off of what will be a cul-de-sac
at the end of the existing Stevens Drive. There'll be no direct access of lot 1 to
Gilbert Street, just to try and preserve the traffic carrying cap...capacity of Gilbert
Street, and make it safer. Any questions about, uh, this subdivision?
Wright/ Just out of curiosity, Jeff, do we know, uh, how wet that land got during the
floods?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 21
Davidson/ It got wet.
Wright/ Pardon me?
Davidson/ It got wet.
Wright/ How wet?
Davidson/ Um, I don't know just exactly. Is anybody from Southgate here? Um, it
certainly had water on it,. To the extent, Michael, I'm not certain.
Hayek/ I think it went over the street, didn't it? (several talking)
Correia/ It did go over Gilbert, although...
Davidson/ The river's right over there. (mumbled) Yeah, actually though, there's lot 1 if
you're interested. There's lot 2. I guess that's it, sorry. (several talking) Any
other questions?
Wilburn/ Part of the water came over that, where that drive is in that last, um, that last
photo. There were a couple strips there, and that was one of them.
Davidson/ Any other questions? Thank you.
Council Appointments:
Bailey/ All right. Next up is, uh, Council appointments. Um, we have Housing and
Community Development.
Correia/ Those are two folks that are currently serving unexpired terms?
Champion/ Yes.
Correia/ And so...
Bailey/ Andy Douglas and Rebecca McMurray.
Champion/ They're fine, I mean, they're currently serving.
Bailey/ Okay. And the Civil Service Commission; we have an applicant, Elizabeth
Cummings, for the opening.
Champion/ She looks good.
Bailey/ Okay. And then, Planning and Zoning?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 22
Wright/ I'd like to speak in favor of, uh, Michelle Payne for the Planning and Zoning. I
worked with Michelle on the Board of Adjustment. Um, I always found her
incredibly well prepared, uh, and very balanced and fair in coming up with her
opinions. Michelle, by virtue of being on the Board of Adjustment, she knows the
zoning code already, which I think can be a nice...a nice jumpstart. Uh, and
frankly we need more women on Planning and Zoning, and I think she'd be a
heck of a good addition.
Bailey/ (mumbled)
Champion/ I like to support, uh, Meis, because I think he provides a nice balance in, um,
conservative, liberal attitudes about the City, and I think it would be nice to
balance that Commission a little bit.
Hayek/ I'd throw my hat in for, uh, Mitch Meis, I know him. I've known him for many,
many years, um, he's a very moderate, deliberate thinker; a very organized and
meticulous person, in my experience, uh, as a young family, he's made alife-long
commitment to Iowa City, great civic commitments around the community, and
he, um, has done a good job on sort of a more personal level integrating a
commercial entity that he manages in the Goosetown neighborhood into the
surrounding, uh, residential area, and I think sort of a good example of what the
new zoning code, uh, seeks to accomplish, and so he's...he's practiced, I think,
um, some of the goals that are in that, um, and I think as a general matter, we can
expand the participation of our community in our commissions, um, and we have
applicants who are new to the city and willing to serve, that we ought to grab
those opportunities. So, I would support him.
Bailey/ Okay, so, um, how many do we have supporting Mitch? One, two, three.
Michelle? Okay. So, it's Michelle...we need gender balance, and perhaps Mitch
can...we just have an opening (several talking) Board of Adjustment. Okay.
Hayek/ I assume there are no conflict issues with MidAmerican employment?
Bailey/ Eleanor?
Wright/ She actually worked directly with Terry Smith (mumbled).
Bailey/ And so, Matt, since you know Mitch, you might encourage him to apply for that
opening on Board of Adjustment to get his involvement. I think that that would
be good. Okay. Metro Coalition -Ross, would you want to take this?
Metropolitan Coalition (IP2 of 7/10):
Wilburn/ Well, I'd be glad to get us started. Um, in the, I believe in the packet was the
legislative priorities from, uh, the 2008 session, and, um, just maybe some folks
could give some thought to, uh, are there three or four of these areas that you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 23
would think of, um, both kind of in a proactive way that we should, yes, we
should try and get enough of our partners to, uh, go, you know, to go, uh, actively
support some type of legislation in these areas. Are there three or four that, uh,
maybe not offensively, but defensively, or there...is there another area? I mean,
one from our conversations, uh, and since flood relief, recovery is going to be
ongoing, I would presume that the Council might wish to see if our partners want
to, um, advocate for the State, uh, comprehensive...how can we, uh, encourage,
speed up, uh, recovery in a responsible way, but to help reduce, mitigate burden
on, uh, on cities in doing so. Uh, that would be one that's not on this list, but
putting it out there. I was looking through the list, just in terms of example of
what might be three or four, both offensively, defensively, um, one was the, I'll
do the offensively first, was um, trying to, um, do more with how the Trust Fund
appropriation; secondly, with that property tax credit condo, that's under (several
commenting) uh, alternative revenue for cities. The third, um...
Champion/ Before you go on, was that, um, was there any interest in that from the other
people in the Coalition?
Wilburn/ Uh, as I recall, Des Moines did, and it seemed to me, Dubuque did, and those
make sense (both talking)
Champion/ ...dead wall here.
Wilburn/ I think, uh, probably the larger of the...or, the larger of the cities or the ones
who have, you know, a large university (mumbled) so I would...um, I would
suspect that that would be that difficult to (mumbled)
Bailey/ Well, and I think it comes under the revenue considerations. If not alternative
revenue, it comes under a revenue consideration, and I think if we, if we help
them see that, I think that there will be even greater buy-in, don't you think?
(several responding) A bundling of revenue package.
Wilburn/ And the third, I kind of put a question mark because I couldn't remember where
this one ended up, uh, and this I guess was I kind of saw maybe trying to help
fulfill an obligation with our, the University students, was to change an Iowa code
related to the wrongful retention. I couldn't remember if that went anywhere, did
that make it past the funnel or not?
Bailey/ I don't think so.
Wilburn/ Yeah, I didn't think so either. Um, and then two or three defensive one, uh, one
was the tax restructuring that the Governor has the Committee, the legislature has
a committee working on that, so just being prepared to respond, uh, secondly, a
defensive mode. We do have the smoking ban in place, but, um, the initial gut
reaction when it passed was that there were going to be several legislators trying
to undo some of the provisions (mumbled). That might be a second defensive,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 24
just to maintain as was passed, and as we get into it, I mean, we've got examples
now of how, um, at least to date businesses have not closed, etc., etc., um,
because of the smoking ban. Those were some of the issues that were put out
there. Um, a third, let me finish this thought then...the third might be to, uh,
prevent changes that would impair use of the tax increment financing. That might
be a third defensive. So I'm just putting those out as...as some examples of, uh,
both offense and defense, uh, revenue alternative which I think would be a pretty
strong, uh, thing that we'd want to do, and then, uh (mumbled).
Champion/ Can you tell me, uh, what they have in mind as a group on the tax
restructuring, with the rollback? Um, we had some discussion about that
(mumbled) can't remember.
Wilburn/ Well, there was, I mean, people were interested either in a freeze, but wanted to
see a comprehensive work, and it's...I'm putting that out as a defensive position
because there's a committee at the State working on that, and we're not quite sure
where that's going to be. There was, uh...the Coalition, or actually and I think
the League were discouraged from, you know, it's kind of we're working on that;
we don't want to hear that right now, from the legislature.
Hayek/ Well, is there any chance that what would emerge would be worse than the status
quo?
Wilburn/ That's, yeah, yeah.
Bailey/ Commercial rollback, as well as residential.
Hayek/ Is it more farming interest, or is it more the commercial and industrial lobby
getting some relief?
Bailey/ Well, some people also contend with farming interests that ag land values would
go up this year, so the rollback would be more favorable, but given what's
happened, I'm not sure that that's going to be the case, because
everything's...everything at the beginning of the season was so planted. So, but
there was a talk of commercial rollback, which was a, I think, the biggest
concern... for ending up worse than the status quo. That and the condo thing.
Wilburn/ And I think because of that, uh, kind of position that we're working on that
we...there are other priorities right now, because we are looking into that, um, it
seems to me still because of the potential for something worse, that would be one
that we want to make sure we're paying attention -having our lobbyists pay
attention to let us know, uh, what's going on. Uh, Dale, I don't know if you have
any recollection about, uh, conversations related to, um, the, uh, property tax, um,
do you recall anything other than what I just kind of stated?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 25
Helling/ No. I think kind of what, a lot of what you were saying was because there's
such, this differential between the commercial and the residential property taxes
(mumbled)
Karr/Dale, I'm sorry. I'm just not picking you up.
Helling/ Oh, sorry. Because there's such a differential, uh, between the commercial and
the residential property taxes, and they talked about a commercial rollback, I think
it went back to there'd have to be other sources of revenue, because there's no fix,
uh, no obvious fix with the property tax structure in and of itself without doing
something more general (mumbled)
Wilburn/ And because there were...there are so many competing interests in this
particular area, this would be one where, um, both our lobbyists needing to keep
us aware of any movement, but also, um, they can be letting us know are there,
uh, other groups, uh, and it may involve us trying to reach out locally to members
who are on some of those statewide lobbying groups, the Chamber, the Bankers,
that they may have some, uh, interests as a statewide group that we could help
make them reinforce...this is how this particular bill is going to affect, uh, the city
and our ability to do whatever to help us out locally, so...um, other than that, uh,
you know, is there reaction to this, is there...
Champion/ What about the tax increment financing? Was there...is there a threat to that
in the state legislature?
Wilburn/ Um, it has come up, uh, the last, uh, several...several years.
Champion/ Okay. I think you have good things here. I like the tax increment financing, I
like the, uh, condo thing, uh, the, um, the rollback.
Wilburn/ Our...our position, in particular, with the tax increment financing was that, uh,
you know, we, uh, to quote Bob's favorite word, we use it judicially.
Champion/ We do!
Wilburn/ If there, uh, that's kind of been our position, that I had taken forth to the group
when we had conversations related to that.
Hayek/ Cedar Rapids has, um, done I think, as far as I can tell, more of an analysis into
alternative revenues and smart growth, and um, sort of a panoply of...of ways to
preserve or increase revenues into their coffers. I don't know if we've done a
similar study down here, or if not whether we should think about doing that.
Bailey/ The Metro Coalition used, or...or grouped the alternative revenue initiatives,
used some of Cedar Rapids'...Cedar Rapids' ideas, as they...as we came together
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 26
around the alternative revenue concept, which seemed to, um, enable our
lobbyists to have a clear idea of how to address some of the issues that came up.
Wilburn/ Yeah, do you remember what that...what the particular one...what was that
area, uh, that we had showed that, uh, there was...we had a clear handle on the
financial impact on the cities. You, or Dale, do you remember which one that we
used from Cedar Rapids, um.. .
Bailey/ Wasn't specific (mumbled)
Wilburn/ But again, under alternative revenue, I think that would be...uh, since Cedar
Rapids had done a little bit further work, I think, um, that's an area where I think
there'll be clear interest, and if there is so, then each of the members
would...would need to, you know, provide information so it can be compiled
(mumbled)
Bailey/ I think the broad concept of alternative revenues, at...if we advocate for that at
the Metro Coalition level of the...and then begin to work out some details that
we'll be offensive on, and then also take some defensive stances as other things
come up might give us the most flexibility, because I think that that's something
we generally...we have to be interested in, because our revenue mix is horrible.
We're too, way too dependent on property taxes.
Wilburn/ And if that's an area that we all have consensus, then the Coalition can start
working through a list of what some of those alternatives, to bring back to us to
say.. .
Bailey/ Right.
Wilburn/ ...is Iowa City City Council interested in trying to promote tax sticker or
historical tax or whatever it might be, uh.. .
Champion/ Anything you can come up with would be fine. (laughter)
Wilburn/ Well, there may or may not be consensus on (several talking and laughing) but
we can...
Bailey/ Those border communities come up with some pretty wild stuff!
Correia/ I think that... given the, uh, devastation that's happened to some affordable
housing in Johnson County and the needs that we're going to have over the next
few years related to (mumbled)
Champion/ I can't understand you, Amy. You're mumbling.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 27
Correia/ I said, with the, uh, flood event, there's increased needs for affordable housing,
so I think keeping the Iowa City Housing Trust Fund appropriation is going to be
important, I mean, that's...and that's not just a need for our area and our city. It's
for Cedar Rapids.
Bailey/ But could we step that out and look at, um, increased funding for affordable
housing in the state, bullet point one -Iowa State Housing Trust Fund
appropriation, because other cities might come up with...other cities are seeing
the same thing.
Wright/ I'm sure Cedar Rapids is going to have some interest in that.
Bailey/ Yes, but they might not necessarily...they might have some other bullet points
that can go under that approach, which would help us work in the Coalition.
Hayek/ So how does this work. I wasn't here when you guys who were here enacted this
last...this list last year. Do...does this, does the list for the next year get created
or worked on, um, with this form of brevity, or do we have a topic with five or ten
bullet points under it so we understand exactly what it is we're taking a position
on? As opposed to just a label? Because I'm not sure I fully understand some of
these things, or what the nuances might be.
Wilburn/ Some of them came up in, as part of work sessions and the City Manager would
present a few things. Others, um, were some ideas that, uh, not necessarily, um,
we had done work with, but some other groups in the community had done work
with, and knew about, you know, info packets that, you know, and then others it
was, um, just kind of tagging along with what the League had been working on,
uh, Dee had been, you know, involved with Transportation stuff, so that's how
some of that got, so it's kind of a...evolving.
Bailey/ So the property tax credit/condo, it's a very brief statement, but there was a
broader understanding of what was being proposed, and that was discussed
at...when we developed these, and I...
Wilburn/ Actually I think it was...might have been Connie who had brought that up
during a budget session couple times, and...
Hayek/ So we developed some literature and material on this that we can...
Bailey/ No, we didn't.
Hayek/ Oh!
Bailey/ I think we developed...we had discussion about the broader position. I think we
used the League's charts when it came to what we would lose in property tax
revenue should condos be taxed in a different way.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 28
Champion/ No, we would gain.
Bailey/ Lose or gain?
Champion/ We would gain. I mean, we would...I think it was over a million dollars. It's
probably even more than that now.
Hayek/ Well, I'm just saying in advance that it would be helpful forme to educate myself
on these issues as we go forward where there are opportunities to grab material,
and I can do that myself, but...um, we all ought to be reading the same things.
Wilburn/ Well, I think too, I mean, again, some of it - if in independent research if
something comes up at a work session, I would think, `You know, I've been
getting information off here. Here's this,' and then if there's enough, then we can
give staff, uh, direction to, uh, if we're...if we're clear, and say here's the area
where you want to look at. What are...what are some other communities doing?
What are some of the potential benefits, uh, negatives, uh, so I think it starts...it
starts with kind of the individual researcher. You know, like what you did
looking what Cedar Rapids has been doing, putting a memo out, seeing if there's
enough interest in a work session to, uh, ask staff if they can collect...to work up
something.
Hayek/ Okay.
Wilburn/ Is that fair, uh, Regenia?
Bailey/ Yeah, I think...I think that that's a good approach, because obviously our
resolution isn't going to include all the bullet points, and part of the challenge I
think that Ross can speak to, and we all know with the legislative session, is we
can have sort of a general target or ballpark of where we want to go, but the
details in those specific bills, we have to evaluate, well, does that fit our broad
category, and how are we going to position as a Council, and how are we going to
position as a Metro Coalition, on this particular bill that they're proposing for x,
y, or z.
Wilburn/ But clearly if there...in particular, if there's a, uh, an offensive...not
"offensive," "offensive" area that, uh, you know, if we had some ideas or
thoughts or working with staff wanted to put together a piece of legislation, it's
much easier to, um, it can be much easier to educate some of the other members
to get a consensus with some of the other, uh, communities, if you've got abill -
here's the bill, here's a draft of the bill, and I can see us moving towards, with the
Coalition, in our approach trying to, you know, I mean, Des Moines did it.
Davenport did it, with particular bills that they had drafted, but they were going to
be lobbying for anyway, and so they...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 29
Bailey/ (mumbled) One of the things I would like to advocate for within the Coalition is
the passenger rail transportation initiatives. I mean, I know Dubuque would be
supportive. Davenport would be supportive, if we're supportive, you know, we
just need to get a couple more and then we can...I think it makes sense from a
transportation perspective.
Wilburn/ I'm sorry. Did you say Amtrak or did you say...
Bailey/ The passenger rail, both. Continue to advocate on the state level for funding.
Are others interested in that?
Champion/ I think (several talking)
Bailey/ Yeah I just think...
Champion/ I wouldn't say Amtrak. There might be another upcoming line that does a
better job (several talking)
Bailey/ We're looking at Amtrak through Illinois. But, um, I just think we should put
that out there for the Metro Coalition. I'm not sure that they'll buy into it, but I
think...I think it would be good, and I think that there might be interest, and it
makes sense for the larger communities. Right now the trains go through those
smaller communities. It doesn't make any sense.
Dilkes/ I...this is kind of legal so I'm going to say this, but the, um, I think it would be
helpful on some of these things to just have a little brief summary. I mean, when
I look at, for instance...
Bailey/ That's what Matt was saying.
Dilkes/ Yeah, that's what I mean, but I...I can't figure out whether...where you all are at
on that. Change in Iowa Code 5628.12 - I can't even remember what the
proposal was. I remember it generally, but what are the, what are we talking
about there, and...and certainly if a citizen looking at this, property tax credits,
condo isn't going to...
Bailey/ We'll do it better this year.
Dilkes/ No.
Wright/ I think if they were just fleshed out, just a little bit.
Dilkes/ Yeah, just a little bit.
Hayek/ Cliff notes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 30
Bailey/ Yeah.
Hayek/ Hey, do you have any sense of the, um, the jeopardy, uh, that the Metropolitan
Coalition may or may not be in as a result of the floods, when you've got places
like Cedar Rapids that...would not surprise me if they...if they said, `To heck
with this list. We have one and one...we have one concern and one concern only
for the next two years. We're going to have to strike out on our own, and look out
for number one because we've been so devastated by the floods.' Is
there...getting any feedback from anybody in the sense of a change in the
willingness of...
Bailey/ Kay emailed me last night that she would be at the meeting for the Metro
Coalition. Now, maybe she'll plop that then, but I don't...I don't, I get a sense
that we have to hang together, and convince the other communities that weren't
necessarily impacted by the flood, um, to help us promote rebuilding. That's kind
of what I've been hearing.
Wilburn/ Well, and I, you know she's been around long enough, too, that she knows that
you're going to go up to the hill you've got to, clearly you're advocating for
yourself, but if there's anybody else out there who's remotely in the same arena
that you are, that it behooves you to...now, not everybody's going to think that
way, but uh, you know, we won't really have an idea until we get together for this
next meeting, but uh...
Bailey/ Well, and this doesn't make Jim Prosser's ideas about alternative revenues go
away. In fact, it emphasizes the need for them, when you have your commercial
and residential property devastated to the great degree they have. So...it, it might
be an opportunity.
Correia/ So going...(several talking)...
Champion/ Has the Coalition ever, uh, just come up with a figure of what percentage of
the population of the state you're representing?
Wilburn/ It was, uh, it was 30...was it 100?
Bailey/ Yeah, we're the nine largest cities.
Wilburn/ I'm sorry?
Bailey/ We're the nine largest cities, so it was much higher.
Wilburn/ I thought it was like, uh...
Bailey/ That was in our little blurb. I can't think (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 31
Wilburn/ I was thinking it was roughly a third of the state, I thought it was (mumbled)
33% was what I was thinking, but...
Bailey/ It was in a letter.
Wilburn/ Yeah.
Bailey/ Wasn't it in that letter? Do you have that? Go ahead, Amy.
Correia/ So, I...so...going back to Matt and Eleanor's comments, can we identify the
items that we want to have included in this res...this year's 2009 Legislative
Priorities, and for... for example, I have access to information, um, from the State
Affordable Housing Trust Fund that we're, um, for trust fund appropriation I
could shoot that to Michael. I mean, couldn't we...to get the information we
have. I mean, I'm thinking, you know, some, based on some work that I've done
at work with giving recommendations on Federal initiatives, I just put together
what's the issue, a sentence; what's the recommendation, afew sentences; what's
the current status, I mean, I think if we had that on the items that we are wanting
to push forward, I think that could provide brief explanation, but be more clear for
us, and for the public who's looking at this.
Bailey/ I think that that would be an approach to take for our 2009 Legislative Priorities,
but I mean, when we put those on the agenda to do. So, and I...we typically do
those in the fall.
Correia/ I guess I thought we were trying to get them done sooner for the Metro Coalition
to have.
Bailey/ This is, well, no...this is specifically we are picking from this to take our
recommendations to Metro Coalition. If our...our priorities can simply represent
what we take to Metro Coalition, or they can be broader, but since we haven't
called out an agenda item that's this, or 2009 Legislative Priorities, I think we
need to just focus on what we're recommending to the Metro Coalition.
Wilburn/ (several talking) I think what you're...but what I was (several talking)
Correia/ I was thinking that...those would be the same, and that then whatever items they
might not take on, we would do on our own, but I guess I didn't...
Bailey/ Well, I guess that could be an approach. I had thought that we would perhaps
have some more specific things to Iowa City. I don't know.
Hayek/ Well, when's...when does the Metropolitan Coalition need to hear from us, as to
how we would prioritize things?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 32
Wilburn/ We...we're, um, and this is where we had the conversation, whether again to
pull it off or not, um, it's the last week of July. The 30`'' is when, um.. .
Bailey/ But if we say we're interested in this alternative revenues and then we're
interested in some defensive positioning on these sorts of things, we'll also have a
broader discussion that there will be other topics that other cities will bring.
We'll bring those back to this group to see if we're going to weigh in or not.
Wilburn/ And that will give us time to...
Bailey/ Right.
Wilburn/ ...I guess this meeting is kind of an initial what are some areas that the...that
the Coalition is willing to look at. We still have time before the legislative
session begins, to have Amy or you or Connie or anyone....
Champion/ Well, what if we...
Wilburn/ ...put together, uh, you know, a couple three-sentence blurb, or whatever detail
you wish to give, for us to wrestle with, to then again go back. There was enough
interest in the Coalition at our meeting on the 30`" of this month in the area of,
um, affordable housing, um...and so at the next meeting, we can...we can wrestle
out here, here's more detailed position as to what we can take and what we'd be
asking the State for in terms of policy and funding, since...at the following
Coalition meeting since, uh, there was some general consensus on these, this
narrowed down list of area issues. We can then say, you know, in this
particular...so it, I guess it's kind of aback-and-forth, and as we know that there's
enough interest at the Coalition level, we can try and provide more of the detailed
position, again, policy or financial, whatever it might be, to then, um, in the case
that I gave earlier, Coalition - here's a draft bill, right now, and they could...
Hayek/ But if we have an information deficit on these items, if...it's going to apply to us,
and to the situation, whether we're deciding what to focus on in terms of the
upcoming legislative session, just as it would as we decide what to say to the
Metropolitan Coalition would want to do, and I understand there's a time, that
you know we've got ten days basically before...before the.. .
Wilburn/ Let me try...let me try it this way. If, um, the detail that folks are wanting, uh,
on items on the list so they can make that determination, if it's going to rely on
me to put that detail, it ain't gonna happen. If we can have a discussion with
people bringing information to, then it will happen before the session...legislative
session happens.
Champion/ I think it's important to get this together as soon as possible, before the
legislation begins.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 33
Bailey/ Sure, but, I mean, just insofar as this first Metro Coalition, I mean, I think your
point about what would Cedar Rapids do, we could come back from this meeting
on the 30th and Cedar Rapids might...might say, uh, it's all off the table. We
want to...we want the Metro Coalition to focus on flood rebuilding.
Wilburn/ Only.
Bailey/ Yeah, so what's the position, so, you know, to spend a lot of time with a lot of
detail at this juncture with our priorities might not be the time best spent for this
Metro Coalition, um, sort of, uh, advice and now when we do our priorities, I
think you're right. I think we need to flesh this out and be really clear and use the
resources we have. So...
Wilburn/ Or...if...if that's not helpful, acceptable, beneficial, if you want us to go to the
Coalition meeting on the 30t" and say, `You know what, we need a couple more
months to do this,' um, you know, we can do that too, but in those two months
that we're waiting, the same activity has to happen, or.. .
Wright/ We're not going to be able to send anything detailed to this meeting on the 30tH
That just...what I can tell, that ain't gonna happen.
Bailey/ Well, then I'm not sure it would be time well spent, because we could do a lot of
detail on something that nobody else is interested in.
Wilburn/ And that's...that's the risk that you (several talking)
Correia/ I'm not even talking about things that take a lot of detail, and I'm...and I'm
thinking that it's not...I don't think it's our job necessarily to put up, to put in the
detail. I think we have staff support that we can direct to put the detail. I spent in
my job today about 45 minutes putting together some policy statements to my
bosses on three different Federal policy legislation. Took me about 45 minutes,
you know, I came up with (both talking)
Bailey/ ...do we want to take to the Coalition if we're just tossing out broad ideas that we
advocate for...
Correia/ I think we're talking about two different things.
Bailey/ Yes we are.
Correia/ We're talking about...but I think we're working on a process that we want to
develop the infrastructure that when we're talking about what we're taking to the
Metro Coalition or what we're taking to our legislators, it's all the same
conversation. We have the same information, so we can make those
determinations. Yes, we want to bring this, based on we have this, you know,
three paragraphs of information on a bill that we want to introduce, or
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 34
not...somebody's thesis. Sort of in between, um, and so I don't think we're going
to be able to have that in two weeks, but I do think we need to start developing a
process that this is what we'd like to see when we're making that determination.
What's the issue, what's the recommendation, or what's the...our position -
what's the current status of this issue?
Bailey/ When we...work session 2009 Legislative Priorities for this body, we will talk
about what that process will be with enough time to get that kind of information
that you...you want.
Champion/ Well, some of it's pretty straightforward. I mean, we know.. .
Bailey/ Absolutely, without question.
Champion/ And we know we're interested in other sources of revenue.
Bailey/ Right.
Champion/ I mean, we need other sources of revenue.
Wright/ For going into this meeting, is it enough to just say, `We're interested in property
tax credits and condos?'
Champion/ Yeah, I mean, and we're in...whatever...
Wright/ Just for the purposes of that meeting, we can probably be bare bones is what I'm
hearing.
Bailey/ Do you have...why don't you...do you have what you think you need to take into
this meeting on the 30th, from this group?
Wilburn/ Well, I've heard...I've heard a few, uh, a few items, yeah. Uh, but...but I'm
trying to honor Matt's, uh, query into does he have enough information to make a
decision, but you know, when this brought up...was brought up, um, last...and
I'm appreciating what you're saying, that we've got staff to do that, but what I
was trying to say last month was is there an area we want to send either ourselves,
or send staff out to bring information back to do that, but.. .
Champion/ Well, I mean, some of it we can clarify pretty readily in a sentence or two,
and...if...if Matt needs some clarification on some of this, bring it up. We'll see
if we can't clarify it for you.
Hayek/ Well, I don't mean to derail the train.
Champion/ We don't have a train, remember?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 35
Hayek/ Next time we do this...
Bailey/ Yeah, we don't have a train. We're trying to get one, see...
Wilburn/ Well, you know, I mean...
Hayek/ The next time we do this, it'll...
Bailey/ For us.
Hayek/ Yeah, uh, maybe we can create some sort of working playbook.
Champion/ Right. It's because we've all been through this so many times. It's clear to
us, and you haven't.. .
Hayek/ I haven't, and (mumbled). I'm fine joining in with whatever the consensus of the
group is for this time. (several talking)
Wilburn/ Well, what I was saying is that there...I think there are, uh, well, again, I go
back to your question about, you know, how what we have here even come up, it
was over the process...over the course of a year, uh, they were items that people
made note of that came up during budget time, uh, during our retreat, um, at
various work sessions, um, you know, so...
Bailey/ I guess I'm viewing this as two different things. I agree with you. I think that we
need more details, so we can speak to these as our legislative priorities. For the
Metro Coalition given that the meeting is in two weeks, and I'm not trying to rush
us through a decision making process, but the chances, I mean, I think this is sort
of atoss-things-on-the-wall, see who's interested, see what form it takes, get
some detail from that group, bring it back to the individual bodies, and see if we
can buy in to a couple of bullet points, then it'll be an iterative process. We'll be
back and forth with it, a couple of times. That's why, um, you know, just flushing
this out at this point, um, may or may not be (several talking), but I think for us,
for our priorities, I think that that process is going to be really important.
Wilburn/ Well, for example, at the meeting, uh, again, it looks like it's going to be the
30`", um, you know, Cedar Rapids may bring down, uh, some pretty, they may
have some very, you know...
Bailey/ Specific, and we'll just see if we can buy in.
Wilburn/ ...and...and, yeah, that would be something that we'd, you know, here's
what...here's what Cedar Rapids had. Um...
Bailey/ And they will have (mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 36
Wilburn/ Des Moines will have had some, um, because they've had, um, you know,
lobbyists working on this before, they have, um, some definite positions related
to, um, the fiscal end and, um, of certain items, and they, uh, may bring up, uh,
three or four different ideas that we could bring back, you know, how does this
impact, how might this impact Iowa City, etc., etc. So it would be kind of like
that rolling playbook that you're...
Bailey/ Yeah.
Correia/ So I guess what I hope is that, from moving forward, that we don't have a
division or a...between this is our Metro Coalition agenda and this is our separate
Iowa City agenda that we, I mean, that's sort of what I thought I heard.
Bailey/ Yeah, we will.
Correia/ No. Well, I guess what I mean is, I...we should create our Iowa City agenda,
take the whole thing to the Metro Coalition. What they don't take up, then we
move the other, but not have...okay, we're going to identify what we're going to
take to the Metro Coalition, but then we have a separate discussion about things
we don't take there, and have it happen at different times. I think we establish our
legislative priorities.
Wilburn/ And try and sell what we can to the...
Correia/ Sell what we can, and then...and then do what we can separately with the rest,
and not have this Metro Coalition work development take their separate Iowa
City, and have it happen at different times.
Bailey/ Huh.
Correia/ It could also happen at the same time we sell it, wherever we can, and we have
one message on those items, as we're going out.
Bailey/ I just believe that we are probably interested in some very specific things that...
Correia/ We maybe, right, so maybe we come up with that and we say, `Okay, we're
going to take these seven to Metro and these are very specific,' but we don't come
up with them at separate times. We can add things, certainly, at any time,
but...but it's not...
Bailey/ Right, and this is so, I mean...right.
Correia/ Yeah, I mean, it's new and we've had...
Bailey/ Well, and the timing's different.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 37
Correia/ Yes.
Bailey/ Okay. Do you have what you need, Ross?
Wilburn/ Okay, I think so. (laughter)
Bailey/ Do you want to reiterate what you have?
Champion/ ...as clear as mud.
Bailey/ So we know what you're taking?
Wilburn/ Well, I mean, um, some...some folks...for the folks that spoke up, I...I at least
have the areas that they were interested in, so that I could take that approach of
well, here's what we're interested, um, I didn't hear a, well, I'm definitely
opposed to, um, an area, so that I guess that leads it pretty broad. Um, I
also...excuse me, Connie, just so I can finish the thought, um, there also didn't
seem to be any struggle or reaction to, at least the items I talked about in terms of
offensively and defensively.
Champion/ Right.
Wilburn/ So...um...
Bailey/ Well, and I generally heard that alternative revenue seems to be a theme...
Wilburn/ Right.
Bailey/ ...for this group, as well as the Metro, so...so are we good moving forward, or do
we not have enough information, or...
Champion/ I'm fine.
Hayek/ (several responding) See what sticks. And see what the sense of the Coalition is.
Bailey/ I think that's where we're at with the group.
Hayek/ We're not going to write War and Peace in two weeks.
Champion/ But we should do this at a work session sometime, uh.. .
Bailey/ So I'm thinking like our first work session maybe in September with...with some
process developed so that we can get our legislative priorities developed, and
Michael and I will talk about (several talking). A little bullet, and then that will
give us September.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 38
Wilburn/ And in the meantime, if there...if there is a particular area that someone wants
to check out on their own, uh, or check in individually with a staff member, if
there...if they have some preliminary work done to at least get your thoughts
together to bring to us. For example, uh, a couple of you mentioned possibilities
of rail, um, Jeff has done some extensive work through there, so, um, it probably
wouldn't be a big stretch for him to at least hand you a stack of whatever...if you
wanted to just to kind of skim through to see if there's a, um...three or four
different bullet points that you want to bring up.
Champion/ I think it might be a little early for rail, although I'm definitely interested in it.
I think it's going to take the country as a whole to realize we've got to do
something about our transportation system.
Wilburn/ Right, but an example of, because Jeff has done some work in that area, and has
been in touch with the folks from Amtrak and the study that they have, and he's
been in conversation with them, he might say, `Yes, it is too early, but one of the
things that they were clearly saying is that there needs to be some level of interest
or support from the State, fiscally, and so, um, a position might be to, uh, begin,
uh, designating funding, looking for financial resources, uh, letters of support to,
you know, so a position would be we promote the State legislature, the
Governor's office to contact Amtrak to say that we have some interest in, you
know, that type of thing, because initially I believe that Jeff, correct me if I'm
wrong, they weren't hearing that type of indication from the Iowa legislature or
Governor's office, that they would even consider using State resources
towards...is that...
Davidson/ Yeah, that definitely needs to be done, Ross.
Wilburn/ Okay. All right.
Bailey/ Okay, so in August you'll talk to us about what stuck basically and what the
Coalition is recommending, and then we'll begin (mumbled)
Wilburn/ Right, as soon as we finish that, uh, that meeting on the 30`'', I'll have...submit
a memo, just saying here's where there seemed to be interest, and maybe that will
help generate some...
Bailey/ And then with the information you have, or need, then we can have that
conversation. So if it's housing and you have connections, or if it is a question,
and you need more detail, then we can begin to have a more thorough
conversation about exactly how we're positioning, which is what I think
you...you're saying, is, yeah, a bullet point is fine, but what's our position and
where does it go.
Hayek/ Well, what...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 39
Bailey/ What does it mean.
Hayek/ ...what does the issue entail? What's time 21? I see 21 and it makes me think of
referendums on drinking. So, we'll have to, yeah, we'll have to put some meat on
those bones, so to speak.
Bailey/ Right. Okay. Thanks, Ross.
Champion/ Thank you very much.
Agenda Items:
Bailey/ Agenda items. Any agenda items?
ITEM 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
e) Correspondence.
9. Brian Loring: BIC's position on Burlington Street
Correia/ Well, I guess since John's here, the Brian Loring's correspondence, on the
sharrows on Burlington Street. Is that...I'm remembering from our last
conversation that there is going to be some meeting of the minds about bike, sort
of just bike routes.
Yapp/ We are presenting a, uh, downtown on-street bike routes plan to our...our regional
trails and bicycling committee, as a first step...
Correia/ Okay.
Yapp/ ... in early August.
Correia/ And so will that, does that plan include things like street markings?
Yapp/ Yes.
Correia/ Okay.
Wright/ Sharrows in particular?
Yapp/ Uh, I wouldn't say in particular, but it does include sharrows, yes.
Bailey/ Can you talk about the status of sharrows at the State, a little bit (mumbled)
Yapp/ Sure. Burlington Street specifically is a...a State highway. Um, Iowa DOT is
reluctant to allow what are called sharrows on the State highway until they are
included in the Federal manual of traffic control devices, uh, which is being
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 40
considered, nationally, uh, it is one of many changes to that manual that is, uh,
going through a public input process currently.
Correia/ So can we let our local group know about that public input process? So that
they.. .
Yapp/ We have.
Correia/ Excellent!
Wright/ And the general sense is that they probably will go through on the Federal.. .
Yapp/ I...that's the general sense. There's a few different options of the...their size and
shape, and I think that's where the discussion is.
Bailey/ Okay. (mumbled)
Wright/ ...could be acceptable, but (mumbled)
Bailey/ Right, exactly. So while you're up there would you talk about Oakcrest Street,
and the question between north.. .
Yapp/ Go grab my packet.
ITEM 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
e) Correspondence.
4. JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner: removal of existing
NO PARKING lOAM-4PM MONDAY-FRIDAY signs on the
south side of Oakcrest Street between Sunset Street and
George Street (1200&1300 Blocks)
Bailey/ Okay.
Yapp/ I'm sorry, Mayor. What was the question?
Bailey/ There was a question in the Oak Street...0akcrest Street memo about, um,
northside, nouhside on street.
Yapp/ Oh, uh, we had some input from the Transit Division, uh, currently there is no
parking on Oakcrest Street at all during the day.
Bailey/ Right.
Yapp/ Uh, we had input from the Transit Division that they would prefer parking be
permitted on the northside, if there is a change, due to the eastbound bus on
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 41
Oakcrest Street; however, they will continue to use the street either way. Uh, the
petition that we received and the survey that we conducted was regarding the
southside of the street.
Bailey/ So if we were...if we allow parking, what are we doing? We're allowing
parking.. .
Yapp/ We would allow parking...
Bailey/ ...southside.
Yapp/ ...uh, on the southside where it is currently, uh, not allowed from 10:00 A.M. to
4:00 P.M., which is something that evolved, uh, a couple years ago.
Wright/ Yeah, this has bounced around like a tennis ball.
Bailey/ iJh-huh. So, if we're interested in being responsive to the Transit Division
preference for parking on the northside, tomorrow night should we just say that
that's where we'll allow parking, and there won't be parking on the southside?
Yapp/ You may. However, uh, the neighborhood conversations and survey that we have
had indicated the southside. Jeff, you know some of this history, as well. I don't
know if I'd recommend a new survey be conducted.
Bailey/ Yeah, how...how do... I guess my question is how would you recommend we
proceed.
Yapp/ Typically...typically...
Correia/ ...I mean, what's the...
Davidson/ I would not underestimate the sensitivity of the neighborhood to just changing
it from the north to the south side, and...and not to pick on Oakcrest Street. LIh,
during my time at JCCOG, on-street parking is an enormous (mumbled)
neighborhood issue. If I had $5.00 for every time I explained to somebody that it
is not against the law for their neighbor to park their car in front of your house
instead of their own house because it's a public street, I mean, a lot of sensitivity.
Bailey/ Just leave it. Okay, thanks. (laughter) Other agenda items?
Champion/ Although you've been (mumbling)
Correia/ So, but, why the southside versus the northside? Why does...do you know?
Yapp/ I do not know specifically. That was the petition that you received a couple
months ago.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 42
Correia/ They want it on the southside.
Bailey/ Because the southside was this time that was 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and they
wanted to change that. They don't want...okay, thanks, John. Other agenda
items?
ITEM 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS IN THE 1000-1200 BLOCKS OF
FOSTER ROAD
Hayek/ I have a question on Item 8, regarding speed humps, Foster Road. And this is
more a process question. Um, what is our standard for calculation of 75%, um, is
there any part of that that relies on a minimum number of responses to inquiries
we send out? Or, is it just 75% of whatever we get back?
Yapp/ It's 75% of whatever we get back. Uh, we also give you the number of
respondents. Just for your information (several talking)
Correia/ Uh-huh, how many did we get? Response...
Champion/ Twelve.
Correia/ Twelve out of?
O'Donnell/ Twenty-eight.
Hayek/ All right...you know, you can either read that to mean that's 75% are in favor, or
9/28ths, i.e. 25%, were in favor. Do I have that right?
Correia/ Well, it says 75% of respondents were in favor, and you had less than half return
it.
Hayek/ I read that to be nine of twelve people were in favor of this, and 28 people
received this. And I'm...(several commenting)...
Wilburn/ And you have no idea what the...motivation...
Hayek/ And I just don't know...I haven't looked closely enough on our policy on this to
know...confirm that now.
Wilburn/ The question is, uh, were those folks too busy? Did...vacation, you know, I
don't really care one way or the other. It's looking at the motivation of why
people don't, um, respond...
Champion/ Maybe they just don't care (several commenting)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 43
Yapp/ As part of the traffic calming process, we do hold a neighborhood meeting. Uh,
which was fairly...were you at that one? You were not here yet. Uh, my
recollection is there were about 15 people there, um, and then this, the whole
process starts again with a petition from, uh, neighborhood residents. So there are
several steps along the way.
Bailey/ Other agenda items? (several commenting) Uh, council time.
Council Time•
Bailey/ Um, we had a memo regarding outdoor service areas in the Info Packet.
Anybody have any questions? Jeff is here.
Correia/ Oh, we can ask questions?
Hayek/ I didn't hear what you said. I wasn't listening.
Correia/ So this...(several talking)...so this, um, the Blackstone was in a planned
development. So, as a part of the planned development, could we include the
ability for this restaurant to fully serve their customers without changing our, the
whole, sort of outdoor service area ordinance?
Davidson/ Um, I mean, in terms of the zoning ordinance, obviously there's specific
regulatory things that...have the discretion to change. Eleanor will advise if
something illegal about anything...you know, we...we are advocating a consistent
approach city-wide to it, um..
Correia/ I guess, you know, they built that with City involvement in the design, and you
know, the knowing there would be this outdoor service area, and I imagine, you
know, it's, you know, expecting, everybody'll understand we'll serve our full
menu which includes all beverages in that outdoor service area, and then find out
later that you can't. Um, I think is disheartening, to say the least.
Champion/ I...yeah, I totally agree with you.
Correia/ Yeah, I mean, I'd like to see making an exception in this planned development.
I mean, I think it's the type of...the type of, um, commerce or activity that we
want to see. Um, it's a great restaurant. You know, it's, you see a lot of (several
talking)
Dilkes/ I don't think that this is an appropriate subject matter for the planned
development. It's a...it's a provision that's in a part of our ordinance that is not
part of the zoning code, and I...I don't think we have a mechanism to make that
an exception in a planned development.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 44
Davidson/ Yeah, just to clarify, the planned development is the residential part of Old
Towne Village. The commercial part of Old Towne Village is a combination of
CC-2 and CO-1. It's not part of the planned development.
Dilkes/ Okay, right, but even if it were...(several talking)
Davidson/ I mean, the notion the planned development is that it is a residential zone
where we've tried to do something out of the ordinary through the planned
development process.
Bailey/ Okay.
Correia/ I guess I'd be interested in relooking at the ordinance to allow for exceptions
then.
Champion/ Me too. I think this is....
Bailey/ I have concerns though about...I just have this concern. I mean, I think that it's a
good policy because of residential expectations for peace and quiet. And, outdoor
service areas, whether they're a restaurant or a bar, noise carries. I mean, I kind
of feel like I live next to an outdoor service area, although it's a rental property,
but I mean, it's...I have concern about looking at it.
Wright/ A hundred feet is not very far either. The width of our...of our lot is (mumbled)
plus 20 feet.
Correia/ I guess (several talking)...I guess it would have been nice if we would have told
them when they were putting in the outdoor service area, and we saw it on their
plan, because it's there, I mean, you saw it as soon as they were building it, and so
we approve the plan and we knew there would be...I wish we would have said,
did you know you won't be able to serve alcohol there? So that maybe they
would have made their outdoor service area in a different part, on the inside or
something. I don't know.
Dilkes/ Well, first of all this isn't on the agenda. (several talking)
Bailey/ No, but I mean, it's in the Info Packet.
Dilkes/ No, but that doesn't mean it's on the work session agenda, because it's on the.. .
Bailey/ ...specifically.
Dilkes/ But it's not on the work session agenda.
Bailey/ Okay. So how would you like us to handle the questions that are specifically in
the memo?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 45
Dilkes/ Put it on a work session agenda.
Bailey/ Okay. So do we have four people who would like to put this on a work session?
O'Donnell/ Yes.
Champion/ I thought we made it clear though the last time we talked about this. I'm not
going to offer anything new. That we wanted some way for this to happen.
Bailey/ No. We made it clear last time that we wanted a memo regarding this, about how
it happened, I thought.
O'Donnell/ I don't recall that. I...I think we need to put it on a work session. (several
talking)
Davidson/ Dale forwarded it to me, the meeting minutes, and...I don't have them with
me, but I...wasn't that the case, Dale? I mean, we just owed you a memo saying
what you could possibly do and...
Bailey/ Okay, so there are three of you who are interested. Anybody else interested in a
work session on this?
Hayek/ Sure.
Bailey/ Okay, we'll put it on a work session. Thanks. Other Council Time? Um, so that
goes on a pending discussion item. Upcoming...let's talk about the future
meeting schedule.
Future Meeting Schedule:
Bailey/ Marian had a memo in here regarding that.
Correia/ Looks good to me. I had all those dates...
Bailey/ I cannot meet on October 7`"
Karr/ Okay. It's the time that we need to discuss the remainder of the year -October,
November, December -and make adjustments. I proposed a schedule. I had a
question mark by October 7`h for Regenia, and didn't know. If all the other dates
are...are fine, I guess then I need to hear on whether there's any interest on the 6th
to combine a work session? And a formal.
Champion/ Well, sure. Combine it.
Karr/ That's the quick and dirty of it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 46
Hayek/ October 6`", 7`"~
Karr/ October...if, if the only problem with all of your schedules is October 7`" formal,
then we could do the 6`" on both. Does that work?
Bailey/ Do the other dates look good for people?
Champion/ Well, the other...the only other question I have is traditionally in the past
we've only had one meeting and work session in December.
Karr/ That's correct. We did for a couple reasons, Connie. Number one, the League of
Cities, the National League of Cities meeting, and number two, it's how the
holiday hit. This particular year I haven't again heard if there was a number of
people going to the National League of Cities or not, and secondly, that holiday,
uh, the schedule of Monday, Tuesdays enabled that. This is just a draft, and we
certainly can change that.
Bailey/ (several talking) and see what we're coming up with...
Champion/ Well, because it is such a craz~ month for a lot of people, if we could take
that second December 15`" and 16` and combine it, either on Tuesday or Monday.
Karr/ So, the ls` and 2"d would remain the same?
Champion/ Uh-huh.
Bailey/ Uh. So a combined meeting...how do people feel about that?
O'Donnell/ Fine.
Wright/ That'd be fine.
Bailey/ Should we combine it on Tuesday so we can stick to the normal formal, or
Monday?
Champion/ I think so. I think...since we can, I think we should combine it on Tuesday
when people usually.. .
Bailey/ Already expecting it.
Karr/ So we're combinin~ the 6`" and 7`" into Monday the 6`" of October, and we're
combining the 15` and 16`" of December into Tuesday the 16`"
O'Donnell/ Good.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 47
Champion/ Thanks.
Bailey/ Right. Okay. Other concerns, questions about the schedule? You will confirm
this with us then, so people can...
Karr/ I' 11 put it on the schedule.
Wilburn/ Election day?
Champion/ Yeah, I was going to say, I was just going to bring that up.
Karr/ Election Day, we typically, that's a very good point. I did indicate that on here.
Our policy has been on Election Day in the past, if it's a City Council election we
certainly schedule around it. This is an off-City Council election year, but again,
I brought it to your attention, if you wanted to change it.
Hayek/ I move that Ross not be allowed to use his laptop during the...
Bailey/ I second that! (laughter)
Hayek/ I have this eking suspicion as to...
Wilburn/ I have no problem making a choice of going out and doing "get out the vote"
um...early that evening.
Champion/ I think it's...it's such a big election. It's a gigantic election.
Bailey/ Do we want to, so if people believe that they're going to be involved in GOP
activities, or other activities. I'm not...should we combine on Monday or...
Wilburn/ If not, I have no problem making a choice to miss the meeting for that purpose.
Champion/ (several talking) a lot of people who want to get people out to vote. That's
going to be the whole thing.
Correia/ By 7:00 if they haven't voted (several talking)
Champion/ The polls are open to 9:00!
Correial I know! (several talking)
Bailey/ So, do we want to combine the meeting on...on Monday, or leave it as is and
allow Mr. Wilburn to make his choice, and we'll all know what his priorities are?
O'Donnell/ Why don't we combine it on Monday? Because I would...(several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 48
Champion/ If this was just...this is just a big, big election.
Bailey/ Okay. So we're combining on Monday.
Champion/ Probably the biggest one, since Truman and Dewey. (laughter and several
talking)
Karr/ Okay, so we've combined three.
Bailey/ Okay, so...
Correia/ So, and are we, the work session will start at 6:00?
Karr/ Well, we never know until we see the...
Correia/ 6:30 certainly can't...
Bailey/ No, I would suggest even blocking off from 5:30 on, um, safely.
Hayek/ That's fine.
Bailey/ Okay.
Champion/ Thank you. You've all been so accommodating.
Bailey/ Yes, thank you for accommodating.
Karr/ Do you wish to discuss the August 16`h, Madame Mayor?
Bailey/ Um, yes, let's discuss the August 16`". As I understand it, we will...we are
canceling the retreat.
Lombardo/ Yeah, looking at all that we've got going on, and um, conceptualizing this
whole river corridor planning process and all, I think that if we move it to
September, October would give us better timing. Um, and so if we could maybe
start looking at dates, uh, in that time frame, and then I'm meeting with a
prospective facilitator on Friday to...to refine the process and get a little bit more,
uh, kind of feedback and ideas about how to proceed. So September, October
would probably be a better timing on a lot of levels.
Champion/ Oh, I thought we were going to keep that day open and try to meet with other
governmental entities about the flood situation. We've given that up?
Correia/ August 16`''~
Karr/ You're having a joint meeting August 20tH
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 49
Bailey/ August 20th is a joint meeting.
Champion/ Oh, dear...
Bailey/ So, will you get your dates, your in town/out of town availabilities for.. .
Karr/ Are we looking at Saturday?
Bailey/ Evenings and weekends. Are...do we want to...six, eight hours? What are...
Lombardo/ Yeah, we would need at least I would say asix-hour day.
Bailey/ We could do two meetings, two evenings.
Champion/ No, that doesn't work.
Correia/ I'd rather do a Saturday.
Wright/ Do a Saturday.
Bailey/ Get your Saturdays to Marian.
Karr/ So let me know the Saturdays in September and October.
Champion/ The problem with...you can't break up that kind of a meeting. (several
talking)
Bailey/ Um, also, on Tuesday, July 29th, did you.. .
Lombardo/ Yeah, we'll talk more about this tomorrow night in terms of...of the detail,
but I really think that a town hall meeting on the 29th is advisable, um, there's
some...the way the, uh, cost benefit, uh, analysis works for the...the buyout
program and a lot of information pertaining to that, I think it'd be advisable for
them to be here and answer questions directly, um, because as soon as we answer
one question I'm getting three more in its place, and we just can't anticipate how
far into it that residents want to go, and so I would encourage us to do that and
get...I've already got preliminary feedback from, uh, John Wageman and Bob
Vogel and others that they could be here. So we can just go ahead and schedule
that if it's...
Bailey/ So it'll be a Council meeting but it'll be a town...
Champion/ And where will we hold it at?
Bailey/ At a larger...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 50
Karr/ Senior Center.
Champion/ Kinnick Stadium.
Karr/ Senior Center.
Champion/ Oh!
Bailey/ Okay. (several talking) Matt?
Hayek/ In terms of how this would, I mean, Michael, is this something you would be
leading, or Homeland Security/FEMA would be leading?
Lombardo/ I think what we likely would do is structure, uh, we'd be more of a
moderator. I'm not going to throw them out kind of by themselves, plus there's a
lot of questions that certainly that I and or staff would be able to answer, and so
we would be part of the discussion, and we probably would structure it with, um,
several, or at least a good handful, of...of specific questions that we can anticipate
in advance, but then make sure that we provide ample enough time for...for
Q&A, and...and for, we may even want to, let me give it some thought, but we
may want to start with, um, the State and Federal officials doing a specific walk
through of how that works, um, in terms of how they calculate that and what it
means in terms of the properties in Iowa City.
Bailey/ So it would be a panel of our staff and Homeland Security's staff that Michael
just mentioned. It would be an open meeting because we would probably all be in
attendance.
Hayek/ Where...where are we at this meeting, and what are, what is our role?
Bailey/ I think we can talk a little bit more about that as you...but I think that's a really
good question, um, I mean, we could certainly be part of the panel, but I think that
we don't have the details.
Hayek/ I think that's dangerous.
Bailey/ I do too!
Lombardo/ I don't know how far into it we can get tonight, um, but...because
tomorrow's a work session on flood, uh, but ultimately I think we're going to
have to engage a discussion about how to proceed, uh, in light of the information
that we're going to be getting from them, in terms of how the program works and
really how deep this program...the buyout program may or may not reach, and so
the conversation is going to have to become a dialog about what other mitigation
measures, what other things should we be considering to protect neighborhoods in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.
July 14, 2008 City Council Work Session Page 51
the future, in light of what we're finding out about, you know, the prospects of a
buyout program or not.
Champion/ And this'll be the 29th
Lombardo/ 29th
Correia/ We'll talk about this more tomorrow.
Bailey/ Yes, and we have a large...okay, so that's our meeting schedule. Okay. See you
tomorrow. Just a reminder it's at 5:30 tomorrow.
Champion/ Thank you.
Bailey/ Okay.
O'Donnell/ Regenia, thank you for these cookies.
Bailey/ You're welcome. Happy Birthday, Mike!
O'Donnell/ I'm going to take two home and let the staff enjoy the (several talking).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council work session meeting of July 14, 2008.