HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-06 Transcription#2
Page 1
ITEM 2. OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS -Roosevelt
Elementary
Bailey: Will the students from Roosevelt Elementary please come forward? Well,
thank you very much for being here. This is one of our favorite times, and
we actually learn quite a lot when we have, uh, student citizenship awards.
We learn about what you're doing at your school, and um, really some
really neat activities, and you're going to go first. I'm going to hand the
microphone to you (mumbled).
Siddig: Hi, my name is Layla Siddig and I'm a sixth grader at Roosevelt School
and was a member of the student council last school year. I'm
representing the entire student council by accepting this award tonight.
The Roosevelt student council is comprised of students from grades three
to six who are selected on the basis of an application process. Last year
there were 24 representatives, 12 students the first semester and the other
12 served the second semester. These student representatives, along with
their advisors, performed different roles in our school community.
Student council representatives performed community service projects that
provide us practice in working together and developing projects from
initiation to completion. One project that we did was promoting "think
green." We talked to all homeowners about ways to save our
environment, such as using reusable bags instead of plastic and paper bags
at the grocery stores and using reusable water bottles instead of buying
bottled water and then throwing away the bottle after one use. Members
are also involved in promoting school cohesiveness by planning spirit days
for all students and staff. We had green and gold day, pajama day, and
wacky hairdo, just to name a few. Thank you. (applause)
Harder: Hi, my name is Jessie Harder. I'm a fifth grader at Roosevelt School. I
was on student council last year. I am also representing all the
representatives by receiving this award tonight. One of the goals of
student council is to raise funds for school projects and school needs.
Coordinating the school collection of box tops for education and the
Campbell Soup labels for education help us reach this goal. Retrieving
box tops and labels from homerooms, sorting, trimming, and counting was
the student council part of this project. At the end of the school year, the
student council donated money to the media center for books, to the
student aid fund to help buy items needed by some of our students. Funds
for the recess equipment, such as balls and jump ropes; additional music
equipment needed for performances; and extra art supplies for the art
room. This year we will also be collecting pop tabs in support of Ronald
McDonald House. Roosevelt student council gives a voice to students and
helps to develop leadership skills in its members. Thank you. (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#2
Page 2
Bailey: Sounds like your student council is very active and we really appreciate all
the work. Some day maybe we'll see both of you, maybe, in one of these
chairs up here. That would be great! You have great experience for it.
We have a couple of awards. I'm going to read one of them. Um, they
say the same thing but they have your name on it. For her outstanding
qualities of leadership within Roosevelt Elementary, as well as the
community, and for her sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others,
we recognize you as Outstanding Student Citizen. Your community is
proud of you, and this is presented by the Iowa City City Council.
(applause) Thank you so much.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#3 Page 3
ITEM 3. PROCLAMATIONS.
b. White Cane Safety Day -October 15, 2008
Bailey: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Patti Westphal, a Member of the Old
Capitol Chapter of National Federation of the Blind. (applause)
Wilburn: Uh, Madame Mayor, I move that we modify the agenda by, um, moving
Item 9 to, uh, before the Consent Calendar.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn to move Item 9 for consent, or before the Consent
Calendar. Do I have a...
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? All those in favor of moving Item 9
to consider right now say aye. Those opposed same sign. Motion carries.
At this time we will take up Item 9 in our agenda.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9
Page 4
ITEM 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO AGREEMENTS
WITH THE STATE FOR JUMPSTART IOWA HOUSING
ASSISTANCE AND SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Correia. Discussion? If there's
anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please approach the podium and
limit your comments to five minutes or less. Please state your name for
the record, as well.
Eastham: Madame Mayor, Council Members, my name is Charlie Eastham. Uh, my
wife and I still own a property, although we don't reside there anymore, at
37 Colwyn Court. LTh, I just wanted to say that, uh, we've studied the
Jumpstart program and the associated eligibility requirements for all three
activities, and tried to apply that to our situation, and I just wanted to make
a couple comments about that. One, again we are faced with the situation
of...of having too much damage, too much repair costs, uh, and too little
money to address repair costs, and I definitely appreciate the comments by
Matt and the City Manager earlier that you're actively pursuing getting
more money coming to Iowa City and the rest of Iowa to, uh, to meet
repair costs that many of us, many homeowners, and uh, the residents are
facing. In regard to the Jumpstart program, uh, downpayment assistance
program, uh, downpayment assistance part, uh, Karen and I paid a special
assessment, uh, to the homeowners association of $21,000 plus to cover
cleanup costs that the association decided to pursue immediately after the
flood, um, and that cost was to remove damaged equipment and to
prevent, basically to prevent additional mold growth or additional property
damage. It's my understanding now that for the Jumpstart downpayment
assistance program since we paid our part of the assessment for that cost
from our FEMA, uh, allocation or FEMA funds, that we would have to
subtract that amount, nearly $22,000, from available downpayment
assistance if we were eligible for it in the Jumpstart program, leaving us
with only some $38,000 or so. Um, $28,000 I guess, uh, of downpayment
assistance. If we had known of course that there was going to be
downpayment assistance on June 15th, we would not have engaged in
clean-up and mold mitigation, at least not to a significant extent. Uh, of
course we didn't know that, even you didn't know that at the time. Now
then to me it seems not a really good policy to have, uh, homeowners that
paid for mold mitigation out of their FEMA, uh, allocation, having to
deduct that from the possibility of getting downpayment assistance from
the Jumpstart program. I know we just had a discussion about what the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9
Page 5
State is requiring, um, and I know that's a State requirement at this point
in time, but I would hope that you would pursue, um, with the State, uh,
that particular problem. I'm sure a lot of homeowners paid for down, or
I'm sorry, paid for clean-up costs immediately after the flood. IJh, they
may not have all paid $21,000, but many paid several thousand, and many
of those people, I'm also sure I suspect, used part of their FEMA
assistance to pay for that repair bill. So I hope you can...you can, you
know, work on that in the future. iJh, by and large, in terms of repair we
have, uh, assistance of again, Karen and I's repair rehab costs are in the
$100,000 to $150,000 range, depending upon which cost estimate you can
believe, and that is not approached by the amount of money that's
available in the Jumpstart (mumbled) initial allocation of CDBG funds.
So we certainly hope there's additional funding, and larger amounts, per
home available in the very near future.
Correia: I just want to make one clarification, just so I'm clear and others
understand. Because your home is not...in Idyllwild, will not be on the
housing mitigation grant program application, you would not be available
for the downpayment assistance. Right? Is that correct? I just know that
others in this situation, based on the State rules that were given to us, is
that correct?
Long: They would be eligible, if their home was destroyed or damaged beyond
reasonable repair.
Correia: Okay.
Long: Which they define as 50% of the value, structure value.
Correia: Okay.
Long: So not every unit, or home, in Idyllwild would be eligible, but those that
are damaged beyond reasonable repair.
Correia: Okay. Gotcha.
Eastham: And Amy, our value of our home is about $150,000 to $200,000 in repair
costs (mumbled)
Correia: Okay, so there will be...then I misunderstood that (mumbled). Okay.
Thank you, Charlie.
Bailey: Other comments?
Crawford: Madame Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Mike
Crawford. I'm from Idyllwild and I'm taking a wee bit of a liberty, but
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9
Page 6
I'm going to refer to Jumpstart at the very end. This will be very brief.
Uh, I provided the City Clerk with a letter from the homeowners in
Idyllwild, uh, before the meeting tonight, and basically it said, and this is
perhaps no longer applicable, but we wanted to go on record formally, uh,
telling you, or requesting, that we not be included on the FEMA hazard
mitigation grant program buyout list. At a recent meeting the Idyllwild
homeowners voted by a substantial margin to make this request so that we
could move forward and allow our homeowners access to other funds,
such as Jumpstart, uh, once we're removed from the buyout list. So we
have formally made that request, uh, recognizing that...that you've
already discussed that. The other thing I want to say, having this
opportunity, uh, from a group of homeowners who have dealt with this
issue, uh, we really very strongly want to compliment your City Manager,
your Planning office, and your Engineering office for their work with the
homeowners in Idyllwild. They've been most helpful, answering our
questions, reviewing. Uh, they invited some of us down to sit and literally
went through the FEMA cost benefit analysis formula and explained that
to us in detail, and that was most helpful. So in providing us with
significant direction, your people have been very helpful. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
Linder: Hi, my name is Marc Linder. If I've understood correctly, something like
90% of the houses, um, that were flooded will not be bought out, and
something like 80% of the houses in the...in "mosquito flats" will not be
bought out, and the, um, the hazard mitigation program, which you
haven't laid out yet for us, would cost maybe $35 million, which we don't
have?
Lombardo: No, uh, that number you're referring to...
Linder: Protection program, excuse me, the protection program for the house that
remain after the houses are bought out.
Lombardo: Right, and...and those were based on just very preliminary engineering
estimates, to give us some idea. Uh, we're told that that may include
property buyout, so we're asking for more refined numbers to know what
potentially it would cost in just infrastructure to...to protect those areas,
and...and that's something...the engineering estimates take a lot of, I
mean, tens of thousands of dollars to get to that level of detail. We're at a
place right now where we only want to go so far, until we know how much
funding is coming our way because it...we don't want to spend tens of
thousands of taxpayer dollars to engineer a solution that based on the
amount of funding that's coming our way would never happen. So
it... everything is kind of in the balance. It's hurry up and wait, much like
so many other situations, where as we know how much more funding is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9 Page 7
becoming available and what we can use it for, then we want to certainly
go further if it makes good sense to do so. If the...I think to your
question, and I don't know if you followed up...I got to your mail very
late, and I apologize, um, but your question to me was if...if the costs are
so great and it costs a comparable amount to buy out the homes, wouldn't
it make sense to proceed to buy out the homes, and I think it's a very
legitimate question, and if...if funding were made available to accomplish
everything we want, I think that's something that we would explore.
Linder: But, um, I mean, at some point you'll explain to us what this various
proposals are for protecting the neighborhood?
Lombardo: Right now they were just to take a band and do either a levee or
demountable flood walls, um, again, they included...this is very, just
based on the actual, uh, linear feet of any type of system that they would
do, and it included a lot of things in there that, from our estimate, would
be included under other programs, like the, um, property acquisition
would likely be handled through CDBG or other funding.
Linder: That would presuppose getting rid of all the houses on the river side of
Normandy?
Lombardo: Um...
Linder: A wall?
Lombardo: Right. That would likely be on the interior of that somewhere, if
we...particularly if we buy those houses with hazard mitigation grant
funds.
Linder: So if anyone holds out on the river side of Normandy you can't do it?
Lombardo: IJh, that's a, I think, a question for a later day. Raises certainly some very
difficult questions for us and the City Council, would we likely put
somebody on the backside of a flood wall.
Linder: And, the wall you're talking about would mean that no...none of the
remaining houses would've flooded in the 2008 flood?
Lombardo: Yeah, we haven't gotten even close to talking about if we were to proceed
thusly, what elevation will we try and protect against or not.
Linder: Some...really my comment is most people are going to be stuck there.
You're not going to be able to buy out more than a small percentage, and
the cost to protecting the people who will remain is very high. The City
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9 Page 8
says it doesn't have the money, and we're not sure what the result of that
protection would be anyway?
Lombardo: Correct, and based on...on what funding, you know, if it's much less than
anything that would, uh, approach either, uh, other mitigation measures
like flood walls and like, then we begin...flood-proofing homes, what do
we have funding to be able to...to accomplish down there. Those are all
questions, Mr. Linder, that are really up in the air now, and until we know
abroad brush even how much funding is likely to come our way, and
through what mechanisms, it's hard for us to develop comprehensive
strategies because we could spend a lot of time and effort and energy, only
to find that the funding comes down in a way that we can't use it, based on
our approaches.
Linder: Would it be possible to coordinate the thinking on these plans with
discussion with the people who will be affected by them in the
neighborhood?
Lombardo: I...I can't speak on behalf of the Council, but I think our strategy all along
is to...to develop options so that we can speak to them articulately, and
then engage conversations with the neighborhoods to...ongoing. I
don't...we haven't really talked a lot about this, but this...I don't...this is
not going to be just me coming forward with recommendation to City
Council saying, well, here's...here's likely...here's the only approach.
You know, there's going to be a lot of different strategies, I think, that
have to be discussed and what makes the best, um, possible answer for a
community really should be broader discussion, not just staff.
Linder: In the immediate future, the next couple of years, none of this could
happen, none of this protection, uh, infrastructure could be put into place.
People will be at risk, living there in the next couple of years.
Lombardo: You know, I think that's a...we won't find out about funding, additional
funding, for a matter of months -two to three months. Um, you know,
engineering it, getting the homes bought out, putting in place...you're
correct, it may be a matter of years.
Bailey: Mr. Linder, I appreciate the fact that you have many questions (both
talking)
Linder: Has any thought been given to the impact of such a wall would have on
people upstream, downstream?
Lombardo: That's all part of the consideration in moving forward, absolutely.
Hayek: Before we move on...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9
Bailey: And please...
Page 9
Hayek: ...I think it might help to, well, to clarify that the numbers...$25 million to
buy out and 25 to protect, that'd be one thing, but my understanding is
if...to do a comprehensive buyout of everybody would be $70 million or
more (several talking) $60 to $70 million, and so I'm not sure those
numbers are at all close.
Bailey: And I know that you all have a lot of questions - we all have a lot of
questions. We've stepped into this, um, program very quickly. Jumpstart
Iowa came very quickly on us, with a lot of...of structure, but uh, I would
ask that you make comments and then if you have specific questions to
contact the City Manager or one of us to...to make sure that those
questions are addressed, or correspond with the entire Council and we can
respond to those. So if anybody else has any comments, please approach
the podium.
McGuire: Steve McGuire, 825 Eastmoor Drive. Um, I'd like to, uh, really say thank
you to, uh, the City Council, to uh, Michael Lombardo, Jeff Davidson, uh,
Steve Long, uh, Julie Talman, uh, Crystal Smith, all who have just done an
excellent job. What I think is, uh, is...has been important about tonight's
discussion is, uh, is a subtext that, uh, won't grab the headlines, and it is
that, uh, not that homes are going to be bought out, but the City is
committed to the neighborhood to the extent that they want to pursue a
long-term, uh, problem solving, maybe in the form of mitigation if funds
are available. LTh, I've mentioned to people that we are five months ahead
of schedule. When you looked initially at the, uh, the timelines that were
presented, and the typical timelines that...that, uh, have been
accomplished in the past where, uh, flooding has happened at this level,
uh, we should have been March 1St, uh, having this level of detail. The
fact that we're ahead of schedule means that a number of people can do
what everybody has really been interested in, and that is making decisions
about how best to move on with their lives, but this has all been made
available because, uh, the City staff have just done an unbelievable, great
job, and I'm very, very appreciative.
Bailey: Thank you, Steve.
Stein: Good evening. I'm Mary Stein and my husband and I, Jay Stein, own a
condo at Idyllwild, 48 Pentire Circle. We do not want to rebuild, um,
because our assessed value is $223,000 and it would cost us over $130,000
to rebuild. We had thought that we would apply for the downpayment
assistance, but we understand now that we cannot, because what we're
going after is a floating interest rate, and I understand that it needs to be a
fixed interest rate. So then we thought, well, we'll go after the mortgage
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9 Page 10
assistance, but now I understand that we cannot go after the mortgage
assistance because Idyllwild took itself, not with our vote, off of the
buyout list. So I guess at this point, um, I think it's also worth noting that
our building, that our unit is in, which is building 9, is the only building in
Idyllwild that is in the 100-year flood plain. I'd also like to say that prior
to moving to Idyllwild, we lived at 9 Parsons Avenue and were in the 100-
year flood plain and paid flood insurance for nine years. We were not
averse to paying flood insurance. We were not required by our mortgage
lender in Idyllwild to pay flood insurance. We simply want to move on.
So what I would request is that you investigate the possibility of us being
able to apply for the downpayment assistance, maybe changing the fixed
rate to a, um, variable rate, or see what can be done about the mortgage
assistance. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Mary, I'm sure if you contact, um, our flood office that they
can give you more information about that possibility. Other comments?
Dailey: Yes, I'm Morns Dailey. I'm a former resident on Normandy Drive. Um,
so I have a comment, and unfortunately I know I'm not supposed to, but
part of it is also a question. Um, if you're applying or...for this grant in
the next few months, I assume that you must have a specific dollar amount
in mind, and if that's the case, um, does that preclude the homeowner
from, um, obtaining a independent appraisal of the property, and
requesting that as the buyout amount, as opposed to being based on the,
uh, tax levels? Is that not clear?
Bailey: I'm looking to Steve or Jeff to see...
Davidson: As I recall, and other City staff correct me if I'm wrong, that the two
criteria, the two possible ways of determining that, that the gentleman's
alluded to, was 110% of the pre-flood assessed value, and of course
assessments are done every two years so that would be a fairly recent, or if
you had had a...an appraisal done within a year prior of the flood event,
you would use that, but there's not a post event appraisal process. That's
my understanding.
Dilkes: The...the 110% of assessed value was simply the number that the State
told us to use on the Notice of Interest. That's...the...the regulations
provide that we can take an approach to...we have to take a reasonable
approach to assessment of the value, and that should be a community, um,
wide analysis that...and we can make that decision as to how we're going
to do that. They make a couple suggestions. One is an appraisal. One is
adjusted, uh, assessment values. But at this point, we are not tied in to any
particular, uh, approach or number.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9
Page 11
Dailey: I guess my comment then would be that, uh, if you...if this grant does
require a fixed dollar request, and certainly every grant I've ever applied
for made me ask for a certain amount of money, uh, that if there is some
question about what the fair market value might be for some of these
properties, that that be taken into account when you apply for this grant.
Okay.
Bailey: Thank you. Other comments? All right, discussion among Council?
Correia: Well, I think, I mean, I'm appreciative of the State for providing these
funds. Um, I wish that we had a little bit more flexibility in how we could
spend those funds, based on what our needs are here locally and so I
encourage folks to contact their Governor's...our Governor's office, and
Finance Authority and other officials, about that. Um, I think it's...it's
something that's moving forward; it's providing some assistance that is
badly needed, and I wish it could be more, and I know there's the potential
of additional dollars from other sources coming and we'll be prepared for
that when it arrives. So, thank you to staff for getting it so quickly to us.
Wilburn: It's come up several times, uh, the issue of, uh, letting folks in Des Moines
know...just so that everybody knows, at the next meeting of the
Metropolitan Coalition, which is nine of the ten most populous cities
of...of Iowa, I'll make sure that I bring up some of these concerns related
to flexibility with, uh, State funding in particular. So (mumbled) to see if
collectively, um, nine of the most ten populous cities will have that effort
with the Legislature. We'll see where it goes.
Bailey: Other comments?
Hayek: I know it's not just an issue of, uh, flexibility to the municipality, it's also
what appears to be some unintended outcomes, in terms of the way people
who are on the buyout list, uh, are eligible or are not eligible for additional
funding, and in terms of those who are not eligible for buyouts and what
they can access. We've had a discussion, uh, this evening that shows me,
and I think others, that there's some unintended consequences. Uh,
nevertheless, the funding is much appreciated.
Bailey: Right, I would like to echo that, um, funding is much appreciated, but I
think it goes to the broader issue. So often the decisions made in Des
Moines aren't necessarily reflective of what we need locally. So as you
talk to, not only the Governor and the Rebuild Iowa office, but our local
legislatures, please emphasize that -that we need to have funds that we
can determine how we use, here in Iowa City, for the people in Iowa City,
and that's very important. We will continue, all of us will continue to
carry that message to Des Moines and to Washington, but your voices,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9 Page 12
those of you who have been directly affected are the stronger voices in
that. So, that's something you can do.
Wilburn: If I could dovetail onto that, uh, Madame Mayor. It's also helpful, if you
have any contacts in other parts of the state, um, in terms of their
legislators. Um, you know, our local legislators have been very
supportive, and...and being at meetings and making the voice heard,
but...but they're not, number wise, they don't reflect, uh, awareness
or...or um, number of votes, just raw votes, throughout the state. So if
you have people in other parts of the state, you know, friends, family
members, talk to them about talking to or passing on letters to those
legislators, as well.
Bailey: And thank you all for being here. We appreciate it, and we appreciate
hearing from you and, um, please contact us, our staff, who are doing a
great job, if you have any questions or concerns, and, you know, we're all
in this together, and we'll continue to move forward together.
Correia: Could we have Steve come up and just give information about flood
recover and...
Bailey: Yes, that's a good idea. Thank you.
Correia: ...office that will be open beginning tomorrow.
Long: Sure, uh, Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator. The flood
recovery center will be open beginning tomorrow morning at 8:00 A.M.,
and it's going to be in the Lobby Conference Room, just right across the
hall here. It'll be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00
P.M., and Saturday, October 11th, from 10:00 to 2:00. Also the
information will be on our web site. It's www.icgov.org/recovery. That'll
be on shortly. Um, hopefully before midnight, right around next couple
hours, and we'll start taking applications. We'll have staff from various
departments available in the room right across the hall to answer any
questions, and feel free to also call, 356-5479.
Bailey: And a deadline for those applications, as required by the State, is?
Long: The 14th of October.
Bailey: Okay, so move quickly. Okay. Thank you, Steve. Thanks, Amy.
Correia: Could we have...we're talking about the business assistance as well.
Could we have Wendy...
Bailey: Wendy? Do you want to talk about the business assistance? Thanks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#9
Page 13
Ford: The information for the business assistance program will also be, uh,
turned on on the web site tonight, at some point. The, uh, applications, the
guidelines, and the list of energy-efficient equipment that are eligible for
the additional funds as well are on there. The deadline, however, for the
business assistance program is November 7t'' at 5:00 P.M. here. So there's
a little more leeway in that.
Bailey: Okay, thanks.
Correia: And would folks contact you directly with questions?
Ford: People, uh, I would direct people first to the flood recovery center,
because we have trained staff there to answer those questions, and if, uh,
one stumps them, then you'd come to my office and I'm happy to answer
those questions too.
Correia: Great, thanks.
Bailey: Thanks, Wendy.
Wright: Just again for folks that are watching, and maybe haven't got all the
information sitting right in front of them, the Jumpstart Iowa housing
money is about $700,000 and about a million and a half for Jumpstart
business.
Bailey: Okay. All right. Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: So moved.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye.
Motion carries. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#4
Page 14
ITEM 4. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Champion: Move adoption.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Wright: Just one point of discussion on, uh, Item 4.c.1. is an application for a new
Class E liquor license. Could we have an explanation exactly for
everybody so we know exactly what a Class E is? That's kind of a
combination of retail/wholesale, is that correct?
Karr: Class E, a license will allow, uh, selling of alcoholic beverages for off-
premises consumption.
Wright: Off-premises consumption - to individuals or to other establishments?
Karr: Uh, in accordance with State Law, yes.
Wright: Okay.
Bailey: Thanks, Marian. Further discussion? Role call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#5
Page 15
ITEM 5. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
[UNTIL 8 PM]
Bailey: This is a time for citizens to comment on items that are currently not on
this agenda. If you have a comment to make, please approach the podium,
state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or
less.
Clayton: Good evening. My name's Jim Clayton, 119 E. College. LTh, I'm here to
ask the Council to consider a revision in procedure. Tonight you approved
your Consent Calendar that included some renewals for, uh, liquor
licenses and also a new license, and there's really no time when there's
public comment available on that issue. I know the Police Department
does an investigation, the County Attorney does his work, the City Clerk
does her work, uh, I'm sure the City Attorney looks it over, uh, but at no
time are the citizens asked what they think of a renewal or the issuance of
anew license. I point specifically to the City of Des Moines that had a
license, uh, that the City refused to renew, based on complaints from
neighbors and citizens because they have a hearing process. Uh, it's just a
one-line item on the agenda, public comments on license renewals, and
from that, a liquor license went through the due process and ended up
being revoked. LTh, and the point I'm making is that the ball started
rolling with citizen input, so I would encourage you to consider that. And
then as another subject, on October 8th, which is Wednesday, at the
Davenport City Hall, the Alcoholic Beverage Commission is holding a
public forum on nuisance and problem liquor licenses. We held one last
month in Des Moines, and it was attended by about 70 people, law
enforcement, bar owners, liquor store owners, citizens. Uh, it's an open
forum. We're going to do another one in Council Bluffs in November.
Uh, I think our City Manager's office received a notice of this and our
Police Department's aware of it, but you're all welcome to attend, and any
members of the public that would like to come and put input. Our goal is
to develop strategies that we can present to the Legislature from the
Beverage Commission and Beverage Division to address this problem,
which is statewide.
Bailey: Thank you, Jim. Others wishing to comment?
Cohen: I'm Leah Cohen with Bo-James, downtown Iowa City, and I'm just here
to talk briefly again on your discussion, I believe, October 20th is a
discussion, unless that's changed. Is that correct yet, October 20th, for the
discussion on alcohol issues, um, that is coming up, and I just wanted to,
um, kind of go through a few items that I think are pretty essential at this
point for the Council to look at, and I'm hoping that you will take the time
to address this alcohol issue now. Um, in the past we've kind of gone
through things and it seems like everything gets watered down and rushed
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#5
Page 16
along, and things happen or don't happen, um, as thoroughly as need be,
and I'm hoping that the Council can take the time this time to really sit
down and see what can we do as a community to bring this issue forward,
to handle it so that it just doesn't keep coming up again and again and
again. Um, I am glad to hear that, uh, Jim with the alcohol commission in
Des Moines that they are doing some things and looking at what the State
can do, um, to put more back to you. Um, to give you more authority at a
local level, rather than just keeping it at that level, with what we're
looking at. But, I wanted to kind of go through my suggestions. I will be,
um, putting in the packet again another suggestion list before October 20th
um, after working with this alcohol issue and alcohol board for a long time
now, I think I have a good grasp of what's going on, and seeing where we
need to have some correction in regards to where we're at. Um, so again,
the big thing that came forward now are these hard alcohol drinks that are
being served in large pitchers, fishbowls, whatever it maybe. My
suggestion to Council is that we limit the size of the containers that hard
liquor can go in. So, um, in particular, I think a pint glass, which is a
double, is probably the appropriate container for that. That's something
that Council could do very easily. It can be added on to an ordinance. It
will help to eliminate the excessive amounts of alcohol that are going into
containers downtown right now. Um, another issue that I had, um,
brought forth was, um, disallowing drinking when you are involved in
serving alcohol, or working in an establishment that is. Um, I don't know
that Council is aware, but there are a lot of establishments that allow their
staff to drink. I think it's inappropriate. I think a lot of the times when
we've had, um, problems with bouncers being overaggressive, those sorts
of things, usually are because the staff has been drinking alcohol also.
Um, I would like to see either a zero tolerance on that, period, or a .8
which is in accordance with drunk driving, so that would limit pretty much
whether you could be drinking when you're working. Um, another thing
that goes on downtown that I had brought up was, um, hard alcohol bottles
going to the table. It's called table service, and this is, um, actually was
kind of fought in Des Moines a little bit when this was first started,
because we've always had wine at the table. So hard liquor is allowed at
the tables. We have no law that limits it at the state level. The problem
being, you have minors in establishments and you have bottles going to
tables. You can imagine how that is used. Um, my suggestion on that
would that if you're going to have any type of bottle service outside of
wine that it is contained to establishments that are over 21 only on it. Um,
we have a liquor exception for 19, um, or under 19, that goes on in the city
that, um, limits 19, or under 19 after 10:00 at night. That exception is
being given to lots of places that should not have it, that are actually bars
at night that do let minors in at night. New establishments that do that, so
I think it needs to be closely looked at, and um, basically I think if you're
a bar at night that you probably should have no exception unless you're a
bowling alley, I suppose, something along that line. Um, we can get into
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#5 Page 17
specials, what we can do on specials, and I know we're limited by the law
on that a lot. We could get into no under cost specials, is something that's
been suggested. Um, I had talked a little bit about the person, the capacity
person on the Fire Department that is, um, in charge of that. We did have
capacity checks again this last weekend, which was a real slow weekend
so it wasn't a great time for capacity checks, but...but it was done. Um, I
would like to see us develop expectations and what those are with the
Council in regards to that area. Um, I would also like to see that in
regards to the Fire Department, you know, compliance checks...or, I
mean, I keep saying fire...Police Department compliance checks and how
many times a year those are required, those sorts of things. If it's a matter
of money, we need to look at that money and where that is and where it
can come from. Am I close on time? Okay (both talking) okay. So,
basically again, what I'm getting to is taking the time to look at all this, so
that we can kind of take back what's going on with our city and make our
decisions accordingly. Thank you.
Bailey: Thanks, Leah. Other comments?
Gravitt: My com...my name is Mary Gravitt. My comment is not on alcohol. My
comment is on housing. An acquaintance of mine, uh, came and told me, I
was at a meeting of Intellectual Freedom and I met Councilman Wright
there, that Capitol House in the year 20...2010 is disassociating itself from
HUD. Now, I know private property trumps human rights, but what is
going to happen to those elderly people, and my friend was elderly and
I'm old myself, and I hate to see old people frightened but she was
frightened. She has...where can she go? Ecumenical Towers is most of
the time it's full, and the other house on the other side of the Press-Citizen
building is...is full. So I was talking to Councilman Wright about it, and
he told me about the empty lot where St. Pat's was is going to be built, and
that there would be low house...low-income housing pushed through by
the Zoning Board, if possible. I don't know if I'm misquoting you or not,
Councilman Wright. But...but there has to be something done for the
senior citizens. They've been there, and that's private housing, but the
City has to do something. And the second thing I want to talk about is
access to the bathrooms in the Iowa City Public Library. It's a wonderful
library, I go there six days a week, but a person in a wheelchair cannot get
into the bathrooms because there's no automatic door opening. In other
words, every place else, even to get into this room, there's an automatic
door opener, where you press and the door will open. Unless you have
extraordinary upper body strength, and if you're in a wheelchair, when
you pull that door it is going to lift you out of that chair. And this has
been going on ever since the new building has been built, even one
employee at the Library says she has to have someone to open the snack
bar door. So, you have excellent facilities there, but if you can't use `em,
what good are they? So, I'm interested in housing, of elderly being treated
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#5 Page 18
fairly, something being done about Capitol House, and that building that's
going to be built next door to it, and some access into, for the handicap,
even myself, that's why I like young people. I know they get drunk and
carry on, but they will open the door forme. And hold the door open for
me, so that's all I want to say.
Bailey: Thank you, Mary.
Wright: Thank you.
Bailey: Other comments? Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 19
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
b) AMENDING ARTICLE 14-SB, SIGN REGULATIONS,
ARTICLE 14-9C, SIGN DEFINITIONS, SECTION 14-4B-1, MINOR
MODIFICATIONS, AND ARTICLE 14-3C DESIGN REVIEW, TO
ALLOW LIMITED USE OF FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE
CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE, ADD A
DEFINITION AND STANDARDS FOR ENTRANCEWAY SIGNS,
AND CLARIFY REGULATIONS REGARDING SIGNS ON
RENTAL PROPERTIES.
1. PUBLIC HEARING (DEFERRED FROM 9/23)
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open, and we'll
first hear from staff.
Davidson: Good evening, Madame Mayor, Members of the City Council, I'm Jeff
Davidson, Planning Director. Uh, Item B on your agenda is, uh, a little bit
of housekeeping with the sign code that we have. We have two items,
which I'll go through briefly that have just been things that have been
brought to our attention in need of slight adjustments in the sign code.
And then the final item is a, uh, request from the Northside Neighborhood
Association to address a matter specifically, and I'll go through these
briefly. The first item, and I by the way, I apologize ahead of time. We'll
be reviewing these slides together for the first time (laughter) as they were
prepared and I have not had a chance to run through them in order. So it'll
be a surprise for all of us. Uh, the first item pertains to free-standing signs
in the CB-2 zone, um, the situation here is, there's very little CB-2 zoning
left. Most of it has been supplanted by CB-5 zoning, which we have
basically determined is a better model for what we expect to see in the
support zone around the downtown. There is just a little bit of CB-2 left in
the Northside Marketplace vicinity, and actually, this block right over
here, um, to the east of New Pioneer, remains with the CB-2 zoning. Um,
eventually we do not anticipate there will be any CB-2 zoning. It is a sort
of antiquated downtown support zone. Uh, that being said, there was an
item that was brought to our attention pertaining to the Russ', well,
formally Russ' Amoco property. It's now just a car repair place. There's
no longer the Amoco, uh, franchise there, and the owner desired to
basically took the head off the free-standing sign that said Amoco and
desired to put one up that, uh, advertised the car repair business. Free-
standing signs are prohibited in CB-2 zone, um, we researched the other
possibilities for the property with the property owner. There really wasn't
another good opportunity there. Essentially what we did when we revised
the...the zoning code recently was say that in the CB-2 zone, if you cannot
affix a sign to the building, you should use a monument sign. Well, for
this particular property, a monument sign won't work. They're basically
replacing the free-standing, the head on the free-standing sign is the only
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 20
option open to this person. So what we are suggesting is that through the
minor modification process, an amendment be made that in the CB-2
zone, and it would apply to all properties, of which there are very few, but
it would apply to all properties, be allowed through the minor modification
process to modify an existing free-standing sign, and I will be happy to go
through the minor modification process if you would like.
Correia: I would say the new sign does look nice (mumbled).
Davidson: Okay, I wasn't going to bring up that the sign is in place, and the
gentleman had realized that subject to your action, he may have to take the
sign down. (laughter)
Champion: No, I think it's very accommodating to make sure their business is able to
advertise what they do.
Wright: And this would be subject to staff review in any case, correct, Jeff?
Davidson: Yes, the department...the Department on Housing and Inspection Services
are the ones that review through the minor modification process.
Champion: I don't have any problems with it.
Davidson: Uh, the second modification is to what are called entranceway signs, and
this is the particular sign that was, uh, brought to our attention. Uh, these
types of signs, again, are not currently allowed in the CB-10 zone, and of
course, the first thing you see here, and I think those of you who went
through the process of approvals with the Plaza Towers knows that there
was small parking lot...surface parking lots are not allowed in the CB-10
zone. In this particular case in conjunction with the grocery store element,
there was a small parking lot for the grocery store, which has now become
the Bread Garden, um, that...with a lot of restrictions on it was allowed to
be established there. The desire is to allow an entranceway sign, like this,
for the very small amount of situations that we may eventually have. We
do feel like there are, you know, we did actually locate a few, that's the
side of it...there are a few others of these in town. Here's two examples
that we were able to locate of entranceway signs. Not in the, uh, CB-10
zone, but...but nonetheless, we thought it was reasonable to allow, uh,
these types of signs under, uh, with certain standards attached to them, and
again, I will be happy to review those standards with you, if you would
like. Does anyone desire that? Okay. This would basically allow this
sign, again, this sign was erected, uh, by the business owner, knowing that
it would require this amendment to be put in place. The final item then are
signs, uh, basically what appear to be, uh, commercial leasing signs on
single-family and duplex buildings in the Northside Neighborhood, was
brought to our attention by the Northside Neighborhood Association.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 21
Here's an example. I think there may be a couple of others...these are
basically examples of the signs that, uh, that the Northside Neighborhood
feels is detracting from the residential character, uh, of the neighborhood.
That's a close up of the one that was just shown. Um, and what we...what
we are suggesting, and... and the situation seems to be that these are not
actually rental signs for the buildings on which they are affixed, and in
fact, we called a couple of them and found out that the building on which
these signs were affixed were leased for the entire year. Um, but, that they
had other properties available. And that is what, of course, they were
hoping to...to interest a perspective renter in. Um, in investigating this
further, there's a lot of gray area in terms of our ability to enforce the
existing sign regulations, uh, in terms of...of restricting these, and so what
we are proposing to do is make a couple of amendments to the, um, sign
code and then change some of the definitions that will then make more
clearly, make these signs not legal, and allow HIS to enforce them then.
And I just want to real quickly run through these. A residential leasing
company sign will be defined, if this amendment is approved, will be
defined as, um, a sign affixed...a sign only allowed on multi-family
buildings or buildings that contain eight or more dwelling units, up to one
sign allowed per building, and must be located no more than ten feet
above grade. There's also a small identification sign that would be
allowed, uh, if the building didn't have one of the signs that I just
described. And then the other one I...that I just want to very quickly say,
because I think it's important, a real estate sign will be defined as a, um, a
non-illuminated sign, principle building that is for sale, rent, or lease. So
it has to be on the property that is for sale, or lease. It will be allowed as a
temporary sign located in the yard or the window. The sign cannot be
affixed to building fences, flagpoles, or other permanent structures. Um,
must be attached to the building or unit for which the sign is intended.
Uh, for residential properties, real estate signs may be displayed no more
than four months prior to a building or unit in a building becoming
available for rent or lease, and you have some, uh, correspondence, uh, in
with the staff report in your materials, indicating...and you may get some
comments during the hearing tonight, and that...that's up to your
discretion, should it be four months? Should it be eight months? The
purpose here is to restrict signs in residential zones. I mean, that's the
purpose of this whole chapter. You have at your discretion exactly what
those restrictions will be. The amendments then will be to define those
definitions I just gave you, uh, amend the provision that states only one
real estate sign allowed per lot, to only one real estate sign allowed per
building, that is for sale, rent or lease. So clarifying that the sign is for the
building that's for sale, rent or lease. Um, any questions? I think you get
the idea of what's being proposed here. It...it basically would clarify
things, such that those signs that I just showed you would not be legal.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 22
Wright: And, Jeff, it's my understanding that the language was existing in the
current, um, sign regulations was intended to cover this situation, was
thought to cover this situation, but upon examination it did not.
Davidson: Staff did not feel...let's put it this way, Mike, that...there could be clarity
added to it to make the enforcement more...
Wright: So this is basically clarifying...
Davidson: Right.
Wright: ...the regulations (mumbled)
Davidson: We don't feel like they're legal signs now, but we feel like we should
clarify the regulation.
O'Donnell: Jeff, I agree that the sign should be in front of the place with a vacancy
only. I think that's good, but how did we determine that eight was the
number?
Davidson: Uh (several talking) again, that went through the legislative process at the
Planning and Zoning Commission, Mike. I wasn't at those meetings. I
can certainly find out, either if you wish to defer first consideration, I can
find that out, or at the very least, before second consideration I can get that
information.
O'Donnell: Well, if you have asix-plea, obviously you...if you have a vacancy, you
have to advertise and get it rented, so I'm wondering how we determined
that eight was the number.
Davidson: I will find out how eight was arrived at.
Wright: It's for, eight in amulti-family zone. Correct, Jef?
Davidson: That's correct.
Wright: Yeah, not a...not in RS-5 and RS-8.
O'Donnell: Well, but in the multi-family you can have asix-plex also.
Wright: Yeah.
Champion: Yeah, but you can put it in the yard, right? (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 23
Wright: I think the point though, and...in the multi-family zones is that the, there
typically isn't the residential character that's the concern with the other
signs.
Champion: Right, right.
Correia: ...some clarification based on issues that came up in the correspondence.
So, is there...if a...if there remains an opening, so in a home that's being
rented, is there a time limit on how long you can keep a sign advertising
that it's open?
Davidson: They're supposed to be removed after it's rented.
Correia: After it's rented, but if...so, the...the current, what we're being presented,
says you can't put it more than four months prior to the opening, so if the
opening is September 1St, you can, you know, four months out you can
start to advertise it. You can continue to advertise it until it's filled. So
there's no, can only advertise it for...so you can advertise it until it's filled
and then take it down 48 hours after you've filled that, is that.. .
Davidson: Yeah, it must be, I'm just going to read right from the definition.. .
Correia: Because I think there's some...
Davidson: Must be removed within 48 hours of the building or unit be sold, rented or
leased.
Correia: Right. Okay. And then the other question was, there is some
correspondence from, um, the Vice President of the Greater Iowa City
Area Apartment Association, um, related to the issue where they had signs
in the yard. They kept getting stolen, that they can put the signs in the
window. They just can't fix it to the...
Davidson: Yeah, yeah, and that's, I mean, just to be fair, it was brought up that
frequently the windows are units in the building, typically, unless you
happen to have an entryway or something like that. So that, and you may
hear some of those comments this evening as well. I mean, that was
determined to be a little bit problematic in...in terms of the signs being
stole out of the yard, and the windows of the building not really being
available, but nonetheless, what you see before you is what came out of a
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Correia: And then I have one last thing. There was correspondence from, um,
Northside Book Market...Book Market. How does this sign, I understand
their.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 24
Davidson: I'm sorry. Could you say briefly what.. .
Correia: The...it just says regard...(several talking)...
Bailey: If you had a business in your home, I'm assuming, is what he's...
Correia: Yeah, such...currently affixed commercial real estate signs be limited to
the same total square...I don't even know, as for true cottage industry... at
home businesses, I mean, do we have...does this ordinance affect
Northside Book Market's ability to....
Davidson: I believe that's in a commercial zone. So that would not fall under what
we're trying to do here. (several talking)
Wright: Subject to the restrictions, couldn't...if a home business was allowed in a
particular zone, could that not, uh, qualify for an identification sign?
Davidson: Yeah, that's a good point, Michael. Let me see that definition here. Um,
yeah, identification sign is defined as a sign displaying the name, address,
crest, insignia trademark, um, so yes, I believe that is the case, and I don't
pretend to be an expert on the sign code, but in a...you were talking about
a home occupation in a residential zone.
Wright: Correct.
Davidson: That's getting into a nuance that I don't want to try and represent to you
here.
Champion: I'd like...can you find out about that? I don't think you can put a sign in a
business you run out of your home, in a residential neighborhood. I...I
know several people who have small businesses at home. They don't have
any sign (mumbled)
Davidson: I can find that out.
Champion: It'd be good to know.
Correia: Yeah, because even on Jefferson Street, that block between Gilbert and
Johnson or Van Buren, like the G-Spot's there, that...is that...(several
talking) whole area's commercial really? Okay. Seems like there's
residential.
Davidson: Any other questions about the three proposed amendments?
Bailey: Okay. Comments? This is a public hearing, so I would invite comments
from the public.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 25
Pascoe: Hi, I'm Judith Pascoe, the Coordinator for the Northside Neighborhood
Association. We appreciate this clarification of the spirit and intent of the
original sign code, which is aimed at preventing visual clutter, and at
preventing the commercialization of residential neighborhoods. People
who actually live in the parts of the city most affected by the proliferation
of permanent signs; people who walk their dogs, tend their gardens, talk to
their neighbors, take their children to school, gaze out their windows, and
organize community events -these signs represent a form of
neighborhood defacement. Students who live in rental properties should
not have their homes labeled with company advertisements, and elderly
shut-ins who live across from these properties should not be forced to have
business signs constantly in view. The Northside Neighborhood
Association welcomes all newcomers to the neighborhood, and so we have
no problem with temporary signs, used to advertise houses or apartments,
that are actually for rent or for sale. The sign code clarification does not
stop property managers from advertising available properties, but it does
stop them from using neighborhoods as permanent billboards. We're
grateful to the Planning staff, the Housing Inspection staff, and the City
Attorney's office for grappling with points of confusion in the sign code,
and we hope you'll support their work by approving this code
clarification, which received unanimous approval of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Thanks very much.
Bailey: Thank you, Judith.
McLaughlin: My name's Mike McLaughlin, uh, just couple items, uh, in regards to, I
think primarily the limitation restriction of signs on rental properties. Um,
in all those pictures, I know essentially what zones those properties are in,
and those all shown would be in what is considered multi-family zone,
which would be your RM zones, um, R...I think R and 5-20 is also
included as considered amulti-family zone in this proposal. Uh, PRM,
um, I think pretty well covers the zones that are under consideration.
Now, uh, the concern I have in those zones, uh, since they are deemed for
multi-family, uh, use, uh, as the town as evolved or grown from what was
primarily a fairly close-knit, uh, probably near downtown family, uh,
center decades ago, now is obviously gone over, gone through quite a few
changes, and uh, you still have however a mixture of, uh, some what
would have been single-family, um, homes, you know, nearby or
alongside apartment complexes, uh, which were at one time single-family,
uh, or possibly even duplex homes that were, uh, developed, and so it's, I
wouldn't say a real clear picture where, you know, there's only going to
be apartment buildings in, you know, in amulti-family zone. You still
have somewhat of a mix, and um, I think as people have developed those
areas, you know, they've done it to what the City code allowed at that
time, uh, primarily which is restricted based upon your lot size and what
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 26
parking availability you had, um, my concern is that, uh, given, uh, the
possibility of, uh, multi-family building that has eight units or more to be
allowed to have a permanently affixed sign, uh, year-round, next to maybe
what is also amulti-family structure, whether it be apartment-style or if it
was a converted house or whatever you have, uh, really does provide a
bias or a, uh, you know, a competitive advantage to a larger building.
And, um, even though, you know, both structures when they were
constructed and, you know, planning came to develop them, both
complied with the codes at that time, did everything that was legal, etc.,
but given this proposal would build in an advantage to a unit, uh, based on
eight units or more, and in a somewhat, I guess, arbitrary, uh, idea, um,
and part of that idea...I don't remember Iowa City Area Apartment
Association became aware a little bit, uh, this proposal, a little bit more in-
depth. I haven't seen a complete, entire, uh, proposal, but um, we had a
presentation from, um, Doug Boothroy and, um, Norm Cate, I think it was
last Tuesday, and I think some of the idea behind the number of eight units
or more was that there, the staff just felt that it was a possibility of more
vacancies, uh, with that number of units or more, um, there are other
considerations that create a vacancies, um, other than just the sheer
number, uh, again, my concern is, given a somewhat arbitrary figure of
eight, uh, in the same zones can provide competitive advantage for the
larger units, and in most instances, larger operators than, uh, you know
smaller operators or a building that has fewer... fewer units than eight.
iJh, my belief is, if you're in amulti-family zone, and you have a multi-
family structure, then everybody should be permitted to have a permanent
sign year-round, or nobody should be permitted. And quite honestly, I'd
be...I'd be pleased either way really. I'm not necessarily promoting that,
uh, everybody be allowed a sign, but I think it should be fair, and if it's
deemed that, um, you know, there'd be a bias by allowing the building to
be...a sign, then, you know, let's just not allow anybody to have a sign.
Uh, the other...the other item, um, I guess that I have concerns with is the
timing, uh, I think they're suggesting that, uh, any rental properties can
have a sign in front of their yard for a period of...up to four months prior
to vacancy. Um, in the near-downtown area, I wouldn't necessarily say
the Central Planning District, but in the immediate downtown area,
generally, uh, a lot of, uh, people are searching as much as up to seven,
eight months in advance of the, uh, move-in date, which the large move-in
date in this town is August 1St. So, uh, January is quite common where
people start looking for a place to live for the following August, and this,
uh, you know, this proposal says you can limit it to four, uh, four months
in advance, which would be, I believe, April, uh, there's a significant
market that's looking in January and my concern is that, uh, it's going to
overwhelm the City staff with complaints if you set the figure only four
months in advance, because people are going to need to get things rented
when, uh, tenants are looking to...to sign leases, and um, if that's January
and February, perhaps you look at allowing atwo-month period of time in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 27
January and February, and then maybe another two or three month period
for May-June, and possibly July, just so that it's more compatible with
when the market's searching for property to lease, and also in
consideration of staff, because if all of a sudden they get a ton of
complaints about January sign rentals, you know, for...advertising for
places, and a significant amount of the market's looking at that time,
there's going to be overwhelmed with complaint calls, and they're already
pretty well stretched out with their work load, particularly with, uh, taking
a lot of the single-family and duplex rental permits from what was three,
every three years, now down to every two years. So essentially rental
property in Iowa City is now on a two-year, uh, rental permit cycle, um,
that, you know, again, their staff...staffing is, uh, fairly overloaded with
work, and I think this'll, you know, this, uh, if it's ill-timed, uh, is going to
just add to that work load.
Bailey: Thank you.
McLaughlin: Thank you.
Wright: Mike, just a quick question.
McLaughlin: You bet.
Wright: Um, when do you usually contact your tenants to see about resigning the
leases?
McLaughlin: LJh, I send out a letter, um, try to get it out by November 1St, as far as
current tenants, and let them know that, you know, this is what I'm going
to propose rent to be for, which'll be the following August, so example
would be around November 1St...08 for August of 09, and I try to give
them a month, uh, to make up their mind because I actually do have
people that want to try and settle and find something before they go away
for holiday break. So it's...I really haven't gone to the extent, I don't
think, uh, of putting signs in yards in December, but it's pretty common
where you'll see quite a few signs showing up, you know, right after the
first of January or second week in January. So, and I know people do
come back into town in...and I'm speaking predominantly of students, but
30,000 students population in this town, it does bear a significant amount
of the market. Um, some people do come back in town about a week early
from the holiday break to start working on looking for a place for next, uh,
for next August.
Champion: But when you have a sign, you're really just in front of one structure. 1
would think when people are looking for apartments there must be some
better way to (mumbled) than one sign in one place. I mean, I would
think.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 28
Bailey: Well, let's not engage in a lot of conversation. Let's hear other comments,
um, to the public hearing. That's something that we can discuss in our
discussion. Other members who would like to speak at the public
hearing? Thanks, Mike.
Futrell: My name is Sue Futrell and I live at 311 Fairchild, um, which is in the
neighborhood that's affected by this ordinance, and I spoke in front of the
Planning and Zoning Commission in support of it, and just want to
encourage the Council to, um, act on the advice of staff, and again, I think
it's really the permanent advertising in general for rental units, um, not the
sign that's in the yard or, um, the window of a place that's actually for
rent, um, you know, somewhat ahead of time. That's a concern, and our
neighborhood listening to the problems of the people in the flood area kind
of makes this seem in some ways minor, but um, I would encourage the
Council to think about this as a actually very cost-free or low-cost way of
sending a signal to property owners, and also to tenants and people who
pass through the neighborhood, about, um, wanting to retain it as a mixed
single-family, rental, um, neighborhood and one that has a residential
character to it. So, thank you for considering this, and I hope you'll
support it. Thanks.
Bailey: Thank you. Others wishing to comment? Okay. Public hearing is closed.
(bangs gavel)
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wright: So moved.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye.
Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Do we have a motion on the
floor... first consideration?
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Correia: Move to...amend Article 14-SB Sign Regulations.
Bailey: Okay, moved by Correia for first consideration.
Champion: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Champion: I like the idea of no permanent signs on buildings.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
O'Donnell: I do too! (laughter)
Page 29
Champion: I think there is a competitive edge, if you're by a smaller apartment
building. I think they're really gross. I mean, I think, why should
(coughing on mic, unable to hear) and I agree that it's kind of
neighborhood pollution to have signs everywhere, and I'm certainly going
to vote for the ordinance as amended, but I'd like to amend it further that
we don't allow any permanent signs.
O'Donnell: Well, in the name of fairness.
Champion: Right, exactly!
Bailey: So you're speaking specifically of the residential leasing company signs,
um, that are allowed on, um, multi-family buildings that contain eight or
more dwelling units, is that...am I in...is that what I'm hearing?
Champion: How will they identify themselves?
Correia: Well, I mean, they could have, no...for example, Pheasant Ridge
Apartments has a sign saying "Pheasant Ridge Apartments" and there's a
phone number to call the management office.
Champion: Oh. Yeah, they could do that.
Wright: Not if you (several talking) well I would say a number of these apartment
buildings have had those, have had these signs -the big apartment
buildings have had these signs on `em already for years. Probably
illegally. But nobody's ever really talked about it at this point. There are
apartments on east College Street, that's not amulti-family zone, um, that
have had...some of the big buildings have had signs on `em for a long,
long time, so...
Champion: Well, ifit's amulti-family building, and it has the name of the owner or
the rental agency with a telephone number.. .
Wright: Apartments Downtown, 2-3-4-5 bedrooms, 354-12 whatever it happens to
be. That's the type of sign they're talking about.
Correia: The Pheasant Ridge sign says the same thing.
Bailey: And these would be allowed, on...for eight units or more. Correct?
Wright: In amulti-family zone.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 30
O'Donnell: An eight-unit can have a permanent sign.
Dilkes: If they're in an RM-12, RM-20, RMS-20, or RM-44 PRM zone.
Bailey: Right.
Correia: But I think, it seems to me that part of the purpose of this is to protect the
residential character of...of mixed neighborhoods with mixed housing. I
mean, it seems to me when you think about it that having these
permanently affixed signs are kind of free billboards, sort of, on, um, you
know, structures that you wouldn't expect to have them, and I mean, I do
think in this age, maybe some students drive around neighborhoods. I
mean, when I was a student looking for housing, I looked in the paper and
I'm sure most of them look on the Internet now, and I think that...there are
plenty of ways that students can find out...it is a very competitive market,
um, but I don't really think we need to protect...
Wright: Yeah, I think Craig's List and those are common now for people looking
for rentals, um...
Correia: Try Facebook maybe.
Wright: You know, there's another downside to these permanently affixed signs in
the single-family residential neighborhoods, is that they can also serve to
steer people away. I've...anecdotally heard of realtors who will steer
potential clients away from a home next to one that's got one of these
permanently affixed signs.
Champion: That's not what we're talking about. We're, I mean, we all support in the
neighborhoods, I mean, but my point is that if you're at a large zone, RM-
20, Idon't know what they're called. I should, but I don't. Um, that if
you have a 12-plex there you can have a permanent sign, but in that same
zone, if you have asix-plea you can't have a permanent sign. So my
whole point is I think that it's a fairness issue.
Bailey: That's correct. I mean, that's how it would be, and that's how it is,
actually, now. Correct?
Dilkes: These residential...this...
Bailey: It's not highlighted as a change.
Dilkes: Well, this is allowing that type of sign.
Bailey: Right. Maybe I'm (mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 31
Champion: I'm just going to find out where people stand. I'm going to, my
amendment's on the floor to eliminate all permanently attached signs.
Correia: I'd need more information before I would consider supporting that
amendment.
Champion: Okay, so that's not going to fly. (laughter)
Bailey: Well, it seems to me what I heard is (several talking) is that the intent, the
intent of, um, our sign ordinance in the first place, um, was to address
some of these issues and it was not clear, and the Northside Neighborhood
brought forth some complaints and it was difficult to...to um, enforce our
sign ordinance, and that's why some of these, um, changes are in front of
us now.
Correia: So this is first consideration. Could we get more information on why eight
unit, you know, for the next, for our next...
Davidson: Yeah, the two questions that were raised, I will have answers at your next
meeting.
Correia: Okay, great.
Wilburn: Please restate the motion on the floor.
Bailey: Um, the motion is first consideration of, um, this amendment, as presented
to you.
Karr: And there was no second to Connie's?
Bailey: There's no second to Connie's change of striking, uh, residential leasing
company signs in these zones. (unable to hear person in audience) Sure,
Judith. Uh, you're going to have to step to the microphone, or it doesn't
really.. .
Pascoe: Sorry, Judith Pascoe, um, when we originally brought this forward, um,
we were in favor of...I totally support Ms. Champion's, uh, comment
because we were in favor of getting rid of all signs, because to me, if
you're in one zone, why should you have to look at sign clutter if you
don't have to look out at another zone? But I think what, how that got
introduced, we did not say, you know, get rid of `em here but not there,
but I think it got introduced as a kind of compromise, that they thought
this would be more feasible to, uh, property, you know, to property
managers. So the original intent when we brought it forward was like we
just think signs are a bad thing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 32
Wright: I truly would second Connie's amendment.
Bailey: Connie's amendment isn't on the floor any longer. (several talking)
Wright: When did it go away?
Champion: When it didn't get a second. (several talking and laughing)
Bailey: When you didn't second it.
Wright: Well, Amy spoke and then I said I would second it, so...
Champion: Right.
Hayek: If we pass first consideration tonight, and get new information at the next
consideration...
Bailey: Then we would start over for first consideration....
Dilkes: If it's a substantial change, then that...we would make it first
consideration the next time.
Bailey: This would be a substantial change. So, how would you like to move
forward, Council? `Cause I'd like to move forward.
Champion: Move forward.
Bailey: Okay. So, as presented tonight is what is on the floor. Further discussion?
Wright: ...more information next time.
Hayek: Can we go on to other discussion on items unrelated to Connie's
suggestion?
Bailey: Oh, absolutely!
Hayek: Related to this (laughter and several talking)
Bailey: Please, let's have it related to this agenda item (laughter).
Hayek: No, I think, uh, I'm sympathetic to the concerns about only having afour-
month window for rental signs out there, and I'd be interested in hearing
what others think about extending that an extra month, or two, or three.
Bailey: I think I concur with Amy's comments, that, um, if we are to assume that a
sign in a yard is the only way that these places are advertising, I think that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 33
that's rather limited. I'm sure that they're advertising in some other ways.
And so, it certainly is, from my perspective, ample opportunity to
advertise a vacancy, and I'm hoping that they will avail themselves to the
other technologies.
Hayek: Although I think that that dovetails right back into the concern about
permanent signs on the larger buildings. You've got an advantage if
you've got that sign year-round, and the guys who rent out asingle-family
house can only put up a temporary sign for four months. (several
responding)
O'Donnell: ...about the four-month window there. You know, and I do believe that a
building was never intended to be a billboard, and that is disturbing. I
wouldn't like to live next to it, but I keep going back to a fairness issue,
and I do believe when the building is full the sign comes down. So I could
go along with that.
Bailey: So would somebody like to reintroduce this amendment, and maybe we'll
move along on that?
Wright: I would move that we strike all permanently affixed signs on rental
properties.
Champion: I second that.
Bailey: Okay. I want to clarify. Are you talking about residential leasing
company signs?
Dilkes: Yeah, let's don't talk about all permanently affixed...
Wright: Okay.
Dilkes: I mean, I can't even (several talking and laughing)
Bailey: I'm looking at page SB-10 of our (several talking). That's my
assumption...ofthe ordinance. (several talking) In RM-12, RM-20,
RMS-20, RM-44 and PRM, the one that Eleanor just mentioned. Are we
on the...I'm on SB-10, of the sign regulations.
Wright: I would move to prohibit permanently affixed residential leasing company
signs in RM-12, RM-20, RNIS-20, RM-44, PRM zones.
Champion: And I second that.
Bailey: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 34
Correia: I'm sorry. Can you say it again? Just trying to find where I am...where
we are.
Bailey: Okay. So, Wright has moved that the amendment to the motion on the, or
the amended article, is to strike residential leasing company signs in RM-
12, RM-20, RMS-20, RM-44, and PRM.
Wright: Nobody would have a permanently affixed (several talking)
Correia: So this is my question. So, and I'll just use this just `cause I know
this...this, um, housing complex. So for Pheasant Ridge Apartments that
has a sign saying "Pheasant Ridge Apartments," advertising that it's the
Pheasant Ridge Apartments, but then it also does say 1-2-3-4 bedroom and
the phone number. That would be disallowed?
Bailey: Is that a monument sign or a building sign?
Correia: So it's not...affixed to a building.
Bailey: Yes, this sign be a building sign.
Correia: No, it's a monument sign. Okay, so...it wouldn't apply.
Bailey: Okay. Further discussion on the amendment on the floor?
Correia: ...monument signs then?
Wright: I couldn't hear you.
Correia: I'm wondering if an unintended consequence...
Dilkes: Go ahead.
Correia: I'm just wondering, well, that's...
Dilkes: The residential leasing company signs is a new sign, with this ordinance.
Those affixed signs that you saw, fixed to the building with the www.such
and so.
Bailey: So we would see in these zones, we would see nothing affixed of that
www if we eliminated this new part of residential leasing company signs?
Dilkes: You know, when it comes to the sign ordinance, I hate to say nothing.
You'd have to have HIS to tell you for sure, but generally I think so, yes.
O'Donnell: Can we defer this?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 35
Dilkes: Here's what (several talking)
Bailey: We could vote on first consideration of it as presented, or we could defer
to get more information, because we're interested in pursuing this.
Wright: We also have an amendment that hasn't...
Bailey: Yes, we will vote on, no, seconded by Champion. (several talking)
O'Donnell: You can have a sign affixed, as long as you have a vacancy in the
building, is that right?
Wright: You can't affix it at all (several talking).
O'Donnell: It's gotta be in the yard?
Dilkes: It's in the yard or in the window. There are a number...what I would
suggest is you get the information.. .
Correia: ...back to the Planning and Zoning for that piece of it.
O'Donnell: I do too.
Champion: What do you need?
Correia: I just think, I mean, there's a lot of information that I would want to have,
and want to have people, other people besides us up here tonight
discussing it and getting an opinion. HIS, other staff, Planning and
Zoning.
Bailey: What do you, what information do you need to make this decision, so we
can be very specific when we get these other people in the room?
Correia: How...what the extent of...of the impact. Does this mean we're going to
have...so along Gilbert Street, all those big apartment, I mean, that whole
big complex, are we going to have all sorts of little yard signs that are
going to get trashed in the street, every weekend, because they can't affix
on a...(several talking and laughing)
Davidson: I was going to try and get back to the...the amendment that was on the
floor and I think what's...what is being recommended to you by the
Planning and Zoning Commission here is to allow these signs, in multi-
family zones, and not allow them in single-family zones. What's being
proposed by the amendment is to eliminate them entirely.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Bailey: Right.
Davidson:
Bailey:
Correia:
Page 36
So, in terms of your considering that amendment, I...I think that sort of
breaks it down to its basic...what's under consideration.
Got ya!
Okay.
Champion: The other thing is, or...it is a fairness issue as far as I'm concerned, plus I
hate sign pollution, but it is a fairness issue also. Why the eight-plex if the
six-plea can't have it, so maybe if you could amend your...that in RS-20,
they can put them on multi-family structures. I don't know.
Dilkes: I think you need...I think you need more information. Um, one of the
ways to change this would be to only...get rid of the eight units.
Bailey: Yes.
Dilkes: And just allow those in the higher-density zones. So in other words
maybe just RM-20, RMS-20, etc., getting rid of RM-12. And then you'd
have...you'd take care of the fairness issue. But I don't have enough
information as I sit here today to tell you what...what zone is an RM-12
zone, what zone is an RS...RM-20 zone, and whether you've got eight
units or six units or whatever in those zones.
Davidson: And you may have a building that has fewer units than eight in one of the
higher density zones. I mean, that is possible.
Champion: Right, and then they could have a sign.
Davidson: Not if it was fewer than eight units.
Champion: That's what I'm saying.
Dilkes: That's what I'm saying is you might simply say, okay, in those high
density, really high-density zones, you can have these signs. In the other
zones you can't have the signs. I'm just telling you, I don't think you
have enough information as you're sitting here today to make that
decision.
Champion: Can you amend your amendment to that? (laughter)
O'Donnell: That we don't have enough information?
Correia: So can we vote on this amendment?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 37
Champion: RS-20 and RS-44, what'd you say? Twenty and forty-four and what?
Wright: To allow them in the RM-20, the RS-20, and RM-22.
Bailey: I actually think if you do that, and eliminate the eight, you're going to get
more sign clutter rather than less.
Correia: I know, that's what I'm wondering.
Wright: You will get more sign clutter.
Bailey: Yeah, and so, um, this is...
Champion: Eight-plea she's talking about (mumbled)
Bailey: No, if you remove the required, if you allow it on any in those zones,
you'll have signs on every, virtually every building. (several talking)
Lombardo: Madame Mayor, may I suggest that perhaps we defer this to the next work
session, and I'll make sure staff will be there to discuss it.
Bailey: I would like to vote on the amendment...be really clear, because if we
discuss it at the next work session, I think it would be helpful for you all to
have what we need, um, don't you? What information people need?
Correia: Vote on Mike's amendment?
Bailey: Yes.
Correia: Okay.
Bailey: So there's an amendment on the floor to the ordinance. We can withdraw
that and defer the first consideration, or we can vote on this amendment
now.
Wilburn: Um, point of information. May the offer of the amendment withdraw, and
the second withdraw, so that when we get to a work session, if this is the
direction that is decided to go, then we don't get hung up with a defeated
motion.
Champion: Okay.
Wilburn: Is that allowable?
Bailey: I think that's a good idea.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 38
Wilburn: Okay. Good.
Bailey: Okay, so...
Wright: I withdraw the motion.
Champion: I'll withdraw my second.
Bailey: Okay. Do I have a motion to defer first...
O'Donnell: Move to defer.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Discussion? What information...do you need from
staff, um...
Champion: I think we should vote on the proposed...
Correia: I think we should vote too.
Champion: I think we should vote, and then we can always...(several talking). No,
that was the amendment to the...
Wright: You're talking about voting on first consideration?
Champion: I would like to vote on first consideration, in case we don't change it,
because it then it gets it going and shows we support it.
Correia: Yeah, I didn't withdraw my motion to...on the...
Karr: We have a motion on the floor to defer, which has precedence over the
motion of first consideration, unless that's withdrawn.
Bailey: Yes. (several talking)
Karr: On the deferral.
Bailey: Right. Okay.
Hayek: For those of us who are new to this game, is...is there an advantage or
disadvantage to putting our foot in the water with a first consideration and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 39
then when we get all this new information in a couple weeks, taking a
different look at this? Or is it better to just defer all of it.
Wilburn: I would suggest that if...if we vote on it, one way to look at it is that
you're putting an indication out to the public that we are going to take
some type of...
Champion: Action.
Wilburn: Action, um, however...you know, I mean if we end up...if we end up
going the other direction, a new first consideration is going to have to
(mumbled) anyway. So...
Dilkes: I think the deferral is cleaner, because we don't have to then backup to
first consideration, yeah. And...and unless there's some urgency to
getting this in place, um...(several talking) rather than next time.
Bailey: I think the neighborhood would like to see us move forward on this, um,
and, you know...
Champion: Well, if I call for the vote, then we have to take a role call to see if people
want to vote on it.
Wilburn: If you...if you call the question, we have to vote on...
Karr: On deferral.
Bailey: On the deferral. (several talking)
Dilkes: Please don't call the question, Connie. But, let's...we've got a motion to
defer on the floor.
Bailey: Let's vote on the motion to defer. That is what we are voting on now. Is
everybody clear where we are? (several responding) Okay. Uh, all those
in favor of deferral say aye. Those opposed same sign.
Karr: Okay, L..what was the...(several talking)
Bailey: I vote...okay, hands. All those who would like to defer raise your hand.
Okay, three. Those who would like to vote against deferral raise your
hand. Okay. We are not deferring this item. Do we have...so now we go
back to the motion on the floor for first consideration. Discussion? Okay.
Role call on first consideration, as it is presented right here in front of you.
Okay, item carries 5 to 2 for first consideration.
Karr: And I'm sorry, the no's were...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Bailey: Hayek and O'Donnell.
Karr: Thank you.
Bailey: (several talking) Moving along. Take a breath.
Page 40
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 41
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
c. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 3.87
ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF DODGE
STREET AND WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD FROM
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PARK (RDP) TO
COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-1) (REZ08-00008)
1. PUBLIC HEARING (DEFERRED FROM 9/23)
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open, and before
we hear from staff, we will have ex parte, um, discussion disclosure. Has
anybody had the opportunity to discuss this rezoning with anyone?
Champion: No, but didn't we discuss this at one time at a work session? Along time
ago?
Bailey: We actually, uh, this was a public hearing deferred. That's probably how
it (mumbled). Okay. Mr. Davidson.
Davidson: Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, the proposed rezoning is from RDP to
CO-1. The rezoning is necessary to allow the University of Iowa
Community Credit Union to build a corporate office building, a branch
bank, and drive-up teller at this location. And again, the slides will be a
surprise to us all. There's the location at the intersection of Scott
Boulevard and Dodge Street. This is directly sort of north and, well,
basically between ACT and the Press-Citizen. Uh, this is the site plan
which we will come back to...I think there are some...okay, here's the
general location. You can see the Press-Citizen there. That's the Gaden's
farm at the top and over to the right is the Hickory Heights subdivision.
And you can see that the, uh, the site there...I don't know if I can conjure
up the arrow here...here it is. Uh, this is the area where the proposed
building would be located, and you can see it's been already graded fairly
extensively when we did the intersection project here. I think there are a
couple of others...there's the location from another vantage point, uh,
that's taken from, uh, the Dubuque Road, uh, leg of the intersection. And
there it is again. And again, a lovely stand of Queen Anne's lace there,
uh, you can see how it does fall away, and we're going to talk about the
environmental features here in just a second. You can see the ravine once
you get over to the Hickory Heights area there, there's a rather substantial
ravine that, uh, runs through the property. Um, again then, uh, the existing
zoning would allow the, uh, office building portion of the project, but
would not allow the retail portion or the drive-up facility, and so that is
basically the necessity of the rezoning. Uh, it is felt that the CO-1 zone is
a good buffer between, uh, the arterial streets and the residential use, the
Hickory Heights subdivision. A couple of things pertaining to the
Comprehensive Plan. We did take a look at that. The Comprehensive
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 42
Plan in this area is mainly concerned about preserving the entranceway,
uh, character in...in this aesthetically pleasing fashion as possible. We do
believe that with the orientation of the building, and the screening of the
parking lot that is proposed, that has been done in a manner that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Uh, we also believe, the other
thing the Comprehensive Plan addresses is the environmental features of
the area and we do believe that the, um, proposal does address those. You
can see, uh, there are two, well...let's see if I can bring that back. There
are two areas, one there...and one there, of protected slopes, and these
have been adequately buffered for. The remaining steep and critical
slopes, uh, are also addressed by pulling the parking lot and the building
as close to Scott Boulevard as possible, and basically leaving the ravine
areas, uh, as disturbed as little as possible. Uh, this project does require a
Level 1 sensitive areas review, which is an administrative review. It will
not go back to you. Uh, finally I did want to mention, we evaluated traffic
and pedestrian facilities in this area. The pedestrian facilities are very
good because we have a real good sidewalk system on both sides of the
street with our reconstruction projects. We took a look at turn lanes, uh,
the access point here, single access point off of Scott Boulevard. We did
evaluate the need for turn lanes. Don't feel like there's traffic that justifies
that, that would be generated by the facility, uh, is very important to have
the access point located here. That's opposite Dubuque Road access point
that leads up into ACT. So we feel like traffic and pedestrian facilities are
addressed well, as well. Um, think that is all. Any questions before you...
Champion: I'm having a little trouble getting orientated. There's no entrance off of
the Highway 1, right?
Davidson: I think maybe in this drawing it shows a little more clearly, Connie.
There, you can see the only access point is located off of Scott Boulevard,
and we feel is well located.
Champion: Okay, thank you, that's fine. That's what I wondered.
Davidson: Any other comments or questions?
Hayek: On the subject of traffic, um, what concerns if any are there with the
location, anticipated location of the Fire Station traffic that might.. .
Davidson: Again, the Fire Station that Matt refers to, which is located...well, you can
see it there, the graded site, uh...every time I touch that...the graded site
that's directly across the street is where the Fire Station #4 will be located.
Um, Fire Station #4 will use the same access point, so be a nice 90-degree
intersection. I believe Fire Station #4 will have an exit only out onto, uh,
Scott Boulevard to deal with the not wanting to back emergency vehicles,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
Page 43
#6
uh, but again, Matt, we feel like the access that is proposed is, I mean,
basically it's what we requested...done very well.
Bailey: Other questions for Jeff? I have a...the, uh, parking lot. You mentioned
that you think there will be sufficient screening from, um, entranceway. I
mean, I'm very concerned with preserving this entranceway. It's the
nicest entranceway that we have into our city, and...and that will be
sufficiently screened, because it's a large lot, and will it be screened from,
um, residents at Hickory Heights?
Davidson: Yeah, the screening will specifically not allow, uh, headlights to penetrate.
The residential area across Dodge Street, the...there's five or six
condominiums there.
Bailey: I'm talking about Hickory Heights.
Davidson: ...closer than Hickory Heights, but...
Bailey: Oh, okay.
Davidson: ...but both, yes, you can see that screening is such that it's pretty much
around the entire parameter of the parking lot, and we do feel like that will
screen the headlights, uh, from the adjacent residential area.
Bailey: And, I mean, and perhaps representatives from the business can speak
more to this, 95 spaces, I mean, I know it's a large building, but that seems
like a very large parking lot.
Davidson: The, uh, applicant is represented this evening, so I would direct that
question to them.
Bailey: Thank you. Any other questions for Jeff?
Wright: Just one more question. Jeff, for left turns coming off of Scott into this,
Scott is two lanes at that point, isn't it?
Davidson: It does...it does expand to two lane at, uh, just, well, right about where
you see the words Scott Boulevard there, you can see it expands from a
single lane to a single lane towards the intersection to two lanes, yes. So
there is a...there is a lane here that would be a combination through and
left lane, and we evaluated the need to carve astand-alone left turn lane
into this median and did not feel it was warranted.
Wright: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 44
Bailey: Other questions? Thank you. Others wishing to speak at the public
hearing?
Noble: Good evening. My name is Dick Noble, representing the University of
Iowa Community Credit Union, and for your previous discussion I want to
make sure you know we're going to abide by all (laughter) everything out
there at that location. But I do want to thank Bob Miklo and the whole
staff, uh, at Zoning and Planning for, uh, actually getting us here tonight
and getting us through the Comprehensive Plan, uh, and the zoning
regulations. And we are here mainly to answer your questions, but we do
want to, uh, show you the facility here. Uh, but we also want you to know
it was important to us when we were looking for sites throughout the area,
uh, we did want to keep an Iowa City address on our main administrative
location going forward, and we were delighted to be able to find this site.
Um, we haven't reached any decisions at this point, not knowing if we can
even build the building yet, as far as who's moving out there, uh, it will
have a branch with adrive-up and drive-up ATM, but it mostly will be an
administrative and operations center. Um, it is important, and it's been
stressed to us, uh, that it is a main entryway coming into town. It is a
beautiful entranceway, uh, we are going to more than comply with, uh,
with the zoning regulations that are there. We've hired Neumann Monson
Architectural firm to take care of that for us, and again, we don't have a
specific design to the building, but...but we want to add a nice punch to
that building and make it attractive in an entranceway, and as long as our
disc is loaded correctly here, I'd like to invite Dwight Doberstein up with
Neumann Monson to go through that with you. That may give you a little
better feel for how the building may sit there on that site.
Davidson: Well, again, the person who loaded Dwight's thing...well, let's see. Yeah.
(mumbling) Here, let's try that. It's supposed to....is that it? There we
go. I actually have it. While we're waiting for this to load, I forgot to
mention the conditions. You're being asked to approve a Conditional
Zoning Agreement, so while this is working, um, substantial compliance
with the concept plan that you saw, oh, here it goes. Go ahead, Dwight.
Doberstein: (computer simulation presentation not retained) Well, this is coming down
Scott Boulevard, uh, going towards the north, towards Dodge Street. And
this is a very generic idea of what the building might look like. This is the
size and shape that's allowed in the zone, and the height. But we have not
designed this building yet, so this is strictly, um, optioning to get an idea
of what the size might be. We were asked to show what could be the
maximize size building and parking, fit on this lot. So we're talking
about, um, natural materials, uh, brick, stone, a pitched roof, and uh, work
closely with the staff to try to make sure that it meets the Comprehensive
Plan, as was said. Located on the east side of the lot so we're avoiding the
ravine and...and maintaining the views. We know it's going to be an
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
Page 45
#6
office building, so have lots of windows, um, we hope...actuallytyant to
get the design and figure out what's in this building to introduce some
more architectural elements that, uh, such as if there's a conference room
or a lobby space, additional windows or projections or bays, something
like that. This is not normally the way we like to design a building. We
like to figure out what's inside first, and then...and then come up with an
integrated exterior, but for purposes of rezoning, this is what might fit on
this lot.
Bailey: Questions for the applicant?
Champion: Do you plan on having a conference room there, a conference center or
just a conference room?
Doberstein: Well, there would be a conference room for sure to facilitate office
functions.
Champion: Oh, sure, uh-huh.
Noble: It wouldn't be a conference center, per se, but obviously with the size of
staff there and people coming, we'd need some conference rooms.
Champion: And how many parking places were there?
Bailey: Ninety-five.
Champion: Ninety-five, well, I would think they would need that, Regenia, because
there isn't anywhere else to park around there. That's it.
Doberstein: Like I said, we don't know what's inside this building. If it turns out that
they need storage space or computer space, then that will reduce the
number, uh, we don't want to build any more parking than we have to, but
this is showing a 33,000 square feet, and this is what's required by the
code, and uh, assuming that it's all used as office space, which is probably
not likely.
Correia: So you're saying the parking spaces might go down, if the conditions...if
less square footage for office use (mumbled) to the code.
Doberstein: Yeah, and we were charged to show what's the maximum building size
and parking requirements, and will it fit, and this is what we (mumbled)
Bailey: Thank you. Did you want to go through those conditions now?
Davidson: Very quickly. The access point has to be, well, the access point is shown.
The screening, as shown; substantial compliance with the concept plan,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6 Page 46
uh, as Dwight pointed out, it's not designed yet. It has to substantially
comply with that. And, uh, and then the building have the appropriate
articulation suitable for the entranceway. Basically it will be a nice
looking building.
Bailey: Okay. Any questions about the Conditional Zoning...
Champion: And the right signs. (laughter)
O'Donnell: I didn't think there was going to be a sign. (laughter)
Bailey: Others wishing to speak at the public hearing? Okay. (bangs gavel)
Public hearing is closed.
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Move first consideration.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Correia: Looks like a great project.
Champion: Yes it does!
O'Donnell: Great project.
Wright: Looks like it's going to be a very sensitive design, both to the landscape
and to the fact that this is a major gateway.
Correia: I appreciate that you were looking for space in Iowa City.
Bailey: Okay. Any further discussion? Role call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#6
Page 47
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
d. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT
OF LYTHAM CONDOMINIUMS, IOWA CITY, IOWA.
(susos-oooos)
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Any comments from staff?
Davidson: The final plat's in general conformance. The one thing I did want to
clarify, there are a number of sensitive areas provisions relating to this
property, and those will be handled when the OPD plan is approved, and
that is an administrative approval. That's when all those things will be
checked out.
Bailey: Okay, thank you. Discussion, questions? Okay, role call. Item carries 7-
0. I have been asked to take a brief break. We will break until 10 after
9:00. (BREAK)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 48
ITEM 7. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND
THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT FOR
WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND FUTURE PARTIAL
RELEASE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT ON 210
SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) The public hearing is open, and
we will first start with presentation from staff, and please note that you
have a, uh, a handout, a recent handout, on this item tonight.
Correia: We do? Where?
Bailey: It looks like this.
Ford: Your recent handout is the, uh, agreement that our, uh, City Attorneys and,
uh, the corporate attorneys for the hotels, uh, last "agreed" upon on Friday
afternoon, and I think we are very close with a couple of exceptions, and
I'll have, uh, their attorney's staff address what those exceptions are,
because those conversations have been going on, uh, between our
attorneys. Uh, but rather let me introduce why we're here tonight, um,
first of all I'm Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator, and um,
we're here today, um, because the Sheraton was sold early in the year, and
had an interest in improving their property, uh, for, uh, and making it
better for not only the City, uh, but also for the guests and for their
employees, uh, that work there. They came to the Economic Development
Committee shortly after that purchase in March of this year with, uh, three
items that they were interested in addressing. One was, uh, a re, uh,
negotiation of a parking agreement that, uh, had been in place for, uh,
more than ten years. Another was the possibility of closing off the interior
easement, which is the part of the walkway that goes through the inside of
the hotel near the lobby, and the third element that they were looking for
was, um, apublic-private partnership in, uh, enhancing the exterior
walkway, which is the one that goes between the hotel and the Martini's
bar just to the west. Um, at...at the Economic Development Committee
meeting there was...there was not a consensus on going forward with
anything at that point, other than making a...working on the parking
agreement and that, uh, has since happened, and just to bring you up to
speed, as you'll recall, they had been asking for a number of parking
spaces at market rate for their employees, and while they might have 175
or so employees, they were asking for significantly less number of parking
spaces, at the same rate that anybody else would, uh, would pay to have
parking in one of our ramps downtown. Um, the other two elements,
earlier in this year, did not seem to pan out for a number of different
reasons. One, we weren't interested in completely vacating the easement
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 49
that they had, uh, that they would have liked to do, um, and the other had
to do with the valuations of the hotel and how any financial incentive that
we might have been able to use to, uh, do the enhancement to the exterior
walkway would have worked. So, four, five months went by and uh, the,
uh, Sheraton folks came back to the Economic Development Committee
with a new proposal, and um, staff has been working with the, uh, hotel
folks for some time, and brought together recommendations, uh, to the
September 9th Economic Development Committee, uh, and those
recommendations included, uh, reducing the widest part of the interior
easement, the one that goes, uh, next to the lobby, to a width of what is
now at its widest part about 20...from a width of what is now at its widest
part 25 feet or so, down to 12 feet, which is about the narrowest section of
that easement, which is very weirdly configured in shape and size,
irregularly, I should say, um, the narrowest point from the, uh, Dubuque
Street parking ramp and through the building. So they'd like to bring the
total easement width down to about 12 feet wide, uh, through the building
so that they can enlarge the, uh, lobby area and provide more of the
services and amenities that, uh, the Sheraton brand requires and/or expects
of them. Uh, the second part to this would be that they would like to close
off, or restrict the hours, that that interior easement is open, um, to the
hours between 6:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M., thereby closing it from 11:00
P.M. to 6:00 A.M. in the morning, um, to insure the comfort and safety of
their guests, but also the public as well. Any of you who have been
downtown, um, and especially in that area later in the evening know that
that has become quite a congregation place for, uh, folks who partake of
our active nightlife in downtown Iowa City. Um, and with nighttime
staffing at the hotel, uh, those staffing levels go down significantly
and...and everybody's safety, uh, is compromised, according to the hotel.
In exchange for their ability to, uh, lock off the interior easement, uh,
between 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., they would like to engage in a, uh,
partnership, a 50/50 cost sharing of exterior improvements on the
walkway that would remain open 24/7, that's the one next to the Martini's
bar and between there and the hotel. Um that would...those enhancements
would include, and they have not yet been designed yet, but they would
include opening up the, uh, area in terms of, uh, its, uh, sense of place or
sort of announcing that passageway as this is the way you get from the
north side of the hotel to the south side of the hotel, uh, from the Ped Mall
to the parking garage, enhancing that by architectural elements, by
increased lighting, by perhaps public art, uh, and other things as well, and
we'll have those designs forthcoming, or they'll have those designs
forthcoming, and we would be working completely in partnership with
them, uh, in not only the design, but also the, uh, construction costs to do
that. LJh, so those are the basics. Uh, I wanted to remind you all that the
Sheraton Hotel employees 175-ish or so people, they could probably
update you on that a little bit more, and they host probably more
importantly, 82,000 or more, uh, visitors overnight. Tens of thousands of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#~ Page 50
visitors to our Iowa City area, who not only come and stay in our hotels,
but they shop and they eat and they, uh, also leave ahotel/motel...motel
tax, and one of the things that, uh, the hotel has sought to do is compete
now in a landscape with our neighbors to the west, who have a, uh, hotel
which has taken a lot of the business from what was in downtown Iowa
City, to the Marriott. Uh, I'd like to introduce and uh, have them do a
short bit for you, uh, members of the...I shouldn't call it a bit, but a
presentation...I might be getting a little punchy, um, from the hotel and
the partnership that has purchased the hotel, um, we'll start at the far left.
Adam Valentie, uh, there's Mark French somewhere here...yep! Ron
Kim, and Thom Geshay. Thom is going to present to you from the hotel
and when Tom is finished, I will, um, come up and wrap up our talk
before you have some questions. Tom.
Bailey: Thank you, Wendy.
Geshay: Thanks. I obviously drew the short straw, so I have to get up and do this,
um, Thom Geshay. I represent the ownership group that recently
purchased the Sheraton downtown. Uh, I'm employed by the management
company that manages the hotel. Um, I'm not employed by the owner of
the hotel. Um, thank you, Madame Mayor and Council Members, for
coming and allowing us to talk to you about this. Um, we purchased the
hotel, and Wendy asked me to be brief, and I guess it's great `cause she
summed everything up already, so I can pretty much be done in ten or 15
seconds here, but I love microphones so I'll be here a few more minutes.
Um, we purchased the hotel in March, and uh, we've been thrilled to be
part of the community. We thank everybody who's welcomed us to the
community. Um, we are the third owner in eight years of this property.
Um, and we purchased the hotel because we saw an opportunity to maybe
improve an asset that had been under-performing, and basically been sort
of on a steady decline. Uh, the number of room nights that Wendy pointed
out to you would be wonderful to have today. Unfortunately, that was a
number a few years ago, and that...that number has gone down. We're at
about four, well, is it four or five year in occupancy and performance at
the hotel, um, not, um, a big part of which of course is the some of the
deferred maintenance -the property has fallen into a state of disrepair.
Um, and uh, money and capital was never really committed in the past to
keep it up to first class standards. Um, in doing that, what happened was
the, um, the brand became in jeopardy of the property. So it's currently,
by brand I mean the Sheraton name on the hotel. Uh, there's several
things in the building that don't meet Sheraton and national brand
standards for afirst-class hotel, and those things had to be improved, uh,
based on the business volumes, economically it didn't necessarily make
sense to go to all that, uh, expense to correct those things and keep the
brand in place. Um, but we saw the opportunity to do so, um, our
objective, quite frankly, the reason we were interested in it is we have sort
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 51
of a focus on university markets. Our company manages hotels on
campuses around the country, uh, from Gainesville, Florida up to Eugene,
Oregon, and several in between, and so we have sort of a focus on
university related hotels, and we thought this was fantastic. We
understand how to work with communities, we understand how hotels
in...in college towns, um, you know, work in concert to help alumni,
boosters, everything else get going, so we thought it was great. So our
objectives are pretty simple. We wanted to completely renovate the
Sheraton so that it could be a sense of pride and the centerpiece of the
downtown area, provide ahigh-quality lodging experience to the...to
guests who came in, which had eroded over time, um, regain some of the
lost lodging and catering business that had gone out to Coralville to the
publicly funded, um, Marriott out there. Um, and um, sort of, uh, just
provide afirst-class hotel that a brand would want to stay, that people
would be proud of, that the University would want to use, and get some of
that business back and create a little bit more vibrancy. LTh, one of
the....Wendy described it pretty nicely, but our...we had a what we
thought was the best plan, um, coming in, and one of the things that just
sort of stood out as a problem, um, and we knew about it purchasing the
hotel, but in operating it we saw it even more, was that the, um, the
easement, the public easement that goes through the center of the hotel.
Basically bifurcates, uh, just cuts the hotel right in half. You've got all
your lodging and front desk on one side, and it's...you've all been there
I'm certain, so you're aware of this, but...and all the food and beverage
stuff is on the other side. In between is an area that is as large as the
lobby, that is set as a...as apass-through, um, which was done back in
1983. Um, the, uh, the concept is, uh, great to have that as a public
thoroughfare going through. The problem is because of its configuration,
and it's size, and the way it was put together, um, it has become a
congregating area, uh, and this is sort of, um, created a security and public
safety issue at the hotel. Um, anyone that might be hanging out at, you
know, 10, 11, 12:00 at night down in that area knows that it...it, uh, the
area becomes a little compromised. Uh, in being that the hotel has...owns
it, and owns the dirt that's there and takes care of the improvements and is
responsible if somebody slips and falls, is responsible to keep it clean and
maintained and upkept, and renovated and everything else. Uh, the hotel
has little control over what happens in that area because of the public
easement. So, it's really become kind of an open area for raucous
behavior and problems and, uh, we frequently have, um, you know, police,
local police force up there, helping us to sort of control the peace in this
congregating area. And so, what we're trying to do is, you know,
eliminate and reduce some of these incidents of behavior, um, primarily
during the after-hour times, uh, we don't have a lot of problem at 2:00 in
the afternoon. On a day like today, it was wonderful. You pass through.
It's a great place to....the, uh, our original plan, um, that we had brought
which was...you know, lengthy debate and discussed quite a bit with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 52
Economic Development Committee, uh, that was soundly defeated, um,
what was...we wanted to vacate the entire easement, uh, so that we could
expand the lobby in order to meet some of the brand standards of
implementing some things in the public spaces that you're supposed to
have, by Sheraton brand standards, and also create more meeting space.
Um, so that we could go after more groups, um, and that notion was
defeated and we embraced that, and so we sort of put together a new plan
to come back and, um, really took a look at it and really listened to the
folks. Economic Development Committee just said, you know, it's not
necessary the easement that creates the problem, but it's the configuration
of this congregating area that everybody goes to. Um, so, um, and the
biggest trouble times are late in the evenings, and so as is common for a
lot of businesses, you know, when you get to the later part of the night you
sort of close that off. Um, well, we couldn't necessarily do that without
providing an opportunity for other people to pass through, and so there's
another reason that that's there, just west of the easement that's used by
most folks, that if it were enhanced, would create a welcoming covered,
you know, um, if it was...if you added some lighting, some art, and some
other things and made it a welcoming space, would create a great
alternative for people to pass through there. Um, in, uh, so what we've
asked for I guess is to, rather than our original request to vacate the
easement is just to revise the shape of the easement. Wendy tried to
describe it, but you do, the easement goes in, it broadens out when it gets
in the hotel, and then it cuts back. We're not as high-tech as the last guys.
We've got it all on electronic (mumbled).
Bailey: You have to stand at the mic...yeah. I've seen this so I'll pass it to people
who haven't.
Karr: We're not picking anything up. When you're running around, we're not
picking ,you up at all.
Geshay: What I did was pass out pictures to the Members of the Council. So, what
you have in front of you is, um, the existing condition, and then what we
propose. And you'll see in the existing condition it goes in, the easement
sort of goes in thin. It widens out to a wide area, goes thin again out the
backdoor of the hotel. So, what we've proposed is to take that area and
just make it more consistent as it passes through the building. So we
provide, and we've asked that the 12 feet that goes in that widens to 25,
come down to the 12 feet, um, 12 feet is a, um, we've talked to, um, the,
um, staff -City staff -and that's a recommended distance that's used
around town for clearances in a lot of ways. It's basically a lane of traffic.
So it's plenty of room for people to walk, you know, however many
abreast you want to go through there. So, it opens it up for everybody.
Um, we've also asked that we restrict access to that for safety purposes to
guests and employees. We ask for after the hour of 10:00 P.M., uh, what
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 53
the Economic Development Committee approved 3 to 0 was 11:00 P.M.
Um, so we, uh, now request you to consider that, as well, that from 11:00
P.M. to 6:00 A.M. we'll do what you see in a lot of places, basically
simple card access. If you're a guest you put your card in and it allows
you to go through. If you're an employee you have the same right. Um, if
your intent is to do something other than that, to...to play hacky-sak or go
in there and hang out or whatever else, then you, it sort of deters that. Um,
and then we provide another access which will be approved around the
side. So, guess that pretty much sums up what we've asked for.
Bailey: Questions for the applicant?
Champion: We did talk a little bit about the purchase price. You talked to Economic
Development and how much improvements are going to be done to this
hotel. Is somebody else going to address that or...are you going to
address that?
Geshay: What specifically are you wanting...
Champion: We talked about, um, the improvements of the hotel, and how that'll
improve the base, the property tax base for Iowa City.
Geshay: Yeah! It's, um, what's...what we're planning, and I again apologize.
Because we had so many discussions on this over six months I assume
everybody knows what I'm talking about, but um, what we're planning at
the hotel is basically a full renovation of the hotel, top to bottom, all the
deferred maintenance issues that have been let go, uh, by prior ownership,
um, simple things like the elevators don't work appropriately and... and
HVAC, the air conditioning and so forth doesn't work, but fix all the
deferred maintenance issues, but also enhance the hotel. Bring it up to the
standards of a first-class hotel. So every guest room will get redone. All
the meeting spaces will be redone. Um, and we would spend a, you know,
approximately $11 million on the hotel to improve it, to create a better
experience and of course our goal in spending that money is to create
more business. We're trying to get the (coughing, unable to hear) where
they were. We're trying to, um, as you see in the plans, by shrinking the
size down it also allows us to capture a little extra meeting space, not as
much as we wanted, but we get another 50, 100 square feet of meeting
space, which lets us do a better job for, uh, group business and booking
more group business in the hotel. So, um, it's a substantial investment, uh,
in the property to sort of improve it, and then again, the goal is to get more
visitors downtown, make it more vibrant. It's tremendous the amount of
catering and meeting business that's been lost, um, out to Coralville, and
we believe that by renovating the hotel and doing what's right by the
hotel, it's got the preferred location down here, um, and it's just kind of a
shame that the centerpiece to the Ped Mall and downtown redevelopment
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7 Page 54
area is something that's become, you know, maybe a little bit of
something you can't be proud of. And we'd like to change that, we'd like
to...we've invested the time, the effort, the money. We're willing to do
that, um, the ownership group of the hotel is committed to Iowa City. We
do this, uh, we've owned a hotel on the campus of University of Oregon
since 1997. We still own it. We still operate it. We now run the city
convention center, as well. Um, we, um, this property has traded hands
over and over again, uh, primarily because it's sort of a broken box. The
business model is tough, and um, some of those things need to be
addressed. iJh, and so we're trying to address those. We're making the
financial commitment to do so. For us to be successful, and if we ever
hope to get a penny of return on this, um, we've got to push hard to
maximize the customers coming down there, so it's good for downtown
retailers. It's good for the city. I think it's good for the University. I
think it's a sort of a win-win for everybody involved, um, and I think
we're aligned on that, and so, you know, Neumann Monson Architects,
we're using local architects; we've got a local lender, a local bank that's
done the, put together the, uh, (mumbled), uh, they were actually at the
meeting where it got approved back by the Economic Development
Committee, to speak on our behalf, um, and so we embrace the local
community to come in. We're thrilled to be here. We'd like to be here for
a long period of time. We'd like to make what's been sort of an
unsuccessful business, as the centerpiece of downtown something that
everyone can be proud of (mumbled). And we appreciate your support in
passing.
Bailey: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Lender?
Ford: I wanted to see if Mr. French would come up and address those minor
differences, uh, in the document that he and our City Attorneys have been
working on, uh, the differences between what you have right now in front
of you and what we're working on, where we are. Mr. French.
French: Good evening. Uh, I talked with Sarah this afternoon a bit. We had two
areas that we wanted to, uh, work out some clarification and they
were...there was a...an understanding that the release was temporary, and
would only become permanent when the completion of the exterior
enhancement was, I'm sorry, when the exterior enhancements were
complete. We had suggested substantial completion with the idea that
there was a budget of one particular minor item, even a minor item was
missing or, uh, that it wouldn't be technically fully complete and yet we
would like to go ahead and make sure we can proceed internally. And,
um, the discussion was substantial seems to be really a word which just
sets up an argument about is it complete, is this substantial, and we talked
about that. I agree with that, actually, conceptually, and so, what we did is
we agreed conceptually on a definition for what substantial would be, and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#~ Page 55
Sarah's actually going to draft some language that sort of suggests...it'll
reinsert the word substantial, but then it'll define what the...uh, the other
item was, in the paragraph where we talked about our obligations, we're to
develop a design and present it for, uh, input and then final approval and
presentation to the Council, among all the other agencies which will need
to approve it. And we used the concept of design and budget. Later in
that section we talk about plans and specifications, sort of a different
phrase, and then we talk about putting it out for bids and then we had a
cap, or an up-to amount. We had suggested the lower end of the range
that we had in our budget. She had suggested the higher end of the range.
What we both decided to do was two things -one is, change it so that the
plans and specifications language was consistent, so we don't put the cart
before the horse. We get the plans and specifications presented, approved,
and all signed off on, then that goes out for bids and then the bids, once
approved, that then becomes the budget, and so it will clarify a bit to say
that process, and then also as far as setting an amount certain, we have
both decided that it would probably be best, not necessary to telegraph to
someone placing the bid how much we have in our pocket, our collective
pockets. So we thought we would better be solid as to that, and then let
the bids speak for themselves, which we (mumbled) have approved, uh,
and then move forward. Those were the only two areas of clarification,
and uh, I think we'll probably have that done tomorrow. That was our
expectation anyway.
Bailey: Eleanor, did you have anything to clarify about the (mumbled)
Dilkes: No, you've got the memo that Sarah gave you, um, in front of you, and
um, I can elaborate on the key points of the agreement, if you need me to.
Um, I did touch base with Sarah late this afternoon, and as I understood it,
the...the continuing points of disagreement were fairly minor, and uh, I
think that we can resolve those. If you wish to go forward with this
agreement in front of you tonight, um, I would just suggest that you
approve it, the agreement, substantially similar to that which is attached to
Sarah's memo, um, with substantially similar to be determined by the City
Attorney.
Bailey: Okay, thank you. All right, others wishing to speak at the public hearing?
Public hearing is still open, if you wish to speak, state your name for the
record and please limit your comments to five minutes or less.
Clayton: Yeah, James Clayton, 119 E. College Street. Um, I'm delighted to hear
that the hotel is planning on improving. Um, but I'd like to recall some
history. When the building was built in 1983 it was a Holiday Inn. It
would not have been built without the easement. That was a crucial part.
They wanted Dubuque Street to be vacated in order to build the hotel. We
saw drawing after drawing of what it was going to look like. The best one
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 56
we saw was an open passageway through the center of the building. No
doors. Open air. The doors would have been on the lobby side and on the
restaurant and bar side. Um, had they gone with that, they'd already have
their security control, but the advantage to it, the original design, is when
you stood on the Dubuque Street by the...when you stood on the Ped Mall
by the fountain, you could see the south end of town, through that open
space. Now the hotel didn't build it that way because it was negotiated to
be a smaller easement and there's a wall outside there that doesn't let you
see down south Dubuque Street. Now I know you've all talked a lot about
what's going to happen in the Southend. Well, it's hard to see the Southend
from the Ped Mall. I have customers who come to my business who
complain that they had to walk down the alley of College Street to get
around to the front of the Ped Mall. They don't realize that there's an
easement through the hotel. They're reluctant to walk through
somebody's business. So I think that, you know, that's something you
need to consider in this, is...is what is the image of this to the customer
who wants to come to the Ped Mall from the parking ramp. As far as, and
I'm sympathetic with wanting to close. We have a vomit light outside of
our business. It goes on at 9:00 and stays on until 6:00 in the morning.
And the amount of vomit in our hallway has reduced by 90% after we put
this light in, but the tunnel along the side of the building is going to need
lighting. It's going to need hoses that are, hose connections so you can
hose it out in the morning. It is going to become the new nasty place
downtown. And as for artwork, we've already got artwork on it. The
hotel people have to keep painting out the obscenities and graffiti that's
posted there all the time. It's not just a simple thing to take and go from
point A to point B and assume it's going to work. I think 12 feet is too
narrow. I'd encourage four of your after this meeting to stand side-by-side
with a ruler, and see whether you really can pass through an opening
comfortable if one person is coming towards you, or whether this won't be
a choke point where people get upset with one another as they go through.
But I do agree they need to close it off during the time when they're
having the most trouble. I'd like to see you uncouple some of these things
so that we do one thing at a time. So that we decide if we're going to
improve the outside, let's get it improved. It needs improving now. It's a
mess. If that works, then maybe we can go forward with something on the
inside. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Others wishing to comment?
Thompson: Bob Thompson, 1004 Church Street. Um, first off, Connie, weren't you
actually asking what narrowing the easement would do to improve the tax
base, or just the (both talking). I wasn't sure, um, yeah, well, I'm guessing
you guys probably don't hang out, uh, by Martini's at 2:00 in the morning
much, but it, uh, yeah, I guess narrowing the (mumbled) the main part of
the building doesn't bother me quite so much as closing it off. Um, I see
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7 Page 57
that as a potential safety issue. I think the tunnel, and you really can't do
much about this, is...it's relatively visually isolated, and um, it's in a
bottleneck in the traffic, to the extent that it would do, um, I mean, this is a
main access point. There's really only (mumbled) how ridiculous would it
be to...to have to go through a tunnel from the west side to the east. Um,
and if I was a woman, and I had a choice between going through awell-lit
lobby area and going through that tunnel, I know which one I'd chose.
Um, I think it's, like Jim was saying, a potential safety issue for people
walking through late at night, uh, people are going to tend to congregate in
there, um, and other (mumbled) are going to come through and it's just
asking for trouble, um, potential safety problem.
Bailey: Thank you. Others?
Neades: Rebecca Neades, Chamber of Commerce. I don't think it's any secret, at
least I don't keep it a secret, that we like live music when we get
downtown fairly often, and we actually make that walk, uh, between the
Ped Mall and um, the Mill or something, and so we're walking through
there quite a bit. I can completely understand why you would want to
close that off at night, um, it's just a...it's a business, and when you think
of the customers inside, um, wanting to go from point A to point B, there's
an awful lot of traffic there. I really have a vision that the outside could be
wonderful, you know, with the right lighting, um, making it, we saw
signage earlier into the Bread Garden where you have the overhead sign
and in a park somewhere else in town, I think Benton Street, but I really
have, um, an idea that you could make this obvious to people downtown,
that that's the way to go, that it's light, it's well lit, it's...it looks like a
comfortable place to walk through. So I guess I don't hold the same
concerns. You'll obviously have to look at the details of what's laid out,
but it sounds like, um, a substantial investment in our community and in
our downtown, and I have to admit it's different now than it was five years
ago when I moved back to town, to see people over the lunch hour,
downtown Iowa City. I used to see people in suits all the time with those
name tags, or the lanyards, and I knew that they were in town for a
conference, and I just don't see that to the extent now that we've got the
Marriott, and the Marriott's fabulous, but I think that brings another
dimension downtown, and so I'd like you to consider this.
Bailey: Thanks. Others wishing to comment at the public hearing? Okay, then
the public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel)
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Champion: Well, I wrestled with this as a safety issue, being a woman, but we have
some drawings...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Bailey: We don't have a motion on the floor, I'm sorry, Connie.
Champion: You're just correcting me all the time. I don't...
Bailey: I'm sorry, Connie.
Champion: I move we accept this proposal.
Bailey: Do we have a second?
Page 58
O'Donnell: I absolutely would second it. However, I think right now the question was
brought up by our City Attorney, and there are some other questions that I
think we need answers. I always...12 feet, is that about the width...
Correia: Did you second, Mike?
O'Donnell: What's that?
Correia: Do we have a second? Okay.
O'Donnell: Uh, L ..I believe I'm going to vote to defer it.
Karr: So you didn't second?
Bailey: He did not second. So...there's a motion on the floor to defer. Do we
have a second for deferral?
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Okay. Discussion about deferring this item?
O'Donnell: Well, like I was...
Bailey: So, let's get some direction about what further information that you need.
O'Donnell: What we need is, you know, there is a safety concern going through there
late at night, um, I would like to know how many times the police were
called to the area, um, I think it's a safety issue, um, I would like to see
that...that's primarily my main concern. I'd like to...and you know, if
you're trying to keep a hotel busy and viable downtown, safety's a very
important issue. So I'm...(mumbled)
Bailey: Did you have some items that you needed, Amy?
Correia: Yeah, I mean, I am very excited by the new owners and the investment in
the Sheraton. I mean, I do think that the deferred maintenance has made a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 59
huge impact on the...the decline in business, um, certainly having a new
hotel on the market also has an impact, as well. Um, so I um like the idea
of working on issues in phases. I mean, I wonder if, um, it's hard forme
to believe that the issues related to the size of the easement and that it's
open 24 hours have as large of an impact on the success of the business, as
the deferred maintenance, um, has had on the business. So, um, 12 feet
seems very small. I'm trying to think of what 12 feet might be, and it
looks like maybe that back table might be 12 feet.
Ford: Um, let me give you a reference point, uh, the...the ceiling tiles are
approximately two feet wide, so that means the distance between roughly
Regenia and the flag over there is about 12 feet or so.
Correia: And I think that it isn't...the space is public access, so it was a sidewalk, it
was a...you know, as the opening between like the end of the Ped Mall on
College Street is a sidewalk, people congregate there. Um, so I think
when the City made this decision to have this closed off, I think there was
an expectation that we would maintain the sense that this is part of the
city, that all citizens have the ability to walk through that, with our plans
to expand the downtown across Burlington Street, it feels like it would,
even though it would be open during the day, with it being smaller and
having most of the area being related to the business, it wouldn't feel like
the public had access to it. I have absolutely...have concerns with that
outside walkway from 11:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. I wouldn't want to talk
there, um, as a female at night, even if I was walking with somebody, um,
so it is more hidden even if it's bigger, um, or you know, expanded, um,
so I have concerns there. Um, so I guess I don't see the link between, um,
the success of the Sheraton and having that walkway being smaller and
closed at night. I understand the complications and hassles with it, but I
think that there are lots of business owners in our downtown have
complications and hassles because of, um, you know, what our downtown
is after 9:00 P.M. at night and I think, um, that we all need to figure out
how to deal with it, and I don't want to close off a public area (mumbled).
Bailey: So, what...you...
Correia: I guess I'm not interested, I mean, I'll move to defer it. I'm not interested
in...in closing off the area after 11:00.
Bailey: All right, so there's no further information that you need.
Correia: Not really.
Bailey: Matt, did you need further info?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Page 60
Hayek: Yeah, I...you know I'm on the Economic Development Committee and
was part of the 3-0 vote that supported this coming out of that committee,
and I by and large support what's going on here. I think it's, uh, it's a
great move in the core of our downtown. However, an issue came up after
our vote, uh, that gave me some pause, and that was that I learned that,
um, one of the options available to the City in terms of permitting the
restriction on time and narrowing the width of the easement, uh, would
not, would be to not necessarily give up that time or give up that space for
all of eternity, but rather do so through a legal agreement called a license
or lease, which would allow the City to accommodate the hotel's needs,
um, but not...but not give those things up forever, so that we're not tying
the hands of future City Councils, if the needs of the city change, and um,
I knew immediately as soon as I had those second thoughts about that vote
that, uh, making these comments would make me a pretty unpopular
person, and I have real sympathy for the desire of a business investing in
the area like this to, uh, have some stability, something they can count on
going forward, but, uh, I think it's worth exploring, whether, um, we could
look at a license or lease agreement that accommodates the applicant's
needs on those issues, and even gives them, uh, ample warning of any
change or...or puts in, or implements some reasonable trigger points to
revert those changes back to the City if our needs change down the road.
Um, so as to make it worthwhile for them to do it anyway. Uh, and so if
we're going to defer this, uh, that would be additional information that I
would like us to discuss. I'm...I support the, uh, expanding access to
parking spaces, I support the (mumbled) exterior remodel, uh, and I
support reducing the width and reducing the hours, but as to those last two
items, if we can do it as a city without losing those rights that we have and
have had since 1983, forever, uh, I think it's worth looking at, and we
didn't do that at our meeting.
Bailey: Any other information that we need from staff to move forward? Ross,
did you...
Wilburn: Did I miss concept drawings on what this might look like (mumbled)
Bailey: The...the walkway...
Wilburn: Not the overheads that we just saw, but I mean, I...
Bailey: The west walkway?
Wilburn: Um, either the west walkway or even just, uh, what that lobby area might
look like and what they would do with the, did I miss those, or.. .
Champion: They did not bring them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#~ Page 61
Bailey: We saw some in Economic Development Committee, and can certainly
include those in a packet and then...they brought the charts tonight so you
didn't miss those.
Wilburn: Was it included in the packet, and I just...okay.
Correia: But it wasn't in our packet.
Wilburn: Okay.
Bailey: Right.
Karr: It was in the Economic Development packet.
Wilburn: Part of what I was having trouble with, uh, and I have been downtown
during those hours, um, and I can appreciate because of some of the
behaviors wanting to restrict access during those hours. So, if we could
figure out something there, I would go with that. My concern, uh, and uh,
I'm not a woman, if you couldn't tell, but, uh, how to open up that existing
walkway, whether you're male or female or uh with someone trying to
walk through there, and some of the behaviors associated at that time, just
the, uh, the congestion that may lead to something, uh, some fights or
those type of things. I would need to just see, I mean, I can sort of
envision, you know, like Rebecca from the Chamber was saying, that if
you could open it up and make it visible, that we know this is where you
go and it's, uh, you know, so...I would need some assistance just seeing,
even it's a preliminary concept, what that might look like, would help me.
Bailey: All right.
Champion: You had some really nice concept drawings that you brought to the
Economic Development meeting. That changed my mind about allowing
you to do it. Um.. .
Bailey: Okay, let's just...yeah, I think Wendy's got a good idea of what we need
to explore when we bring this back, and Mike has some questions and
he'll talk to staff and we'll just go. Okay.
Karr: So we've got a motion to defer to 10/21?
Bailey: Yes. Okay, all those in favor of deferring this item to 10/21 say aye.
Those opposed say no. Motion carries.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: So moved.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#7
Correia: Second.
Page 62
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Correia. All those in favor say aye.
Those opposed same sign. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#8
Page 63
ITEM 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, ENTITLED
"PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY," CHAPTER 10, ENTITLED
"SMOKEFREE PLACES," TO CORRECT THE DIAGRAM THAT
ILLUSTRATES WHERE SMOHING IS PROHIBITED IN CITY
PLAZA. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Wright: Move first consideration.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Just for
clarification for the public, um, as I just read this is to correct the diagram,
um, that illustrates, um, where smoking is prohibited in the City Plaza, just
to make it very clear about those boundaries. Further discussion? Role
call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#12
Page 64
ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE
DEVELOPMENT BY ANISTON VILLAGES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP BY COMMITTING TO A LOAN OF $282,000
FUNDED BY ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO FULFILL THE
THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOW INCOME
HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION.
Correia: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by Correia.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? I do see people here from this item,
um, if they wish to speak to it. Do we need any clarification? Okay.
Correia: It's a great investment in our community and (mumbled)
Bailey: Okay. Role call.
Hayek: How does this work when we...when we, if this falls out of our, would it
be a CIP planning process?
Bailey: Kevin, would you like to speak to this?
Hayek: I mean, it's a different kind, but in terms of our planning process, does it
fall outside of a particular.. .
O'Malley: Well, we usually include this with our normal debt structure, when we go
out every year, and so we put it in...we put this and TARP, any requests
like this in our, not TARP, GRIP now, uh, dollars into, uh, a bond issue to
sell and we're allowed to have 5% of private purpose uses in our bond
issues. Bond sales.
Hayek: Apre-approved use of bonding for things like this.
O'Malley: Correct.
Hayek: We just haven't used all of our capacity.
O'Malley: No, we usually do use all our 5%. In fact, last time, GRIP did not have
enough money, so we had to use General Fund fund balances to pay for its
financing.
Correia: But we planned to do things like this.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#12
Page 65
O'Malley: Yes. We always plan to put these in, but uh, sometimes the size of our
bond issue varies and so 5% of $8 million is one number, whereas 5% of
$10 million is another, and that's where GRIP sometimes has to be paid
out, uh, our General Fund revenue.
Bailey: Okay, further questions for Kevin? I'm glad you're here, Kevin. Thank
you. All right. Role call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#13 Page 66
ITEM 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED
POSITIONS IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT BY DELETING
ONE FULL-TIME PC DESKTOP ANALYST POSITION,
PAYGRADE 27; DELETING ONE FULL-TIME
PC/COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN POSITION (PAYGRADE
25); ADDING ONE FULL-TIME SYSTEMS ENGINEER
POSITION, PAYGRADE 28; AND ONE FULL-TIME VOICE AND
DATA NETWORK ANALYST POSITION, PAYGRADE 28.
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Discussion?
Wright: I do have just a quick question.
Bailey: Okay.
Wright: Kevin, what are the actual salaries in those grades?
O'Malley: LJh, I'll have to go from memory, Michael. I think that the base ones, 26
is around $43,000 and I believe these'll be going up to about $48,000. I
believe the total spread is about $4,000 on each position.
Wright: Okay.
Bailey: So a change in our budget then I'd say about $8,000 for the public's
information. Okay. Further discussion? Questions for Kevin? Okay, role
call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#15
Page 67
ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ON UNCLASSIFIED SALARY
COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK,
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Hayek. Discussion? I just want to
recognize your work and thank you, um, for what you do. I think we
indicated that in the evaluation and this is something we discussed
(mumbled). Okay, role call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.
#19 Page 68
ITEM 19. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Bailey: Amy?
Correia: Well, I just wanted to announce the 25th Annual Human Rights Awards
breakfast, which is on Thursday, October 23rd, at 7:30 A.M. at the E.H.
Lehman Ballroom in the hotel Vetro, um, tickets are $15.00 and maybe
purchased at the cashier at City Hall, or by calling 356-5022. And then
the other thing is, is, um, can we look into the Library accessibility issues
that Mary brought up? Okay.
Bailey: Okay. Matt?
Hayek: Nothing.
Wilburn: Nothing.
O'Donnell: Nothing.
Champion: Nothing.
Wright: Nothing.
Bailey: Okay. Well, I would just like to express my appreciation. We had a good,
uh, planning retreat on Saturday with the department heads and Council,
so thank you all for participating in that. I thought it was a great day, and
um, an interesting way to spend a Saturday morning, but certainly worth
the time. City Manager? Assistant City Manager? Oh, Mike wanted to
remind me that Run for the Schools was Saturday, and I guess it was a
very successful, um, run and we all wanted to acknowledge and
congratulate the schools on their very successful event on Saturday. Did
any of you run in it? I did not. I planned to.
Wright: I plan to next year.
Bailey: So am I. We'll run...(laughter) City Attorney? City Clerk? I would
entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved by O'Donnell.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wright. All those in favor say aye. We are adjourned.
Thank you very much.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council Special Formal meeting of October 6, 2008.