Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-06 TranscriptionJanuary 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1 January 6, 2003 Council Work Session 6:35 PM Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilbum Staff: Atkins, Boothroy, Cate, Dilkes, Dulek, Franklin, Karr, Klingaman, O'Neil, Scott TAPES: 03-02 and 03-03, BOTH SIDES PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS a. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF MADISON STREET, DAVENPORT STREET, AND BLOOMINGTON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY. (VAC02-00008) Franklin/OK, your first item is a public hearing on an ordinance vacating portions of Madison, Davenport, and Bloomington Street rights-of-way. These are shown on the slide that is on the screen--it's the shaded areas with the dark line around them. The other shaded areas have been previously vacated. This is just another step in our negotiations and work with the University that was explained in your packet regarding acquisition of the old water plant site by the University. Going back even further, this was part of our negotiations with the University for Eastlawn for Tower Place. So it's just kind of another step in the process. Are there any questions about this? Kanner/Maybe I didn't see it there, but was there a copy of the original contract that it refers to where this was part of the agreement? Franklin/In your packets? Karmer/Yeah. Franklin/I don't believe so. Karmer/Could I get the part where it mentions this agreement, what was agreed in the original contract? Franklin/The original contract should be in your system, on your laserfische, because that went through you for approval. Kanner/OK. Do you know when it was and where it is exactly that regards this specific-- Dilkes/It's in the addendum to the agreement. It's a contingency of the agreement of the vacation of these streets. And so it would be in the attachment of the kind of standard form of the purchase agreement. And I'm thinking that we approved that- -oh, I don't know--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2 Franklin/It would have been--attached to this was a resolution approving a purchase agreement between the City and the University for the old water plant site. Is that what you're referring to? Kanner/Well, I guess the heart of the question is the contract that was agreed to, is that legally binding that we have to vacate the roads? Is that--- Dilkes/No, we cannot bind you to vacate, but the agreement is contingent on you vacating, i.e., the agreement is null and void if you don't. Kanner/OK. Pfab/As part of the contract? Dilkes/Correct. Kanner/What happens if it becomes null and void? What happens to the--- Dilkes/You don't have an agreement to sell the property to the University. Kanner/I mean, isn't it already a fait accompli that we already got property from them? Dilkes/No, we separatated the two transactions and we purchased Eastlawn as part of one transaction, and we now have a purchase agreement whereby they are purchasing the old water plant site. And there are certain contingencies, things that have to happen in order for that agreement to materialize, one of which is the vacation of this. Kanner/So, essentially, they're purchasing not only water plant but the streets also. Franklin/Yes. Kanner/OK. Thank you. Franklin/The purchase agreement was approved by the City Council September 24th of 2002 on a vote of 7 to 0. Karr/And that's attached to--what's the date of that resolution, Karin? Franklin/September 24, 2002. Right. It's Resolution 02-329, which was in your packet. The purchase agreement is not attached to it, if you want to look it up. b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (RS-5/OSA) FOR 5,6 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1520 N. DUBUQUE ROAD. (REZ02-00019) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting o£ January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3 (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/OK? Next item is first consideration on the Sensitive Areas rezoning of the property on Dubuque Road. This is the one where I thought we might be able to avoid the Sensitive Areas rezoning because of the change of how the area was going to be sewered. That work evidently has not reached a point at which we can drop the Sensitive Areas rezoning, so I would ask you to go forward with first consideration of this ordinance under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for this project. It is a single-family development for three single-family dwellings, four lots. Pfab/Do you have your lot? Franklin/I don't know if it's on here. No. We had it previously during the public heating. Do you remember where it is? Pfab/No, I don't. Franklin/It's on Dubuque Road, north of the Hy Vee--the North Dodge Street Hy Vee-- on the other side of the street. Pfab/OK, now I remember. I was looking for some other place--- Franklin/Yeah. It's been a while since we talked about it. c. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING LAFAYETTE STREET, LOCATED WEST OF CAPITOL STREET. (VAC02-00006) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item c is first consideration of an ordinance to vacate LaFayette Street. located west of Capitol Street. This, also, we had the public hearing previously on this in December. This is to allow City Carton to purchase the right-of-way. d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE EAST-TO-WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 27 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT, LOCATED BETWEEN MARKET AND BLOOMINGTON STREET WEST OF DODGE STREET. (VAC02-00007) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item d is first consideration of an ordinance to vacate the east-west alley in Block 27, located between Market and Bloomington streets, west of Dodge. This was requested by Mercy Hospital. On both of these items, c and d, there are resolutions on your Consent Calendar that are setting a public hearing on the conveyance, if you want to refer to them before tomorrow night. Again, this is so Mercy Hospital can acquire the alley just north of their parking facility. Karmer/So we got a memo recommending against the price that was offered of one This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4 dollar from the staff--- Franklin/From Mercy. Kanner/See, we got Franklin/Did you receive a memorandum on that? Karmer/A memo from the staff. Franklin/OK. Kanner/And so, how do we proceed if, so we would vote these down if we don't want to go with that offer, or is there a way to continue to negotiate? Franklin/Yes. What you want to do here, because this is the vacation of the alley, it is not the conveyance, we cat!. go through the first and second readings, and then we will hold the third reading on the vacation until we come to some resolution of that issue. So this, what you have before you tomorrow night is the first reading on the ordinance to vacate. You convey by resolution and that would not happen for at least two meetings hence. Pfab/I was just about ready to comment. You talked about (can't hear) for City Carton? Franklin/Yeah. Pfab/I think that was very advantageous to the City Council when their attorney, Mr. Downer, came in and said this is what we're all feeling, and when I looked at that dollar, that just scared the dickens out of me. And I'm wondering, I'm going to be inclined to vote no until we know where the numbers are. Franklin/Well, you can do as you choose. But if you decide that you want to proceed with this, to allow more time for negotiations on those dollar amounts, you can do that by voting for the reading on the vacation for two times, and then the third one we would hold it. Pfab/I would propose that we postpone that until we get this; I think that puts the City Council in a very strong disadvantageous, and if they're going to buy it, we ought to know what their intentions are. Franklin/Well, all you're voting, when you vote on a reading, all that's saying is that you are going to continue to consider it. It doesn't give it any more weight. Your last vote is the critical vote, yes or no. Pfab/But--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5 Dilkes/I think you do know what their intentions are. They were expressed in Mr. Gelman's letter, and you got a memo from us telling you what our reservations are about that offer, and I think, as Karin has said, there is time now for you to have some discussion about that, if you want to. But the first and second readings of the vacation don't do anything. Karmer/It seems that now is the time to see if there is a sense of the Council that we don't accept that, that we want a higher price. I would recommend that we see if we have four people that don't like that price and would like to get staff to negotiate for a higher price. Because there isn't any sense, really, to keep proceeding if we're not going to--- Lehman/ I think you're right. If you look at the Consent Calendar, there is a public hearing set for the conveyance, and it would appear to me that that's the time to indicate our intent to Mercy Hospital that one dollar is not a satisfactory amount. Kaimer/Well, why wait all the way to then? The reality is they're offering one, as we just heard. Their intent is one dollar. They're saying a dollar. Let's negotiate now. Why put it off?. Champion/It's hard to--- Kanner/We don't, we're essentially conveying, Connie, that one dollar is OK Champion/We're not conveying. We don't convey until the third--- Kanner/No, no, I don't mean "conveying" in "giving," I meant--- O'Donnell/Vacating. Kanner/We're giving a sense that one dollar is OK by continuing along--- Dilkes/No, I don't think we are. We've conveyed to them our reservations; we've given them a copy of the memo that we gave to you. I think they're well aware of that. I think their intention is to come and make their pitch to you on the 4th, and I agree that that is the time to be talking about it. Now, if you want to defer the vacations, you know, you can do that. I think the 4th is the time to be talking about this. Kanner/Have they given a response then to this? Coming back with a different offer? Franklin/No. Kanner/No? Pfab/There's no motivation for them. They might as well sit out and then hope that they can do a squeeze (can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 6 Champion/That's not true, Irvin. You're misunderstanding what's going on here. Pfab/I don't think so. I've seen this happen so many times. And I'm not picking them out alone. I've seen this happen and I thought it was such a wonderful way when Bob Downer, the attorney for City Carton, said, "Hey, we said, why don't we do this?" The next time he showed up with an offer. 1 think that was, and apparently the staff had the offer, it just hadn't been processed for the first reading. That's how, if you want, the City has rights too, and I don't think we should allow ourself to be put in the squeeze like that. Vanderhoef/Well, if I were to send any message above and beyond what yours was, I would send the message to get an appraisal. Pfab/That's, that'd be the way to go. Vanderhoef/If they want to rush the process up. Dilkes/Well, but do you want to leave it to staff to negotiate that or take that as the direction of the four of you now, or do you want to wait for the 4th, have that conversation with Mercy and Mr. Gelman, and there's no harm done because there can be an appraisal done at that point. You can negotiate a price at that point; you can do whatever you want on the 4th, and there hasn't been anything that's happened at that point that's not--can't--nothing's happened. Champion/I think we should decide if we're going to vote to vacate and make the decision about--they might come back with another offer. Lehman/Well, 1 think that's correct. And the 4th is the public hearing on the transference of property and that's the time to indicate that dollar (can't hear) Franklin/You will not have a final vote on the vacation until this is resolved to your satisfaction. Pfab/I think that the City Council should have the intestinal fortitude to back up the staff and say, "Hey, we don't think this is right, and as a result, we'll postpone this until the staff feels that we're getting a fair shake." Champion/But you're asking us to change the whole process and some of us like the process the way it is. O'Donnell/Ernie, why don't you see if there aren't four of us who would like to move this forward to the 4th? Lehman/Well, we're going to play it out tomorrow night because tomorrow night we're going to vote on it. So, all right. Next item. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 7 Karmer/Well, are there four people though that want to get, to ask staff to ask Mercy to get an appraisal? Lehman/I think the time to do that is on the 4th when we have the public hearing. Kanner/I think we can get a sense right now. I'd like to see if there are four people. I think it would be good to get an appraisal. It would be in the City's best interest, I think. Lehman/Well, it's going to be in Mercy's best interest to get the appraisal because if they wait till the 4th in order to be told they need an appraisal, they're going to have to wait until the appraisal comes back in before we ask. Franklin/There isn't a representative from Mercy here tonight, who I think is taking this all in. (Laughter) Lehman/No. Champion/The other thing though, too, I mean, an appraisal might not be exactly what we want because we are asking for concessions from them on that road and we may be willing to give them--- Franklin/Well, the appraisal would take them into account. Dilkes/Would take them into account. Franklin/Moving on? Champion/Yes. e. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE K, THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE, REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY REZONINGS AND SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLANS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item e is second consideration on the amendments to the Sensitive Areas Overlay Ordinance, which you've already voted on once. Champion/I've lost track of where we're at now, Karin. Franklin/OK. O'Donnell/The second because we've already voted on--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8 Franklin/Item e, we're on second consideration on the amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance processes. Champion/Thank you. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Lehman/OK. f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 10.15 ACRES FROM MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY (RM-20) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY AND PLANNED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RM- 20/OSA/OPDH) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF HIGHWAY 1 AND RUPPERT ROAD. (REZ02-000018) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item fis pass and adopt on the rezoning of the property for the Calloway project that you just voted on for second consideration tonight. g. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RUPPERT HILLS, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB02-00021) Franklin/And then item g is a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Ruppert Hills, which is the plat that enables the Calloway project to occur or the property to be sold. h. CONSIDER A LETTER TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING FOR AN APPROXIMATE 11.35-ACRE TRACT LOCATED IN FRINGE AREA C AT 3125 ROHRET ROAD SW (CZ02-00007) Franklin/Item h is considering a letter to the Board of Supervisors recommending approval of a rezoning of approximately 11.35-acre tract in Fringe Area C on Rohret Road, The location is shown on the slide in front of you. This is in Fringe Area C. We have looked at it in the context of that Fringe Area Policy, which requires that a certain amount of space be set aside for open space. In this proposal, out-lot A and out-lot B will be open space. The issue that we were working on with the people who own the property and with the County was access for the future. And what is proposed is this drive which would come off of Highway 1, which could be used for access to this lot, which is the lot that will be built on, obviously the lot that's on Highway 1; as well as it could be extended along here to this property if need be and also would provide access to the property to the west. This is far enough out in the County that we don't believe there will be any need for it in the immediate sense, but this is to provide for the future. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9 Vanderhoef/That is outside of our sewerable area, correct? Franklin/Yes. This is our Grove boundary. This is the landfill up here. So, as things stand right now, it's outsideof any area that we would anticipate having within the City. Pfab/Can you go back to your last slide? OK, now you say this out-lot B and out-lot A are open space? Franklin/Open space. Pfab/Can you describe that a little bit. What is it--it's a rolly land, is it? Franklin/Oh, the topography? This is a hill here and then it gradually goes down. Is that right, Larry, or am 1 just the---yeah, it goes down in this direction here. So we're at the high point in here and going down this way. I can really see the topo lines very well on this. Pfab/OK. All right, the question is--- Franklin/ It's just agricultural land. Pfab/...so how much is that? Franklin/This is seven acres and this is two something. Pfab/(Can't hear) ...So, anyway what I'm saying is that will be over the site of, the owner is still going to be--- Franklin/ At this point this is all owned by one family. The daughter of the woman who owns this house wants to build a house right here. Pfab/So there's access to the property and is that, can that property ever be sold? Franklin/Yes. Pfab/But we're saying that no buildings can ever be put on it at this point? Franklin/At this point in time. Pfab/OK. Franklin/What this anticipates is a hundred years from now. Pfab/Right. So, I was just looking at, what picqued my curiosity was the access road, that potential access into that piece of property. I just was wondering. That was what-- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10 Franklin/Mm-hmm. Kanner/Karin? Are there plans for the City to expand the landfill to the south at all? Franklin/No, I think it's all to the west. Steve? Expansion of the landfill to the west, not south? Atkins/It can go west, yes. We may buy property for fill, if anything. Franklin/Are we acquiring any land down here? South? Atkins/We had no interest. Kanner/How far is that from the landfill? Franklin/How far is this? Kanner/Yeah. Franklin/Well, this is probably--- Atkins/Three-quarters of a mile. Lehman/Yeah, three-quarters of a mile. Atkins/I say three-quarters of a mile. Yeah. Frm~klin/Three-quarters of a mile? OK. Kanner/Because I know we are planning to the west, I guess, for future cells, but the plan is eventually to perhaps use some of the landfill covered up cells as recreation areas, (can't hear). And I'm wondering how that might fit in with land to the south--- Franklin/Here? Kanner/...if in the future if we might want to purchase some of that land and how that might affect that property. If we did go, if we had a recreation golf course, perhaps, out there, or they're talking about a dog park now, but I think there could be a lot of possible uses for that land. Franklin/Well, this is, I mean it's all grossly speculative at this point in time. But if anything were to happen on the north side of the highway here that made this more attractive for development, we still would have to be able to sewer it somehow, which means a whole other plant or a huge lift station and other plant This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1 i expansions that we don't have anticipated now. But that's why we have provided within this very small area the opportunity for access for development in the future, if we should ever need it. But I think we're kind of light years away. Vanderhoef/Karin? On the other map showing the--- Franklin/That one? Vanderhoef/...access to out-lot A--- Franklin/ Yes. Vanderhoef/...is there an entrance into that area at all from Highway 17 Franklin/No. We didn't want one. That was why we were trying to get just the one here. Vanderhoef/Well, I was going to say I wanted to negotiate to close it, but--- Franklin/There's no entrance there. Vanderhoef/OK. Pfab/I have one other question back on the landfill. Can you tell me where the new, there was a bid just, either in the process or put out, for developing a new cell. Can you show me where that location is on the map? Franklin/I cannot. Dan, can you? Pfab/I'm just curious where--- Dan Scott/Can you look where the words are? Pfab/Yeah. Franklin/Here? Pfab/Is that where the arrow--- Wilburn/Yeah. Right where the arrow is right there. Pfab/OK. Thank you very much. Franklin/Ann Bovbjerg is here representing P and Z, if you have any questions for the commission? Ann, do you want to say anything, wherever you went? OK. Very good, we're done. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 12 Lehman/Thm~k you, Karin. REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/OK. Review agenda items. 4e(1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT WITIt IOWA REALTY COMMERCIAL TO SELL AND/OR LEASE 17 COMMERCIAL LOTS IN THE AIRPORT'S AVIATION COMMERCE PARK. Atkins/Ernie, one to point out is the Airport lease sale agreement under Consent has to be pulled off and voted on separately. So, we'll just remind you of that tomorrow night. Pfab/Which item is that? Atkins/It's item e-1 on the Consent Calendar, Irvin, the Airport lease sale agreement. Dilkes/It doesn't have to be. You can pull it off. Atkins/OK. Oh? You don't. Karmer/But actually I was going to ask to pull it off anyhow, so--- Dilkes/We didn't intend to put it on the Consent Calendar. That was a mistake. Lehman/So, we will take it off and discuss that separately. Is there any discussion relative to that this evening? Vanderhoef/What's the letter on? O'Donnell/E. Champion/E- 1. Vanderhoef/E- 1 ? Lehman/Right. 4. d. (1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND QWEST FOR USE OF IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SPACE IN THE FIRST FLOOR ALCOVE FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE PEDESTAL IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 21. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13 Vanderhoef/OK. I just have a couple questions about the agreement with Qwest for use of public library space. Number one, will it be in the secured area or will it be out where it's available after hours? Kanner/For people using meeting rooms and things like that? Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Atkins/Dee, I don't know. I'll have to find out--- Vanderhoef/That's one I'd like answered and the other one is will the rent for this space come to the general fund? Atkins/Traditionally they have, but we credit back against the library, whenever they get special revenues. It does go into the general fund. It's booked originally into the general fund. Vanderhoeff It goes to the general fund but you're saying then you give it back to them? Atkins/Indirectly, we do because what they will do is that if they secure some kind of a grant, inevitably they have some offsetting expenditure that they put in their budget that uses up those monies. Karmer/So they use that, like overdue fines and other things, they have an account that is sort of their discretionary--- Atkins/It's not a good system. It's not discretionary. It's not a good system. I don't know how else to answer it other than--- Vanderhoef/I don't like that. I would much rather it be a clean deposit to the general fund just like we're doing with the antenna on top ofthe--- Atkins/That's a whole other issue. If you wish to raise that issue for discussion, it's OK, but we've traditionally not done it that way. Because basically you're--- Vanderhoef/Is anyone else interested in it? Pfab/Just a minute. You're saying, which other antenna? Atkins/The parking--- Vanderhoef/Well, the rent that we get for--- Lehman/(Can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14 Vanderhoef/...the antenna off of the parking ramp. That goes directly to the general fund. P£ab/That's not my understanding. Atkins/That goes to the parking fund. Lehman/That goes to the parking fund. Atkins/That goes to the parking fund. Vanderhoef/Excuse me. Pfab/OK, because that was what--- Champion/And so you object to the--- Atkins/With budget time coming up, it's a good time to ask that question about the library and how we account for it. Vanderhoef/OK. Atkins/I can give you a better explanation and a little more detail. Vanderhoef/OK. Atkins/Because there are other revenues. And secured area was the other question? Vanderhoef/Yes. Atkins/OK. 4e(1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT WITH IOWA REALTY COMMERCIAL TO SELL AND/OR LEASE 17 COMMERCIAL LOTS IN THE AIRPORT'S AVIATION COMMERCE PARK. Lehmm~/I have a question on the agreement with the, the listing agreement with the Airport Commission, if I read this correctly. Any sale of lots requires the approval of the City Council and any lease would have the review of the Council but the Commission would make the final decision, but it would require that Council review leases prior to their being approved by the Commission. Dilkes/Review and make a recommendation of the Commission just as the Commission reviews and makes a recommendation on a sale to the Council. Lehman/OK. All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 15 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 5, "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS," TO AMEND THE PROHIBITION ON SERVING TWO (2) SERVINGS OF ANY ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR, WINE, OR BEER AT ANY ONE TIME TO ANY ONE PERSON TO SERVING TWO (2) "CONTAINERS" OF ANY ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR, WINE, OR BEER AT ANY ONE TIME TO ANY ONE PERSON AND TO DELETE THE EXCEPTION FOR "PRIVATE EVENTS." O'Donnell/I have a question on number 8. I only had trouble with the definition of what a "serving" is. We're changing that to "container." I'm wondering what is the definition of "container"? Vanderhoeff It talks about a cup or a glass in the ordinance. Dilkes/It's defined in the ordinance. O'Dormell/! ask to what size though? Dilkes/There's no size specification. O'DonnelI/Then that's the (can't hear) my question. Lehman/It could be a bucket. Dilkes/It could be a bucket. Lehman/Right. O'Donnell/That's exactly right. Dilkes/It could be a pitcher. It could be a martini glass. O'Donnell/So, in our continuing attempt to make this clearer, do we need to define clearly what the definition of "container" is, by ounce? Dilkes/I think that's the problem we've gotten into by using "serving." We need something that's not dependent on the type of alcohol being served. That's why we've gone to "container." And, yes, if an establishment wanted to avoid the effects of this and go to delivering two huge containers to any one person, they could. Except, I think, the purpose of this rule, the two drinks per person is to address underage consumption so that you can't buy--one person can't go up and buy 10 drinks and go back to the table and distribute those 10 drinks to underage people. It is more difficult, it seems to me, to do that with a big container than it is with a bunch of different glasses. But, you know, there's not, we're not going to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16 solve the problem. But the reason we are going to "container" is because of the ambiguity in the word "serving." I think "container" is a much clearer term, easier to define, but it's not going to solve all your underage drinking issues. Champion/The question I have, Eleanor or Council, is to delete the exception of "for private events." I mean that, I don't know if we're just making life very difficult for people. The private event, a wedding reception in a hotel, is that a rented-out part of a restaurant? Dilkes/Well, let me tell you my thinking on that. Staffhas been put in a very uncomfortable position, because we are getting requests from establishments as to whether their "private event" is indeed a "private event" under the terms of the ordinance. And done creatively, you can make a kind of ticket-selling event, those tickets being available to the general public, fit within that exception. I don't believe that was the intent of the exception, and so we are in an awkward position there. And it has become.just too difficult to make that provision have any meaning. And so if you want to allow that loophole for all-you-can-drink specials, then leave the exception in. If you don't, I think it needs to come out. Vanderhoef/And would there be a way to do that, the private event being a free one? Dilkes/No, what I have said in the memo is that the true private event, where you've got a host holding an event in an establishment, such as a wedding reception, and although the guests are drinking free, the alcohol is being paid for. It's not free-- it's just the guests aren't paying for it. I don't think that violates the prohibition on all-you-can-drink-for-free or all-you-can-drink-for-a-fixed-price. So, I think those would still be allowable. But what I don't think Council intended, and tell me if I'm wrong, is to allow, for instance, what happened at the Summit on New Year's Eve, which is selling advance tickets to anybody for 450 tickets, which is almost the capacity of the restaurant. There's really no particular group of people that that promotion was directed at. It was kind of, it was an advance cover charge. It just wasn't being done at the door. So, --- Vanderhoef/Well, that's why I was asking because I was thinking about that particular one and that one they paid for a ticket. So if there was a way to say "a free event," meaning a wedding reception, you're not going to charge someone to go into the wedding reception to have the liquor. So that was the "special event" that we were intending. Champion/(can't hear) the event is not being held by the restaurant. It's being held by a private party. Lehman/Private. Vanderhoeff Mm-hmm. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 17 Dilkes/But what I'm telling you is I think that by deleting that exception, we're not going to prohibit that. Pfab/I support the way you're going. Dilkes/Do you understand? Vanderhoef/So, that can still happen? Dilkes/Yes. If the alcohol is being paid for, it's not an all-you-can-drink special. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/But the event you don't pay for when you go to a wedding reception versus what the Summit did when you paid to attend the event, Dilkes/Well, the difference is is that the kind of special that I believe that the Summit was having was a fixed price for all you can drink. Lehman/Right. Dilkes/Your basic, typical wedding reception the guests are drinking at no charge, but the host is paying for that alcohol by the amount of alcohol being consumed, not at a fixed price. Vanderhoef/OK. I had one question also while we're on the alcohol thing. In the ordinance under Section 1 Amendment, number 1 and number 2 in both cases you're talking about "servings" again and have not struck those, yet later on that that's exactly what we're doing is we're striking "serving" and "container." Dilkes/Because that's not the place where we have problems with the term. Vanderhoef/And do you think we'd be better offto have it consistent? Dilkes/I don't think--I thought about that. I don't think it's necessary. Two-for-ones, all- you-can-drink, that kind of thing, it's really not dependent on how you call, what you call a "serving." Two-for-one is two of the same thing for one price. All-you- can-drink is all you can drink for free, whether you serve it in containers or you call it five servings or six servings or whatever you want to call it. Vanderhoef/OK. Dilkes/The issue we have is the delivery of two servings to one person has caused this problem. Champion/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 18 O'Donnell/But I think it still is, if we're not talking--I mean two drinks in containers, you know, identify what a "container" is. I understand you go into some bars and they give you a glass. So, if you've got a large enough container, why then you could make it available to the others, if you took it there. Champion/We have a lot of sales of pitchers of beer. O'Donnell/But you can't go, you cannot--I understood one person couldn't go buy a pitcher. Champion/No, that's because they deliver it to the table. O'Donnell/It has to be delivered to the table, so that I can go carry a bucket or a barrel back. Because 1 have two containers. I couldn't carry a bucket out of there but I bet you probably could. (Laughter) Dilkes/With this ordinance--- Champion/I could drink it before I got there. (Laughter) Lehman/Eleanor? Dilkes/With the ordinance amendment, a pitcher will be a container. One person can be served two pitchers. Champion/Well, you know what, it's not up for a big (can't hear---brogue?) Lehman/We resemble that. O'Doimell/We're certainly trying to make it more complicated though. Champion/We're trying to make it more complicated, but the point is is to make people aware that there's a problem and maybe, hopefully, the bar owners will take some of this under control and help us eliminate some of the excessive drinking downtown. That would be the-~- Lehman/That'II be a surprise. Vanderhoef/That would be a wonderful New Year's resolution for all of us. Champion/It would. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 19 Pfab/I think this is supposed to show the ingenuity of the enterprise system, free enterprise. Champion/Well, if it's possible to make a law, you'd have to run somehow. Kanner/Eleanor, I just want to clarify something. A social group goes to a bar; one person goes, the head of it, says I want to reach an agreement with you. We'll pay for alcohol, and they reach an agreement and normally it sells for a dollar a pint, but they reach an agreement for every pint that we use, you charge us a quarter. And so then, they go out and bring in their social club and that social club can drink without any consequences because that one person is making the contract and is paying for the alcohol. Dilkes/WeIll, you've raised another issue there because there's no prohibition and this was something that the Council changed when they originally passed the ordinance. There's no prohibition on reducing your prices. I mean you can reduce the price of a drink 10 cents. There's nothing prohibiting that. I mean, your hypothetical raises that issue as well. O'Donnell/Well, that's enough of that one. Lehman/All right. (Laughter) Lehman/Are there any other agenda items? Champion/I think we just went to 20, we'll make a law (can't hear) Lehman/We're on our way. Karmer/Yeah. O'Donnell/Actually we moved. Kanner/A couple things in correspondence. Lehman/Yes. 4. f. (1) CORRESPONDENCE. CANDACE PETERS: LACK OF HUD FUNDING Karmer/Number 1. I think most of us have read about the snafu that happened with the funding, the state funding for homeless issues. And there was a request that we send a letter to our senators asking that the funding be reconsidered. We lost out This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20 on it--I believe it was $4 million. A large amount of that comes into Johnson County for some very good programs, and so I would ask that we consider a resolution as a Council to our senators to reconsider that application and try to get to the bottom of who was responsible for losing the papers, or even if the State was responsible, that we be given another chance and see if there's any way we can recover some of that money from the Feds. Pfab/Can I make a, when you are finished I want to follow up on what you said. Are you finished? Kanner/Yes. Pfab/Very interesting. This same gentleman that sent this packet 10 or 12 years ago did the same trick and it also and is opened by the same people. This is not, you know, I don't want to talk bad about any bankers, but somebody told me a long time ago if the banker shortchanges you once it's a mistake; if he shortchanges you the second time, it may not be a mistake. Now, also, there's another thing here. Des Moines is getting their money. Des Moines' allocation is coming to them. I think there's a lot more that needs to be looked at than just somebody not doing something. There's problems. O'Donnell/I think it was a clerical error. Karmer/Well, perhaps, Irvin. O'Dormell/And I don't have any trouble if you want to send a letter. Champion/Well, I don't either. O'Donnell/But that's fine with me. Pfab/Sure. Lehman/Do we all agree that ~vould be a letter to our Congressional delegation would be--- Champion/ Oh, sure. O'Donnell/I think a letter is fine. Lehman/All right. Atkins/I'll take care of it. Lehman/We'll do that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21 Pfab/I think we have to do everything we can. Atkins/OK. 4. L (4) CORRESPONDENCE. EIDE BAILLY: AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Kanner/And then I had some questions. Once again, it looked like we got a favorable audit. We have a good financial department, but I had a question about that. Atkins/OK. Kanner/One was, again it was pointed out that we need to institute mandatory vacations. Now, last year that involved--and there's a good reason for that--to catch it there-- Atkins/Excellent reasons for it, Steven. Kanner/...if there's anything happening that other people can then look at the procedure. And so, our director took part in that. Is this going beyond and saying that other people in the department also have to do that? Atkins/It's generally a good idea to have that vacation policy for really any of your folks that have, who are money management responsibility. We try to do it best, the best we try to do it by encouraging employees, but we also believe it's bargainable and we have to talk to our employee representatives about it. I can assure you, that's the goal and they will raise that issue with it. They've raised it in the past. And again, I try to accomplish it without mucking up a labor agreement with requiring mandatory vacation time for certain people. Kanner/How far down does it go that you have to have mandatory vacation as recommended by the auditor? What level? Atkins/I don't know the answer to that, Steven. I guess anybody who handles cash, it's not a bad idea. Kanner/Could you give us a memo when that's accomplished? I'd like to know. Atkins/Sure. Pfab/Also--- Atkins/I'm not so sure we'll ever fulfill it completely to the auditor's satisfaction, but we have made efforts on it. Pfab/Even if you can't negotiate a mandatory vacation, you can also shift, position. Is there anything wrong with that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22 Atkins/There's nothing wrong with shifting positions if someone has to take time off, they have to be out of the building--that's mandatory vacation. But I understand your point. Karmer/The auditor is recommending that there be certain mandatory vacation of key personnel. And then the other thing--could you explain audit adjustment? They mention that on page 138 on our correspondence. Atkins/Hang on a second. Dilkes/Steven, where are you in the agenda? Kanner/This is the correspondence number 4 from the auditor, and I'm sorry, it starts on 137 in our packet. Atkins/When we, excuse me--- Kanner/Go ahead. Atkins/Yeah, when we prepare our audit work papers and we prepare a trial balance that's prior to the auditors coming in, we assemble that information for them. They arrived in November and during that review process, we discovered that there were three invoices that needed to be incorporated into that trial balance. The auditor was noted that we incorporated that and it was taken care of and it does not affect the bottom line in any way. It's just simply an audit adjustment that we have to make. It's not a finding. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Kanner/Just papers were added and perhaps they should have been added at a different time or--- Atkins/Let's say, what, in fact, I had a note here on one of them. A Blue Cross payment was made in July '01 for June '01 claims. That overlaps our fiscal year. We had to make an adjustment because of that. That's not an uncommon thing. I don't know really how else to explain it to you other than that's why we have auditors to--the three items involved were reasonably minor items but in order for our books to be completely satisfactory to us, they have to make those adjustments. Ka~mer/And I would agree it seems to be a minor item. Atkins/The important thing is that we flag it, you become aware of it, we become aware o fit, and the adjustments are accomplished. And they were done. Kanner/And then, one final thing is, they pointed out this new statement has come out, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23 statement 34. Atkins/GASB 34? O'Donnell/Yeah. Karmer/Are we going to have to expend any money to bring us into accordance with that? Atkins/I think we will. The level to which, I don't really know. GASB 44 is a new accounting procedure. Generally accepted accounting procedures require us now to identify ali of our capital assets, develop depreciation schedules, that means streets, that means everything, and it will be a rather substantial job. It's actual cost, Steve, whether we have to ultimately assign an accountant to just do that, I just don't know. Kanner/You might have to hire someone? Atkins/Oh, yeah, yeah. But we do have to do that. What was happening is that cities were, have significant assets, but when it comes to booking those assets and showing, in effect, the public what the value is of those assets and depreciation, and we never really had to do that. We do it on rolling stock, but now we have to do it for virtually everything we own. Kanner/Could you bring that up, flag that for our budget discussions? Atkins/Sure. I'd be happy to. Kanner/I assume this is in '04 this is going to be happening? Atkins/Yeah. We have--yeah, I'm happy to do it. Kanner/Thank you. Atkins/Yeah. Lehman/Any other agenda items? Franklin/Oh, yes, I have one. Lehman/Yes. 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCALLY KNOWN AS 426 BAYARD STREET~ W}IICIt IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABATING THE NUISANCE. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24 Di.lkes/Item 9. It's the Baird Street property. I'm going to ask you to defer that until January 21 st and direct that notice be given to the property owner of its opportunity to be heard on the 21 st. Lehman/OK. 4. f. (12) CORRESPONDENCE. DAVID TINGWALD (NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION): EAGLE COUNTRY MARKET Kanner/Two other things also in correspondence. We had a request from the Northside Neighborhood Association to communicate with Eagle Foods because I guess there's rumors of them leaving Dodge Street, and I would agree it's an important neighborhood asset, and I was wondering if Economic Development Committee could discuss this for a few minutes and see if it's worthwhile making some sort of contact, whether it's a letter or a visit of the EC. I don't know if that's necessary. Atkins/I did see the property advertised so it seems to be for real. Lehman/Put it on our agenda. Atkins/OK. Vanderhoef/I think that's fine. Kanner/Can you notify David Tingwald that it will be on the agenda? Atkins/I'll talk to David, give him the heads up. 4. f. (13) CORRESPONDENCE. MIKE HENRY: MEDIACOM Karmer/And then, finally, we also got a letter number 13 from Mike Henry who's part of the United Methodist Hispanic-Latino Ministry of Cedar Rapids and this area, eastern Iowa, it encompasses this. He had some concern about the Spanish channel going off the Basic cable. I don't know how much power we have over that in our negotiations with Mediacom, probably very little. But I was wondering if that's something that Council w0uld like our Telecommunications to discuss at a meeting and see if there is a big call for the Spanish channel to stay. Vanderhoef/Yes, we do. Absolutely and they had taken it off and we had enough people that felt it should be back on and they put it back on and now all at once, it's off again. Atkins/I think the last time it was a channel capacity issue and they took it off This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 25 completely. This time it's just a matter of where they put it on the tier. We have no regulatory authority but we can take it to the Commission and they can talk about it, and we can make a request to the cable company. Vanderhoef/I guess I would go forward with a letter directly to the company now and request that that be placed on the Basic--- Champion/A lot of our low-income people are minority, but a lot of them are Spanish, and that's terrible. Pfab/Is there a letter in the sense that the Council's concern, that we have, express our concern, not the right--- Champion/I thought that all had been taken care of. Atkins/We did too. We blinked. TAPE 03-02, SIDE 2 Lehman/Well, we've got two separate issues this time. They took it clear off last time. O'Dormell/Yeah. Lehman/This time it's in a package that apparently you have to pay for. Helling/The last time the thing is that they did a shared thing to get it on at least part of the time, as I recall, or else they put it back on and did a share on a couple other services, because they were at capacity. Now, I can't tell you if their Basic tier is at capacity or not. So I'm not discouraging you from doing this, I'm just pointing out that if the cable company does it, they may take something else off the Basic tier in order to do this, and you might get some feedback from that. Pfab/If that's the case, then we, will they tell us what the options are? Champion/No, let them make the, we can't make that decision. Pfab/No, (can't hear) Lehman/When we communicate our concern to them. Atkins/We can do that. O'Donnell/That's good. Lehman/As is reflected by this letter. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 26 Kanner/And can we ask Telecommunications to discuss it also? Champion/(can't hear) We should. That's terrible. Atkins/You want that referred to the Committee also? Lehman/Yeah. Atkins/OK. Is that a yes? Connie, is that referring it to the Telecommunications Committee as well? Champion/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/I think both. Pfab/I think, yeah. Atkins/OK. Lehman/I would suspect that a note from--you're by the far the closest to this--so a letter from you to Mediacom, a copy to the Commission would be probably the best. Everybody doesn't know (can't hear) the same sheet of music. Atkins/Yeah, I mi'ght suggest you consider a letter from the mayor. Lehman/That's fine. With a copy to the Commission. Champion/When is that contract up? Lehman/February 20-something of 2006. Champion/Good. Lehman/Last time it took three years to negotiate a new one so don't get too excited. OK, are we through with Agenda items? Atkins/Yes. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS JCCOG URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD Lehman/OK, appointment to JCCOG Board. O'Donnell/Well, we don't have much choice. I think, Ernie, it should be an elected official. I really--I guess I could support you. But we really--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 27 Lehman/I really appreciate that, Mike. O'Dormell/We really have only four choices. We've been in one of them and I think it should be an elected official so I'll nominate Ernie. Champion/I'1I second that. Lehman/Is there any kind of concurrence in that? O'Donnell/I doubt it will be unanimous. AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL PROJECT Lehman/All right. Airport Obstruction Removal Project. You never thought we were going to get to you, did you? Donnelly/Well, I didn't know. I told Ron that I'd limit my comments to about an hour and a half. (Laughter) Lehman/You'd limit? Very definitely. Pfab/We're waiting for that comment. Donnelly/This is informational for the Council and the public here. And I promise I won't take any more than 15 minutes. I'll try to confine it to maybe to 10, ifI can do it. As I said, this is informational to brief you on the Airport obstruction mitigation activities. My name is Mike Donnelly. I'm from Stanley Consultants. We do a lot of work with the City, and we were retained by the Airport Commission to help out with this particular project. If there are some very specific technical questions, one of my colleagues over here, Cathy Weikel, who's been working very closely with the project (can't hear), of course, Airport manager Ron O'Neil is here in the audience also. We've been working hand in hand with the Commission and under Ron O'Neil's direction to identify obstructions that are within the flight paths of airline traffic. And one of the things that I want to emphasize is that this project is a project that is a safety project, not only for airline traffic in and out of the Airport, but also people and residences and the general public at large. So, it's primarily for public safety and it's primarily funded by the FAA. They've contributed $250,000 to accomplish these goals, and then the City's got a minor financial stake in terms of a match for that money. Originally, obstructions that were in the flight paths of airline traffic were identified by Iowa Department of Transportation, and then those were confirmed by a consultant who developed the report that was approved by the FAA in the Airport Layout Plan. When this $250,000 grant money was received, the Airport This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 28 Commission retained Stanley to go out and do a variety of different activities, and right now we're in the middle of those activities. To date, it's been primarily gathering data, confirming information, and not a lot of public outreach. But before we initiated any kind of public outreach activities here related to the obstruction removal that might involve people contacting the Council members, we wanted to come and brief you and tell you what's going on and give you some idea of what might be happening. Our tasks in the jobs that we've been doing are to go out in the field, locate these obstructions, and determine if they are indeed still there, and also to photograph and document those obstructions. Many of the originally identified obstructions are no longer in place or maybe no longer qualify as obstructions for a variety of reasons. In one instance, a building that was identified as an obstruction is no longer there. Trees that had been identified as obstructions have been cut down. One of the runways is planning on being closed so that removed a number of obstructions from considerations. An anteima that was in the flight path was removed so that's no longer an obstruction. And also, some of them have been lit since the original study and so no longer qualify as items of concern. What we did once we identified the existing obstructions was to prioritize those, and so what we did, we went out and we looked at them and evaluated them from a number of different standpoints. As I said earlier, the primary area of concern here is public safety, so the first criteria was safety for the public and for pilots who are flying in out of the Airport. Runway priority was also one of our areas of concern. We did cost-estimation for obstruction mitigation. That might be lighting, obstructions, or in the case of trees, removing obstructions, or in the case of signs, perhaps lowering or relocating signs; technical feasibility which is an engineer's jargon for saying, "Can it be done and at all?" Our next evaluation criteria was--Is this the responsibility of another entity? In other words, some of these are power poles. Are those the responsibility of a utility financially to relocate? And then a final criteria was community acceptance or what is the community's viewpoint likely to be for this mitigation? We also want to be very careful because we know this is a project that could get in the public eye and have some public concern, and so we conferred with the Airport manager, Ron O'Neil, and also the City Attorney's staff about legal positions, the ordinance, what our legal standpoint could be, what the City feasibly can do or can ask property owners to do in terms of mitigations of obstructions. So, we've been working very closely with them to ensure that everything we're doing is by the book and all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Right now, I wanted to kind of go in and show you a little bit graphically about where we've identified obstructions so that you know where they are and more or less what kind of obstructions that we might be looking at. In our first slide here, as you can see, is essentially on the northwest side of the Airport. And so, if you're looking here, this would be, 1 believe, 218 here, and this would be Highway 1. I believe this is Menards, and then this would be Wal-Mart right here, and this here is Benton Street and Mormon Trek road. As you can see, we've got some obstructions here, one of which is the comer of the Menards building. We've got obstructions that are on Airport property which are actually elevation of land which can be mitigated very easily by essentially removing earth in this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 29 area and lowering elevation. We've got light poles along here, along the highway, and then the area of concern, I think, from the public standpoint are a variety of different obstructions up in this residential area, which are primarily trees that penetrate the runway approach here. Up here on West Benton, we've got a tree here and then up here in University Heights, this is the Athletic Club here, and if you can imagine this is Melrose here, there is a slough in this area that's currently being developed. There's a grove of trees located right here, and then this here is another tree, I believe, up on Koser Avenue. Mitigation activities here could be removing earth in this area, placing these utilities underground and removing light poles, removing trees in these areas to improve public safety. This could be lowering the roof elevation in this area or perhaps lighting, to give you an idea of the different alternatives. I'm trying to place myself geographically here--here's the Iowa River, this is the University of Iowa power plant here. Mitigation here is to go to the FAA and to determine that lighting this structure is no longer a requirement. If we go here to the north, we can see an obstruction at St. Mary's Catholic Church spier; possible mitigation of that obstruction could be a ground elevation lighting to light the spier to make it, to enhance the amhitectural appearance of it in the evening. Kanner/Mike, you said the power plant does not need light anymore? Donnelly/Yeah, the procedure here would be to go to the FAA and get a determination that that didn't need to be lit, that that stack didn't need to be lit. Weikel/I can elaborate on that a little bit. Lehman/You need to speak in the microphone, if you would please. Weikel/At the power plant there are two stacks. There is one that is (can't hear) lit and the other one that is not lit. I've been in contact with the FAA department who reviews some of that type of stuff and wondering why one was lit and one wasn't and talking to them about that, thinking there might be a reason why it was not and maybe we would not have to light it. And one of the things that they indicated to me is from the information that I gave them that it sounded like a candidate that it would not have to be lit and would just be a matter of sending the paperwork in and having them review it and letting us know. And that's what that one is about. Pfab/My question is (can't hear) Karr/Irvin, could you--I've got earphones on and can't even hear you. Thank you. Pfab/OK. I'm sorry. It looks to me, I'm just trying to think my way through this. Now is that a direction, is it directional, is it a different path? Weikel/All of the obstructions are identified and determined by the aviation office and they all have to depend on various angles and elevations and things like that. So, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 30 as far as determining whether it is or is not an obstruction was not part of what we did. Pfab/OK. Weikel/It was already given to us from the study that was done. And as we know now, both of the stacks were identified, one is lit now and one is not, and so we contacted them to talk to them about, well, does the second one need to be lit? Pfab/ So in other words, that is already, that's taken care of, and now your job is just to see how (can't hear) will fit into this plan where they come in and scope, scoop out--- Weikel/I don't quite--- Pfab/Is it a cone-shaped type of--- Weikel/On some of the stuff there is a bit of a cone depending on whether it's an airport overall elevation or whether it's dealing with the approach zones. There's a conical section through there, Donnelly/As we look here, we got the County courthouse here and that would be also probably a lighting aspect, go to the County and ask them if we could light that particular ama. And perhaps enhance the amhitectural view of that in the evening. As we go down here on the Airport property proper, we've got some Airport buildings that would need to be lit. We also have a potentially significant structure here, it's the old United hanger. Howard R. Green is working closely with Ron O'Neil to determine what ultimately may be done or what the alternatives are to do with that, relocate it on that particular property or what may happen with that. And then we've also got some other miscellaneous obstructions over in this area. This is 218, Highway I, and I'm trying to think here, 1 believe this would be--- Lehman/ Rock's Roadhouse. Dormelly/...yeah, Rock's Roadhouse right at this location, and then this is a former mobile home location. And so what we've got here are some light poles and some trees that need to be removed in this area, and I believe over here these are both tree obstructions that need to be removed. Areas that may be of some slgnificanee and some important concern are Hargrave-McEleney's main sign and also light poles on their car dealership. And so those are areas for us and the City to contact and perhaps negotiate how we'd manage to mitigate those particular obstructions. This is more of a southern exposure, Napolean Park, the Iowa River, and then of course the sandpit location over in this area. Right here what we have are a grove of trees. I believe this is City property so those trees would be removed, and then in this area ! think what we've got are miscellaneous trees and light poles, I believe, combination over in those areas. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 31 Lehman/Could trees be topped? O'Donnell/Yeah. Dormelly/Trees could be topped. One of the things that is important to remember though is that trees are going to grow back, so what we have here is a grant from FAA, obviously the permanent solution is the most cost-effective one in the long term rather than the City coming back, say, in five years, and having to retop those like a utility does. But topping trees certainly is an alternative. Lehman/There were a couple of trees over in the northwestern quadrant that are right in the middle of the residential areas, that may be a huge impact to move the entire tree, whereas topping the tree, even though it's not cost-effective, might be a lot more palatable. Dormelly/Right. I'll try to go more back to that slide so we can point out where you're talking about. I think you're talking about this area right in here. Lehman/Right. And also along Melrose. Donnelly/And along Melrose here. And those are certainly things that need to be considered. Obviously, in moving forward with this, the big aspect of concern is community relations. And so, the next step for us is to develop a letter and run that through the City Attorney's office for their approval prior to contacting the owners of these obstructions and initiating a dialogue about mitigation activities. So, I think that's pretty much it, Cathy. Lehman/Let me just--- Weikel/I don't think all--- Donnelly/Oh, yeah, I guess maybe what our goal too is to perform the mitigation all in one sequence of activities rather than do it over a series of years. Lehman/As airports go, is this airport more encumbered or less than most airports? Donnelly/I would say less. Lehman/It doesn't seem to me like there's a lot of problems. Dormelly/Well, perhaps, Ron--Ron, you would like to? O'Neil/Well, Ernie, as far as numbers of obstructions, I think in our four-state region, we have by far, we have the most. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 32 Lehman/Really? Champion/Really? O'Neil/Part of that reason is, you know, when you look at the topography, the Airport really does sit do~vn in a bowl, so, and it's been quite a long time since there's been any obstruction removal and probably never any particular program that went after all of them. And since we did get a grant, this is the time, this is part of our master plan. It's, you know, the obstruction mitigation is a project that we knew at some time or other we would have to go forward with so. Vanderhoef/An estimate on the number of trees, like there on the Ruppert property or just adjacent to the Ruppert property, are we talking, you know, one or two trees or are we talking that whole valley in there, the complete? O'Neil/No, Dee, I don't think on the property that's now being rezoned and developed or whatever--- Lehman/Rezoned Ruppert property, that's--- OWeil/I don't believe there, if there are it would be just one or two specific ones. Vanderhoef/But then, further west--- Lehman/Right. O'Neil/And obviously as you get closer towards, directly offthe end ora runway, then it is certainly more critical because your approach slope, you know, you have a less clearance until you get out aways. Lehman/Now, light poles are a, I would imagine, a lot more of a problem than trees. O'Neil/Well, on any of this, and I think Mike alluded to it earlier, all the air space is Federal air space long before we had local ordinances, I mean there were Federal requirements. And so consequently we are, some of these obstructions, if they did not do an air space study like they were required to, we are hoping that would be their cost as opposed to ours. We're certainly going to look into that. We have a limited amount of funds. I don't believe that we will be able to get all of the obstructions with the limited grant that we have. We are going to look at the cost- effectiveness, the closeness to the Airport, the Critical Areas as far as safety, is a safety issue. We'll get the most out of there that we can for the money that we have in the Critical Areas. Pfab/Do insurance companies that insure these structures or objects, do they have an interest in them? They're insuring an owner of a power pole and an airplane comes visiting that, they ask if it's illegal or not proper, does the insurance This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 33 company have a--- O'Neil/Well, I guess I've never read anything on whether an insurance company of a particular pole or something would get involved. What we're going to do is identify if, indeed, it should have been there in the first place, if somebody did their due diligence and did an air space study and conditions changed, then we're going to have to mitigate it as best we can with the current conditions. But that's one of the things that Stanley is going to look into for us. Pfab/I guess maybe (can't hear) make it a little simpler is are the insurance companies possible participants in what's going on here, too? O'Neil/I would be surprised if they are, but that, we will certainly find out as we get into it. Kanner/What was the amount of the grant again? O'Neil/The grant was $241,600 and some change. And that's a 90-10 split. Kanner/So that's the total is $241 or we have to add 10 percent? O'Neil/That's the grant. Atkins/And then that's the 10 percent on that. So it should be approximately $270-- would that be somewhere close? Karmer/And that includes the cost of Stanley Consultants? Atkinsl/Their fees are figured in, yes, so we wouldn't have the whole dollar amount for obstruction mitigation. This is for the whole package, yes. Kanner/So how much will we have left approximately? Atkins/You know what, I don't remember the dollar amount of their contract, but I can get that for you if you need to. There's not only the preliminary work that they've done, they've gone out, identified every obstruction, made sure that it's there, made sure a height on it, if it is an obstruction and by how much. And then there would be the mitigation part of it, getting a tree contractor to come in, contacting MidAmerica as far as the poles. Some of them, at least, are City light poles that we're going to have to deal with. Some of them are trees on City property and I've already initiated some talk with Jerry Robinson about how we're going to take care of that also. O'Neil/So. some of it will cost us a lot less. Certainly we have more control over the obstructions that are on City-owned property. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 34 Kanner/Are we planning to use some of this grant money to reimburse the general fund for some mitigation things that are City-owned, like you just mentioned, or is that going to have to be an additional City cost? O'Neil/I guess we hadn't really considered that. We're going to do this at whatever is the more cost-effective. If it's more cost-effective to have an independent contractor go in and remove trees than it would be to have our own City forester do it, in which case we'd go for the independent contractor. Kanner/But then, the funds would come from the grant, you're saying? Atkins/On the mitigation? Certainly, with an outside contractor, yes. Kanner/Right. So, if it doesn't come with an outside contractor and it's a City-owned piece of property, that would be additional City expense. Atkins/It would be additional except (can't hear) again and see what is the most cost- effective way to do it. Karmer/Unless it gets reimbursed from the grant. Atkins/You know what, I will have to look in to see if we can reimburse ourselves. We may--it may be looked upon as you-know-what, you should be controlling your own property, and it's all City-owned property. There's no Airport-owned property. Whether the tree is on Airport proper or whether it's across the river in Napoleon Park, which there are a couple trees over there. Kanner/So this thing could be costing the City besides the 10 percent, thousands of dollars more, for potential mitigation. Atkins/We are going to concentrate on what we have control of, which is the City-owned property, and what we can get the most cost-effective and the largest number removed for. We may, if they're a distance away and they're on City property, we may not even be looking at them, and so consequently it wouldn't become a question. Vanderhoef/I think Steven has a good point though, that if the 90-10 split, that the 90 should pay for both City mitigation and private property mitigation, not just for private property mitigation. Karmer/Yeah, I understand what he's saying. I guess we hadn't really gotten into the cost- effectiveness of any of it. Vanderhoef/Well, I think that's something that needs to come up as a policy issue after we get the answer of whether we can legally use that grant money for mitigation on public property. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 35 Champion/Well, if you really got down to the degree of the deal, you would hire a private contractor. That would be paid by the mitigation part of the rnitigation money. Lehman/Unless, as Ron says, the Feds say that is City property and it was your responsibility to see to it that the obstructions were not there in the first place. That's something you would technically (can't hear). Atkins/We haven't even gotten into the--Stanley's given us an estimate of, you know, it's going to take this much for these poles or whatever. You know, when we get into grouping all these trees or grouping the poles, it may be more cost-effective to go with an outside contractor and consequently it wouldn't even be a question. It's something that we will keep in mind, Dee, and see if indeed we have to reimburse other City departments. Vanderhoef/That's part of it, and what I'm saying is--and I think Steven was too--is that this is a "could-be," we don't know, but it could be a huge additional expense for us to accept the grant. Lehman/We've already accepted the grant; we're spending it now. Vanderhoef/The grant though that we're paying the 10 percent, if it's only for mitigation on private property. Pfab/OK, I think that the--- Donnelly/Maybe I can address that. Vanderhoeff OK. Donnelly/Looking at the number of obstructions that are on City property and the magnitude, we're not talking about a, you know, tremendous amount of cost in those locations. So, I understand your concerns here about how the grant will allow, what it will allow the City forces to do the work and then be reimbursed via the grant money, which is something that we'll investigate. But, you know, the concern about tremendous magnitude about additional cost for the City, based on what we've seen in our study, I don't think that's a significant, worse-case liability. So, and we'll keep real close track of it. Vanderhoef/That, ,ve don't have a picture of, when you put a dot up there, whether we're talking about one tree or whether we're talking about 10--- Dotmelly/Whether we're talking about $250,000 in mitigation costs or $5,000, or yeah, but it's, when you look at the number of obstructions that are located on the City, the Airport Commission or City-owned property, they are relatively small. And as This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 36 Ron said, we'll look at the, you know, cost as a primary objective here because we have a limited amount of funds to accomplish a fairly significant amount of work and so safety is our number one objective but also cost-effectiveness and the use of the funds is also a secondary priority. So. Pfab/ I'm not sure if Steven or Dee are also looking at the idea of if it's a cost to the City, can that be, a cost that the City incurs, can that be in lieu of cash (can't hear) Kam~er/Our 10 percent match. Can we use that as our I 0 percent match? Donnelly/You know, I don't know what the terms of the grant are. We can look at the grant and see if there is a, say, sweat-equity type clause. This is what I think you're referring to. Pfab/We just as well (can't hear) that way. Donnelly/Right, thereby providing labor instead of cash dollars, and I don't know what the--the terms of grants like these are generally very specific and we can look into that. Kanner/As far as lighting of objects, let's say of the church steeple. What's the legalities that you've found so far that, let's say this was built a hundred years ago before the Airport, and so that doesn't come into play. Then can you force them to light it at their expense? Dormelly/Well, our understanding is, working with the City Attorney's office, if that that obstruction existed prior to the Ordinance, then that's--and correct me if I'm wrong, Cathy--that's a grandfathered in obstruction. And so what we would need to do is work collaboratively with the owner of that obstruction. Dilkes/We can require that it be lit, but it would be at our cost. Donnelly/At the City's cost. Vanderhoef/Will our legal staff be doing all of the negotiations for mitigation? Dilkes/No, Stanley is going to be doing that. They are going to be conferring with us, but my understanding is that's part of the Stanley's contract. Donnelly/Well, actually she's saying that about negotiating on obstruction mitigation, and we've had conversations both ways with the City legal folks about that. But regardless of how that's handled, it would be handled under the direction of the City Attorney's office. Dilkes/h~ terms of money, we charge back the Airport, so if that's an issue for you--I mean, we charge the Airport for our time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 37 Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Kanner/So that would come out of the grant money? Vanderhoef/That's another piece of the question. Dilkes/I don't know where the money comes from but we write down our time for the Airport. Kanner/Ron, does that come out of the grant money also? O'Neil/I'll have to check for just regular operations for just our annual budget, the City Attorney's office, like every other department charges us back. So whether we'd have to take that operations or take it out of the grant, that's what we'll have to look into and get you that information. O'DonneI1/Tell me, when we're talking about lighting, like St. Mary's, are we talking a light on top of the steeple. Are we talking floodlights? What are we talking? Donnelly/We talk about architectural lighting there. Obviously that's a City landmark and some kind of strobe light like you'd see on top of the cellular tower would not be palatable for anyone. O'Donnell/Right. Donnelly/It would be ground-effect lighting to light the steeple in the evening so that it was more or less. It would shine upwards on the steeple. O'Donnell/What's that? Champion/Is it lit? Is it lit now? O'Donnell/I don't know. Lehman/Well, check that on the way home. Champion/I wilI. (Laughter) O'Donnell/It'll be light (can't hear) Weikel/It might be lit but it's probably not lit to FFA standards. There's levels that they have on a circular, this minimum lighting that's acceptable and it has to be so many candle--I'm not going to pretend to an electrical--but it does require that it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 38 has to be lit, and you can see a church that's lit up in the spier. It's nice but it's not to FFA standards. O'Donnell/OK. Weikel/So it would have to be lit to their standards, a certain degree of lighting. Donnelly/Obviously, doing that we'd work with their parish council and get their approval and that, so. Lehman/Good luck. Pfab/And again, if it's grandfathered in, the additional lighting costs would have to be negotiated, wouldn't it, Ron? O'Neil/Right. We would negotiate with them on that. Champion/(Can't hear---S50,000) is quite a lot of money. Donnelly/So. Any other questions or? Kanner/Thanks. Several/Thanks. Donnelly/Thank you very much. Dilkes/It would not be negotiated. We would pay. Pfab/OK. Kanner/Well, we're hoping they might say (Several people talk and laugh) Donnelly/Just to make sure that I'm clear on what I said, the standards of the lighting would be negotiable. Dilkes/Oh, yes. I think Irvin was talking about pay and I'm (can't hear) hear about that. Donnelly/Oh, I'm sorry. Lehman/I have been encouraged that we should take a break at this point. BREAK REGULATION OF NUISANCE PROPERTIES This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 39 Lehman/OK, Doug, go. Boothroy/Thanks, Emie. In your packet is a preliminary draf'c of an amendment to the Housing Code and this was prepared as a result of the direction staff received in August of this year concerning the Neighborhood Task Force recommendations at that time. One of the recommendations was to prepare an ordinance that would identify properties that had serious problems and repeated problems and develop an ordinance that would require annual inspections for a period of time. And so this is basically my effort to flesh out a way to get to that particular recommendation and 1 want to talk about that a little bit tonight. I also would like to point out that there are members of Neighborhood Task Force here tonight, representatives of the neighborhood, to, I think, support this particular proposal, as I understand it. Anyway, getting to the--1 have a cover memo in there that I think outlines pretty much what the ordinance is about, but let me just kind of emphasize a few things with you and then my goal tonight is to get from you some direction in terms of whether we proceed with this document and if so, how we proceed forward with this document. Let me start by saying that this document, this amendment would provide additional penalties as a last resort to target nuisance properties and I have defined those in here as properties that have certain types of violations that occur, both criminal and building or housing or zoning related violations. I've also indicated that premises in this particular ordinance include not only the property but an act that would occur within a thousand feet. And I just might say that that's standard was carried over from the State Code, standard of a thousand feet, so we were mirroring that particular provision because most landlords would be familiar with it under the "Clear and Present Danger" provisions of the State Code. Secondly, the intent of this ordinance is to increase penalties by providing in a way that we get the attention of the violator. If you don't get the attention of a violator, the problem can persist and in the meetings of the Task Force and feedback that we received, there are times which citations don't curve the problem. People are willing to absorb the cost but don't cure the violation. And I think the other thing to remember about citations is that even though they can be very effective, they don't, the fines don't have to be paid. There's no requirement that they be paid. They can become a lien against the property and do upon sale of the property, but until that property is sold, those fines may not be paid. So it may not be as real as we would like to think of that particular fine. So what this ordinance does is it tries to get the attention of the property owner by creating another penalty that is a serious penalty and that we think is effective, and that penalty is that you have a problem property and yon don't take action to do something about the problem that's occurring, the City at its option--and this is optional--may impose a sanction on the rental permit and that sanction is graduated. It starts out with a reduced terrn permit that can be for one year; excuse me, a reduced term permit that requires an annual inspection, but as you look at the ordinance, I think you should pay particular attention to the fact that under the reduced term permit, there are other conditions that the City presently can't attach to a rental permit that gives us a lot more authority in dealing with the problem, such as a property management plan This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 40 that the owner submits that provides a method or a means or a process by which they will not only eliminate the nuisance but keep it from reoccurring in the future as well as conditions that all of the fines and costs be paid so that we can go forward with particular issues here. So there are a number of conditions in the ordinance that are spelled out and you can read them. So I believe that to be an effective penalty because it increases the level of accountability for the landlord. It does increase some accountability for tenants as well in certain circumstances where the tenants are involved in the violation, which are primarily the criminal ones that are included here. And with the threat of a reduced-term permit, I think that it would be difficult for a landlord to--I mean I think that will encourage cooperation because they don't want to go down the road where there's annual inspections, there's more active penalties and pressure and involvement in the City in the use of that rental property. The second part of getting attention of the violator I think this ordinance does is that I do believe that this ordinance allows for timely imposition of the penalties. The reduced-term permit can occur after the triggering mechanism goes into effect, like in subparagraph B here, for example, it says that any one of these previous--let's take the last one, number 16, indecent exposure--The second time indecent exposure occurs, the City at its option may explore reducing the term of that permit. Now, important to remember here is that this does not require ajudication; this requires only that the person has received from the police officer a criminal complaint citation. So that they are actually cited for twice before we move onto this next step. The--ifwe were to require adjudication--it creates problems with regards to being timely. For example, the more serious criminal citation--let's take murder, for example--can take more than a year; it could be two years before there's any kind of adjudication, and that is not timely. In my experience in dealing with enforcement, it's totally ineffective with what we are trying to accomplish with this ordinance. In the terms of the disorderly house in subparagraph B, in talking to Dulek, she says that on average, to get to court on a disorderly house takes six months. So if you have two disorderly house adjudications required, if you were to go down that road, you would be a year before you got to the point of looking at any kind of sanction on the rental permit and possibly longer because of the process. And therefore, that particular punishment in my opinion would not work as far as making the ordinance effective. We might as well not do the ordinance if we include the criminal complaints, if that's the approach we decide to take. The third thing I want to point out about this amendment is that for the first time we are bringing together Housing Code violations with criminal actions. The Housing Code right now does not speak, address, deal with any kind of criminal activity in terms of how it impacts the rental permit. What this ordinance really does is it takes other types of behavior that's going on, that have been complained of as being a nuisance within the neighborhood, such as disorderly house, and brings it into the Housing Code, which will allow the City to look at getting more involved in the, what's happening on that property through annual inspections or possibly a suspension of the rental permit or ultimately it could be revokation. The fourth thing that I would mention to you is that the penalties are graduated, or stepped, so that first of all, before we get to the penalties, it's an option as to whether the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 41 City proceeds with those penalties. But then, the first step generally is to look at a reduced-term permit for a period of time. I suggest four years here. The second is that if that doesn't work out, it can move on to suspension, which is up to 180 days, and third would be that if in fact none of those first two don't work, then we could go to revokation. Presently, under the Housing Code the only time you can revoke a rental permit is for a violation of a Housing Code matter. Now, this would allow revokation as well as other remedies, such as suspension and reduced permit, for not only Housing Code but criminal activities. And finally I want to point out that there are checks and balances involved. If the landlord is in a situation where .,. TAPE 03-03, SiDE 1 Boothroy/...term permit is to initiate eviction proceedings. Now it only says "initiate," it doesn't say that the tenant has to be evicted. And the reason it's written that way is because we have no way of knowing what will happen in the court system. There's no way to predict that, so I felt that if the landlord showed the effort to file the necessary papers and take the case to court, that we've got that kind of momentum on our part in terms of working and cooperating with the landlord, if for some reason the magistrate throws it out, then, you know, that is probably beyond the control of the landlord and maybe the case isn't as strong as it should have been. The other checks and balances are this: once you're at eviction, keep in mind that it's not automatic. Just because you serve notice of an intent to terminate a lease, it doesn't terminate automatically without--you certainly as a tenant have the right to appear before the magistrate, much like a court case and make your defense that you shouldn't be evicted from that property--and the landlord on the other side would be making the case that the eviction should take place. The other check and balance in here has to do with staffs determination as to whether or not to proceed with any of the rental permit sanctions. All of these decisions are appealable to the Board of Appeals, which is the, you know, citizens' board that can overrule staff based on whatever arguments are made or support staff, whatever the case may be. I think that!s kind of the ordinance in general. Some of the things that I'd like to have decided tonight is first, I'd like to have a consensus on the Council to move forward with the idea of targeting nuisance properties for, with greater penalties to eliminate nuisances. I think, secondly, I would like to find out whether or not the Council supports the idea of providing criminal, including criminal violations as part of the Housing Code rental permit enforcement process. I think third, whether you accept and support the idea of rental permit sanctions and that whole graduated step of penalties, and with that I guess I'll turn it back to you folks. Wilbum/Doug, I guess I would ask you just as starting, at what point, or how would you communicate to landlords the threshold for becoming a nuisance property. And maybe you can walk me through the checks and the balances again. If you have, let's say you've got a nuisance property. One of these offenses happens, they issue the eviction notice, as opposed to one that it's the first time one of these happens-- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 42 the landlord looks and sees their tenant, there was a domestic assault at that, or possession or something, at that, you know. What's the check and balance for that happening a first time as opposed to a nuisance property? What is the action from the landlord to the tenant? Boothroy/I didn't mention this but before I get into answehng your question, I did send a copy of this ordinance to Ann Vespa and Ted Chambers last week and indicated to both of them that I'm encouraging their feedback in terms of some of these criminal violations and what success or failures that they've had in terms of dealing with tenants in these areas, so that we can get a little bit of feedback in that area. Wilburn/OK. Boothroy/Getting to your, in general to your question, I think what you're asking is how do we alert the landlord as to what's happening so that it's not a surprise in terms of their property coming under some of these trigger mechanisms in terms of whether or not they're going to be considered a nuisance property? Is that part of what you're asking? Wilburn/How does that become communicated, educated so that if I haven't had a problem with a person renting from me and now I see their name in the paper and I'm going to send them, start the eviction process? Boothroy/Well, in the, we will communicate that with the landlord. It is our intent to provide that information directly to the landlord. So, right now one of the recommendations of the Task Force was that the police department would be providing a record or a report on a monthly basis of activities. We'll ahve to get that more current than a monthly basis, but we've already started receiving those reports. And part of the reason for receiving those reports was that it was envisioned that this ordinance would be coming along. Otherwise, there isn't much need for those reports if we didn't have some kind of connection between the Housing Code and the criminal area. We get those reports; they're by address; we can then contact the landlord based on the information that we have on that particular report. Now, some of these--- Wilburn/Let me try this a different way. Boothroy/I guess I'm not answering your question. Wilburn/Have you, do you have in your mind the threshold for when a property becomes--what are you basing the nuisance property on? O'Donnell/Is it number of complaints? Wilburn/Is it number of complaints? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 43 Boothroy/That's what it says in here, for example, in subparagraph A, This is some of the feedback that I need from possibly apartment owners, attorneys, and so forth--is that we've listed 18 serious criminal matters, such as you know sexual abuse, assault, kidnapping, robbery, and things like this. And what subparagraph A says is that if the owners/occupants, guests on one or more separate occasions is charged by the police department for murder, assault or whatever, that then becomes the triggering mechanism for consideration by the City as to whether or not there will be a rental permit sanction. So, subparagraph B then says for the next 16 that we've listed here, such as disorderly house, indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, it takes two or more citations by the police department before we would consider a reduced-term permit. And finally, in paragraph C of this document, it says for buildings only nuisance graffiti, it takes three or more written notices or municipal infractions to trigger going into it now. Once that trigger is, you know, met or that threshold is met, I don't know if your question is what's the next step or--- Wilbum/Well, I think you said consideration for the process, so really if it's a graduate assessment, but the ones that it requires for the reduced rental permit, I think it's assault, and if that happens one time, boom, you're automatically considered a nuisance property. Boothroy/Right, but it doesn't necessarily mean that--there's nothing in here as it is presently written that says that you "shall" have a reduced-term permit. It puts the City in the position where at their option they can impose it. And you're right--it happens once. The problem I have in wrestling with that is in--and that's why I broke this into three categories--is, you know, I couldn't see giving people two murders to get to a reduced term. Do you see what I'm getting at? And so you have to struggle at the severity of it. I wasn't trying to make a joke here, but when I looked at these particular crimes--you know with murder, assault--it becomes very difficult to say well, you should get two opportunities to go on. Wilburn/There's one thing. I had a question for Doug. But then there's just a, I guess, fundamental comment, excuse me, Steven--- Kanner/That's OK. Wilbum/...pertinent for Council. And Debbie brought this up because I do have a concern about this occurring at charge and not adjudication, and I guess I'd be interested from hearing Council about that because I know there may be other situations where things are done with a charge within City government, but here we're starting eviction procedures, putting someone out, and I'm struggling with that one. O'Donnell/It's one of the concerns. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 44 Boothroy/Let me just also mention before you respond to that just to let you know that under the Clear and Present Danger provision, which is the section in cite there in 562A.27, it doesn't require a charge. The State Code presently doesn't require any charge. Wilburn/And I understand that that's possible. Boothroy/So, we're more restrictive than the State Code in that particular provision. Wilburn/And I just said that I understand there may be others, but--- Boothroy/I didn't know if everybody understood that you presently can evict somebody for murder or assault without having a charge. Wilburn/! understand that here we're talking about mandating to the property owner or the landlord, but that's something I struggled with. Champion/Can I give a scenario?. Vanderhoef/Go ahead. Champion/One of the things that bothered me about this, although I mean I see it's got some good points too. If you've got a woman and children living in a house and the husband or boyfriend is abusive, then we're--and he gets cited for abuse and he gets drunk and beats people up--- Boothroy/Is this domestic violence that you're talking about? Dilkes/Connie, we've talked about that. We've talked about that today. We'll have to include some type of innocent tenant provision, I mean, we know so domestic violence by a guest against a tenant should not obviously result in the eviction of the tenant. We're going to have to address that. Boothroy/I fully expect some more fine-tuning on this, particularly with the feedback from apartment owners in terms of maybe narrowing down some of these Code sections and so forth, so I think that some of this is going to change. But I agree with, you know, definitely we have to address domestic violence, and that's just something that I didn't--there are a lot of Criminal Code sections and I am not as familiar with all of those sections as others are and that's one I missed. Champion/Oh, I'm not familiar with any of it. Boothroy/Well, I've not been charged of any of it, if that's what you're saying. O'Donnell/You're talking about a six-plex where we--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 45 Champion/I'm talking about it could be an apartment, it could be a house, it could be anything. O'Donnell/But only like two of the six were a problem area and you lose a rental permit so therefore everybody's--- Champion/No, no, I'm talking about single individuals being evicted because her husband beats her up. I know that men get beat up too but it's unusual. Boothroy/We would accept that, but that's not the intent of this ordinance. Champion/I know it. But I'm thinking what kinds of things that bother me the way it's written. Boothroy/It's still sticking up the--- Dilkes/This is just a bare, this is just, I think Doug gave you kind of a skeleton draft because we need some direction before we spend a lot more time on it. And that's one of the provisions we would definitely--- Boothroy/If I can find out from you all whether you like the three-step approach in terms of the sanctions, if you want to try to target nuisance properties, if you want to include some criminal with the housing, then I think that gives us direction to say sit down with others and say, well, can we fine-tune this a little bit more to deal with some of these issues that you just mentioned. Lehman/Doug, we have a family with a teen-ager who happens to bring home a controlled substance and there's a charge and there's five people in the family. Are we going to evict the family because the kid brought home something he shouldn't have? That's a criminal charge. It triggers it. He's a part of the family. Boothroy/Yes, it could result in that family being evicted, which could happen under State law now. That's why I think one of the things that we need to look at in more detail. I think that under the State law it just talks about possession of a controlled substance, but that's a very broad area when you talk about possession of a controlled substance. And I certainly would not want to, I mean, I think one of the things that we have to talk about is if somebody is caught with a joint, is that the same level as production and intent to distribute. And I would say, no it's not. We'd probably need to look at that particular provision and maybe narrow it down to exactly dealing with, you know, manufacturing of controlled substances, and you know all the kinds of things that are particularly bad for the community as well as the neighborhoood. Dilkes/And to add to Doug's question about--I think he's right--this juxtaposition of the criminal conduct with the effect on the rental permit is entirely new. And that's what we need to know whether you support. But I think then a follow-up question This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 46 to that is do you want to limit, do you want to cover ail criminal activity. Is there certain criminal activity that you're concerned about? I mean--- Wilburn/And then the other (can't hear) question, whether it's adjudicated, disposition of that (can't hear). What if you're found innocent and you've already been--- Vanderhoef/Evicted. Wilburn/And I struggle with that. That's a good (can't hear) Pfab/Can I speak to your point and your point's valid and there's no question about it, but I think when you look at this as I sat and watched this thing being developed with this neighborhood group is there's three people at the table. And I'm going to use the word "people" as "interests." You have the landlord's interest; you have the tenant's interest; and you have the neighbors' interest. And the neighbors have the right to be safe and secure in their homes also. Now the tenant has rights and it's easy to take a tenant that maybe having difficulty getting his act together and be extra harsh on him, and that's one of the dangers. But the landlord has to be actively involved, too. Now, we talked about can they get evicted? Well, in subsidized housing, you know, if there's somebody criminalized, if there's a criminal charge there--and I don't know, it may even just be charge, I think it's conviction--they're out. Dilkes/No. Lehman/No, they lose their subsidy. Boothroy/They don't have to be adjudicated (can't hear). Dilkes/No, they don't. We're talking about two different standards. Here we're talking about a civil remedy which is typically more probable than not as opposed to the criminal standard of proof which is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the difference in the standard of proof. Wilburn/Again, this is more of a philosophical type thing and I understand what you're saying and what's trying to be addressed here. I look at, if I can step back from this particular one, the Task Force looked at a lot of different components and struggled with and they bantered back and forth and got public input about different pieces of this puzzle and different tools. And I guess what I'm saying is, there's some tools we've adopted--we just did the over-occupancy thing. There's some tools that are going to be coming forward and I would say there's some other things with law enforcement and supporting their efforts and their procedural type things which I think we've tried to do or encourage more of, but I guess what I'm suggesting is because of this concern I had just and especially, ~vhat if you're found innocent. Is this a tool that is needed right now at this time before the other pieces are put forth? Can we find out how the other things we are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 47 attempting would be effective before, this is certainly something you can do and is allowable, but, and I'm taking it that this was derived from some of the work that was done looking at Davenport or even in Michigan and, you know, I mean, you just have different crime rates. I'm saying is this a tool for what's needed for right now at this time. I'm suggesting now and you know, Doug, maybe you can give us a better feel for the number of--at least your experience now--with the number of nuisance properties this might affect, you know. I guess I'll talk at some other time about how I see this might affect some other cases beyond at least what we're looking at now where some of the problem landlords are. But, again, just maybe, Council, I'm asking you to think if this is something is needed before some other things are tried. Pfab/I would address that. I would say yes to respond to your answer. The landlords have to realize that the City Council is going to be serious. Up until now, they.just waited out and they went on their merry way. If we don't get serious, this isn't going to change. And change is what we want. Wilburn/And I've tried to be serious with the occupancy, the over-occupancy thing. That's something that I voted for and supported. You know, I was challenged on some other by the committee, but I agreed on that. There are some other just law enforcement type issues and procedural things that I've supported so that I thought we didn't, wouldn't need to come to something like this. For example, police being able to search through the garbage to find drug paraphernalia. You know, that type of stuff. So, I'm just saying given a concern about what if you're found innocent as part of it anyway. I don't think this is something that's needed now. Difference of opinion. Vanderhoef/OK. As I look at the two lists and the trigger mechanism and so forth, and from what I was listening from the committee, I think the things that they were targeting, in my mind at least, they were targeting the list under B, not A. And these are the things that tend not to take much for adjudication, a lot of times they don't even show up after they've been charged with consumption, open container, those kinds of things. But those are the things that I understand create nuisances in the neighborhood for the neighbors in that we come forth with cans and bottles thrown around, loud voices, loud parties, those kinds of things. Wilburn/Right, right, and I think those sets of things vary by community. And what I'm suggesting is that's a very good observation, but B is perhaps something more suited for this community, and I don't know that we're--- Vanderhoef/Ready for A. And I would go along with you on that, Ross. I think you have real legitimate and I have some of the same concerns that you have for the list on A at this time. I would be more interested in pursuing and looking at the B list and how that might give us a little more strength in breaking up party houses sooner rather than later because I think these things can be acted on more quickly and probably the property owners would go along with this more on this because so This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 48 often they are not--- Boothroy/Just to give you a rationale why when I got into looking at this, you begin to look at criminal types of violations and under 562A "Clear and Present Danger" provision, it lists three categories of violations to include but not limited to, and it was--and this is why feedback is important--because you get to looking at it and you think, well, I understand that subparagraph B gets more directly into some of the things that were discussed in the committee, but I was thinking, you know, how do I rationalize robbery or homicide or assault not getting some kind of penalty when it's provided for under the State Code at this point in time, it seemed incomplete not to include it. Certainly it can be as you suggest, it can be deleted. But it seemed to me that these types of crimes while not specifically addressed in a lot of discussion at the committee level are certainly very serious crimes. Vanderhoef/Tell me this. For instance, the manufacturer ofmeth or growing of marijuana, which fall in the criminal area, how much problem would it be for a landlord to initiate on his own eviction when there's that kind of a criminal? Dilkes/Well, they could. But I think one of the issues about the more serious offenses is it's far more likely with the serious offenses that the criminal justice system is going to remove the person from the premises long before we're going to with the rental permit. I mean, most murder suspects are in jail awaiting thai. And so I do think it's important to look--I understand Doug's concern about the seriousness of the offense--but I think the focus on what are the offenses that you're concerned about that affect the neighborhood such that you want to attach a sanction to the rental permit is an appropriate focus. Wilburn/That's a key. Boothroy/Well, a chapter, like number 18 at the bottom could be more, as I was mentioning earlier, I think we want to split that out and be more specific because in that particular chapter, as I understand it, you have a whole range of charges that can be used concerning controlled substances all the way from simple possession up to manufacturing. And so, you know, one of the things we can do is break that out. I mean, I--it's up to you--but it seems to me that manufacturing of drugs or dealing drugs, which is one that we see from the police report that we get, are neighborhood-related issues, just as serious as disorderly house. Champion/I think they are too. Boothroy/And so, I, you know, one of the things that we can do is you can tell me if there's some that you would like to have specifically targeted out of subparagraph A, and then I can meet with the apartment owners and stuff like that and we can look at subparagraph B and get these maybe more refined based on their experience in dealing with their clients and open containers and so forth. And so, I mean, that's one way we can try to get this narrowed down if there's an interest in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 49 doing it. Vanderhoef/I guess what I'd like you to get from the property owners is a feel for their problem, shall we say, in evicting tenants or other activities than what's on the B list. Boothroy/That's specifically what they've called me to want to talk about. Vanderhoef/OK. Boothroy/That's the first thing on the agenda. Vanderhoef/Yeah. That's what I'd like to hear, if they have a huge problem with evicting for whatever reason, I would take a second look at it but you know--- Boothroy/I think that that's exactly the information, I mean, I talked with, that was my conversation with Ted, that--- Vanderhoef/Then don't go forward with A until we've got more input from them. Boothroy/Yeah. I think we may need to be moving these things around a little bit. I think the other issue that was raised in my preliminary conversations was whether or not a thousand feet needs to be continued, whether it could just be on the premises, and that's something we'll talk about too. In other words, "premises" be just "premises," not "promises plus a thousand feet." Vanderhoef/Well, when you say a thousand feet, are you talking a thousand feet around the structure or a thousand feet outside the property? Boothroy/Property. Vanderhoef/The land. Boothroy/Right. Vanderhoef/The lot. Boothroy/Yes. And that's something that's been raised, been brought to my attention that, particularly in the downtown area, may be very difficult to deal with. (Laughter) Champion/I think it ought to be two thousand feet. (Laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 50 Boothroy/We may have a solution to the Alcohol Ordinance. (Laughter) Lehman/Well, then, ifI,! think what I'm hearing is that there is interest on the part of the Council in pursuing this sort of thing but we would really like to have some, do some clarification with the apartment owners relative to some of the issues under Item A. Boothroy/And B, I understood. Lehman/Right. Boothroy/OK. Dilkes/I think those are two different issues. One is wanting, as I heard them, one is wanting clarification from the landlords about eviction experience and that issue. And then the second issue is tailoring the list of crimes to those which have an impact on the neighborhood. Pfab/I think that landlords--- Dilkes/I'm getting some hand-raising back there from--Hillary, am I inaccurate there or? Jerry was raising his hands back there. Wilburn/I think it's, well it's up to Council. Kanner/Ernie. Lehman/Steven. Kanner/I have some of the same reservations that Ross has about whether or not it's been adjudicated or not, and I think that needs to be taken out where it's only a charge. Especially, if we're going to look at Part A as being removed, I think that takes away some of the concern about the length that you're talking about, that it takes so long before a charge ever comes, that it becomes a moot point. But I think, in general, we need to take that out. I also have concern in general about the whole, it's kind of moving more in the direction of"Big Brother." We have more and more capability for invading privacy at the government in a lot of different ways, with keeping information and distributing it, and I don't think we have to abet this. So if we have information coming from the police, coming to Housing, going to landlords, affecting tenants, and it makes me feel uncomfortable, that process. One suggestion I might have for how to deal with some of these problems is put it into a more global perspective. Hold the landlord responsible. Look at the number, the globally, the number of problems that his or her property is having. So this affects not only actually renters but also owners. If you, for instance, if This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 51 you own a house and your property has, let's say the three under paragraph C, even though you're perhaps not renting out property at this time, we can say in the future if you want to rent, we're going to have to put you on this first level. So that way it's not discriminating just against people who are renting, and it also looks at it in a more global sense. So we say to a landlord, your properties have so many-- we've set a threshold--your properties have five violations in this year. We're going to--we don't care so much what you do to the tenant; that's up to you, between the tenant and the landlord, which I think it should be--but we're looking at you globally and you're a concern in this community as a landlord. You have too many violations for your property and you've reached that threshold, we're going to put you at the first level of what did you call that, the one-year? Boothroy/Reduced term. Kanner/Reduced term. I think that's a better way of doing it instead of saying you have to kick out your tenant. Boothroy/We don't say you have to. Lehman/We don't say that. Kanner/I thought you said you have to initiate? Boothroy/No. Lehman/No. Vanderhoef/No. Boothroy/We say that the burden is all back on the landlord and what we say is that if the landlord takes initiation to cure the problem, where not all these issues--the criminal issues are probably primarily tenant-related, I would guess--but in the case of a Housing Code, that certainly would not, the eviction would not be an issue because it probably is the landlord's responsibility. But my point is that if they take some kind of action to remove the person that's been charged from the premises, that's considered curing the problem. Kanner/Right. They take all legal remedies to evict the tenant. Boothroy/Yeah, but they don't have to. You said they had to and they don't have to. Kanner/Well, my point is that we're saying to them you have to take this procedure, going to all legal remedies to evict the tenant. And I think that's a bad place for us to be in as a community. Boothroy/If you have somebody that has been charged twice for indecent exposure, what This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 52 you're saying is that the City shouldn't take any kind of intervention policy in terms of asking that landlord to remove that tenant from the premises. Kanner/I think if we have a landlord that has too many of these violations, and we should narrow what these violations are, I think as was brought up before by Emie, if someone brings in a joint, a son or a daughter brings in a joint, and they get a conviction for that, I think that's too much. So you bring up one example to bolster your argument; I bring up another example of the things that are listed here. But in any case, I think it would be better to look at the global aspect and say this landlord owns so many units and has had five violations or ten, whatever the threshold you find is reasonable, and say, that's too many; we're putting you at this level. And it's up to them to deal with the problem so that they make sure that they don't have that many violations in the future. Boothroy/Exactly. And I think the point is is that one way you deal with that problem where you're dealing with a tenant that's causing disorderly house or criminal actions is to, the cure is, not to paint the house, but it's to remove the tenant. Kanner/It's still, we have certain laws already that allows them to evict the tenant. I don't think we should be involved in that circle and keeping tabs in that fashion. Boothroy/Well, that's already been recommended and we've already started doing that because of the, we were, I was under the assumption that when you went through that list and everybody agreed to it, that we were supposed to begin coordinating with the police department. Now I'm hearing that possibly that's not true? Lehman/No, I think--- Dilkes/Can I address, just before we get too far, Dee's point on using adjudication as opposed to charging? I don't, even with those in B, as Doug pointed out earlier, I mean, it can take six months to get a disorderly house charge to trial. And with the year that was the lease of a term, I don't think that's going to work. Boothroy/I would not recommend these criminal, if we go to adjudication, then I think, you know, A and B basically should be scrapped, and C you can keep. Lehman/But the whole thing is a waste of time. Boothroy/Exactly. Lehman/We're talking about a nuisance in a neighborhood and you're talking about abating a nuisance. Pfab/Right. Lehman/Now if we wait for adjudication that means you're going to have a disorderly This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 53 house every other weekend, by the time we get to court they've moved out anyway. Boothroy/They've moved out anyway. Champion/I think we have to tailor the list. Boothroy/Yes. OK. And I think we've already agreed to that. Champion/And I can support it if you come to me with a list that I can be comfortable with. I cannot be comfortable with what's there. Lehman/But I think there has to be abatement of the nuisance, and that means that people, if they're responsible for disorderly conduct and having a problem in the neighborhood, they're going to have to be evicted. Boothroy/I've been told that those charges for things like disorderly house, the eviction rate is quite high. I don't know if it's 100 pement, but it's awfully, and so it's not as if there's a lot of discrepancy between the judgment of the officer when they think there's probable cause and whether or not they kick it in court or not. Dilkes/I think that's right. We have a pretty good success on disorderly house. Boothroy/It's almost 100 percent so it's--- Vanderhoef/That's why I think B is OK. Tell me quickly, our Noise Ordinance, does that fall into anything or is that one we need to be adding to this? Boothroy/We can add that. I didn't include it. It's generally included, I think, under the nuisance chapter of violations. In other words, I didn't identify the Noise Ordinance specifically; it could be cited as a nuisance. Do you see what I'm getting at? Under the particular chapter. Vanderhoef/It could, yes. But that's one of the biggest complaints we get from neighborhoods. Boothroy/If you want to call that out, I think we can--- Vanderhoef/Call it out, just in general. WilburnJ Just so you're clear. And, Emie, and no way am I saying that any of these crimes are OK. In no way am I saying that. What I'm suggesting is because of my concerns, ! would like to see some of the other pieces to the puzzle, some of the recommendations we've considered, some of the future ones we will get and consider, before we go to this. But I'm glad that we had the discussion so that I could hear there were other concerns about it. So, that even though Mike doesn't This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 54 like the word "tweak," that you're thinking about the possible consequences of that. So I'd still rather see the others go for it first. Pfab/Ross, I understand your concern, but I think there's two parties represented here at this, that we're discussing here. But the third part, the neighbors, there's no one at the table supporting them. And that's the reason that we're doing this. Wilburn/So, you're here representing them. Pfab/Well, I'm sure as heck going to try. And that's the reason that this came about. If the landlord isn't going to take it into responsibility, somebody's going to have to, and I'm saying let's move forward here. I'm not ready to stand still here. I'm saying, yes, we have to proceed cautiously, we have to be willing to make some adjustments as we go along, and that's why we're out here discussing it. But to stop now and say, well, we'll start over again next year. Wilburrd I'm not, there are other things that I'm wanting to try before going to this. Pfab/Well, what's the matter with trying them and these too? Wilburn/Because of the concerns that I expressed. Pfab/OK. And I'm expressing my concerns. Boothroy/Do I hear a consensus of moving forward with this? Lehman/I think what you need to do is come back to us with a revised, I mean, and I think Eleanor probably said it better than any of the rest of us, that there are certain issues here that we're really dealing with that really have an impact on a neighborhood. Murder is probably not one of them; assault is probably not one of them. Those sorts of violent chmes are going to be addressed by the court system anyway and the person won't be there. Some of these other issues--kidnapping I don't think is probably one--but if you can visit with apartment owners, come back with a list that is more focused on the kinds of problems that were--- Boothroy/Narrow it down. Lehman/...narrow it down. That won't address your concerns, Ross, but I think I sense that the Council ~vould be interested--am I correct? Vanderhoef/Yes. Lehman/Is there interest in--- Pfab/Neighbors have a right to be safe, too. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 55 Boothroy/Well, I think we'll see a number of changes as a result of the input from the apartment owners as well. I'm not suggesting they're going to cut the Ordinance, but I think they have some similar concerns about narrowing the list, and we'll see what both--they may match up very closely. Lehman/Why don't we just give this back to you and come back to us after you've met with the apartment owners? Champion/Yeah, I'd like--- Lehman/ I think that there is interest in proceeding with this. Pfab/Can we set a time when you'll be getting back? Boothroy/Well, I don't intend to sit on this. I intend to get in touch with folks and try to get feedback as quickly as possible. Pfab/When's our next Council meeting? Boothroy/Well, I think it's in two weeks. Lehman/Two weeks, Irvin. Boothroy/I think it's optimistic to have an ordinance in final form by the 21st, but I would certainly expect to have it for the 2nd. Pfab/I would like to see that on the--- Boothroy/By the time we have our discussions, figure out what, and then I have to draft it. By the time we get it, you know, get it out in the packet, it takes a little bit of time. (Several talk) Boothroy/Whoop, we got stereo. Kanner/Doug, would it be possible to get some of those figures to see how much, how many crimes there are out there and repeat offenders? Because I have no sense of how many repeat offenders there are and how many of these crimes are being committed. Boothroy/I don't know what you mean by, we get it by address now, so--- Karmer/Well, yeah, that's what you're saying with those figures, you're saying that--- Boothroy/i don't know that it's the same person each time even though it's by address This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 56 even though it's--- Kanner/Right, but we're looking at address. That's what the plan is to submit that so I'd like to get a sense of that in the past month or however long. Boothroy/November, December, and January is what we've received so far. Kanner/So, to get a sense of what is happening out there. IfI have him get that, I don't know if the other Council wants that or not? Boothroy/By the time I come back with the Ordinance, you'll want that list. Pfab/Yeah. Karmer/Get that sooner, yeah. Boothroy/If I have it sooner, I will get it. Vanderhoef/Would it be presumptious to, on the 21st, to set a public hearing for two weeks later than that? Lehman/Yeah, I think it would. I don't think we've come that far. Champion/I think if we're going to do this, it takes a while, you know; we don't move that quickly. It'd be nice whatever we do to have it in place by Lehman/They do their leases in February, a lot of them. Boothroy/Yeah, they're already under consideration right now. I'll keep it moving forward and try to get it back to you as quickly as it's feasible. And, you know, it won't get lost. I have a feeling that there are those out there that will hold me accountable. I feel that there is a little pressure on both sides. I've got apartment owners on this side, and I've got the neighbors on this side, and you all are in the middle coming at it this way and I'm not sure what I've got left. Pfab/I guess what I would be interested if there's opposition to moving forward, I would be real interested to hear who it is and what their concerns are. Boothroy/You're going to hear feedback from them. Lehman/Oh, I'm sure we will. Boothroy/I don't know that when we meet we're going to come to complete consensus. They may suggest doing some things to the document that I can't support and so when I come back to you, the recommendation may be this is what we're recommending, but the apartment owners have suggested this and we're not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 57 supporting that. Because I'm not suggesting that by meeting with them that we're going to completely gut this and come up with something different. Ali I'm asking for is some feedback that makes this Ordinance more effective and more workable from their point of view as well as from the City's point of view. Pfab/I think the public input or wherever it comes from is great. Boothroy/Exactly and that's the point. Pfab/And I whole-heartedly support that process. But I think the time for, I think that we want to keep moving forward. Boothroy/I guarantee that we're going to keep moving forward because ifI don't somebody else will make sure that I do. Dilkes/The only question I have about direction is do we have a majority of Council that support the filing of the criminal complaint as being the trigger or are we still talking about criminal complaint versus disposition of the criminal charge? Champion/I think we're talking about narrowing the list so that when somebody is charged with murder--- Dilkes/No, that is a different issue than what is the trigger point--the charge being filed or the--- Lehman/It has to be filed. Dilkes/So there's a majority of Council for that? Pfab/Because I think that there's enough (can't hear) in time and actions that a charge is certainly enough to start the trigger. Kanner/Who were the four people for that? Dilkes/I saw--- Lehman/I think there's five. Are you on? There's five. All right, Doug. Boothroy/Thank you. Vanderhoef/Wait a minute. Boothroy/Oh, sorry. Vanderhoef/I still have a little bit of a concern and it has to do with public hearing or public discussion, whatever we want to call it. I know people can come and talk to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 58 us at public time, but what I have seen on some of these kinds of issues, meaning the alcohol one comes to mind right away, is that until we publish the public hearing, sometimes we're not getting the input that we want. So what I'm looking at in my mind is that we have public hearing, you know, a month to six weeks and continue it, if need be, but at least have something out there that we get the people involved in it early on. Boothroy/So, you want to have a public hearing on this, essentially? Lehman/Well, I'm sure we'll have one. Boothroy/No, it's not required in the Code. Dilkes/I think also our experience with the alcohol was you have to have a target to have a public hearing on, so we have to have the ordinance. We have to have a draft, an ordinance. Vanderhoef/Well, if don't call it a public hearing, what do you want to call it so that there is an announced time--- Boothroy/I think we can call it a public hearing. Vanderhoef/...for people to come and--- Lehman/They're not going to come until you have your public hearing anyway. Dilkes/We can call it a public heating, it doesn't matter. Boothroy/I don't think it matters. Champion/They have to react to something (can't hear) Boothroy/We will have a public hearing, public discussion, and we will have an ordinance to react to. Pfab/Well, will there be three readings, right? Boothroy/No, it's by resolution. One. Vanderhoef/(can't hear) public hearing and two weeks later, you know, we're supposed to be voting on it. And at the public hearing is when people all at once start coming in with all their rewrites. Dilkes/Then we can revise the ordinance. Boothroy/You can take whatever time you want to consider it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 59 Lehman/Continue the public hearing and do the changes. Boothroy/That's always your discretion. Karr/Excuse me, there is something to be clarified. Doug just said it would be a resolution and Eleanor just said you could revise the ordinance. I'm sorry--- Boothroy/It's a resolution adopting the ordinance, is it not? Dilkes/No, it's just three ordinance readings. Boothroy/Oh, OK. Sorry. Lehman/All right. Champion/Thank you. Boothroy/Have at it. Wilbum/OK. Lehman/Thank you, Doug. Champion/I know he gave it clear directions. TAPE 03-03, SIDE 2 Boothroy/I had a good direction. Thank you. HEALTH INSURANCE Lehman/OK. Health insurance. My understanding, well, Eleanor, will you tell us--well, my understanding--Eleanor, you can elaborate on this--health insurance for Council Members whether Council Members purchase the health insurance or the insurance is furnished by the City is considered compensation. Even if we buy it and pay for it ourselves. In order for a Councilperson to be able to buy insurance from the City, we would have to pass some sort of enabling legislation prior to November of this year so that it would be available by January of next year. That's the earliest that could possibly occur. Now, I have no problem; in fact, I have a very strong interest in having health insurance be available to Council folks, but that's your guys' call. If you want Eleanor to proceed with something to that effect. Pfab/It probably isn't going to affect me, but I would say it certainly ~vouldn't be a bad idea. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 60 Karmer/You're saying the City would pay for Council Members' insurance? Pfab/That's not been decided yet. Kanner/No, that's what I'm asking what you have in mind. I have two options. Lehman/My only concern--personally, I would like to be able to purchase health insurance from the City; I can't do that. In fact, even if we decide it's a good idea, I can't do it until next January. At some point, if the City wants to provide health insurance for the Council, that's another issue. All I'd like to do is have the ability to purchase that health insurance. Vanderhoef/And I see no problems with it. O'Donnell/I don't see a problem with it. Wilburn/I'd support that. Pfab/So is there an action that needs to be made? Lehman/Yeah, something has to be put together between now and November, so there's no rush. Pfab/But I would say the quicker we get at it. COUNCIL TIME Lehman/All right. Council time. O'Donnell/I want to bring up one thing. In our Economic Development meeting, we have three members and I do not see how we're not violating an open meetings rule by having other Councilors in the room. We have five people that are listening potentially to something we're going to be voting on, and at the last meeting, I understand there was five. And I think we need to be a little bit more careful than that. I know we've all been places when a fourth has walked in and one has got up and left. Pfab/I think, first of all, there was only three there. There's only four, not five at the last-- O'Dormell/Four is a majority, Irvin, that's--- Pfab/And I agree, but I've gone to a lot of them but I've never spoken. I'm there as an observer, a citizen. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 61 O'Donnell/I don't think it matters. We were criticized in the Register for five people having a sandwich in there, and now I'm just--- Lehman/Well, I don't know. I haven't asked Eleanor. Eleanor has left. Atkins/I've always understood, Ernie, that those that sit in the audience and don't participate doesn't count toward an open meeting. That's what I've understood. Vanderhoef/And recently when one Councilor who was not on the committee spoke up, the Mayor made sure to say that you're not part of the committee and cannot speak. O'Donnell/But you are discussing an item which we potentially will be voting on. Karr/I believe Eleanor had done a memo some time ago where she had indicated, as Steve had just said, that it quote "doesn't count." But she went on to say--my understanding and recollection was--that it is best in most cases not to put yourself in that position. Champion/We're very careful, even when we're going to like those neighborhood meetings or I mean, that we don't, aren't (can't hear) very many people there. O'Donnell/Yeah. I just had a problem with it but if it's OK and it's OK with everybody else, that's fine. I just think it's a problem waiting to happen. Lehman/Well, my understanding is with (can't hear) there cannot be participation in the meeting by people other than the committee. As far as that goes, we can all go to a Board of Supervisors meeting but none of us could speak. Champion/Right, Lehman/Even if we're all there. None of us. Vanderhoeff But if one goes, they could. Lehman/One person could speak, two could go and speak, three could go and speak. If there's more than three there, no one can speak. Can we ask Eleanor for--- Atkins/Oh, sure. That's fine. O'Donnell/If nobody else feels their concern, that's fine. Atkins/All right. Lehman/I have one item, Steve, that was brought to my attention by a couple folks, and after seeing the Airport obstruction map, it seems there's a couple of poles that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 62 need to be moved. One of those poles perhaps could be moved to the intersection of First Avenue and Scott Boulevard and a light be placed on it. (Laughter) Lehman/I don't think we'd like a fancy street light, but I've had a couple people tell me that if you're driving down the street it's very difficult for folks to see where First Avenue intersects Scott Boulevard--and not that we need a big fancy street light. Atkins/Well, wait a minute. I thought that was Rochester and Scott. Lehman/Rochester and Scott. Atkins/You said First and Scott. Lehman/First and Scott. Atkins/Oh, OK. Lehman/Apparently people don't see that when they're driving, they miss the turn. Pfab/Might it be possible to put some reflectors in, like Illinois ~ can't hear) have? O'Donnell/Well, I've had some comments, too. We have these nice sidewalks there and people are walking. And they're trying to walk at night and it's awfully dark out there. Lehman/Well, street lights may be a long ways away but the intersection light, if that could happen--- Atkins/We try to keep the intersections lit specifically. I'll find out. Champion/(Can't hear) sidewalk. Atkins/OK. Thank you. Lehman/All right, anything else for Council time? Karr/Real quick--joint meeting January 22nd at 4:00, I need Agenda items in the near future for the joint meeting with the County/City Councils. Champion/January 26th? Karr/22nd. Vanderhoef/22nd, Wednesday. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003. January 6, 2003 Council Work Session Page 63 O'Donnell/It's at the County? Karr/Yes. Kaimer/They didn't give us a location yet, did they? Karr/Yes, it's on your--Johnson County is hosting it. Kanner/But where? Karr/It's at--- Kanner/We had one once out at the fairgrounds. Karr/Right now, it's at the County Administration Building. Kanner/County Administration Building. Karr/It is light now. It is up to them to pick the location if it differs from that we won't know until the agenda. Pfab/And what time? Karr/It's 4:00 o'clock. Lehman/4:00 o'clock. Wilburn/Good time. Lehman/All right, guys. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 6, 2003.