The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-12-09 TranscriptionDecember 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 1 December 9, 2002 Council Work Session 6:35 PM Council: Champion, Karmer, Lehman, O'Dormell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Fowler, Helling, Karr, Lang TAPE: 02-90, BOTH SIDES ADDITION TO CONSENT CALENDAR Lehman/Okey-doke. Zoning items, Karin. Kart/Mr. Mayor, we do have someone to add something to the Agenda here this evening. Lehman/We have--oh? OK. Karr/Do you want to step tight up here? And just introduce yourself and--- Thomas/ My name is Bret Thomas. I have a corporation called WaterBe Inc. I'm going to be buying the old Alley Cat and it'll be Studio 13, and I'm applying for a liquor license. Karr/Everything is in order, Mr. Mayor. Lehman/OK. Thank you. Thomas/Thank you. Lehman/Who says we're hard to deal with? (Laughter) PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS Lehman/Mics are on. Go ahead, Karin. a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 7 ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF MADISON STREET, DAVENPORT STREET, AND BLOOMINGTON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY. (VAC02-00008) Franklin/OK, the first item is setting a public heating for January 7th on an ordinance vacating portions of Madison, Davenport and Bloomington streets. This is before the Planning and Zoning Commission--at their next meeting. We're setting it now because of the Council's schedule in December. Just--introduction for tonight--Beth Koppes, from the Planning and Zoning Commission, is here in the back. If you have any questions directly from the Commissioner, she wants to put in her two cents here. b. AN ORDINANCE REZONING 10.15 ACRES FROM MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY (RM-20) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY AND PLANNED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RM-20/OSA/OPDH) FOR PROPERTY This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 2 LOCATED NORTHWEST OF HIGHWAY 1 AND RUPPERT ROAD. (REZ02- 000018) Franklin/Item b is a public hearing and requested first consideration on an ordinance to rezone 10.15 acres from RM-20 to RM-20/OSA/OPDH. This is for the Callaway Lodge project that I know you've all heard about. If you recall, this property, which is shaded on the location map on the screen, is part of the Southwest District Plan, and it was what was subject to a lot of discussion between the neighborhood and the City and the property owners and was this property here that the Callaway Lodge building itself will be on, was itsel£the subject o£a down-zoning at the time that we did the Southwest District Plan. What you have before you tonight is the rezoning and subdivision of this property. The subdivision plat itself will come to you at the end of the rezoning process during your third consideration. You know, because we've got to go through the zoning first and then the plat will come at the end of that. What is on the screen is the plat, which is a division of this property, into three lots and one out-lot. Out-lot A is the open space that is being dedicated to the City as a consequence of this plat. The Parks and Recreation Commission has talked about potentially purchasing another one-half acre here to make that larger park at Benton Hill. They will then negotiate with the property owner, once this property transaction takes place; at this point, the property is still in the hands of the Rupperts. There is a pumhase offer on it. So as we go to the rezoning, the place to focus on is Lot 1, this larger lot here. The subdivision at this point in time is for purposes of sale of the property to enable development of Lot 1 only, and then the conveyance of Lot 1; well, actually, the conveyance of the whole property to the Callaway Company. Illustrated on this slide is the development project. It comes in off of Highway 1, has one means of access in terms of vehicular access to the area; at this point at Harlocke Street consistent with the conditional zoning agreement that was done as part of the Southwest District Planning process, this is for emergency access only. This will be gated with a lockbox that the fire department will have access to; however, no vehicular traffic can traverse from this development to Harlocke Street or vice-versa. There is extensive pedestrian access in this project, and I've given you other copies of this since sometimes these drawings that we have up on the screen are hard to the details on. And probably, the landscaping plan, the second page, is the one that is the easiest to read in terms of having the fewest lines on it. The pedestrian access, there will be an 8-foot sidewalk on one side of this street, this, or drive, I should say, this serpentine drive that comes into the project. That walkway will continue around and then go into a sidewalk system that is along this parking lot here. There is a sidewalk then that goes north that allows people from this development to make their way to the University campus through the Benton Manor parking lot. There is an access easement along the whole north portion of this project, which will enable the continuation of a trail system through here at some future date. It is not required, either by the conditional zoning agreement or by the negotiations that we have gone through to date for this to be built at this time. Remember that we did get some space in the Harlocke-Weaver project to put trail through there at the southerly part of that. So what we'll need to do is determine how's the best way to get this all connected through to the future Benton Park, which is off the screen. Vanderhoef/So, that's a City easement? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 3 Franklin/It will be an easement for a public walkway, which at some point in time, we will install a walkway along this easement or in conjunction with the one that we got on Harlocke-Weaver to make a connection between the two spaces. In terms of just this development, there's also a walkway at this point. There are stairs that, because of the topography on this site is quite steep, there are stairs and a walkway that again gives you access to the parking lot of Benton Manor. Because this is going to be student housing, we were concerned that there be ways in which the students could access the campus. And then there is also a sidewalk that will be continuation of the one along Harlocke which will come around here at this end of the project. And then there are internal walkways, just for the benefit of the project itself. Pfab/I have a question. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Pfab/Eight-foot-wide sidewalk is any--is that an alternative or is that sidewalk accessible to emergency vehicles (can't hear) faces problem? Franklin/No. This is 28 feet wide. It should be plenty wide enough for any emergency vehicles to get in here. Pfab/OK. Suppose if there was a blockage of traffic there, is that something, is the sidewalk designed in such a way that the emergency vehicle could not get on it? Franklin/No. Pfab/So, it--- Franklin/ We wouldn't encourage it, but that's one of the reasons there's an emergency access at this end, too. Pfab/But that's a long way across there. But, so, what I'm saying to you, is the design, does the design, if the emergency vehicle in case of a really severe emergency, have the ability to use that sidewalk? Franklin/They probably could. It's very unlikely they will opt for that. Pfab/Yeah. Right, but I mean, is it designed in such a way that it's this much higher or lower, or in other words--- Franklin/No, it will be like any sidewalk on any street. Pfab/So, in essence, if they had to--- Franklin/ They could. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 4 Pfab/OK. Franklin/One of the issues with this--or issues--one of the features of this is that the buildings are higher, there's a variation that's been requested as part of the Sensitive Areas Rezoning, and that variation is that building height will not exceed 58.9 feet. Now, the reason for that has to do with this topography and the fact that in the Conditional Zoning Agreement, we required that 75 percent of the parking be under the buildings. So there's two levels of parking under these buildings. The parking, you can see by the gray here, is accessed at the ends of the buildings. OK? There is also surface parking, but predominantly the parking is underneath the buildings, which means that these buildings are higher. To deal with that issue from the perspective of Highway 1, because from Harlocke and from Benton Manor, it will not appear that these buildings are excessively high. But from Highway 1, they're going to look higher because they're on the hillside, for one thing, and they are higher. What is proposed is that there be berming that is placed at these points in front of the buildings and then there is vegetation that is interspersed with the berms on, some on the berms, some off the berms, to provide a softening of that facade that will be facing Highway 1. This also facilitates the storm water management, which comes to a basin in this drainage way area right here. Vanderhoef/Karin, on the height of that buildings, has it been established that we don't have any problem with the airport? Franklin/Yes. Yes. O'Dormell/The hill behind it is higher than--- Franklin/The hill, it is, yeah. It was 58 feet 6 inches, not 58.9. Pfab/I have a question. I think that I have a difference of what I understand and the way that drawing looks. Franklin/OK. Pfab/It looks like there's two buildings back-to-back. That part is not true, is it? Franklin/This is one building. Pfab/Right, but I mean--- Franklin/This is one. Pfab/It looks like they're split. There's two buildings with a sidewalk in-between. That's the way the drawing looks like. But that's not the way it is, is it? Franklin/Here? No, this is all one building. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 5 Pfab/And your driveway, you drive through the building to find your parking space? Franklin/Yes. Pfab/...at a certain level? Franklin/Yes. You drive into the building from both ends. The other point that I want to point out is the intersection. One of the agreements with this is that this intersection will be signalized, and the developer will be expected to pay for the geometric changes to the intersection and one-half the cost of the traffic signal; the City would pay for the other half of the cost of the traffic signal, plus a right-turn lane into Ruppert Road. This right- turn lane is something that DOT wishes to have with development of the Aviation Commerce Park. It makes sense and obviously is a cost not brought on by the Callaway Lodge, but by general development in the City. Pfab/Is there going to be a left-hand turn, Karin? Franklin/Right here, yes. Pfab/So, in other words--- Franklin/That's what I'm seeing. Pfab/...OK, so in other words, there's two lanes of through traffic and a right- and left-hand turn. I think there should be a left-hand turn there. Franklin/Yes. And that left-hand turn would be at the developer's cost; that's the geometric change. Pfab/Now, while we're close to that, is there going to be a different street outlet at Carousel Motors as was discussed in the transfer of that land? Are they building a--- Lehman/ It's already changed, Irvin. Pfab/Well, I was down there just recently and I didn't see it. Lehman/They moved the driveway south--- Franklin/They moved the driveway south. Lehman/...about 60-80 feet. That was the change. Pfab/Oh? OK. I was thinking it was going to be down here. Franklin/OK. That's all I have on the project. You've been able to read the materials, so I guess This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 6 I'll just take questions at this point. Steven? Kanner/A couple things. One in our packet we got what we're voting on, the ordinance. What's different about these? I got two copies, was that just a mistake--or is--- Franklin/ Just the legal description. Karr/First one did not contain a legal description. Kanner/OK. So everyone got two of these 5 b., or did I just--- Karr/No, I'm wondering if the person next to you is short a copy? Kanner/OK. This was in my thing here. So just the legal description is different. Karr/Correct. Kanner/What are the hills made out of that are being disturbed? Are those naturally occurring hills or are those human-made hills? Franklin/They're naturally occurring. Kanner/OK. And most of the disturbance, we look at all of the lots when we're considering Sensitive Areas Ordinance. We don't just look at--we look at all four? Franklin/But there is--- Kanner/We take it in total, don't we? For Sensitive Areas Ordinance? Franklin/No. I think this, the 65 percent was just looking at this area here. It was just looking at Lot I. We didn't look at this in terms of the Sensitive Areas at all because nothing's happening there, and so when we looked at the 65 percent, we were looking at it within the boundaries of Lot 1. Now, when development happens on Lot 2 and Lot 3, we will evaluate those accordingly. Kanner/There's wooded area there? Franklin/Wooded area where? Kanner/In those other--- Franklin/In these? Kanner/...in any of these lots? Yeah. Franklin/There's wooded area here on the edges; let's see, this is the buses. There's woods This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 7 around the edges of it; I don't know if any of it will--and there's some in here--I don't, since we have not done the Sensitive Areas evaluation there because nothing was happening there, I can't tell you exactly what the acreage is and whether it would fall under the woodlands or not. Kanner/I think we've had this discussion before. I'm not sure what the answer is, that people can get around the Sensitive Areas Ordinance by dividing up an area and therefore it wouldn't meet the requirements, perhaps, and I'm wondering if this is the case here, that, in the future there might be woodlands or other areas that they'll be able to get around because they--this is separate from where the majority of the sloped areas are. Franklin/This is where the majority of the sloped areas are. Clearly. Kanneff Right. And if you would keep it all as one, it would probably still qualify as Sensitive Areas Ordinance, but perhaps if you divide it off, and then in the future, they won't need to rezone. Franklin/If you kept it all as one, what it would mean is that your percentage of disturbance would be much less, and so your--- Kanner/Right. Franklin/...evaluation would be easier. It seems to me that the stricter test, the more stringent test, is to look at this one lot, and we look at that 65 percent and we make a determination, a judgment, which the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have made to date, and it's now--it's your turn--that the difficulty of developing this lot as we impose difficulties by the CZA warrants--the benefits of getting this lot developed, warrants the 65 pement disturbance. You obviously can come to a different conclusion if you wish to. I wouldn't say, Steven, that in this case we've got a--I know what you're talking about--where you have a wetland or you have a woodland and by the very fact of subdivision, you somehow avoid the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. That certainly is not happening here because the most sensitive areas are right on this lot that we're talking about development on. So I think we're hitting the sensitive areas here head-on, and in fact, the wooded areas are going to be more in this area right in here where we're talking about acquiring more for open space. This is pasture. This has got a little bit of woods here, but--- Lehman/Not much. Franklin/....there's not much. It's scrub. Kanner/So, one other way to look at it, and again, it's our discretion, is to say if we want to put it all together and we want to minimize disturbance, we would say perhaps we don't want disturbance in that lot, and if they're going to do development, do it all in the other lots, Lot 2, 3, and 4. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 8 Franklin/Remember, you've got different zoning through here. This is RM-20, this is commercial, this is RS-8. Kanner/Right, so we might say, we might have reached a different agreement, and we might say that it's not appropriate for housing there because of the steep slopes. Franklin/For housing where? Kanner/In Lot 1, because of the disturbance--- Franklin/I think that determination was made when we looked at the zoning of it. If you didn't want development there, then you should have down-zoned it to R-1. O'Donnell/Thanks. Lehman/OK. Franklin/Anything else? OK. c. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS- 5) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (RS-5/OSA) FOR 5.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1520 N. DUBUQUE ROAD. (REZ02-00019) Franklin/Next item is Item c, public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from RS-5 to FS-5/OSA. Oh, these are some illustrations of Calloway. We'll just move on through. This is the, on Dubuque Road, the location there for this one, and the subdivision is for four lots to get three houses, because there's one existing house already. Now, the reason this was even up for a Sensitive Areas Ordinance has to do with the sewer line that is going through here through the slopes. My understanding is that there has been a change in plan here. The subdivision would still continue but that the sewer lines are going to be run individually and they are going to bore through to the main line that is already here. So that the Sensitive Areas issues kind of go away. Storm water management was waived. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Lehman/Right. Franklin/Yeah, and so, I mean, we're in the process now of a Sensitive Areas Rezoning, I guess at this point what I would say is that we go forth with the public hearing tomorrow night on that rezoning; however, we may have then at your meeting on January 7th, a withdrawal of the rezoning and a resolution on the plat. Rather than go through the whole thing. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/Where are you boring through to connect with? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 9 Franklin/Well, I don't know the science of this, Dee, but what I understand from the engineers is that from the house site, you bore underground as opposed to disturbing the slope, you bore underground and you get to this pipe. Now, it would seem to me, you have got to have some kind of hole here to attach it. It can't happen magically. Too bad. (Laughter) Lehman/It's probably at the bottom of the ravine, isn't it? Franklin/It is at the bottom of the ravine. Lehman/Which wouldn't be disturbing any slopes. Franklin/Yeah, right. Right. Lehman/OK. Franklin/So, you'll have one, two, you know, three holes somewhere where it attaches to the pipe. Lehman/Right. Pfab/What you're saying from the time you enter a sensitive area until you get to the sewer pipe, there will be no surface damage. Franklin/Right. It's all underground. Kanner/And are they still required then to have buffer zones? Franklin/For protected slopes, yeah. Mm-hmm. Kanner/OK. Franklin/But that's just, I mean, that just has to be there. I won't, I'll make sure, you know, that we know exactly by the next meeting whether we're going to go that way. We may have to go through the whole rezoning regardless. But I thought if there was a quicker way to get it done. Pfab/I guess that's high-five time, if you can do that. Franklin/Yeah. OK? Lehman/Yep. d. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING LAFAYETTE STREET, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 10 LOCATED WEST OF CAPITOL STREET. (VAC02-00006) Franklin/Item d is the public heahng on an ordinance vacating Lafayette Street, and this is down off of Capitol, west of Capitol. It's a piece of property that previously, this area in the back here, was owned by CRANDIC Railroad. It has now been purchased by the applicants who are a part of, or affiliated with City Carton. And so, what we're talking about is vacating this portion of Lafayette and this is no longer owned by CRANDIC so there's nothing that stands in the way or any access to properties other than those owned by the applicant. Pfab/So that property was City property until now? Franklin/This was street right-of-way. Just here, and it only goes to what was an old platted alley. It does not go all the way to the river so we don't have those issues that we had before. OK? Pfab/Is there, I have great difficulty with vacating and then negotiating what the price is--- Franklin/ Well, you never do your final vote on the vacation until we have had an offer for the price and you know what you're going to dispose. A vacation is an ordinance that takes three readings, and by the time we get to the third reading, we have an offer and we're setting public hearing on a resolution to dispose so that those things all come together and you don't vacate it until we've got that wound up. Pfab/And then at the third reading, it's kind of like a bum's rush. Franklin/No. No, I don't think so. Pfab/I mean--- Franklin/I wouldn't portray it that way. Pfab/If they're planning to buy it, why don't we know what the offer is by the time we start? Franklin/Mr. Mayor, Mr. Downer would like to say something behind you. Downer/The offer was delivered today. Franklin/OK. Downer/The appraisal had been submitted several weeks ago to John Yapp. It appeared that there Was an error in the original appraisal. The appraiser came back and acknowledged the existence of the error but said that that didn't affect the amount of the purchase price. The appraisal was as in the case of Benton Court a range, and the range here was between $8,000 and $11,000. The offer is for $9,500. And that was submitted this afternoon and there's an earnest money check that's in our trust account. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 11 Pfab/So we will know that; I mean, we know that then. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Downer/That was left at Karin's office for John Yapp this afternoon. He's the one with whom I've been talking on this. Pfab/So, ifI would not have asked about this, we would have known about it tomorrow? Downer/Absolutely. Pfab/OK. I just, that's--- Lehman/Irvin, the formula that we use to establish the price of the property is pretty much the same, no matter which property we're talking about. I mean--- P fab/OK. O'Donnell/First we have an appraisal. That's the way we do it. Each and every--- Dilkes/Typically, our procedure now is when we get an application for a vacation and then we have a letter that goes out, you know, informing the applicant about what the procedure is and how long it will take and that we're need an offer, etc. It's not an unreasonable thing for an applicant to want some read on their vacation application before they go to the expense of getting an appraisal. Pfab/All right. That's reasonable. Lehman/OK. e. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE EAST-TO-WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 27 OF TItE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT~ LOCATED BETWEEN MARKET AND BLOOMINGTON STREET WEST OF DODGE STREET. (VAC02-00007) Franklin/OK, next item is a public hearing on an ordinance vacating the east-west alley in Block 27 located between Market and Bloomington Street. This has been requested by Mercy Hospital. Pfab/Do we have an appraisal on that? Franklin/We have communicated with Tom Gelman, who is the attorney for the applicant, and are expecting an offer from him. To my knowledge, we've not yet received it. Pfab/Do we, is there a time specific when our deadline about when we will receive that offer? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 12 Dilkes/I think what we tell people is the same thing that Karin just said, that we will not proceed with final reading of the vacation until we know what the terms of the disposition will be. If there's a majority of Council that wants us to act differently on vacations and dispositions, you should let us know. Franklin/This is property zoned by Mercy Hospital on both sides of the alley. So there's no other interest. What we have done is as a subject to on the vacation, that there be no additional access points off of Dodge Street. There's one access now for that parking ramp off of Dodge, and we're just trying to control the intersections at Dodge. Pfab/So, I was thinking they went through the alley, didn't they? Didn't the--- Franklin/The way you get into this parking facility now is not on Dodge Street. That's an exit only. Pfab/Right. But isn't that in the alley, the part that's being vacated? Franklin/No. I don't think so. Pfab/I think it is. Franklin/It's either--or off of Johnson Street. Pfab/The top deck goes out north and it goes down the alley, that's my understanding, and that's why when you said, you surprised me when you said that there will be no additional--- Franklin/No additional. Pfab/Right. Franklin/So anything that they have now they can continue to have, but nothing additional. Pfab/But it seems to me, I'm 99 percent certain it's down that alley. Franklin/Well, then it would be whatever is there now and they can have no additional. Pfab/But you were pointing below as if they--- Franklin/I thought it was, there's an exit here. Lehman/Right. Franklin/Exit only. Off, onto Dodge Street. Pfab/But, it's--don't they go out through the alley? I think they exit north and then they go down This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 13 through the alley to Dodge. Franklin/Darrell. Darrell Lamb is here from Mercy Hospital. He can, I'm sure, clear this all up. Lamp/We do enter the ramp off of the alley, but you can get to that from either end of the alley. Franklin/We would want it off of Johnson. Pfab/You enter. Lamb/Yeah. Pfab/But how do you exit then? Lamb/The exit comes off about where the arrow is. So it is the ramp and it exits directly onto Dodge Street. Pfab/So, I was mistaken. You do not exit north into the alley. Lamb/No. Pfab/OK. Franklin/Thanks, Darrell. Pfab/I'm glad you came. Lehman/Thank you. f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE K, THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE, REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY REZONINGS AND SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLANS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item £ is first consideration on the Sensitive Area Ordinance amendments. g. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PART TWO, IOWA CITY, IOWA (SUB02-00022) Franklin/Item g is a resolution on a final plat £or the North Airport Development Part Two. This is a creating four out-lots that mirror the Transitional Zone of the Airport Overlay. This is property that cannot be sold, can only be leased. As you probably know the Airport Commission is now going to pursue the option of sale as well as lease of these properties. This, FFA does not want them to sell, so we've split that off and those will be out-lots that will be available for lease, likely by the owners Lots 1 through 4. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 14 Wilburn/OK. Pfab/OK. But they are separate lots? Franklin/They are out-lots, yes. They are separate lots. You could, because it is Commercial Zone, you could have whatever is allowed in the Transitional Zone and I can't tell you exactly what that is. Pfab/Right. Franklin/But nothing--what FFA wants is control, continued control of these properties so the utility of them is diminished. Pfab/OK. All right, so let's, in the essence, so theoretically, somebody could, anyone of those people could lease the whole line, a person not owning these other lots could lease the whole thing. Franklin/Yes. Pfab/Or each individual person could lease a section or more than one section. Franklin/Yeah. Maybe we could have our dog park back there. Pfab/There you go. Vanderhoef/Can they build on those out-lots or---? Franklin/I don't know, Dee. I should have looked that up, but whatever you can do in the Transitional Zone. I thought that you could put some uses in there but there's certainly a height limitation and how restrictive that is right there, I don't know--it may be such that it doesn't give you enough to put anything. Vanderhoef/I was thinking maybe parking equipment or something like that, but no building on it. Franklin/Yes. Yeah. O'Dormell/I think it would be primarily parking back there. Franklin/Yeah. I mean, yeah. Pfab/Is there a limit on any or all of those lots as to the density of human, how heavy a human population or human use could be, use there, or in other words, could you build a theater, an underground theater, or something like that where you had a thousand people in it? Is that part of the limitation--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 15 Franklin/Only--- O'Donnell/See when it--- (Laughter) Pfab/No, I'm just saying--- Franklin/Part of the Iimitation of the approach zone or the Runway Protection Zone and whatever is the name is that there are occupancy limitations. Pfab/Right. Franklin/To my knowledge, none of this is in that. That's why we're able to lease and sell it, because if there were severe restrictions on it, it probably wouldn't make much sense to lease or sell it. Pfab/OK. Kanner/But there are some restrictions, but--- Lehman/Zoning restrictions. Kanner/...it's more like what type of--the Airport, I think, FFA puts some restrictions on, not as much how many people per se, but what kind of business, I think, they put there but it leads to--- Franklin/ It's related to occupancy. Karmer/Which leads to, yeah, how many people are occupying it? Dilkes/And that's, those are criteria of the Runway Protection Zone and these lots are not in the Runway Protection Zone. Pfab/The lots are what? Franklin/Are not in the Runway Protection Zone. Dilkes/You couldn't put buildings there if they were in the Runway Protection Zone. Pfab/OK. O'Donnell/Good point. Lehman/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 16 h. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF SILVERCREST RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, PART 2, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB02-00017) Franklin/OK. Item h is the final plat of Silvercrest, which is over on the comer of Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road. This is one we've had hanging around for awhile and now the legal papers and construction drawings are done, completed, approved, so we're done. O'Donnell/OK. Franklin/Yes. Pfab/A quick question. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Pfab/At one point there was a local or adjoining farmer that was concerned about some water- retention areas or something. Is that, was (can't hear) resolving? Franklin/Yes. Pfab/OK. Lehman/Thank you, Karin. Franklin/You're welcome. O'Donnell/Record time. REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/OK. Reviewed Zoning (can't hear). Agenda items. Champion/That was pretty much the whole Agenda. Lehman/Yeah, this is--- (Can't hear) Lehman/Are there any comments on other Agenda items? ITEM 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND TItE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, AN IOWA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (CITY) AND MCC IOWA L.L.C., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (MEDIACOM). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 17 Karmer/I had a question for Dale about the settlement agreement with MediaCom. Originally, when it came up about a possible fine or might (can't hear) in a different way to talk about, what I consider it to be is cost about $75,000 which would be paid by MediaCom and (can't hear) by way of a $5 to $10 discount on everybody's bill. It would be divided equally among all the subscribers. Is that a correct understanding? That was the original thought? Helling/The original assessment was basically looking at the liquidated damages section of the Franchise Agreement and trying to determine the length of violation and ~vhat that would translate to in terms of, you know, X dollars per day. Liquidated damages normally would be a payment made to the City by the cable company if they were assessed. And the amount that we came up with was somewhere in the neighborhood of $75,000, I think it was $73-something. In terms of, if, if they indeed were responsible for all the liquidated damages that we cited it would be in the neighborhood of $73,500, I think. But that was not proposed to be an across-the-board rebate. It was just--liquidated damages is a payment to the City--and the original communication was basically that they were in violation and liquidated damages for those violations as we interpreted them would be that amount. Kanner/I guess my concern is if we want to make sure they don't do this again, it seems we're almost rewarding them in that, when I read about these large class-action suits, oftentimes its company will give a coupon saying you can get a dollar off some item. And that's what this seems like, that it doesn't really hold them accountable in any kind of "justice" kind of sense. That people have to order more. There is some possible rebate, but it's, people have to order more for the regular package to take advantage of it, and it seems that it benefits them. People are going to be hooked into a different package, and it seems that they would have, they would listen more, it seems if they had to rebate everybody a flat $5 or $10. Helling/Well, first of all, the rebate--and we looked at that because with 18,000 customers and a rebate of $73,000, it wouldn't be $5 or $10. It would only be about, it comes to around--- Dilkes/Three. Helling/Yeah, about $4.00. And that would be across the board. What we tried to focus on is something that would benefit the customers. Keep in mind that, you know, anybody who upgrades and uses that coupon, you know, some of those folks would have upgraded anyway. They're probably not going to, a lot of people aren't going to upgrade to a service that's going to cost them substantially more a month just to get the $10.00. Some of those folks will maybe upgrade to this ala carte service that they didn't realize they could get before. The other thing is that we tried to focus on was really looking at the customers that had established or will establish that they were under the impression that they had to order a more expensive package in order to keep their premium service. They will get a credit--and a substantial credit. So the focus is really, or at least, the primary focus is on those people, the people who really can show that they spent more money This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 18 than they would have had to. So, it's a combination of things. We tried to focus on them and it's a customer-relations thing that the company proposes as far as the coupon. That was their proposal, not ours. But so was the credit aspect of it. And our feeling was that we need to direct this to the customers rather than an assessed penalty somehow that was a check to the City. Certainly, and we talked about that, certainly, if people upgrade they wind up paying more and so, it's more business for the cable company but at the same time, it translates as somewhat of a benefit to the customer as well. Keep in mind, too, that that $10 coupon can be used, not only to upgrade, but if you get a second converter or something--you have to have a converter for each TV in your home--and they can use it for that as well. So they wouldn't have to upgrade their service; they could just get another converter for another TV and the first two months of the rental on that would be paid by the $10. Lehman/But, Dale, wasn't one of the, at least the complaint that I heard the most, was the requirement that those folks who wanted some premium channels had to be digital. And my understanding is that this settlement removes the requirement that they have to be digital, and some folks who have perhaps two or three TVs, would have to have gotten digital equipment for all of those TVs in order to receive the premium channels on all three. Now, and basically, I'm talking about Cinemax and HBO. Helling/Mm-hmm. Lehman/This settlement allows them to get that without the digital package--is that correct? Helling/Well, they still have to--it's a digital signal--so they still require the equipment. They have to have a digital converter, $5.00 a month rental. Lehman/They still do? Helling/Yes. O'Donnell/To get digital. Lehman/To get HBO and Cinemax, they still have to have them? Helling/You still have to have a digital converter, you just don't have to buy the digital, more expensive, the whole digital package. Lehman/Right. Wilburn/I think one of the reasons that they went to the digital signal was to protect, help protect from cable (can't hear) Lehman/Pirating, yeah. Helling/Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 19 Champion/Plus it's a much better picture. Wilbum/That too. Champion/Oh, very much. Helling/And just for clarification, people were under the impression--and some because of what we read some of the things that some of the telemarketers were using--they were actually telling people that they couldn't get the premium digital service without getting a digital package, but, in fact, the cable company has always offered the ala carte package. They just didn't know it and the cable company wasn't promoting it. Kanner/Part of the purpose of assessing liquidated damages is so that the company won't do it again. Part o£the same, straying from the contract. These companies, they switch over, they get bought up left and right so we've gone through a couple changes. When they buy up the previous company, is there a sense that they inherit the good and the bad from the previous, because we have a history of, before AT&T, that the company was not following through on the agreed-upon contract. Now we have another company that hasn't followed through on the agreed-upon contract in the proper fashion. And I'm wondering is this not even a slap on the wrist with this history that's there? How do we hold someone accountable when they, if, perhaps we're saying we have to wait until there's a history of all these things and we come down harder. But they sell it--they sell it. One company does something wrong, then they sell it; then another company does something wrong. Shouldn't we hold them more accountable now because of what's been happening in our City? Helling/Well, I guess, that's a judgment call. How strict you want to be or how strongly you want to come down on them. But, as you said, it changes hands. The last time we applied any liquidated damages was two owners ago, and it was for not completing the rebuild on time and there were specific damages set out in the contract for that. So, if you, you know, if you operate under the theory that the more, you know, the stronger the sanctions, the less chance they will do it again, maybe that applies. But we felt that this struck a balance that was appropriate for this situation. And I guess you have to decide whether, you know, you accept that or not. Kanner/Thank you. Helling/Sure. Pfab/I have one question. No company likes to pay out cash if they can give a coupon of their service. My question is what is the difference of the possible actual mnount of service that they will provide by free, over or under the (can't hear) $50,000 for that? Is their potential cost less or greater, even though it's a retail service versus cash? Helling/Well, I think--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 20 Pfab/Do you understand what I'm asking? Helling/I think so. And I think, we don't know how many people out there upgraded and are going to downgrade. Pfab/Well, they don't know about that. Helling/They don't know; we don't know. The other thing is we don't know how many people will use the coupon. They can probably attach a cost to the advertising, additional advertising in circulars that they send out, the printing, and all of that to all of the customers. But we didn't really try to measure that against the $73,000. We were just looking to a solution to this thing that focused on the customer, rather than a check to the City, because it was the customer that we felt that was aggrieved in these issues, and this is what we came up with. Pfab/I agree with the remedy going to the offender for all the people at a potential loss or additional cost. But my concern is if it gets to be less of a financial cost, considerable less, we don't provide much deterrent not to do the things again. Helling/Well, again, it's a question of whether this is an effective balance and that, that, you know, that the company will respond to. We hope that it is. Pfab/Pardon? Helling/I say that we hope that it is, you know, a reasonable balance, and we hope that they will respond. And one of our primary goals in this and we told them very clearly that our most, most important concern here is that it doesn't happen again. Lehman/Any other numbers on the Agenda. ITEM 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED 28-E AGREEMENT FOR PARATRANSIT SERVICE BETWEEN TItE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND JOHNSON COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2003, THORUGH JUNE 30, 2008, IN SUBSTANCE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT INCORPORATING THE TERMS OF SAID PROPOSAL. O'Donnell/Number 8. Lehman/What is that? O'Donnell/A resolution. Irvin had proposed a 28E Agreement for (can't hear) Lehman/Oh, yes. O'Donnell/This is really--Dee and I were on this committee and we wanted to change the tone This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 21 over the last negotiations. I think you got that down. There wasn't any hard words. It was a good group to negotiate with, and Joe did most of the work. Champion/Well, we're really glad you got it settled. O'Donnell/Yes. But, I had a question on the subscription (can't hear) Is it my understanding, Joe, that you can provide a subscription ride and you can exceed a certain percentage as long as you're not denying a regular ride? Fowler/As long as--there is no limit on subscription as long as you don't have denials. If you have denials, you're limited to 50 percent. Pfab/You're (can't hear) limit on what? O'Donnell/Subscription rides. Pfah/As long as--- O'Donnell/There's no denial. Champion/You've got to explain that to me. O'Donnell/Yeah, a subscription ride is that, if you have dialysis Monday at 10:00 every Monday, you're automatic for that. Champion/Oh. O'Donnell/The reason we brought it up is that we felt if you had a subscription ride for a job and you had an opportunity to make more money at another job, if you transferred into that other job, you'd lose you subscription ride and have to go to the end of a waiting line. But we felt, why work, if you can't advance yourself?. This is the Paratransit Committee. But I'm really pleased that this is nearing an end. Great job, Joe. Pfab/My question is you said there's no limitation, but no denial. O'Donnell/You can increase the number of subscription rides--that's a regular ride--as long as you're not denying another ride. Champion/Another subscription? Vanderhoef/Otherwise you have to limit them at 50 percent of your rides. O'Donnell/If you call for a ride and they tell you no, because they're doing me a subscription ride, then they've got too many subscriptions. Pfab/OK. Suppose you have a subscription ride and it's every Tuesday. Well, there's a big event This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 22 coming up on Tuesday and so everybody, does that mean you can't get that subscription? O'Donnell/No. Subscription ride, I get it every Tuesday. Pfab/But if there's a denial for other people that want to go, that's what I just--I don't understand what the term means. I'm not saying, that's all I'm trying to understand. Fowler/A subscription ride is a set ride that you don't have to call every week and reserve. You set it up. Pfab/They appear at your doorstep. Fowler/Right. Just like Mike said, going to work and they expect you to be there. O'Donnell/And what's your percentage of (can't hear) Fowler/By Federal regulations, they can't exceed 50 percent unless they have a "no-denial" policy, because under Federal regulations you can deny, I believe, it's up to 1 percent rides. As long as what they do doesn't result in someone else being denied a ride, they're not limited on that percentage of subscription service. Champion/OK. Pfab/I'm not-- Lehman/It sounds really good though. Champion/Yeah. Vanderhoef/It is. It takes care of everybody. Kanner/I had a couple of questions for you, Joe, on this. The contract price may be reopened if the fuel increases or decreases more than 50 cents per gallon from the rack price. What's the rack price and how would you anticipate, would you anticipate renegotiating if it does go up or down 50 cents a gallon? Fowler/My discussion was with Tom. The rack price is the price that the City of Iowa City pays. They pay the rack price. So it's a set price. Kanner/A wholesale? Fowler/Right, it's a wholesale contract price that they have. Tom and I have talked, he said if it, you know, you're looking at 51-, 52-, 53-cent a gallon increase, he doesn't see any reason to reopen. It's just a safeguard that the County--- TAPE 02-90 SIDE 2 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 23 Fowler/...if fuel should double or triple in price, kind of as a safety net for them, in the event something unforeseen would happen. And so we put in the decrease 50 cents as a protection for us in the event that prices would drop. Karmer/Does it fluctuate like we see at the fuel pumps? It's been going up close to 50 cents at times or down in the last couple years. Fowler/There's not as much fluctuation as there is at the pumps is my understanding. Karmer/It's been staying under 50 cents. Fowler/Yes. Vanderhoef/And they buy all their gas from us anyway so it's rather easy to check and monitor and take care of if the prices change. Kanner/Was there any talk about looking at going beyond the typical Para-Transit or fixed route, maybe a combination of the two or maybe SEATS picking up people along the way? Fowler/That's, yon know--- Kanner/Innovations in there, and would you anticipate if there were, possibly opening up the contract before the five years is done. Fowler/That's in our thought process in the use of the smaller vehicles to supplement our fixed routes. It would be something that we would look at, as far as being able to use them in the evenings, being able to maybe combine the services, and offer a little bit more service, by using a smaller vehicle in the evening hours. We've discussed with Council before deviated fixed routes. We are going to take, we have one small bus now that we'll be using during the second semester of this school year, to try for some night service. We'll see how that works on a fixed route and then see if we can expand it beyond that. Kanner/So this would be separate from the SEATS contract? Fowler/Right. We're going to take our bus, our small bus, start using it on evening service and see how it meets the needs of the public, to see if it does work well in that setting, and then see if we can expand from that point to offer more service. Kanner/Was there any talk incorporating this into a SEATS contract? It seems that we're operating (can't hear), why not--- Fowler/No. Vanderhoef/No. We own the buses, Steven, so it's our option to have those buses available to us at any time that they are not being used on a Para-Transit route. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 24 Kanner/I guess what I'm getting at, Dee, is that it seems the more people that we can get onto our system, the less expensive it is. SEATS is the most expensive (can't hear---form?) Vanderhoef/Right. Kanner/So I think in the total picture we want to look at working with SEATS on these kind of things, and it seems to me that we'd want to see how we can move more people from SEATS Para-Transit to possible fixed route or nonfixed route and that that would all be part of the discussion and the negotiation. Fowler/We're looking at the possibility of offering more service to the public in addition, beyond where they are right now. Because with what we're looking at would not be a call-in-advance system, but maybe we could move to, eventually move to more of a demand-response on a shorter notice. And we're years from being able to implement anything like that and so what we need to do is get a contract to be able to continue the service that we have now and then be able to refine it in the future. Kanner/So, there's a possibility before the five years is up that we could refine the contract--- Fowler/Right. Each party can terminate, renegotiate during the life of the contract. Lehman/Wait a minute. Champion/What? Fowler/There's a one-year clause, Ernie, a one-year notice clause, the same as was in the last contract. Wilburn/Right. Lehman/OK. Champion/Thank you, sir. Lehman/We've got to move along; we have to start a special meeting in about seven minutes. ITEM 7. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 8, ENTITLED "AIRPORT ZONING" BY REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTER 1N ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING SAME WITH A CHAPTER REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE USE AND HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS OF NATURAL GROWTH IN THE VICINITY OF THE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY CREATING APPROPRIATE ZONES AND ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES THEREOF: DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS USED HEREIN: REFERRING TO THE IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ZONING MAP, AS AMENDED, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 25 WHICH MAP IS ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE: ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION: ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT: AND IMPOSING PENALTIES. (PASS AND ADOPT) Pfab/I have one question on item 7. It doesn't say the number of the vote on the Airport Commission. It says it was approved but it doesn't give the vote. Lehman/We can get that tomorrow. I don't know that there was even any discussion about that. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Lehman/On Council appointments, of the various ones that we have the only application we had was for the Board of Adjustment. There was a Carol Alexander who applied for that position. Is there a motion, or is there a feeling on the Council that that person should be appointed? Champion/I'll support. Vanderhoef/I'll support her. Lehman/OK. And then, the other one. (Bell rings) Lehman/ Pardon? OK. That's done. CDBG/HOME HOUSING PROJECT CRITERIA Lehman/Let's try to do the CDBG/HOME criteria. Franklin/OK. Pretty quick. Wilburn/Ernie, should I bow out of this? OK. I won't participate in, Wilbum won't participate in the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Franklin/OK. There had been discussion with the Council back in September about some of the criteria that were used for housing projects for CDBG and HOME project allocations, and the issues that were brought up were the costs-per-unit or costs-per-bedroom standards, I mean, we had some discussion about it. You had some difficulty in coming to anything on it. The proportion of professional fees or other fees in this. HCDC had the same difficulty as you did, and this was after doing, having the staff do some research on other places in lighting on something that was really going to get at these issues without skewing the market. What they have recommended to you is that the way we approach this is by having the projects be evaluated in terms of the appraised value of the project. And what this would mean is that each of the projects must appraise for value by an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 26 independent third party. That may happen at the time that they go for a construction loan or it may happen after the project is done. The consequence of it would be that if it did not appraise for value, then they would have to pay back proportionately to the City what they got for the CDBG or HOME allocation, up to 100 percent of that allocation. OK? The thinking is, is that this then is an incentive for them to keep that, the fees down, the costs per unit down, because obviously those are the only ways that you can then diminish the costs, the value of the project to get it to an appraised value. And if it appraises for the value of the project, then we're fine. Everything just goes forward. OK? Champion/I wonder--I'm sorry--- Vanderhoef/It cannot decrease the number of units to try and bring it into the appraisal? Franklin/No. That would mean it has to come back to HCDC; it has to come back to the City Council. So they can't change the nature of the project. All they can do is get at those parts of it that would bring that appraisal or get the value and the appraisal to jibe. Did I say it right, Steve? Atkins/Yeah. Franklin/OK. ?fab/Are they ever subject to more than one appraisal if they do not change the project? In other words, if it appraised (can't hear) are they (can't hear) after construction, but are they subject for their one appraisal if they do not add or subtract it. Franklin/Not for purposes of this. Pfab/OK. Vanderhoef/And the appraisal, it's allowed to put that into the cost of the project, the cost of this appraisal or is that a private appraisal? Franklin/That would be one of their fees, I would think. I mean it would be all subsumed under their development fees. They'd have to figure that in. Lehman/And it's all in the scheme of things. The cost of the appraisal would be a rather, fairly real insignificant amount. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Kanner/So the builder pays for the appraisal. Franklin/Well, it's part of the whole project costs. Now whether, yes, they do. Kanner/The developer--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 27 Lehman/Yes. Kanner/...of the project--- Franklin/Yes. Mm-hmm. Karmer/...proposer? Franklin/Yes, that's the idea. Kanner/So an appraiser's going to be able to look at all these different issues? It seems that there's more issues than a standard appraisal. Franklin/No. The appraiser doesn't look at all the issues. What the appraiser does is looks at the value of the project. Whether they're getting that appraisal when they go for the loan from the bank or they're having the appraisal done by the end of the project. They have to by the end of the project get to us an appraisal that shows that this project is going to appraise for the value that they have designated for the project when they came in for their application. So, if they say that it's a $3 million project and that's what we give an allocation based on, and it only appraises for $2 million, they've got a problem. Champion/Now, Karin, one of my concerns and many of our concerns was the high development rates, the architect rates--- Franklin/Right. Champion/...the high cost of building the building. It's the reason we bought all this up. So, are those included in the project costs and so the appraisal has to meet the project cost or the building cost? Lehman/I would think that's total project--- Franklin/It's total project costs. --- Lehman/ ...that would deal with everything. Champion/So that would get around our concerns about the high development fees associated with these funds. Franklin/Right. Because the only way they would be able to bring the value down to meet the appraisal would be to eliminate--or lessen--development fees and any of it, if you lessen, you're going to lessen the costs per unit just intuitively. Champion/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 28 Pfab/One quick question. Is this a possibility that we'll be drive away development? Franklin/It shouldn't. Pfab/It should not? Franklin/No, it shouldn't. Champion. They might not (can't hear). Franklin/We're looking at value of the projects. Lehman/ Franklin/What you want is a realistic value for that project that we are supporting with public funds. The other thing, OK, Steven? Kanner/I have a question on--I'm still not clear on how this addresses--we had a concern about how to look at this cost per unit or cost per bedroom. Are you saying that it doesn't matter now with this proposed system that it's going to regulate itself in a sense? Franklin/Well, in a sense, yes. Because it will be across the market. One of the concerns was as expressed in Steve's memo is when you get into the cost per unit, them are issues that come into play that have to do with land costs, for instance, that may make, may push you one place versus another, in order to keep that value down. By keeping the value at the appraised value, what it will appraise for, if it is inordinately high, then the appraised value should tell you, OK, that's inordinately high, you've got to bring it down. The things that you can bring down in order to get to the appraised value are things like the development fee and whenever you bring any of it down, you bring your costs per unit down. OK? And if you, you carmot change the project without going back through the whole thing. So this notion of getting the appraisal to match value should get at those issues that you were concerned about. I mean, ! think what we're suggesting or what HCDC is suggesting is you give this a try to see how it works, I mean, obviously we tweak this thing all the time and so we can do it again. Vanderhoef/Karin, I just have one thought as we're talking here. We have talked about the number of units in the project, but there's always the possibility of changing the square footage in the building to bring down costs, and--- Franklin If it made an appreciable change in the project, a significant change in the project, and obviously there's going to have to be some judgment with that. But if it made a significant change in the project, then it would have to go back through. Now, say, for instance, there was a common room that was in this project and the number of units that were being provided was the same, but this common room got smaller, so it goes. I mean, to me, that would not be an appreciable change because the goal of the project is to provide living units for people to live in. If the common room is a little smaller as a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 29 consequence of having to bring the costs down, so it goes. Lelmlan/Does it disappear? Vanderhoef/I was trying to think in terms of, say, a single bedroom unit that maybe is 600 square feet and been--- Franklin/These projects are not built with that much fluff in them. I mean, that's the reality of it. Vanderhoef/And then that's my concern that if they would try to keep the same number of units and drop the size down even that much smaller to come in--- Franklin/ What we're going, we're going to watch for that because I mean, you can only go so small and you're not going to meet the Housing Code, you know. Vanderhoef/But 525 square feet--- Franklin/And I don't think that typically they're made so big that they're that much over the Housing Code. We're talking about pretty minimal units in this~-- Vanderhoef/And if they're all going to be minimal and they try to take them down lower to bring in the--- Franklin/Then they won't meet the Housing Code and they can't do that. Vanderhoef/So we would use the Housing Code as the standard for a one-bedroom and a two- bedroom--- Franklin/I mean they have to meet all of those things anyway. Vanderhoeff So that would be our stand is minimum for each size? Franklin/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/OK. Franklin/Right. Vanderhoef/That's fine. Franklin/And we can evaluate it in a year. Lehman/We're going to have to break because we have said we're going to have a special meeting at 7:30. Is this something we need to come back to? O'Donnell/I think we're fine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 30 Franklin/After this one more thing that you have to (can't hear) Vanderhoef/And I've got something that I want to--- Franklin/ OK, it's the percentage of private funds. Dilkes/I think we should start fairly close. Lehman/All right. Franklin/It's the percentage of private funds and this was to get around this, you know, how much public versus private. What they're suggesting is that you include in the ranking sheets this gradation of points that you would get if you had so much pementage of private funds and it weights it towards putting more private funds in and that's all I have to say. Vanderhoef/Question. Franklin/Yes. Vanderhoef/I still am not clear whether the tax credits are being counted as private funds or separately. Franklin/Public. Vanderhoef/They are public? Franklin/Yes. Vanderhoef/OK. Good. Thank you. Lehman/OK. Champion/Good job. I like the--- Vanderhoef/And I do have a question that I want a little research done on and that is about the, owner-occupied units built by nonprofits in talking about the interest if we could get a report back on that later, I would appreciate it. Because we're not voting on that in this thing. Lehman/OK, Ross. That's another issue. Franklin/We're not voting on anything, we're taking (can't hear) Lehman/ Right. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 31 (Meeting recessed to special formal meeting, 7:35, and returned to work session 7:50) Wilburn/ School Bond. Lehman/ School Bond issue. Mr. Atkins I think you're on for that. Atkins/ Pretty straight for~vard. You have a letter from Lauren Reece, President of the School Board asking for Council to adopt a resolution expressing support for the upcoming school bond referendum. I received that correspondence, I spoke with Lane Plugge, adviced him that I ~vould check with the Mayor and place it on the agenda work session to discuss it. If you would choose to do so I would like some direction to prepare a resolution of support. If you choose not to, you don't have to take any action. And we'd place it on your agenda for January 7th. Champion/ It seems logical to me that we would support this bond referendum. That the schools, the Iowa City School District is a great recruiting tool for businesses and the University and the City in bringing people here. It is a very important part of the community and the quality needs to be maintained and maybe even upgraded. Lehman/ My only concern was unless we're willing to give it our enthusiastic support I think it would be a mistake to put it on the agenda. I concur with you Connie, I strongly support the referendum for the bond issue. I think that's something that the community desperately needs and certainly is in the wealth or best interest of our kids and the entire community, and I would strongly support it. Pfab/ I will enthusiaticly support it. Lehman/ Thank you that's what I think we are looking for. Wilburn/ I would support a resolution too. I know we don't ordinarily make a practice of a resolution that's not necessarily within the purview of the City but because of the reasons you had said Connie, the impact on citizens and just the fact that such a diverse group has already signed on Lehman/ And they have requested it. Wilburn/ Yea. Such a diverse group of citizens have signed onto this enthusically. Pfab/ I would make one further comment. I would feel that if we would fail to support this or it failed to pass we as a community are going to miss a great opportunity. Wilburn/ So they didn't submit a proposed resolution? Lehman/ It would be on the first meeting in January. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 32 Atkins/ What I'm likely to do Ross is I'll check with some of the other communities making a request so the language is similar but meets...I'm hearing that your asking that we draft a resolution .... Lehman/ I think that's correct. Atkins/ ...for your action but I'll check with the other towns and make sure it reads similar. Vanderhoef/ One, I support the bond issue yet the one piece of public education that I see missing in the materials that were sent out from the school district and have not been talked about that are very specific to city is the accumulated bond... Atkins/ Yep, the overlapping debt. Vanderhoef/ The overlapping debt and I'm not sure that our public understands this to the extend that we do around this table and if there was some way that we acknowledge this in our letter of support and be sure that the electorate understands the accumulated debt, overlapping debt, is an important piece because we'll still be looking at another bond issue more than likely for the jail which would be another addition on to this overlapping debt. So I think the public needs to look at it and understand that the possibility of two large bonds issues could affect our Aaa rating. Atkins/ Three. Remember we're coming off.. Vanderhoef/ Well we got our own big one. Atkins/ Yes, there are three very substantial public debt issues. One has been taken care of that's the library. Vanderhoef/ So they're already paying for that one. Atkins/ Yes. Vanderhoef/ Yes, and we have tow more coming up. Atkins/ That's correct. Vanderhoef/ And the three in total could affect the City Aaa bond rating. And as I understand it the School District and the County do not have that similar kind of ratings that we have, is that correct? Atkins/ Assuming they will rate their bonds, Dee, if they don't buy insurance. I also assume they are likely to do it, it has been their tradition, on a fairly short term and that's usually anywhere from 15 years or less. But I, not being in charge of their bond sales I'm not real sure exactly what they plan to do. But your assessment is correct. Overlapping debt is a measure of our credit rating because again it is an occurrence of debt on the taxpayer This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 33 that's beyond our control and it looked at by the credit officer. Champion/ Steve, what about the bonds that are going to paid off by the School District? Atkins/ I think that's part of it. My understanding Connie is that they have tried to factor that in. That they are winding down some other debt issues. That improves their position. Champion/ $40 million dollar bond referendum on $18 or $19 million one being paid off. Atkins/ I know from the newspaper accounts that has been part of their plans. Vanderhoef/ That's already been figured in. Champion/ No. Vanderhoeff Well its figured in yearly so when they go out to do a bond rating on us right Champion/ Oh, right. Vanderhoef/ ...most of that has already been paid off. The final piece of it comes now but it isn't like they're just going to pay out all $40 thousand or whatever it is at this point in time. Atkins/ I'I1 call Lane and get you a letter that kinds explains that. Lehman/ But I think Dee's point needs to be addressed. Is it possible for us to have, Kevin for example, to give us a sensabus of what affect this has if any on our ability to bond? Atkins/ Ernie it will affect us. That's a for sure. Now whether it's going to be dramatic to not the budget that you adopt I can tell you going into the budget proposals that I'm putting together for you now we back do~vn substanially on debt which is going to affect I mean some projects that are popular may have to be set aside on our part is a financial fact of life. Pfab/ I guess if that's the case I do we rate one need over the other. Atkins/ Irvin that's exactly what the issue....balance that... Pfab/ Even if we have to take second place to the school issue I think that that's something we have to think about as individuals. Atkins/ That's right. Vanderhoef/ Yea, the second place could well mean the downgrading in the bond level which just increases our cost for the same project. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 34 Pfab/ Or moving the project further out, or not... Vanderhoef/ Well if the bond rating goes down it doesn't do anything about moving it further out it just means people paying more interest per project. Pfab/ Well I'm saying maybe if we have to, I don't think we're talking about current bonds are we? Atkins/ No. Pfab/ We may not be as well, in as good ora position to take on another bonding issue and we may have to... Lehman/ That's what you're saying. Pfab/ No, I think she's saying or I understood her to say well it will affect our current one. Lehman/ No. Atkins/ No. Lehman/ No, but what it could mean is a Aa bond rating for example is going to a Aaa and cost the taxpayers more to retire those bonds. Atkins/ Yea. Lehman/ The issue is and I think it is O'Donnell/ Very valid. Lehman/ I think it is a very valid issue. How do we prioritize issues within obviously from my perspective there's probably no higher priority anywhere than... Wilburn/ That's the point that I (can't hear) Lehman/ But you're right we have t know going into it... Wilbum/ And I forget maybe that's in here but when are they looking at putting this out? Atkins/ February. Wilburn/ February, so we'll know whether the public in general will know the level of support there is for... Atkins/ Should become a lot clearer. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 35 Lehman/ Yea. Atkins/ But Dee's point is well taken folks just don't recognize that our layers of government and what they choose to do falls upon our shoulders and we can be as fucal as we want but if another government chooses to expand the debt .... Champion/ If we were going on a sales tax... Atkins/ If you pledge the sales tax to retirement of the debt I can't imagine it would have any affect on our credit rating because the property tax is not pledged. It's another source of income to pay for. Pfab/ I would make one comment and I think Dee would back this up. School issues are becoming nationwide a bigger and bigger concern to the city's. The fact that we need to have well educated children and City's may have to step in and assist that to happen. O'Donnell/ Well we all agree that education is a high priority if not a top priority. Lehman/ Alright, we have decided it is going to be on the next agenda. Atkins/ And I'll prepare a resolution. I'll try satisfy everything that I have heard around the table. Dilkes/ Just by way of a little bit of background and Steve had asked me about this when the request first came in. You know that you are aware that the state code prohibits the use of public money for political purposes including the support of ballot issues but then it goes on to specifically that it is okay to do a resolution in support, a body can do a resolution, in support of a ballot issue. So... Lehman/ We figure you would have told us first thing if it wasn't. Dilkes/ In case you are asked. Lehman/ Right, thank you. Vanderhoef/ Then I think it should also be stated in our letter so that the public recognizes that we are not spending any money supporting a project. Pfab/ Because of state law. Vanderhoef/ Because of state law, yea. Lehman/ Okay guys. Dilkes/ The point is we are using public resources to support the ballot issue but that's allowable in this context. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 36 Vanderhoef/ But not monetary? Champion/ Well, it is money. Dilkes/ Steve's time, my time. Atkins/ Sure. Vanderhoef/ Okay. Dilkes/Exception to that. Lehman/ Alright. Council time. COUNCIL TIME Kanner/ I had two things. In our 11/21 info packet it talked about our agreement with Toms, is there a good chance we'll get the $40,000 back that is still owed. I didn't quite understand what the agreement is that we're reaching with them to get that back. Atkins/ We're still working on that Steven. I do not expect us to get a full reminbursement. It's... I don't have the file in front of me. I can certainly prepare more detailed information for you but I don't expect it. Lehman/ That was kind of a high risk sort of thing. Atkins/ It was. Lehman/ We're going to get part of it but my suspiscion is that this is almost like a bankruptcy where you get a certain percent back on your money... Atkins/ Sort of Lehman/ Because they went (can't hear) Atkins/ And I give the staff a Iot of credit for finding the buyer for that equipment but I don't think you can count on it. Pfab/ It just goes to show how fast the market is changing. Atkins/ It was all bright and shiny and we all were ready to go. It was an unfortunate circumstance. O'Donnell/...couldn't possibily (can't hear) Atkins/ The unfortunate thing is that is that let's help it doesn't dampen our enthusiam for that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 37 type of business. Kanner/ Then Steve Atkins/ Yes. Kanner/ I have a question for you I was surprised like I thought most of us were when we read about your candidacy foi' a position at the University. Atkins/ Yep. Kanner/ And I had no knowledge of that, I don't know if other Council Members did, and I just wanted to ask you what the status of that was and also not sure what are the professional ethics and standards for a City Manager who applies for a job that you also deal with and your employees deal with. Lehman/ Answering the last question first. There is not, it is assumed, that you would conduct yourself and represent whatever public institution you work for regardless-of, for example it is very common in suburban Chicago because there are so many suburban cities there's a lot of moving around and that's your professional responsibility to represent your community to the fullest extent. Secondly, as far as notice is concerned my employment agreement I have an obligation to provide you with 60 days notice if I chose to leave the position. That's an agreement and that's also in the general terms and conditions of my ethical code. Thirdly, I don't have a position there yet and just simply being considered for something. Karmer/ But you're one of the final... Atkins/ Yea. But it's a long way from anything right now. Okay. Kanner/ When are they going to make a decision? Atkins/ (Laugh) I wish I knew .... Lehman/ (Laugh) Atkins/ As public employment becomes more and more open, the whole process, as I am certain familiar, all you have to do is look around town and you see those things occuring, i'm not sure what their schedule is. They have kinda a big time recruitment on those hand too as I understand that they are working on. Kanneff I've heard about that. Atkins/ Okay. Thank you for asking. Lehman/ Okay, any other? This represents only a reasonably accurate ~anscription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 38 Vanderheof/ I've got two or three things. One, I'd like to know whether anyone is interested in having a work session that deals with briefing the Council on our emergency management and homeland security and what it is costing us at this point, if anything? Atkins/ Like to answer that but I don't think we can adjourn to executive session and I can tell you that for example in the water plant we have instituted security measures that we did not originally intent in the plan. I would prefer not announcing those, and I have no trouble sitting down and visiting with you and letting you know but it would compromise the security of the plan. Vanderhoef/ Okay, the security... Atkins/ That's our biggest exposure. Vanderhoef/ How about a memo on additional costs that the City has incurred because of homeland security? And things... Atkins/ As long as you relize that fthe memo does appear vague please forgive me but I can give you some idea of the things that we've had to do... Vanderhoef/ Maybe no one else is interested in it? Champion/ I think it is a very good question. Atkins/ Dee I honestly believe it will continue to grow, yea, and its clear the federal government is going to make a lot of noise about homeland security and we're going to pay for it. Vanderhoef/ And there's a lot of cities that are paying big time right now and that's what I got at convention and I don't have any idea what's it is doing to our budget at this point in time. O'Donnell/ Where was this convention at? Vanderhoef/ Salt Lake City. O'Donnell/ Oh. Atkins/ We were, we do have certain policies, certain operational policy issues that the departments do on their own initiative to help provide for a level of security we didn't do before. Let me think about how to prepare something for you. I understand your question but understand it will be general. Lehman/ Okay. Vanderhoef/ Okay. Then the letter from the State League regarding legislative day and the table top. Is staff going to put together a table top for us? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council. Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 39 Atkins/ Yes. We are. Our thinking right now is they have asked us to showcase a particular project and I've suggested to the staff our recycling center. Champion/ Good. Atkins/ Cause we've got a jim dandy and I don't anybody else in the state has anything close to what we've got. Vanderhoef/ Super. Atkins/ So if we're going o brag that's a good one to brag about. Vanderhoef/ Good, good. Atkins/ That's being worked on fight now. Vanderhoef/ Okay. And also the memo from Bob Miklo about the next district project and personally I'm just fine with the central district being the next one. Champion/ Me too. Atkins/ I sort of picked up just informally from you that and just so unless you feel differently... Vanderhoef/ I've been out of touch for a few days so... Atkins/ Oh no, I just mean informally .... Vanderhoef/ ...I apologize for that. Has there been any discussion about the airport and funding for the business plan. Atkins/ No, there has not. They have asked for $15,000 from this budget. We are doing budget balancing. In fact we spend the day doing and are very close. I need to get you a formal recommendation. Vanderhoef/ Okay. Atkins/ Because that's a current budget issue and we'd have to go to contingency and quite candidly I'm not real sure I want to do that just yet. Lehman/ Well that may be but I think it is something that is somewhat time sensiiive from their perspective too. Vanderhoef/ Yes. Atkins/ We'll get them an answer. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 40 Lehman/ I have that on my list too. Vanderhoef/ Okay, good. Atkins/ We can get them an answer within 30 days. I just need to figure it into the budget issue. Vanderhoef/ Okay, that's fine. Pfab/ Dee, may I just piggy back on something? What a number of the people at the airports are saying because of the very strict security measures that are going on at larger airports private planes are deciding maybe more than they would get involved with. Taking a hard look....both the fuel and (can't hear) Lehman/ In other words increasing usage of smaller airports. Pfab/ Just because and the main reason is the layers upon layers of efforts or procedures. Kanner/ One thing to keep in mind with the airport study at the same time that we're looking at possibly a similar amount possibly for a municipal electric study would be about the same... Atkins/ Ah, ah. Kanner/ ..have to consider Vanderhoef/ When we get those numbers? Atkins/ So you know we have planned to put in the upcoming budget monies for the study. I mean that's clearly what I thought you wanted done. Karmer/ Although it would be for the current fiscal year. Atkins/ No, it would be for the upcoming fiscal year, airport wants it sooner. Airport wants it sooner. Lehman/ Right. Kanner/ So the municipal electric, even though the study would possibly take place in a few months you'd say you'd put it off til the next fiscal year? Atkins/ We had planned to put it into the new budget. Now, if you decide you want to bump it up because you want to do the study in April or something such as that we can accommodate those interests as long as I know what your interests are early on the thing. The airport is just a tad bit different. My intent is to be able to give you the flexibility if you want to press ahead with this thing, which I am assuming a majority of you want too, you'll be prepared to do that. Oaky. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 41 Vanderhoef/ Another thing that interested me and then I got a phone call this morning the government classes at City High and this initiative that 17 year old to vote in school elections apparently they did a presentation and I would like to ask them to come make a presentation to us too, if anyone else would like to hear it. Pfab/ Fine with me. Wilburn/ Fine. Kanner/ Sounds good. Atkins/ I'll check with somebody at the school about having a presentation about whether 17 year olds can vote... Vanderhoef/ Regina or Redlinger. Atkins/ Oh yea Redlinger. Wilburn/ I thought the e-mail from Pete Wallace said he was the one that set them up with ..so you might want too... Karr/ You have a letter in your Consent Calendar about that also. Vanderhoef/ That's where it was. Kanner/ For a work session is what you're saying. Presentation? Vanderhoef/ For a work session ask them to come and give us a presentation. Champion/ Fine. Lehman/ I don't consider that a real high priority for a work session. Vanderhoef/ Pardon me? Lelmlan/ I wouldn't personally consider that a real high priority for a work session. Vanderhoef/ No, and I don't know... Lehman/ We've got a lot of things coming up and I mean, and its not like it wouldn't be interesting and fun, but I'm not sure it is a high priority. Vanderhoef/ Well it could definitely come after budget you know. This is not an emergency kind of thing but I think it is a useful think for us to hear. Pfab/ There is one timely, something there, sometimes especially with school bonding. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 42 Lehman/ They couldn't, we couldn't pass... Pfab/ No, no. They couldn't vote. It is something that has a greater public interest and it might be something that we want... Vanderhoef/ Whatever. I'll stop for tonight. Lehman/ Steve we also got a letter from the County relative to that sewer project. Atkins/ Yes. Lehman/ And I don't know how we're going to handle that? Atkins/ Yea, the letter came in and I was aware of what they were up too. I think we need to give you a little report. Lehman/ Okay. Atkins/ I will be quite candid with you. I found it interesting they don't have any money so we're suppose to have ail the money. (Laughter) Atkins/ Well sort like if you write a check you're really good at cooperating. But we'll, we need to get you some more answers because the route of the sewer, at first blush it doesn't really create a whole lot of new customers but then there is that desire to provide new facilities for the Guard. So there's trade-offs and I don't have answers for those yet. Lehman/ Alright. Pfab/ I have... Lehman/ Irvin. Pfab/ Is there anything new happening over on those people with their basement flooded? Atkins/ We've not heard anymore from them. Pfab/ You didn't? Atkins/ No. I'll do a check tomorrow in case. Pfab/ Would you please. Atkins/ Alfight. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 43 Lehman/ I have one other thing if there's anyone else interested I would like to find out feasibility of being able for Council people to obtain health insurance with the City, if there's anyone else who's interested. Vanderhoef/ You mean join part of the group plan? Lehman/ Yea. Pfab/ Hey, that would be great. Vanderhoef/ On a private payment. Lehman/ Steve, can you have a memo prepared to that effect? Atkins/ Sure. Health insurance for the Council. Lehman/ Right. Atkins/ Okay, and be part of our group. Vanderhoef/ To be part of the group. Kanner/ What inspired ...? Champion/ Insurance. Lehman/ I can tell you what inspired it. The proposed premium that I had $16,800 a year for myself and my wife. That is a tremendous inspiration. Champion/ Alternatives. Lehman/ To look at alternatives. Atkins/ That's inspirational. I'll get you the numbers. Lehman/ Alright. Anything else? Kanner/ Just to clarify I think we do have time actually our work sessions have been kinda light a fifteen minute presentation we didn't clarify if we are going to have it. I think we should give direction on when we want it to Marian, if we don't want it in January or if we want to wait. O'Donnell/ After budget seems to be... Lehman/ You're talking about the 17 year old voting issue? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 44 Kanner/ Yea, the presentation. Lehman/ I would rather wait until after budget. Vanderhoef/ End of March. Kanner/ End of March before the school year is out, is that okay, then. Champion/ Schools not out until June. Kanner/ Right, so I'm saying sometime between March and June. Other thing is that we haven't talked about age of consent that's been on our future work sessions and I was wondering when we were going to get to that? Lehman/ Well is there interest in picking it up at work session, age of consent? Kanner/ We had that interest. Lehman/ Well we're asking again right now. Pfab/ Be a little bit more specific what you mean by that? Lehman/ Issue came up because of an officer entering a premises ... Pfab/ Okay... Lehman/ Police made a determination on what age of consent was and there was some talk about whether or not the Council was going to discuss age of consent. Is there interest in US... Vanderhoef/ Well we sent it back to PCRB and they chose not, they had a discussion and did not come up with any recommendation for us. Karmer/ No, no. PCRB said there was some concern with it and then there was an informal discussion or informal split with the majority saying it should be higher. So it really wasn't a final decision. We didn't ask them. We've been waiting for us, or I've been waiting. There's three or four of us and its been, I don't know has it been a year. It's been months, many months. Lehman/ Okay. Kanner/ We said we were going to have it there. Pfab/ I would suggest we move on it one way or the other. Lehman/ I'm not interested in taking it up. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002. December 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 45 O'Donnell/ I'm not interested. Lehman/ Are there other Council people that are? Steven obviously is. Anyone else? Then its not on the agenda or pending list. Alright anything else for the good of the cause. Atkins/ What did you just decide on age of consent? Lehman/Off. Dilkes/ Take it off. Atkins/ Okay. Lehman/ I am going to be attending this Thursday and the first three days of next week I'll be having dinner with the presidential candidates from the University and I don't even know who they are but I'm supposed to find out the day before. Champion/ Presidential candidates, wow. They're moving right along. Lehman/ Well, one of them Thursday night and then next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday are meetings with, I don't know who all goes Steve maybe you were involved in this? Atkins/ I did it when President Coleman was appointed. A lot of fun. Lehman/ Really looking forward to it and I'm really pleased that they asked the City to be part of it. Wilburn/ As long as we letting each know what we've been invited to or up to. Washington, Iowa, the high school and junior high are going to have their first Martin Luther King celebration/commemoration at the school and they've asked me to be their speaker. Champion/ Wow, that's really nice. Lehman/ And I suppose we should tell folks we went to Kansas City and met with the FAA last Wilburn/ Wednesday Lehman/ Wednesday. Really good meeting, really glad we went. O'Donnell/ You'll have to tell us about it sometime. Vanderhoef/ You and...? You two. Atkins/ Good night all. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of December 9, 2002.