The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1975-10-14 Council minutesIIINUTES__OF OFFICIAL ACTIONS OF COUNCIL OCTOBER 14, 1975 7:30 P.M, `-IINUTES 0?: OFFICIAL ACTIONS OF COUNCIL Page 3 Council Activities September 30, 1975 • City Manager Pro Tem Dennis, Kraft; requested that,as the first'' Saturday in October is a home football game, ,_the paper agreed. He noted pickup,be cancelled for October. The -_Council transit for the that the memo from 'the Finance Department on elderly would`be set for informal discussion on Thursday, with Council candidates and persons interested being so notified. "The He called attention.to the observance of Veterans Day. Cityregulations have the observance 'on the fourth week in October. To 'comply with _State 'and County observations, he suggested to 'November 11th. Council also changing the date agreed to this and a resolution :will be on the next meeting agenda. Director -of Public Relations Julie Zelenka asked for a clarification concerning-support.for-the Litterbag Campaign. - It was..the-consensus of'ahe Council that the `City rpurchase the; - bags and bill the participants.` Mayor Czarnecki moved, seconded by Brandt, to amend Section IV, B,-of-Ordinance;No.,7.5-2783,-:;Ordinance g ,paragraph 0n 'Finance, by`substituting:the words, "ten dollars -Campaign =(510.00) or more" instead of "twenty-five dollars or less". bfotion'carried, 5/0 The implicationsof the effective date - of the Ordinance were discussed. It was moved by Brandt and • _ seconded by deProsse that] -the rule requiring the Ordinance- to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council -meet- _ finally passed ings -prior to the meeting at which it, -is to;;be 'd second consideration and vote be be suspended, the first an waived, and that.'the ordinance be voted -upon -for final pass - ;age at this time., Roll 'call: ,_Ayes: ,;Brandt, Czarnecki, David - sen, Neuhauser. Motion adopted, -5/0. Jane Anderson' _deProsse, representing_, Common Cause appeared _concerning filing of-com- asoning for the alternative, -used was ex plaints. The re - - plained by, Assistant City,,Attorney Bob Bowlin. Anderson` advised they would prepare a manual ;for candidates. It was moved by Brandt and''seconded by-Davidsen'that Ordinance_.:No. 75-2783, AnOrdinance to -Require -Filing with the.City Clerk of All Disclosure Reports Required to: -Be -Filed by -the Iowa , Campaign Disclosure -;Income Tax Check-off:Act in`Election -Campaigns for -Municipal -Public office; to _P1 ace-Reali tic and 'Enforceable Limits --on the_Amount Persons May Contribute to Real-, for -Municipal Public Office; to Place ---Election:-Campaigns istic and Enforceable -Limits on the'Amount'That a'Candidate, a Committeep:and All Political_Committees Support- ..Candidate's ing the Candidate, May Spend in -Election Campaigns for Muni- cipal<Public Office; and 'to Provide Penalties for Violation `of This Ordinance, as amended, as recorded:in Ordinance:-3ook No. 9,=Pages 50-54be finally, adopted at this time. Roll call: Ayes: Czarnecki,_Davidsen, deProsse. Nays: Neu- hauser, Brandt. Ordinance adopted, 3/2. Councilwoman Neu- - haus6i explained her "no" vote. Council Activities' Page 4 _ September 30, 1975 • It-was-Maovd by Brandt and seconded by`deProsse-that the East-West the_proposed Ordinance.No. 7.5,2780, -.Vacating Block 92,>with'two:contingencies, be considered Alley_in and ;given 'second vote for passage. Motion carried unani- `Davidsen, mously. Roll call vote; on -passage. 'Ayes: and Neuhauser. Nays:none. deProsse,'Brandt,:Czarnecki rt was moved by Brandt and seconded by.deProsse that for::the Appointment Powers Ordinance'No. 7.5--2782,_ Providing Board of Library Trustees, .be considered and and'Duties_of a second vote for passage. Motion carried, unani- given .the mously. -Roll call vote on passage: ;Ayes: deProsse, Neuhauser. :Brandt ;-Czarnecki, Davidsen. Nays: none. It was moved by Brandt and seconded by Davidsen to lution Book 33 in Reso, adopt; Resolution No. 75-364, recorded Contract for`Demolition and Site Clearance-..:,..-- page--95,'Awarding Contract No. 5 to Madget, Inc., St. Joseph, Mo. in the amount= Brandt, of ;Roll -call: Ayes: Neuhauser, Resolution - _.557,950:00. Czarnecki,'Davidsen, deProsse. Nays: none. adopted, 5/A• - _ It was moved by deProsse and scconded_by Brandt to adopt 96, • Resolution''=75-365, recorded in -Resolution Book -33, page Cause -to"be:Published Council - Authorizing the City Clerk to call: Ayes: Brandt,,Czarnecki, Minutes and'Claims. .Roll Davidsen, deprosse, Neuhauser. Nays: none. Resolution adopted, 5/0. It was moved by deProsse and seconded: by Brandt to adopt Resolution ;Book 33, page 97, Resolution `75-366, recorded in Execution of Contract to Lease "2 buses with Authorizing` hich Lines for period 10/2/75 to 6/30/76, -Ottumwa,-Transit start October 6th. Roll call:` Ayes: .Czarnecki, Reso- will Davidsen,-:deProsse, Neuhauser, Brandt. Nays: none. lution adopted, 5/0. _ It was moved; by Brandt and seconded by deProsse to refer in the theanonymous'letter regardingthe proposed rezoning Council Rules Committee for: northern -part -of -the ;City to .the :Motion carried,' unanimously. procedure _,recommendation. lwomeported that the Rules Committee Councian deProsse r lwom recommends allanonymous letters be thrown out. It was moved by Neuhauser and 'seconded byBrandt'that regarding reduced taxi fares the letter -from Emily Stoughton, received -and filed.` Motion carried, unanimously. be Page _3 Council Discussion • - _ October 9, 1975_ Page -_4 Council Discussion • October 9, 1975 their handout for Local Purchase of Service Contracts of 8,512,708; this was the only, thing to come out of their public hearing; everything above that figure was already committed before they started planning for Title XX for this year (but they were not aware,ofthat).- Councilman.Brandt. noted that Council was upset over,the-previous procedures. used, but now:questioned how.an elected.official could get input on their priorities, ----,-possibly through the Task Force? In addition to Robert Hibbeler, the members of the Task Force for District -_X are -Jen Madsen, Alice Garcia, Alice Litton, and Dave Sharp. Council was advised -to -.Contact -their Johnson County representatives and Task Force -personnel. The City Manager called attention to another thing to speak about to our state legislators- that the 'State Legis lature and the State Auditor constantly..impose upon munici- palities controls,and,management,-but:at the State level they have a major departmentwhich had,n-o idea how much money it was spending and to what programs At was committed. Council was informed.that-there were three things, to do local level: (1).encourage federal legislation to _ level of dollars available .l.to--States,. (2) encourage'. 01% the Sta*- :;Legislators to set asideState dollars for7ser- vices not provided by Title XX or outside of Title XX, and (3) give support to their representatives on the Title XX Task Force for District X, so that they have some guidance. in how to work your feelings - into the establishment of -priori- 7 ties in District.X.- Councilwoman Neuhauser statedd-that Council needed to know the breakdown on-what.services.are being provided to compare - community based programs with institutional. Hibbeler stated that if they were available to them,.theywill-.be made avail-. able. If not, by the end -of the nine-month periodr Reid' -s - office will have geared up theirlaccountability system, so he can tell how District X's-money.was spent. ilibbeler-called attention to the three,basic concerns that the Task Force needs to be dealing with: (1) the divi- sion -of -percentage of dollars between S a - tatend Districts, (2) as Title.,XX-exists.in the environment of several other programs that - to some degree may or do: -.Impact upon. the same people, such as Area Education Agency; CETA, . :Title:XIX, County Poor Funds,` Volunteer .-D61lars, that the District Planning. Bodies for -these programs should be getting together to devel op philosophy and strategy, and (3) thee -elements of the ■ -..Page 5 _ ` Council Discussion • October 9, 1975 evaluation process should be (a) the daily fee, (b) the 'days to goal, and (c) " the degree of the problems of individuals You're working with. He -suggested that Year Two would be. status -quo" and evaluation would be developed during.this period. -. Mayor Czarnecki commented that the City should not have any -great expectations then in the fcrthcoming_hearings, and HibbPler,answered-affirmatively,. Hi')eler':stated;-'_that-this was an excellent way to communicate ,-Council-inviting the -discussion, and questioned if this would be feasible on a regular basis to have an update session to which the public is invited. 'Council agreed it would be feasible and helpful to the City and to the public. ;,Mayor --Czarnecki thanked` -Reid and Hibbeler'.for coming.----- omin The The Mayor then announced the October 6th memo from Richard Wollmershauser, Urban Renewal Director, regarding the site plan- approval"process for Old Capitol: Associates. The City Manager advised that -since Tuesday the staff had met with Old Capitol and had agreed that -to -shift #4 -to #2 would be appropriate, and that they needed to work out:. -the shift''in-the relation- ship between the staff and the Design Review.Committee. • The Desiyn'`Review Committee has been` -going directly to'Council the ,- and their input is -;supposed to"be incooperationwith the°staff', as stated-in-Resolution No.--74-48.- He --asked for -Council con ' ments. 'Mayor Czarnecki suggested that the_problemIs,are_'(1) to give_Staff-direction-on the conflicts that Council might see in any proposal, and (2) the methods in which those conflicts -might-be- resolved. If staff cannot work out conflicts,:' the Council 'does not have an internalimpasse procedure to re- solve the conflicts:- 'The -City -Man _ ager stated that the staff could then come to the Council for discussion. The -Mayor suggested having an individual who would work with the Council and Old Capitol to resolve disputes., He thought -that at -- some point the Staff out toknow.what the Coun- cil would _. accept and ,how far the y: would -go in-:negotiation:pro- cess. CouncilwomandeProsse commented that it seemed to her that there was not a -great deal of leeway, as -the things being talked about are things that -are specifically spelled out°in the contract, as well as specific -ordinances, -,' and '"that either the site plan; conforms to the contract and ordinances or they don't. If they don't, it is the -responsibility of 'Old Capitol to take the site plans back and make them conform to the plan. The City Manager pointed.'out that these :-things 'are -coming out in periodic k. meetings with Old Capitol. Attorney Hayestated _0 Page '6 Council Discussion • October 9, 1975 that in resolvingconcerns first they arediscussed_with Old Capitol and amendments to the contractor' site ,plan are attempted, then Staff reports back to the; -Council'. The 'Mayor commented 'that -at some point in time when the 'staff `comes back to-Council^and says that here is a proposal, he couldn't conceive,without making Council's position; untenable, of discussion at a work session. ;Also there was need, before staff 'gets 'too far -along 'in the process, for direction to staff on what Council'will,accept onni-any given point. The City `'Manager noted that executive session could be held to find out what to negotiate, and the.Mayorresponded that this is not spelled out in the -process. He addedthat-the developer is: negotiating>,with the staff under the assumption that Staff has the ability to"make a deal. - Hayek-notedlthat thisisa helpful negotiating tool'for them and there is no way for anyone tobargain for Council` without assumptions. The Mayor -suggested -that the -procedure would be improved if the Staff checked with -Council' -prior to -negotiations, and that this could not be done in public. Hayek stated that he had no objection to comingto'Council`and talking about - what -staff is doing, ascoften-as,Council wants, and that he sees a: series of meetings to 'develop bargaining positions _ • as we go along. Councilman Brandt presented a rough draft of procedure outlined according to the conversations, as follows: 1. A work session including Staff and=Old Capitol to - see.i£ any proposal meets --the Code -and <the ,Contract. -- 2. If any changes are needed, the developer .makes `them, - Staff reviewsandbrings the proposal to Council. 3. Council -gives 'direction to _Staff. 4. Negotiations take place between the Staff and 'Old Capitol, if necessary.;-° 5. Staff brings to Council the results of negotiation. . 6. - Preliminary approval by -Council. 7. Staff presents proposal to Design Review Board. 8. Design Review Board presents recommendations to Council. -: 9. Council gives final approval or disapproval to Design • Review Board proposal. 10. Council makes decision on final plan. Page�7 Council Discussion October 9 1975 _7 The City Manager suggested that the Design Review Process could, go on simultaneously. The City Attorney noted that what was suggested was not terribly different from what Staff is doing now. It was pointed out that the Staff,- inthe present,proposal,-is at the negotia- ting stage instead of.the work session stage, and shouldn't be telling�ol:d Capitol what the Council.is going to do or not do -- that the Council wants that responsibility. The Mayor commented that the Council agrees on Tim's list. The City Manager -questioned if the Staff,should.go..b ck to General Services Administration.on the Post office and tell them we are interested. It was the consensus of the Council to go ahead. executive session on Monday at 4:_00 P.M. -Meeting adjourned,