HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-09 TranscriptionFebruary 9, 2009
February 9, 2009
Council Present:
Staff:
Others Present:
Addition:
City Council Page 1
City Council Special Work Session 6:30 P.M.
Bailey, Champion, Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright
Lombardo, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Hargadine
Gunn, Swedlund - UISG Representatives
Bailey/ Okay...let's start out our work session with the first item, which is sales tax. Michael...
Karr/ Could we...Madame Mayor, would you just note that we're going to be adding and posting
that agenda item, the new addition one.
Bailey/ There is agenda Item 32.b. I think this is the longest agenda I've seen. 32.b. you got it,
um, it's the resolution (noise on mic) use of Community Development Block Grant.
There were some changes at the State. So...(mumbled)...anything else?
Karr/ No. That's it.
Bailey/ Okay. All right. Michael?
Sales Tax:
Lombardo/ Well, um, tonight we're here to discuss, uh, the local option sales tax initiative, and
come to some agreement on...on whether it be supported, uh, and in what manner. Um,
I've provided a brief memo just...some quick thoughts on valid initiatives in general in
terms of what I've been engaged throughout the years, and really found that, um, while
there are a lot of needs and often competing needs, um, the...the challenge with creating
abroad spectrum of fundable projects and initiatives, uh, usually gets either lost in
translation or becomes very difficult to explain to the public, or it gives people enough,
oh, I don't like that one thing and I'll vote no, um, that my experience is if we want to see
this initiative move forward that we should keep it very clean and focused, and right now,
um, the primary focus, and I think the spirit in which the...the recent changes in the sales
tax legislation, uh, took place is in the spirit of flood relief, and so I wanted to put that out
there as an option if we...but I think the broader discussion is, uh, to what level is there
support and is this going to see a ballot or not. Um. .
Champion/ Michael, will we be able to replace (mumbled) uh, to our General Fund that we have
used for flood problems?
Lombardo/ Um, certainly. I think that...that is something that could be considered. That's part
of the discussion, is...we think, uh...I would also recommend that we don't sit, you
know, go through and say X percent for this problem...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 2
Champion/ Right.
Lombardo/ ...but word it in such a way so that it narrowly defines the realm of projects, um,
because quite frankly, you know, the...the two large, uh, infrastructure projects that I
would recommend we consider, at least designating funds for, the elevation of Dubuque
and Park Road bridge and then the relocation and consolidation of the waste water
treatment plants. Hard to say yet -- we've just spent three days in D.C. and we're trying to
get funding support from other areas. It's hard to know at this point how much funding
would be received or not, and so you don't want to foreclose on using the funds for other
things, but yet you don't want to, um, have it be so broadly construed that it, you know,
people would wonder what...what it is we're using the funds for. So...it takes some
wordsmithing, but largely is for you to discuss this evening really is that the direction you
want to go with, or do you see other areas of possibility.
Bailey/ Well, let's first discern if...if this is the direction we want to go. I mean, there
was...seemed to be general support for putting this on the ballot, and enabling people to
vote on it. Are we still in general concurrence about that direction?
Champion/ Is Coralville still interested?
Bailey/ Absolutely! Um, we spoke with them. We spoke with, um, North Liberty
representatives; uh, when we were in D.C. we actually went to lunch and sort of talked
generally about what language people were considering for the ballot, and we had hoped
that perhaps people would attend tonight to hear our discussion, but we will inform them
of the direction we're going, um, naturally North Liberty hasn't been affected by floods,
but still has capital projects that they're interested in, 965 specifically, so there's still
interest. So, on the part of this body is there interest in moving forward with putting this
on the ballot, that's the first question we have to really answer.
Hayek/ Well, I think we have to have the discussion as to what the...what it would be for. I
mean, is there...this was flood related legislation that became law, or is our intention....
Bailey/ It's not...
Hayek/ ...is our intention when we talk about this, to limit a sales tax or the revenues from that,
to flood relief, or is it to include other things. If it's flood relief, there are various things it
could or could not be spent on. I think we have to talk about that.
Bailey/ Well, I just want to make sure that we're moving forward, putting it on the ballot, before
we spend a lot of time with language. If we're not putting it on the ballot, there's no point
in talking about language. And, the legislation does not require it for flood relief.
Correia/ Yeah, I know it doesn't require it, but I guess I'm, I mean, I'm also...I mean, I think that,
that it was put in place to...to try and meet the large needs for counties that were
Presidential Disaster Areas. So, I mean, I am interested in...I'm interested in hearing
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Page 3
what the voters, I mean, I'm interested in putting it on the ballot. I mean, the democratic
process, see what the voters say. For Iowa City and we have no control over what other
cities, we got the list of all the cities in Johnson...or Linn County and what they're, so I
mean we really, we can say "yes, we want it on the ballot," but we only can talk about
what we want to propose spending it on, and I mean, I'm of the mind at the beginning of
this discussion that I want it specifically for flood recovery projects and I mean, I think
with this...booklet that we have, I think that there are categories that we can talk about.
Wright/ Yeah, I'd be interested in it going on to the ballot, for flood relief.
Bailey/ Uh-huh.
Wright/ With a sunset.
Champion/ Yes, I agree with you.
Correia/ ,,,interested in a sunset too.
Bailey/ Okay.
Champion/ It'd be nice to have it forever, but we're (mumbled) yeah, I agree. It should go on the
ballot for flood relief.
Bailey/ All right. So...get more specific, that would help staff adopting a resolution. As you
saw in the Info Packet, that without a special meeting we can...we can meet this...this
deadline. Um, if we feel that we need more conversation we would have to have special
meetings, which was certainly an option. So, let's get a little bit more specific.
Champion/ Can I (coughing, unable to hear) for a second?
Bailey/ Sure.
Champion/ Does everybody do their own ballot language, or do we (several answering) oh!
Lombardo/ Now, Coralville, uh, Kelly Hayworth and I have, uh, set a meeting up for later in this
week in anticipation of this, to discuss trying to coordinate the language. We think
there's a lot of value...if our...if our hearts are in the same place, then we would do well
to keep the language consistent, so that there's not a lot of speculation of why did they
word it this way, why did you word it that way, um, and they very clearly want to use this
for flood relief, and so if that's our intended use, then it should be easy to come up with
language that is...is identical, um, or very similar.
Hayek/ (mumbled) Coralville actually publish language, or even draft language?
Lombardo/ No, no, no, I mean, they're waiting for us. We have to initiate getting it on the ballot
and then they will.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 4
Hayek/ Right, but I mean, clearly they've got something in mind.
Lombardo/ Yeah, it's flood related projects, but I haven't talked to Kelly about specific projects.
Bailey/ Likely it's the projects they took to D.C., um, they have a huge...I can't remember the
dollar amount. Do either one of you, they have a huge list of flood mitigation,
predominantly they're talking about levees, um, and some shoring up the CRANDIC
railroad, um, levee, as well.
Hayek/ Do they sunset? I mean, theoretically.
Bailey/ They're interested in a sunset, as well.
Lombardo/ I think we all generally agree that...that sunset clause is really, uh, the only way to
have this pass.
Correia/ We don't set the sunset, we let the Board (several talking) Supervisors...(several
talking)
Bailey/ There's some...Eleanor can walk us through that. The Board does set that, but um, we
have the option...
Dilkes/ The Board...the Board sets the sunset, but um, we need, if you want a sunset, we need to
recommend a sunset. What happened in Cedar Rapids is the City of Cedar Rapids
recommended afive-year sunset and that's what the Linn County Supervisors did for the
entire county.
Champion/ Are we supposed to list specific projects, I mean, like we would list elevating
Dubuque Street and elevating the bridge and...
O'Donnell/ ...Park Road bridge...
Champion/ ...redoing the Park Road bridge. What about Foster Road? That just needs to be
elevated a very small amount to stop the flooding that went on.
Lombardo/ You can list specifically, um, I would recommend we...we do it in terms of
characterizing the types of projects, but not limit it, because there are a lot of different
aspects of the funding and like I said, we're trying to find funding from other areas so
that...any funding we do visa-vie sales tax will go further. Um, and so I wouldn't want to
close the door on, or...or heaven forbid, get into a situation where we defined it too
narrowly and they had to rebate taxes because we couldn't use it, and that type of thing,
but...um...
Wilburn/ It would seem to me, too, that...there...there may be a circumstance, for example,
Connie, where, um, staff, engineering, may decide that there's a...there's a particular, uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 5
flood related item that might be more effective than another that we have on the books,
and if we put...we put the specific one down, then we can't do the other project that
might be more effective. Is that...is that fair?
Lombardo/ That's fair, and...and even, I mean, for the...our priority project is elevating
Dubuque and Park Road bridge. You know, we have a...a range, and the upper end of
that range is $32 million, based on protecting to the 500-year flood stage. From an
engineered perspective, we don't even know if that's feasible, but there are...there's a lot
more work that needs to go in to determining what the project will be, and so there's a
range of...of funding that would be needed to...to take care of that, so...a lot up in the air
yet, and getting too specific would be problematic, I think.
Bailey/ Matt, you had a question I think...
Hayek/ Well, L ..mean, it seems to me that...at least two of the broad categories of flood work
that could be done would be public infrastructure, encompass those (several talking)
moving the waste water treatment plant, you know, elevating roads and...and replacing
bridges, that sort of thing. Um, acquisition, and I think acquisition and I'm talking about
buyouts of private property, um, is...is significant and I think if...and I don't know what
the Council feels about that, but I think if we...if, if, uh, if a majority of the Council
would use sales tax generated dollars for the acquisition of private property, that has to be
made very clear in connection with the referendum.
Wright/ You're suggesting private property where the owners have not participated, or not...or
are not eligible to participate in the buyout?
Hayek/ Yeah... essentially, uh, going above and beyond.
Wright/ Yeah.
Bailey/ Buyout.
Hayek/ Um, well, I mean, if...if the....
Lombardo/ Are you suggesting that that be considered or that we go in that direction?
Hayek/ No, I'm not. But I'm...but I think it's important for (coughing, unable to hear) to make it
clear if...if we would want to go in a direction like that. I think it has to be clearly
worded in the referendum. If we don't, then...then we don't need to, but I could see us...I
could see a....a significant unhappiness in the community if people voted for a sales tax,
thinking they were going to get, uh, dollars generated to support infrastructure available
to everybody, and those dollars instead got used, or some portion of those dollars, instead
got used for private property acquisition, which may not be a bad thing, but if people
voted for (coughing, unable to hear) then ended up seeing the dollars used for something
else, it could be real backlash.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 6
Lombardo/ Have any of you been getting any kind of feedback on...on uses of this funding and
what people would support or not?
Correia/ Besides what was in the packet?
Lombardo/ Yeah! What'd you say?
Correia/ Besides what was in the packet?
Lombardo/ Calls or (several talking) yeah.
Wilburn/ I got, uh, conversations in the past with some folks related to infrastructure, um, and
flood protection -you didn't mention that but -that's something that Cedar Rapids did,
you know (mumbled) (several talking)
Champion/ ...raising the road and all that stuff, isn't that...
Correia/ I think flood protection can...would include buying out property, private property, to
create the...physical environment that would, um...
Bailey/ We've indicated that that's the most extreme measure of protection.
Correia/ Right.
Bailey/ Yeah, it would or it could.
Lombardo/ I just...I just have some questions about, you know, the broad...separating the broad
public benefit type projects toward areas that...or projects that...that are for a limited,
you know, area um, in terms of how the voters are going to respond, and that's what I'm
curious to know...
Champion/ I think we need broad spectrum. (both talking) I agree with.. .
Dilkes/ Can I just make one point here? Clearly we're going to word the language of the ballot
as broadly as we can to encompass what you want to do and give you flexibility to do
that. But that doesn't...mean we just sit here and think of the broadest language we can
and put it in the ballot. We have to work backwards. You need to identify the possible
uses you want, might want to make of this money. Matt has said there are two general
categories, public infrastructure...and/or private acquisition or private, um, infrastructure
that benefits a smaller segment, and then we'll back in...once we know what you want to
do or a majority of you wants to do, we'll draft the language to get us there, but we can't
just sit here and come out with, you know, flood relief and flood recovery without
identifying more specifically what that might be.
Bailey/ (several talking) remind me again how much we can possibly generate annually from
this?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 7
Lombardo/Around number's $9 million, um...
Bailey/ So, if we're talking about a sunset (both talking)
Correia/ ...five years or $9 million.. .
Lombardo/ $9 million a year.
Bailey/ So if we're talking about a sunset, part of my concern when we look at the public
infrastructure cost, I mean, we quoted, well, we took these two, our legislative delegation,
we looked at elevating Dubuque Street to the 100-year flood plain, $21 million, but as
Michael pointed out, you know, 32 is the possible top end, if we can engineer to that. I
mean, we have infrastructure projects in excess of $80 million. With the sunset, even
with some federal funding with the sunset, it's going to be a challenge to even do those
two projects we took out to D.C., and so I'm particularly interested in those infrastructure
projects and it...in my mind it makes it a challenge to add too much more in there, unless
there's some amazing funding miracle that happens, um, in Des Moines or D.C. and...I
don't know. So, I mean, let's keep in mind if we put infrastructure what the price tags are,
and how realistic is it to get to those kinds of prof ects, given the amount of revenue we
can generate. (coughing, unable to hear) I'm looking at this.
O'Donnell/ The Park Road bridge was $24 million I thought.
Bailey/ The Dubuque Street and the Park Road, um, replacement is a $21 million project to the
100-year...(both talking) $32 if we elevate Dubuque Street to the...the event on record,
last year. And then, relocation of the north waste water treatment plant with
redevelopment design is $63 million. (both talking)
Lombardo/ That's broken out, about $40 million to create the capacity at the south plant, and
about $20 million in remediation and site preparation and.. .
Bailey/ Right.
Lombardo/ ...getting rid of (mumbled) in terms of flood plain.
Champion/ Well, I still think I would like to see afive-year...what did we call it?
Bailey/ Sunset.
Champion/ Sunset.
Wright/ Yeah, I mean, that...
Champion/ And, just do major infrastructure for the public good that affects everybody in the
city.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 8
O'Donnell/ For five years wouldn't cut what we want to do. (several talking)
Champion/ Well, we might get some other funds from something else.
Wright/ If you start tallying up the price tag for everything we've got, we're looking at...a long
time out.
Bailey/ We are. I mean, I mean Michael's right. We won't stop seeking other funds and there
were some hopeful comments made about the north waste water treatment plant, but we
have to follow up with that, and uh, I mean, five years at $9 million gets us, hm, halfway
there.
Lombardo/ I'll be candid. My preference would not to be...have a sunset. I mean, our needs far
exceed what we can raise in that limited period of time. I just don't know that anything
longer would...would be salient to the voters here, and...and I think if we can establish a
track record, do...uh, responsible projects and get them done and demonstrate that, you
know, we'll use the funds as we say we will, then maybe there's an opportunity for the
future, but I'm getting a lot of feedback that, um, questions more or less. If Cedar Rapids
is sunsetting at five years, you know, why...why would you make it go beyond, you
know, how are your needs greater. There are arguments to be made, but...
Bailey/ At that discussion we had over lunch with the other cities, we did talk about a possibility
of a seven, I mean, we talked five, seven, and nine, and you know, people were agreed
that a sunset needed to be included and that we should recommend, it would be good if
we all recommended the same one, so it would encourage the Supervisors to do so, um,
but.. .
Wilburn/ I would also add, uh, in terms of that...that reasoning, we have uh, a similar historical
example of, uh, saying here's something we're going to do. We did it, and we um, I'm
thinking of the uh, the Library and the selling of bonds to temporarily take us over our
self-imposed uh, credit limit. We said we were going to do it, um, there was a public
vote for it. Public supported it. We sold the bonds. Library's built, uh, we temporarily
exceeded the self-imposed rule and then we went back below it. So I think, um, that type
of statement by putting a limit on it does help, uh, and potentially set up a future
argument that the public might find palatable. If other funds have not come in or...or uh,
or God forbid, some other type of disaster item come up. Keepin' it real!
Hayek/ Michael, I understand currently your recommendation is that, um, property tax relief
is...would not be something you would recommend including.
Lombardo/ I would love to see it. I think it would give us a distinct advantage in terms of...of
uh, development, um, I think it's needed. I just don't know that this is the right tool to
deliver it, and...and again, I think if you start...I...my experience with (mumbled) even
if your intentions are good and...and you know, you...that it's seen as a way to gain the
process, you know, give somebody...give everybody a little bit of something and, you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Page 9
know, I think this streamlined approach sells itself. I mean, it's, you know, defensible
and...and we don't have to point and explain why we did anything else with it. Um,
and...and I think, you know, there was an article in one of the papers fairly recently that
kind of speculated, or maybe it was on one of the blogs. I do read them occasionally.
Um, speculated about what would happen, you know, you buy down the property tax and
then what happens, and it's just...you get, what happens is you spend most of your time
trying to defend why...what your approach is defensible, as opposed to getting to the
heart of the matter, and...and so, you know, my recommendation is you keep it clean,
keep it focused, and....and you don't have to spend a lot of time explaining things. You
can just talk about the merits of the projects and your approach, and...and that's what
gets...or any type of ballot issue is passed, is that type of very clear, concise targeted
approach.
Correia/ So it's...I'm looking at City of Cedar Rapids. So their sales tax is proposed to go 10%
for property tax, and then the remaining all for acquisition and rehab of flood damaged
housing, and for matching funds for federal dollars (mumbled) or flood protection. Um, I
mean, I think that there is a benefit to the entire community to have flood protection
measures implemented in (coughing, unable to hear) that were affected by this year's
flood event, because we had to expend resources of the City to protect the neighborhood,
to protect the neighbors, to do all that we did to try and alleviate the flooding, so I mean, I
think that looking at the long-term, that there is a city-wide benefit to efforts to protect
that particular neighborhood. It might not be the type of benefit of raising the road so
that in the event of a flood people aren't put out because they can't travel that road, but all
of the resources that are attractive to that neighborhood during a future flood event. So I
mean, I do think that, I mean, I wouldn't want to limit ourselves by not including
putting...doing neighborhood-based flood protection that could include buying out
property, because I think there is a long-term benefit to the City as an organization to
doing that, and potentially to minimizing flood events by not having structures in that...in
that area, you know, in that area. So, you know...
Champion/ ...not going to have enough money to do that in that five years anyway. (mumbled)
Correia/ But I'm saying, if we don't know what might be coming down. There's all sorts of
speculation on economic stimulus, and you know, we have no idea what, so we could
potentially get, you know, millions of dollars to help with the waste water treatment
plant, and I just would not want to see us limit that, and I think that there is an argument
to be made that, and I think, you know, we're seeing Cedar Rapids is spending pretty
much all of their money on that. Now they have a bigger event, affecting more, um,
more housing stock, more neighborhoods, I mean, I understand that.
Hayek/ I don't disagree with that. I mean, it's...and I'm not making an argument on the merits of
how the money is spent. I'm just saying, we need to be extremely clear about our
intentions with these dollars (coughing, unable to hear) and we are not Cedar Rapids. We
are, you know, the percentage of our homes that were affected is extremely small,
relative to a place like Cedar Rapids, and you know, we...there's got to be some political
calculus here, as well. I don't know how the entire community would feel about using
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 10
dollars to that end, as opposed to public infrastructure. So, that factors in, but...but
it...whatever it is, it's a decision of the community. So, whatever we're going to do I
think just needs to be clearly, uh, worded.
Bailey/ Well, and my question about that, and I don't disagree that...that this is a good thing and
it goes take resources and...and there is a broader community benefit, even if you do
have to connect the dots for some people, um, the concern or the question I would have is
if we put infrastructure and intend with our priorities to go with Dubuque Street, Park
Road, and relocation, even to the $40 million of getting the capacity with the north waste
water treatment plant, because I think those are absolutely critical, and it's not
just...Dubuque Street is not just about a convenience issue. It's an economic concern
when that is closed. It's...it's a neighborhood concern for lots of different neighborhoods.
It's an economic concern, so it's not just, you know, making sure that people have the
route that they're used to. It's also a flood mitigation consideration for the Corp, and we
have to...we can't overlook that either. Um, but if we put flood protection measures in
there, and sunset in five years, and don't get to those or...what are we saying, what kind
of...what kind of commitment are we making, what kind of hope are we creating, and
can we follow through on that, and that's a concern that we've talked about all...all the
way along is if we put something out there, we need to be able to...to follow through on
it, because people...people base decisions upon that. So, if we can't get to it financially,
what happens? That would be a question (both talking)
Wright/ ...before it sunsets, is that your concern?
Bailey/ Right, right! Yeah, and...and for whatever, I mean, does that mean we have a
commitment from our general fund, or from other funds that the City has to...to do flood
protection measures and where does that come from, I mean, I think we have to consider
what we're putting out there, and what kind of, um, what kind of um, hope that we're
putting out there for people, or intention that we're putting out there for people, and are
we willing, is that our intent, with this or with other funds, or...I mean, for example, yes,
we will do...we will do flood protection within these neighborhoods, but do we intend to
pursue, to go through and pursue additional buyout funds, if...if this sunsets and there
aren't other funds available? If, as Ross said, something else happens. That's...that's
something I think we need to...to weigh very carefully.
Correia/ I mean, I think when we...when we talked earlier about the...HMGP application, and
you know, who was going in, who wasn't, who was eligible, who wasn't, I mean, I think
at that time we talked about having along-term strategy, you know, so there are folks that
are eligible for the buyout and are not...are not participating in the buyout, but our long-
term goal is to, you know, over time, have that so potentially as houses go on the market,
we may buy, you know, not....you know, buy them on the open market to try and reach
this goal o£ ..flood protection.
Bailey/ Well, then the question that I would have is where does that fall on our priorities, if we
have one, two, three, you know, infrastructure, these two projects and then plus that, you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 11
know, how does it all play out, I guess is my question, and then what...what kind of
expectations do we create.
Hayek/ To clarify though, that's not my understanding of...of the decisions we reached as a
Council as they relate to buyouts. My understanding is that we decided to...to pursue as
hard as we could the federal and state tax dollars, through that particular program, for
buyouts, but we did not make a commitment to the public, uh, going...beyond that.
Bailey/ Right.
Correia/ But my question was, when we were getting that...that application in, um, with the map,
and so even along Normandy, it's...you know, three houses here, one, you know, so how
can we really do flood mitigation when we have, you know, three lots that are going to be
empty, but then there's a house there, then three more lots that are, you know, that was
my question then, of well how are we really going to be able to do hazard mitigation
on...along the river on Normandy when we're not...with this application...going to be
able to have all these homes purchased and do hazard mitigation.
Wright/ Well, purchasing all those homes is...theoretically that could take 30 years. There are
some of those properties that aren't.. .
Champion/ I don't think you should confuse the public. There's not enough money to do
everything they want to do. I think we should deal with the things we can do, and if
those three major projects are going to eat up that money, even if we're going to have to
have money from other sources to get them done. We should concentrate on that, and not
give people false hope that we're going to buy out their property, even though they want
it bought out, but they didn't qualify for the federal program.
Wright/ Well, and I think as individual properties may come up for sale that are in...in the flood
plain that we're concerned about, chances are that's going to happen over time and that
might be something we can work through in our...in a better year!
Champion/ In a better year! (both talking) Right.
Dilkes/ (several talking) I know when staff has used the term, you know, the long-term plan.. .
Bailey/ LJh-huh.
Dilkes/ ...we were talking about, for instance, some of those homes along Normandy that are
either not interested in the buyout or not eligible under HMGP...
Bailey/ Uh-huh, that's...
Dilkes/ ...staff I don't believe has ever used that term in connection with that entire
neighborhood.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 12
Correia/ Oh, no, I'm not talking about (several talking) I'm talking about like Taft Speedway, I'm
talking about right along...not the whole neighborhood.
Wright/ Those individual properties.
Correia/ Yeah.
Lombardo/ (several talking) One of the points that...that I think was being made though is in
light of the hodgepodge kind of nature of the HMGP, how effective could we be at
implementing other types of mitigation methods, and I think that's a...a very realistic,
um, or...or very, um, important question. It forecloses the ability to do, or makes it much
more complicated, and again, until we know better about all our funding opportunities,
it's hard to say that, you know, at the...one of the questions I think at the neighborhood
meeting was, so does this mean, you know, uh, we're focused on elevating and flood
proofing, and I think that's a legitimate question, and...and I can't help but wonder if
that's what, based on the landscape right now, of what we're talking about. You know,
they keep putting off the decisions with the next round of federal funding. Now we're
told last week that it could be April or May, um, for funding that was approved by
Congress in, what July or August, uh, you know, it's hard to plan and know (both talking)
Bailey/ The big disaster bill.
Lombardo/ If...if some of this were, if it, you know, a piece of this to round out the funding and
you could make a plan and say, yeah, this is how we'll use it, that'd be one thing, but
lacking that, you know, it's hard to really begin to understand what...what methods are
possible or not.
Correia/ Well, what if we had something that's...that's...um, matching, you know, this language
of matching funds for federal flood dollars to assist with flood recovery or flood
protection. I guess (coughing, unable to hear) think that...that there's a way of...of
saying, you know, this is on a list of potential, I mean, this is one piece of it. If we're
thinking about a comprehensive flood protection and flood recovery strategy, it includes
public infrastructure, and it includes neighborhood protection.
Champion/ I'm not willing to put that on the ballot.
Bailey/ You're not willing to put what on the ballot?
Champion/ Neighborhood protection on the ballot.
Bailey/ Flood protection measures?
Champion/ I'm interested in major, um, comprehensive public good infrastructure.
O'Donnell/ You know, you...you make no mistake - it's a tax. And uh, people are not fond of
taxes in this community. I think...it's absolutely essential that Dubuque Street is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Page 13
elevated. I mean, that's...that's economic development. It is...it's a main entry into our
city. That has to be done. It's for the general good of Iowa City. Uh, Park Road bridge,
you can give the same explanation for that. I mean, it routes traffic through the city, to
and from, and...and the water treatment, I mean, that's something that's going to benefit
everybody in the city, and I think you...you, uh, pinpoint those areas and move forward,
and I appreciate what Amy said about...about helping those houses, and I think that
we...we address, uh, when you can.
Wright/ What sense did you get when you were in Washington about possibilities, for example,
for Dubuque Street?
Bailey/ Well, we're applying for an EDA grant, but you believe when talking to them, you
thought it might be on the edge of their, I mean, a little out of scope?
Lombardo/ Um, when...when we were working with the FEMA long-term recovery group, um,
their...they were very, um, comfortable with the project and...and had indicated that they
thought ifd be likely to piece together funding for it. Um, through EDA in part. Uh,
when we met with them, um, several weeks ago now, all the stimulus bill stuff started
coming down and there seems to be a...a shift in the thinking that, well, maybe we'll
fund, um, the planning and the initial stages of it, uh, we're going to submit for the whole
project, or for, you know, the whole project and ask them to fund as much of it as they'd
be willing to fund, but they seemed to be looking at the stimulus type, um, projects that
are, you know, 18 months or less. Uh, question in D.C. was, do we think we could get
Dubuque and Park Road bridge in less than...done in three years or less, that that might
open up some opportunities. We'd be hard, I mean, there's property acquisitions, rights-
of-way, I mean, three years on that project would be if the skies opened up (coughing,
unable to hear) we were able to just get everything done. It's almost inconceivable, but
that's...the mind shift, this whole stimulus bill and the talk around that, everything is
shifting towards what's quick and expedient, and...and that's why I worry that the
funding is not going to be there as well as they had indicated towards the end of last
summer (coughing, unable to hear) fall.
Bailey/ The treatment plant, we have to follow up with FEMA. There was some suggestion that
FEMA could be doing a little bit more towards that, and it's a project that's more easily
phased, but um, once again, you know, it's...the environment's changing very quickly
and, you know, (noise on mic) regarding funding, and it's hard to say. So, you know, we
got the answers that we usually get. We'll see.
Lombardo/ Although they did ask for more detailed follow-up. I'm encouraged, I think, we...the
projects were well received, um, when we were there last summer I think there was some
hesitancy. I mean, I think um, the fact that EDA and the long-term recovery folks
have...have talked to the folks in D.C., I think is encouraging. What that's going to yield
in terms of dollars remains to be seen. When I get a commitment letter, I'll be happy.
Wright/ So basically it's a big question mark at this point.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 14
Lombardo/ Big question mark. You know...
Bailey/ Kind of like everything.
Lombardo/ The climate is all about, you know, stimulus package type initiatives and you know,
(several talking) dialogue to what's the meaningful projects that are going to make a
different in a community seems to be a challenge right now.
Wright/ What would be a reasonable scenario for getting all of our ducks in a row for Dubuque
Street and Park Road? Five years?
Lombardo/ I think...I think between three and four years is probably a good timeframe to get the
project from just starting cold to getting it done. Now, you know, three to four years. It's
a big project.
Hayek/ I also think we need to be mindful of...of...the historic, uh, receptiveness of the
community to a sales tax. It's failed twice, and when it was last tried in 1999, it got
watered down with little bit of goodies for, you know, seven or eight different
constituencies, it looks to me like...from just reading the memo, and failed miserably,
came much closer ten years before that (coughing, unable to hear) focused, and I think
the lesson that I draw from that is, if we want this to pass you construct it so that it has a
very narrow focus.
Wright/ And a sunset, because what we're going to be hearing, which is correct, is that this is of
course the most regressive form of tax.
Lombardo/ And the changes in the structure have kind of mitigated that argument to some extent,
you know, we're not talking milk and eggs now, but...
Wilburn/ Or utilities. (several talking) I would suggest, uh, to be used for 100% flood impacted
public infrastructure, um, and um, maybe Eleanor can help me with this. Um, would we
be creating a problem if, as part of that, it said "such as elevation of Dubuque Street,
relocation of the north water treatment plant." If you don't have an all-inclusive list, do
you get where I'm...
Dilkes/ Oh, I don't think you have to have an all-inclusive list. I...I think, you know, public
infrastructure, um, that (both talking) flood, you know, something like that may
work...fine for the language, and that's...that may be what we end up doing. Um, I think
just your message needs to be clear. If you're talking about public infrastructure, you're
talking about public infrastructure. If you're talking about public infrastructure and
neighborhoods, you need to be clear about that, and so you just need to tell me and we'll
word it as simply as we can to accomplish whatever your purpose is.
Champion/ That's good.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 15
Wilburn/ And then with the five-year sunset, um, because of the challenges with um, L ..I hear
clearly what you're saying, Amy, but uh, I remember the uh, the last time the uh, sales tax
was on and uh, collectively it ended up with, um, more folks voting against due to some
of the other areas...legitimate areas that were trying to be addressed. So given that, um,
we have enough flood impacted public infrastructure projects, then I would suggest
leaving it at that and we'll have to continue to try and address some of the other areas
through other sources of funding.
O'Donnell/ I just don't think that five years is enough. Um, you know, that covers Dubuque and
the Park Road bridge, but we still have the water treatment plant and...
Champion/ It'll cover more than that.
O'Donnell/ Not really.
Correia/ Well, I mean, I do...I do think with Cedar Rapids and Linn County having five years, I
think we'd be hard pressed to justify longer than five years. I mean, we could...we could
justify it, but I mean I think we'd be hard pressed for support for beyond five years. I
think we would get reamed on it. So I don't, and I don't...and I think we could
potentially lose out on any of it, because we tried to go longer than a county that clearly
has greater disaster effects than we do.
Wilburn/ I would agree, and...and it gets us, again, it gets us (mumbled) making some
replacements and then once the public sees Dubuque Street elevated, uh, Park Road
bridge done, uh, maybe that will change, and then that will have been five years
experience with a local option sales tax and maybe that will make it more palatable to
some.
Bailey/ And I think, you know, we shouldn't overlook...elevation of Park Road bridge, um, is
actually a flood protection measure for the...for that particular neighborhood. I mean,
because it acts as a dam, and it might be the most, one of the most significant things that
we have the opportunity to do with these funds, um, whereas...as Ross said, looking for
other funds keeping, you know, just knocking on the door of the State all the time. I
mean, the $700 million bonding bill that may or may not happen, um, I think we should
look for other funds for the...I don't want to call them more affordable projects, but
the...the smaller scope projects.
Wilburn/ Well, and I think too, uh, because folks will do the comparison, will do comparisons,
um, if we stated as such, as I just said, then there really, it's a simple argument there won't
be any, um...um...it will...generate less energy comparisons to other cities, such as the
ones that...and I think again, our...our intent regardless with all of this is to try to address
flood impacted areas, as opposed to some of the areas...cities and some of the other
counties that just said basically for whatever (mumbled) purpose, and we're clearly not
saying that. We're clearly trying to focus and target, and I think that's...that's uh, sound,
logical reasoning that we can put out to the public.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 16
Hayek/ We have received a written request from the City of Coralville to do this. Have we
received similar requests from other municipalities in the County?
Bailey/ No, but verbally they have expressed their interest.
Hayek/ I mean...
Bailey/ North Liberty, I guess I haven't heard from Hills or Solon. (several talking) I haven't
heard from Hills.
Wilburn/ I know of another city that would be interested, waiting essentially to see what we're
going to do. They're not going to put themselves out there.
Bailey/ Right.
Wilburn/ Until they hear from us.
Hayek/ I mean, I think that would be wise to collect those formal letters of support or requests, I
mean, to a certain extent, if we do this, if we put this on a referendum for the entire
county, it's an act of comedy between us and other governments, because only we can
chose to put it on a referendum for all of the towns in the county, um, and.. .
Wilburn/ Well, we've already, excuse me, Matt, we've already had that (coughing, unable to
hear) Coralville and uh, we can ask for the others, but I.. .
Champion/ They weren't really affected by the flood (several talking)
Hayek/ Hills was.
Bailey/ The County has also verbally expressed interest.
Hayek/ Yeah.
Bailey/ I mean, they were a part of our discussion.
Hayek/ That's part of this, right, part of why we're agreeing to do this is because our neighbors
have asked us to.
Champion/ Exactly!
Bailey/ Right.
Hayek/ And I think it's important for the public to be aware of that.
O'Donnell/ Well, and the other part of that, Matt, is there's an absolute need for this money at this
time. I mean, I...I don't know. I wouldn't have any trouble even suggesting that we do
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 17
this. I mean, Coralville did come forward, but I mean, there's certainly a need for it.
That's the other part of the puzzle.
Bailey/ So...the general consensus is...public infrastructure, Imean, Ross, what...
Wilburn/ 100% flood impacted public infrastructure.
Bailey/ With afive-year sunset.
Wilburn/ With afive-year sunset.
Bailey/ Is that the consensus? (several responding) Okay. So we will have draft language and
vote on a resolution on the 24th. Okay. All right. Let's move on to Council
appointments.
Council Appointments:
Bailey/ We need, um, an appointment to the Iowa City Conference Board (mumbled) that came
up at our Conference Board meeting. One appointment of an Iowa City Council
Member, uh, to determine how...the City appraiser should approach, uh, the reappraisal,
uh, project.
Hayek/ This is what we talked about...
Bailey/ Yeah, at the Conference Board. Uh-huh.
Hayek/ I probably volunteered myself for that.
Bailey/ You did, thank you. I was hoping you might recognize that. Okay. I'm assuming
nobody has a problem with that. (laughter) And then we have, uh, a... for the Youth
Advisory Council, an at-large application, Zach...I'm sorry (several talking) Wallace.
Wilburn/ And I would recommend to Council, um, to approve Zach. Zach is a, he is a senior at
West High, but he's, um, very involved in several community groups, including Scouts,
several things at school. He's uh, pretty organized guy. Very, um, he's in charge of some
of their debate and play things, and a lot of underclass students look to him for advice,
suggestions, leadership, um, and um, even though he's a senior (noise on mic) be short
served, I think he would be helpful in trying to help institutionalize people from
underclass, students from, um, underclass students but uh, younger students to, uh, apply
for the Commission, so I think he can help with, uh, starting to build some sustainability
to it.
Bailey/ Okay. (several responding) Great. We'll dispense with that, um, let's get started on any
agenda items. It's a long agenda, but I think we have a lot of repeats on it so...don't be
frightened.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 18
Agenda Items•
Bailey/ Any specific questions about agenda items?
ITEM 30. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY AND ANDERSON-BOGERT ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, INC.
TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE
BURLINGTON/MADISON INTERSECTION AND MEDIAN PROJECT.
Wright/ I've got a question on agenda item 30, which is the Burlington/Madison (mumbled)
um... some meeting recently, there've been so many they're all blurring (mumbled)
Bailey/ CIP maybe?
Wright/ Um, what is the status of the University's interest in that project? I mean, I know they're
interested. What is their...
Bailey/ Status of the agreement (both talking) right, the status of the financial agreement, right?
Wright/ Yeah.
Lombardo/ (mumbled)
Wilburn/ Is your microphone...
Bailey/ Use your words, use your microphone. (laughter)
Lombardo/ For some reason I want to say that there was an email regarding this. I'd have
to...I'm still digging out from being away for three days. We'll have an answer for that
tomorrow night.
Bailey/ So when this comes up you'll...okay.
Wright/ I hesitate to vote for the engineering until I know what the University's position is.
Bailey/ Okay. Other agenda...go ahead.
Correia/ Well, it looks like there's a cost sharing for even the engineering services. That's what
(mumbled) exactly what that is. It'd be good to know.
Wright/ It's good to know if the University actually has the wherewithal to...(several talking) the
project. (several talking)
Dilkes/ I believe we've discussed at staff that they have made a $700,000 commitment.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 19
Correia/ Total for the project?
Wright/ So that is...that's different than...is that enough to pay for the, that first stretch of it?
No. That's what they were talking about at one point.
Bailey/ So 1.1 ...so it's over half.
Champion/ I don't think we can afford to do that right now.
Wright/ Afford to do what?
Champion/ That median. All the way up to Gilbert Street.
Wright/ No!
Bailey/ Okay. Other agenda items?
ITEM 23. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR BUILDING
PERMITS AND OTHER SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE
HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 02-316, 01-40, 03-183, AND 06-376.
Correia/ Um, item 23...I had a question about...this is the building permit fees.
Bailey/ Uh-huh.
Correia/ Were these increases, we didn't talk about these increases in our budget process, did we,
I mean...this is different from the Housing Inspection fees? Isn't it?
Wright/ Which one are you talking about, Amy?
Correia/ Number 23 (several responding) fees for building permits (several talking) so if that's a
budget that building permit section, which at this point.. .
Lombardo/ I think those are all part of the same dialogue, that it was inspection and the building
fees.
Correia/ No, I think this is...I don't think this is related to rental permits. Mechanical permit
fee...
Karr/ It's part of the package. You're absolutely right, you're correct, Amy, in that you didn't
discuss it specifically, but it was included in the package.
Correia/ So this is not revenue, this isn't the revenue that goes for...okay. Let me just find
(mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 20
Bailey/ What you're saying, Marian, is there's the line item that increases fees. We didn't discuss
the specifics of these fees being increased, but this is part of how we get to that number
(several talking)
Karr/ This was discussed at staff only to reaffirm that the fees were ready to be included on...
Correia/ Okay, so I guess this is my question. In the budget, for the Housing Inspection
department, do those revenues for item 23 go into 424300 center, or 424200 center,
building inspections?
Wright/ What page are you on on the budget?
Lombardo/ 17 (several talking)
Wright/ 49?
Bailey/ So you're asking where the...where these fees (both talking)
Correia/ Yeah. Because they're separated.
Helling/ They would go into Building Inspections, but...
Correia/ Well, that's my question, is if we have more receipts than expenditures in Building
Inspections so why would we need to increase these fees?
Helling/ My recollection is that this...this piece of it, in Building Inspections, is only four of the
fees, uh, that the amount of money it would be expected to generate is not that
significant.
Correia/ So why are we...
Wright/ I guess that does kind of beg that question then why are we.. .
Correia/ Why are we raising them?
Wrightl ...raising them...
Lombardo/ I have to admit, I'm drawing a blank. Um (coughing, unable to hear) benefit of...of
being with staff, I don't...on Wednesday I don't have an answer (mumbled)
Helling/ Well, for instance, in the comment and it talks about the administrative fees for snow
and weed compliance.
Bailey/ We did talk about that. We have talked about that, and we agreed that that would
potentially, you know, be more of a deterrent. Yeah, the weed and snow, snow removal
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 21
and weed complaints, because I remember that discussion. I don't remember the other
(mumbled)
Hayek/ Well, do we have a status quo document, in terms of current prices that we can compare
these changes to?
Lombardo/ Other cities?
Hayek/ Well, no, no, in terms o£ ..this schedule sets out what the fees would be if we adopt this
resolution.
Champion/ It tells you the difference. (several talking) It tells you the difference.
Bailey/ There are...there are four things that change, if I'm reading this correctly. There are only
four that change. The rest of them are the status quo. Am I reading that correctly? So,
um, mechanical fees, residential remodel fees, we talked a little bit about snow removal
and weed complaints, at least I remember a conversation about that, um, and then, uh,
minor modification. So, that's what you meant, Dale, these are seen as pretty minor
increases that won't...
Helling/ Right. They are increases in fees, but typically there aren't that many instances of
collecting the fees, at least flat amounts. That's my recollection.
Bailey/ Okay.
Hayek/ But L ..the staff commentary on the rationale behind these increases is limited to the
actual agenda, the blurb in the agenda, but we'll get, somebody will address us on.. .
Bailey/ Tomorrow we'll have somebody there for Item 23?
Lombardo/ Yes.
Bailey/ Okay.
Correia/ (several talking) I don't really see it...when, I mean, I see it here on page 17, in the
discussion -licenses and permits -but like when I'm looking at the Building Inspection
line, there isn't anything that says 1.3 million, and even the two lines, construction permit
and inspection, and then the building and development, which maybe that's where their
fees. It doesn't equal 1.3 million...anyway, in revenue, and we're still...
Bailey/ So Doug will be here tomorrow night?
Dilkes/ I think if you look at the whereas clauses in the resolution that explains it. Whereas,
because the City now provides inspections of the installation of mechanical work, the
fees for mechanical permits for residential structures should be increased to the same rate
as the fees for plumbing and electrical fees. Whereas, the fee for minor modifications
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
should be increased to reflect the increased staff time required for consideration of
requests for minor modifications, under the new zoning code, and it continues on,
explaining each fee.
Page 22
Bailey/ But I think (both talking)
Correia/ Question is that, are we over self-sufficient?
Bailey/ Is there such a thing? (laughter) Overly self-sufficient (laughter)
Wright/ It would be helpful, this is the I think the second time recently where we've had
questions on something from HIS and nobody here. That's a little frustrating.
Bailey/ Okay. Other agenda items?
Wilburn/ I have one, but we're close to 7:30.
Bailey/ Is it going to take more than a minute?
Wilburn/ Um, not my particular question, but I can't control whether (laughter) I'll ask my
question.. .
Bailey/ Very observant of you, but...
ITEM 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE POLICE CHIEF'S
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR INITIAL AND
RENEWAL LIQUOR LICENSES, BEER PERMITS AND WINE PERMITS AND
THE POLICE AND FIRE ON-PREMISES RENEWAL FORMS AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 06-216.
Wilburn/ My question is on item 20, um, related to the Police Chiefs form in..
Dilkes/ I thought we'd talk about that under the whole alcohol discussion.
Wilburn/ Okay. All right.
Bailey/ (laughter) Eleanor (several talking) see?
Wilburn/ I still can't control what everyone else does (laughter)
Hayek/ Take a minute to reprimand Ross (laughter)
Bailey/ I wouldn't say reprimand. Okay, are we at 7:30? Can we call this to order.
Wilburn/ I accept it.
Bailey/ Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa (:ity (:ity c:ouncii
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 23
(meeting went into special formal, executive session at this point)
Alcohol:
ITEM 19. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, BY REVISING TITLE 4, ENTITLED
"ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED
"PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS," SECTION 8, ENTITLED
"PERSONS UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED
ESTABLISHMENTS" SUBSECTION E (1) TO INCREASE THE
PENALTY FOR A PERSON UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE WHO
VIOLATES SAID SECTION TO FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00).
(FIRST CONSIDERATION)
ITEM 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE POLICE CHIEF'S
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR INITIAL AND
RENEWAL LIQUOR LICENSES, BEER PERMITS AND WINE PERMITS
AND THE POLICE AND FIRE ON-PREMISES RENEWAL FORMS AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 06-216.
Bailey/ Okay (several talking)
Dilkes/ Um, there's a memo in the packet, um, that, well, you've got two items on your agenda.
The first item, uh, amends the Police Chiefs guidelines to incorporate the 1.00 per visit
PAULA limit that we discussed the last time. It also makes some kind of form changes
to make it, we need more consistently with the forms that we're going to start using for
on-premises renewal. Um, and that...that is on your agenda. I also included an
ordinance on your agenda increasing the fine for under-19 being on premises after 10:00
PM from $250 to $500. I did not, uh, include on the agenda an ordinance, um,
prohibiting wait staff from consuming, either the criminal penalty we talked about or the
civil penalty, and I explain my reasoning for that in the memo, um, I can certainly
elaborate on that, but um, primarily...number one, when I looked back at the transcript it
didn't look like we had established that there was a problem. Um, not that we can't do the
criminal penalty or the civil penalty. I still think constitutionally you're okay on the civil
penalty, although I think it could be problematic that there's no, um, you know, dire need
for it, and that could come in to the court's balancing, if it looked at that, but primarily the
change in that recommendation was based on when I got the 2008 PAULA statistics - I
don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier, but when I looked at the PAULA
statistics, or the bar visits, from 2002 to 2008, and I put them there in the memo. There
has been a steady decrease in bar visits since 2002, um, I know there are some...some
recent things, like the flood and the, um, the groper that have accounted for the more
recent ones, but it appears that there has been a decline, um, more steady since 2002, and
I just think while it may require some look at police resources and how we use those
resources, I don't...I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to put more laws on the
books, create more expectations about how they're going to control the alcohol problem
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 24
we have downtown, when the best tools we have are already on the books and probably
we could with whatever resourcing we need to do, increase those...the use of those tools.
Bailey/ Okay.
Correia/ The one thing is that, I mean, I don't know the extent to which it's a problem necessarily,
but I mean, it seems like it makes sense that...that people who are tasked with making
good judgment are allowed to...um, or not constrained from, um, consuming alcohol
while they're at work, and a lot, I mean, the main tool is the PAULA, which targets the
underage drinker, and unless we do the stings and...and you know, we're catching
somebody serving, which we don't...I mean, and we just did some and we did have some
of those, um, and now we are, you know, the PAULA rate we're going to be
incorporating some of that, um, into liquor license, it just feels like the tool that can be
used, um...
Dilkes/ Oh, I should also note on the compliance checks, I did include that in the memo too,
compliance checks or stings, call 'em both, that we did five in 2006 and we've only done
two in 2007, and two in 2008. I don't have any problem from a legal perspective with
you putting the criminal penalty on the book for the wait staff, um, there has been a
discussion about whether it encompasses musicians. I don't think that was the intention,
that's what I told people, and I can make the wording clear...clearer about that, but I...but
my concern is that we approach this as a...kind of a big problem that has gotten away
from us again downtown, and I remember putting the specials' restriction on the books
four, five years ago or whatever those were, and creating these expectations that they
were going to have an impact, and they don't. I don't think. Um, so I don't, in this
context, it worries me to do additional things when we don't have any evidence that
there's really been a problem and.. .
Champion/ Right, and I also think that, I think it's a smart call I don't know if it is a problem.
I've never really heard of it being a problem, and I think most of the bar owners that I had
talked to do not allow their wait staff to drink, um, while they're actually on duty.
Wright/ I'm perfectly fine with letting this one by for a whole bunch of reasons.
Bailey/ Okay.
Hayek/ Yeah, I've been concerned about this particular proposal for some time because I think
it's going to be exceedingly difficult to craft it in a way that doesn't sweep up a whole
host of people working in an establishment or in an establishment period. Um, that we do
not intend to impact, from musicians to off-duty employees to other people, I think it
creates a strange, um, almost a moral dilemma for somebody who, uh, is, uh, has finished
his or her shift, is sitting there, has a beer, sees a... an incident, and wonders whether he
or she should step forward or not. So I've got...I've had concerns about that, um, but
this...this adds to that, and so with respect to the drinking on the job, I would defer.
Wright/ I know the Iowa ACLU has some concerns (mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 25
Champion/ Can't hear you!
Wright/ I'm sorry. The Iowa ACLU.. .
Bailey/ Is your microphone on? Oh, okay.
Wright/ Yeah. It's not high enough. The Iowa ACLU had some concerns about that ordinance,
as well.
Champion/ Um...
Wilburn/ I was just going to add...I've seen, uh, some servers and bartenders consuming alcohol.
It's just...the impaired judgment will show up elsewhere by not...not doing this. If
they're impaired and they serve someone who is, uh, if they serve someone who's had too
much to drink, then there's a consequence there, um, if they are impaired and do a
flaming drink and the well catches on fire, then I mean, it would be helpful to do any
preventative things as possible, but uh, but I (mumbled)
O'Donnell/ I don't know any other job in the country where you can drink where you work.
Champion/ Yeah, right!
O'Donnell/ I don't know any job; however, I think...
Champion/ A wine taster!
O'Donnell/ Wine taster, or somebody at...
Wright/ They spit it out though.
Champion/ Yeah. That's true.
O'Donnell/ An Anheuser Busch maybe. But uh, you know, I agree this would be a...I really
don't, I think...I agree with you, Connie, that the...the owners do, uh, do enforce, uh, it's
their livelihood, so it's their, uh, it's certainly to their benefit to...to watch their
employees, and I think that's (mumbled)
Wilburn/ It is to their benefit, but I have seen it, so.. .
O'Donnell/ I haven't been in a bar in a long time.
Wilburn/ Just sharin' my experience.
Bailey/ Well, it seems like there's general consensus that we're not interested in pursuing this at
this time. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 26
Champion/ Um, I'd like a question about the criteria though, um, in the...the things we're voting
on tomorrow night.
Bailey/ On 20?
Champion/ Can I ask the Chief a question?
Bailey/ Yeah. Chief, why don't you come up here and grab a mic.
Champion/ I totally approve of the criteria. I'm not questioning that. But I'm questioning, and
maybe...what I read in the paper, um, when you did the sting last week, there was one
bar that got caught twice in the same night, and the paper said that you were going to
throw one of those out, and I just want to know why...why would you throw it out?
Hargadine/ I don't think that's an accurate, uh...
Champion/ Okay, I just read that in the paper.
Correia/ As we know, the paper's not always correct.
Champion/ I know, that's why I wanted to ask the Chief. (several talking)
Hargadine/ Um, it was a simultaneous, there were two of'em serving at the same time, no, I
think there's the same server sold twice, um, but it's up to ABD as to how they interpret
and go forward with that.
Champion/ Okay, thank you. Just needed to ask that question (mumbled)
Bailey/ Any...any other clarification or questions on items 19 and 20 on the agenda, the
ordinance amending, um...
Champion/ No.
Wilburn/ On item 20, just a...this is just a question maybe for, uh, Eleanor and the Council. Uh,
on...under "A" on your form, Chief, under "on premises activity," under that number of
PAULA citations there's a note that talks about if the rate is greater than...at least 18
visits during the 12-month period, uh, I'm just looking at this in terms of something were
to end up in court or be subject to interpretation piece, there is the clause there that a
lower rate combined with other factors may result in a recommendation of denial, but it
doesn't talk about what a...my question is, should it also say a lower rate and/or fewer
visits, combined with other factors, may result in recommendation of denial, um, your
rate was this, but they only did five visits, and that somehow getting...if it's not stipulated
that...that, uh, even though there were fewer visits, that it still may result...
Dilkes/ It wouldn't hurt. We can certainly add it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 27
Wilburn/ Okay. I was just thinking back to the, what's a container (mumbled) argument in court.
Dilkes/ You know, there're guidelines though, so I...I don't think that, I mean, we can...I can
clarify it, but...but um, they really don't have the force of law, so...
Wilburn/ Okay.
Correia/ Because you could have a lower rate with 18 visits, and have other factors. Right?
Hargadine/ Sales cases. (several responding)
Bailey/ Did you have a question, Matt?
Hayek/ Yeah, and it has to do with the visits in this PAULA 1.0, um, policy, um, I think it's
going to be extremely important to...to define visit as best we can, so that the industry
can know what to expect, and um, by that I would mean, is a visit, um, two officers
showing up, walking around. Is it ten officers showing up, walking around, cause the
odds are greater that ten officers are going to find more than two officers would. Um, is
there a defined period of time when they make the visit? Is it a half hour, is it an hour?
Is it multiple times in one night? The things that we can do to ensure that the definition
of visit is such that this policy and the whole approach to the bars is...is consistent.
Hargadine/ Um, barring calling in the National Guard, I can't see ten hitting at the same time, but
um, the point is well taken. There are times when uh, we may have two senior officers
(coughing, unable to hear) with it, but they both have a junior trainee with'em, so now
we've got four, four sets of eyes. Um, but there're still two that are primarily there doing
the enforcement. So, um, but I think I take...I can see where the inequity would...would
multiply at that point.
Correia/ Even the time factor. A small bar's not going to take as much time as a really large bar.
Hargadine/ True. And there's times when the, if it's a very large bar and they're full, uh, five or
six may not be enough, if.. .
Hayek/ And let's say you go through a bar and you've got, uh, well, you make one visit with
several officers, and you make multiple citations, that same visit. Does each of those
citations count toward the statistic? Okay. Well, in any event, L ..I think we've got to
have some...some sort of guideline in place. I know that...that maximizes the
consistency. That's my feeling.
Dilkes/ I understand the concern. I think it's...well, maybe we can talk about that internally, but
I think we certainly don't want to give an impression that, you know, once you get your
one visit a night, nobody else is going to be in there, or that if circumstances require,
we're going to send five people in there, and not two. You know, that kind of thing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 28
Hargadine/ And I think the message needs to be, if we can find a PAULA, why can't you. Um.. .
Hayek/ Well, I agree, and you...you know, a few weeks ago you said we fish where the fish are,
and I...that makes sense to me.
Hargadine/ But that's the...the larger bars use that as an excuse, we're larger - we have more
people in here -it's harder for our servers to notice. Well, if we can find 'em, uh,
that's...they need to have enough staff on where they can find'em.
Bailey/ Any other questions about those two agenda items? All right. Um, the memo in our Info
Packet regarding the social host ordinance.
Social Host Ordinance (IPS of 2/5):
Bailey/ Is there any, um, Eleanor has recommended that we do not issue this at this time, um,
discussion, comments...
O'Donnell/ There's already a law on the books (several talking) right.
Wright/ Couldn't hear you, Mike.
O'Donnell/ There are already laws on the books that would enforce...I can't...it's just a
duplication.
Correia/ What laws?
O'Donnell/ Well, you can't provide beer to a minor, um, I mean that kind of says it all.
Correia/ But I think...is this designed so that it's, are there issues when, I mean, I know the keg
registration has helped, so if you go into a party and everybody says it's not my party, I
don't know who's hosting this party, and then there's really no, but there's underage
people drinking. There's no way of holding somebody accountable for hosting that party
and providing that alcohol to those underage persons. Now, keg registration, that was
designed to kind of, uh, clean that up. You have to register that you bought a keg and so
even if you weren't there, you bought that keg, but um, I imagine there are parties that
don't have kegs, I mean, are there situations where you go in. There's (mumbled) I know
we have the nuisance ordinance, which on some level impacts whoever's renting, through
the owner who has the rental permit, but in terms of a charge to somebody, you hosted
this party, because you rent this apartment you should have known there would be a party
here, even if you weren't there, or even if you were, do you know what I'm saying...I
mean, I've heard talk of, well, we go in. Nobody says it's not my party.
Hargadine/ Well, we would start with the owner or...or tenant, uh, and usually in a case now, we
usually have to prove that they knew someone was underage. With the social host, it
doesn't matter. It takes that knowingly out of the element. If someone's in trouble on
your premises, you're in trouble as well.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 29
Correia/ So it's that, it gets away from, well, I didn't know. I didn't check their LD. I didn't
know how old...
Hargadine/ It won't matter. They're still here. (both talking)
Correia/ Under this, without that -there's you can't.. .
Hargadine/ You have to make your case.
Correia/ Right. So, I mean, I guess I see it as an opportunity, again, a tool so that it can...I mean,
we hear the issue of...of parties in neighborhoods, I mean, and we've dealt with issues
through the nuisance ordinance, but I just see it as one way of deterring this type of
activity.
Dilkes/ Wait a minute. You still have to show that they know or reasonably would...know or
reasonably should have known that the underage person was drinking. It's not enough
just to have beer in your home, and underage person in your home.
Hargadine/ Well, correct.
Dilkes/ So there's still a knowledge element that...that has to be proved. Um, so...the basis for
my recommendation was, when the Police Department isn't telling me that this is a
problem that they need to address, then I'm kind of back to the same...I mean, it might
help occasionally, but I think we should devote our resources to things that we think are
having some impact, and I think we've shown that with the stings, and I think we've
shown that with the PAULAs. We can hook it up to the license.
Hargadine/ If we would have passed the 21-only, then I think this would...I think I would
recommend this at that point, but where are 90% of our alcohol problems? Um, they're in
the downtown area, and that's where we should concern ourselves.
Bailey/ And I think that the neighborhoods were seeing that the nuisance ordinances...if we can
get the citations, this is not just a warning, that that is really addressing those issues.
Wright/ Citations are extremely effective.
Bailey/ Because it...it puts it in the system and things move forward. So that's addressing that.
Hayek/ About how many different complaints on a specific weekend do you get, usually?
Hargadine/ In the neighborhoods?
Hayek/ Yeah, due to keg parties, complaints?
Hargadine/ Not as many as you'd think.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 30
Correia/ How many?
Hargadine/ I don't...I'm not prepared to answer that one.
Correia/ Oh, okay.
Hargadine/ Uh, on a football weekend when, you know, just turn in any direction. But um,
normally there's not that many disturbance calls in the neighborhoods. Spring time, you
know.. .
Bailey/ Give us a couple months.
Hargadine/ Yes.
Wright/ And it's kind of dependent on whether it's a football or some other factor.
Hargadine/ It is an education process, uh, when they're first back and for the first week, and if we
can quell it in that first week, then everybody's happier for the next few months. And
then you start all over again. (several talking)
Champion/ What is, it is a problem more so in some neighborhoods, I mean, there are some
parties in my neighborhood, but they're usually once a year and I just ignore them, you
know, I'm not going to call the police on somebody (several talking)
O'Donnell/ They're probably at your house!
Champion/ They are! (laughter)
Hargadine/ Washington County has done this, I think Keokuk County has done this, so I would
keep it in the back of your mind. I mean, it's something we can always relook at, uh...
O'Donnell/ To me, Chief, wouldn't it be more if...if you knowingly provided alcohol to underage
people. I mean that to me, I mean, if...if you leave (several talking)
Hargadine/ ...you can be arrested now without this ordinance.
O'Donnell/ Exactly. (several talking)
Correia/ But that's talking about the proof factor.
O'Donnell/ Yeah, and prove it, if uh, if you go out of town and Jack and Jill have a party at your
house and you don't have any...any knowledge of it, you could be found guilty under the
social ordinance.
Hargadine/ Uh....
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 31
Dilkes/ I...I think that, you talking about proof problems, you'd have some major proof problems
there.
O'Donnell/ But I mean, they would.. .
Hargadine/ ...responsible for the party, but if you were responsible for the party, under this...
O'Donnell/ Right.
Hargadine/ ...then no matter if...if there were underage people, then it could come back on you.
O'Donnell/ Right, okay.
Dilkes/ You would have to...go ahead.
Hayek/ No, I just...wasn't that long ago I was...I was that age, and if you're...if you're a young
person, and you're hosting a party, um, odds are you're providing the alcohol or you're
part of it. I think this is really intended for the absentee parents, who go away and I...are
we seeing all that much of that? I mean.. .
O'Donnell/ That's exactly...
Champion/ Well, what can the parent do, if they're gone out of town and their kid has a party.
Correia/ I don't think this is, I mean, I think in some communities the parents aren't absent. The
parents are there (several talking)
Bailey/ I don't think we're seeing that...
Correia/ No, I'm not saying that we are, but I think we are seeing, I mean, I think that there are
instances of people of age, 22, 24, 25, hosting parties and potentially selling alcohol,
making money, and having...and...
Bailey/ Well, and that's a bootlegging problem.
Correia/ Well, that's a boot...but I'm just, you know, and then (both talking)
Bailey/ That's a law on the books.
Correia/ I think that...if there's no interest we can just stop talking about it.
Champion/ Good!
Bailey/ Is there interest? I didn't...it was a good try. All right, are we done with alcohol?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Champion/ We're done with alcohol.
O'Donnell/ I hope so.
Bailey/ Okay.
Hayek/ Amy, I don't want you to feel like we've been superdismissive or...
Correia/ Well, I feel a little bit...
Hayek/ Yeah, and I'm picking up on that.. .
Correia/ ...a little bit dismissed, so that's fine.
Bailey/ Well...
Page 32
Hayek/ But, but...I think it's...I mean, from my perspective, it's...it's an ability to prosecute, um,
and a resources issue, and if I'm not hearing that it's a significant problem, that tempers
my, uh, my feelings about it.
Bailey/ And I'm the same way. If there, if we had a compelling problem, and I understand why
rural counties are doing this, because I think that there's a more...exactly what you just
said, and West Des Moines, I think exactly what you just said, suburban areas. I think
that parents on site are doing that, rather have them drink here than drink somewhere
else, and it's becoming a problem. If we're not seeing a problem, I don't know why we
need to create an expectation that we're going to be addressing whatever, you know,
handful comes up in two years. So...okay. Let's move on to legislative update.
Legislative Update:
Bailey/ We talked a lot about the D.C. trip in our discussion on the local option sales tax, but um,
I believe you have the packet. I wanted to make sure everybody understood the projects
that we took out there, and also the spiral notebook, uh...
Correia/ (mumbled) blank paper...
Bailey/ So, those were things that we provided out in D.C. Additionally, in D.C., um, as you
know, we've been designated a City of Literature. Josh Schamberger of the Iowa...Iowa
City/Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau, um, spearheaded a request so...um, for
some funding to support that, as other countries have done, um, so we talked to our
legislative delegation, as well as the State Department about this designation and~the
possibility of funding. Um, not a lot of funding options out there, but it was good to...to
make people aware of this, and um, I think that there will be some opportunities for, I
mean, they pointed us in some directions, but I don't think we got the thought that there
was a big pile of money waiting for us to...(unable to hear person away from mic)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 33
Lombardo/ (noise on mic) ...that given there are only a couple cities, uh, in the U.S. that have
this creative cities designation that it's hard for, on a national level, to say that...that there
are compelling reason to...to consider a pile, or pot of funding to...to address this, but as
more cities come on, they're intrigued by the concept and...and said, you know, make
sure that you're out there and present and we certainly intend to do so.
Bailey/ And, as we all recognize our country has a different model for supporting, um, arts and
humanities, than perhaps other countries around the world, um, many of these are
supported, many of these cities are, do receive federal and state funding. So.. .
Correia/ ...tax their populous differently and...
Bailey/ They do!
Correia/ ...revenue! (laughter)
Bailey/ They also have great health care and all kinds of things! But, um, and then.. .
Champion/ They don't all have great health care.
Bailey/ Okay. And on the state level, um, the Metro Coalition and, um, Ross, you can sort of
jump in on this, had a conference call last week, um, last Friday, is their typical
conference call day, and as you remember, State historic tax credits is one of a priority
so, um, the Coalition is going to join, uh, join with the State Historic Tax Credit Coalition
to...to get some things, to promote some things -Historic Preservation grants,
rehabilitation credits, and...and expansion of these Historic Preservation credits, and then
as you know, um, the Rebuild Iowa bill was signed. Was it just last Monday? It was
signed, um, for $53 million. And, the Metro Coalition is also looking into legislation that
was discussed last year. Did you want to talk about the liquor license enforcement, Ross,
a little bit about that bill. (mumbled) I have the notes in front of me. I can just...
Wilburn/ Well, I think the...the decision was to just go...it was supported last year by the
Coalition and so just to go ahead with a similar bill. There's a...there's someone, uh, in
the State that's willing to introduce it. So...uh, I think part of it was related to what
happens around, uh, an establishment. I think they were having some issues with that in
Des Moines and Dubuque, um, to be able to consider this part of the, um, with the liquor
license stuff, but I think that was pretty much it. I think the other piece, uh, there was a
decision to, um, the alternative revenue bill, there wasn't...necessarily any forward
momentum with that on the Hill, so everyone's supposed to be talking to your local
legislators to try and get that, um, they're going to try and get a meeting of the mayors to,
uh, meet with the leadership, uh, both majority and minority parties, and with the
Governor's office. Uh, tried to get them to have that when I was going to be here, but it
looks like it's going to be the week that I'm in San Francisco. Um, but um, again, with
that theme, that...it's a, it's that options for cities and uh, there was little conversation, I
think more of a sidebar combination...conversation...related to, um, one of the items, uh,
in terms of the, um, local option...income tax as being part of the package that um, if,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City (:ity c;ouncii
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Page 34
um, you know, Johnson County, Linn County...there are fewer counties that don't have
local option sales tax, and if for example Linn County if it were to pass in Linn County,
um, that any energy, momentum towards a local option income tax maybe, uh, may
disappear if there's only one county left, uh, that hasn't taken advantage of an option to
have the local option sales tax, they may not be willing to...there maybe no momentum
for one county, Johnson County, to um, put a bill in to have that as be part of...alternative
revenue, if there's no, you know, to creating a legislation for one county. But that's just
kind of a sidebar conversation.
Bailey/ And just keep in mind when we talk about these alternative revenues and the Metro
Coalition talks about alternative revenues, it's to provide the options to cities. So, I mean,
it's...it's offering sort of the opportunity for cities to make the best choices about what is
appropriate for their communities, and this is something that we support in our legislative
priorities and the Metro Coalition supports. So, if you get questions about that, I think
that that's the most clear talking point is giving cities the option to diversify revenue
streams, is the intent of alternative revenue, and it's got a hard go in Des Moines, for sure.
So, the next step's just to go back to the federal sorts of things. The next steps
we...naturally have forms and follow-up that we'll do to fill out for the, um, Senators and
the Congressmen. They sent...they all have specific forms. Staff is following up on that,
and then as Michael indicated, we'll follow up with FEMA regarding the north waste
water treatment plant, and EDA with Dubuque Street and Park Road bridge. So, that's
the results, and then um, I wil1...I intend to forward these packets to our State delegation
so they're aware of the projects that we took to Washington. They like to be kept in the
loop, as well, and hopefully next year they'll go on the Chamber trip. I think, um, some
have expressed interest in...in going along. So, any questions about legislative items?
Did you have a question?
Hayek/ No, I have a question about, in fact on the...the sales tax referendum.
Bailey/ Okay.
Hayek/ Well, and my question is, um, assuming that in two more weeks we vote and it gets
placed on the ballot as a referendum, or we hold a special election for it, what role, if any,
does the City play in promoting that? Or not promoting it?
Champion/ You can't promote it.
Bailey/ We can educate.
Champion/ You can educate.
Hayek/ Okay. Bad choice of words, but um, you know, Cedar Rapids is rolling this out, um,
aggressively, um, and I'm not saying we should, but I don't know if it's just a matter of
saying, okay, public, you vote. See you in couple of months and we'll see what the vote
is, or does the City take (mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council .Page 35
Correia/ Well, I definitely think that there should be an info sheet on the types of projects, not
that we definitely are funding those but that gives people an idea of what we're thinking
of, as what public infrastructure are we talking about.
Bailey/ And I think that's something we can also talk about once we see the language. Also, um,
just to let you know. I talked to John Balmer today. The Chamber is convening a task
force this week, um, and moving forward and so you should be expect...expect to hear
from Chamber Members. Um, we spoke with them when we were in D.C., um, about
playing a role in the community about education regarding this issue, and they'll have to
determine if they're supportive or not. And I expect other groups will do the same.
Karr/ I think, Matt, on the news today, over the past weekend, a lot of the Cedar Rapids publicity
was coming from private groups, that have formed, um, cooperative relationships and
consortiums, uh, from the Homebuilders to the School Districts to the, um, a citizen
group to the Chamber of Commerce, much more than the city out. I think it came from
other sources promoting it, and I think that's a key as well. Almost, if you will,
distancing the city education process from the general public education process, um,
and...and having the same message, but certainly, um, having that type of relationship I
think is key. And we learned that the (coughing, unable to hear)
Bailey/ And as we get questions, I mean, and you know, about the process and keeping track of
those and...and have further discussion in a couple of weeks about making sure that we
understand the process. I think it's going to be very important so we can discuss, and we
know the projects, as Amy said, and we're putting...we're all putting the same
information out there as we get questions, as well, cause I'm sure the press will be calling
all of us, as well as we'll be talking to people in grocery stores, etc. Does that answer
your.. .
Hayek/ Yeah, it does.
Bailey/ Okay. All right. Are we ready to move on to Information Packet discussion, the
Information Packets from the 29th and the 5th.
Information Packet Discussion (IP 1/29 and 2/5):
Bailey/ Questions or comments? Questions about specific items? I did ask Michael, um, from
January 29th the IPS, the Fire Department's fire safety compliance report. I did ask
Michael in our meeting today about occupancy checks, and he's going to follow up on
that, or did you?
Lombardo/ I did follow up on that, and...and the, um, the businesses that are cited as receiving a
visit were checked for occupancy.
Bailey/ Okay.
Lombardo/ The fact that nothing is mentioned in there means that there was no compliance issue.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Bailey/ Okay. So this combines occupancy as well as other fire code sort of issues.
Champion/ What time of day are they doing these occupancy things?
Lombardo/ I don't know that that's listed...
Champion/ That's the crucial question. (coughing, unable to hear) 2:00 in the afternoon, it
probably isn't a problem.
Correia/ They're probably (mumbled)
Bailey/ On a Friday (mumbled). Okay, any other Information Packet items?
Page 36
Wright/ Just backing up to Connie's comment. It might be interesting to see what the time of day
that the compliance checks were performed, have that as part of the.. .
Bailey/ As part of the report?
Wright/ Spreadsheet, yeah.
Bailey/ That's a good idea.
Wilburn/ It did mention one of the last couple times they appeared in front of us that, uh, they do
them in the evening, because once they do the first check, the calls go out to some of the
other establishments that a check is going on. So...that has been mentioned, but...
Champion/ Well, what time is the evening? Is that 6:00 or 7:00? I mean, we know that's not
when the problem occurs.
Wilburn/ I was just let...just reminding what they had said last time.
Champion/ I'm just interested in knowing what time they're doing these.
Bailey/ Okay, anything else? Okay, we're going to move on. Um, Council Time?
Council Time•
Correia/ I have a question about the, um, we started talking about this before, the um, the
intersection at Jefferson and Dubuque Street. Why can't that have a green arrow so
that...that a portion of the time...we have that same situation, the same type of
intersection at Court and...
Bailey/ I think there's a traffic study looking at that, isn't there?
Wright/ Yeah, JCCOG is looking at that particular intersection.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 37
Correia/ Not to make it a bigger intersection, just for that...going (both talking) backed up
almost into the intersection at Market, it was Sunday night, you know, just going left
because you don't have a chance to go first, you have pedestrian, you have people coming
and so a lot of people lot of times coming, but just seems like.. .
Bailey/ JCCOG is looking at that, and I thought that that's one of the things they were evaluating,
a phased.. .
Correia/ I guess I'm wondering when we're going to find out about that, cause it just seems to
me...
Champion/ We brought it...
Correia/ ...study of driving on that corridor would suggest that we could try it.
Hayek/ All I know (laughter)
Wright/ Jefferson and Dubuque is on JCCOG's, uh, to do list for this year, and I don't know
where they are with that study, but...
Bailey/ Right, so John...
Wright/ I can ask the next time we have a meeting, if you'd like.
Bailey/ We could ask John.
Wright/ I suppose you could just ask John, yeah.
Lombardo/ We can find out.
Wright/ Steal my glory!
Bailey/ Oh, we'll let you do something else!
Wright/ Oh, not after what I'm going to do to you in just a minute, so...
Bailey/ Okay! Anything else, Council Time?
Hayek/ Um, question about the, uh, numerous pieces of correspondence in...in here, not
anything specific, but I note some have staff responses, some don't. Do we have a policy
on which ones (coughing, unable to hear) response, do some we just decide thanks for the
input but we're not going to spend staff time responding to your letter?
Helling/ I don't know if it's a policy or not. Typically what we do is, some of the letters are just
input. Basically this is my opinion kind of thing. We typically don't respond to those.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 38
Um, but if somebody's asking a specific question that we feel like as staff we can, you
know, provide them information, then we do that. Sometimes it's addressed to Council
Members and they want your specific opinions about things. We'll let'em know how to
contact you, go to the web site, get your phone numbers and so forth, so...depends on the
nature (several talking)
Hayek/ Okay.
Bailey/ And I've tried to, um, I've tried to be very aware of when, uh, correspondence is sent
to...to the people who have emails to send it on to Marian, but if you don't see it showing
up, you should also feel free to make sure it's there, cause um, we get a lot of that. That
answer.. .
Hayek/ That's all I had.
Bailey/ Okay. Other Council Time?
Wright/ Um, I have, uh, three different points. One I've been, and I don't know if any of you got
approached by various citizens about urban chicken keeping.
Correia/ We had a letter a while ago in the packet about chickens.
Wright/ Well, I've had quite a few people, uh, bring up urban chicken keeping, and I promised to
bring it forward to Council. Uh, there are urban areas in the country who do it -Madison
does it. Portland, Oregon, New York, it's actually relatively common.
Correia/ New York City has...urban chickens?
Wright/ New York City allows urban chickens. (several talking and laughter)
Hayek/ And you know that from "Sex in the City."
Wright/ Um, there is interest in Iowa City, uh, to allow this on a limited scale. You know, three
or four, uh (several talking) hens, no roosters, no butchering within the city limits.
Seriously. That's...(several talking and laughing). Pardon me? (mumbled)
Champion/ Do they have to be in a coop? (several talking)
Wright/ Well, is there interest on the, on behalf of the Council in even considering discussion?
Champion/ Is it illegal now to have chickens?
Wright/ Yes.
Bailey/ It's illegal to keep livestock. (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 39
Champion/ A chicken's a livestock?
Wright/ They're poultry, yeah.
O'Donnell/ I would just hate to have aman-chicken attack somebody.
Correia/ I don't know. My sister lived in a small town in Illinois and her neighbors across the
street had chickens and they were kind of friendly, but I don't really see it in Iowa City.
I'm sorry.
O'Donnell/ No.
Champion/ I don't know. (several talking)
Hayek/ I think i£ ..if we (several talking) these individuals are so interested they ought to address
us.
Bailey/ Bring a formal, bring a formal...correspondence.
Wright/ Well, that's kind of what I said, I said, I'll bring it up and see what the level of interest
might be and then these folks can just...we might get a flock of correspondence
(laughter).
Wilburn/ Why not...why not (several talking) why not emus? (laughter)
Bailey/ Yeah, it could, um, be a very interesting discussion.
Lombardo/ Where do you stop? What regulations, I mean, in terms of just legislating how to
keep them...(several talking)
Wright/ The fact that it's relatively common, I think there are plenty of models that could be used
out there. Um...
Correia/ Well, when they write us, tell them to include the Madison ordinance.
Wright/ Yeah, Madison's actually gotten a lot of press for their urban chickens.
Bailey/ And, can I just ask...I mean, the objective of keeping chickens is toward extreme self-
sufficiency (several talking)
Wright/ They want to have their own eggs, and know where they came from and...
Champion/ Can you have eggs without a rooster?
Wright/ They're not fertile.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Champion/ Oh, Mike! (laughter)
Page 40
Bailey/ This could be quite an educational experience (laughter). Okay, thank you for bringing
that forward. Would you convey our...our, um, if they are interested in pursuing this,
if...I mean, I think that...I think that that's right. If they're interested, bring us some
formal correspondence and (several talking)
Hayek/ ...whether llamas meet the definition of segways for our public sidewalks!
Champion/ I can't wait...I can't wait to hear the letter to the editor on this chicken business!
Bailey/ ...flood discussion, so we had to have.
Wright/ Well, I knew this was going to be an interesting topic when I brought it up. I'm kind
of...I'm kind of sad that the reporters all left. (several talking and laughing)
Bailey/ Okay! What's next?
Wright/ Um...
Bailey/ Mr. Entertainment!
Wright/ ...we have been discuss...we've had quite a few discussions about Burlington Street
over the past year or so. I wondered, have we ever considered looking into the notion of
having Highway 1 formally rerouted.
Bailey/ We talked about that.
Wright/ To go outside the city, you know, follow 218 up to 80, and then up to...the intersection
at Dodge?
Bailey/ It was discussed in the early discussions of Burlington Street, not probably that route. I
can't remember. We talked about Gilbert Street, right (several talking)
Wright/ Just route it out of town altogether, that would avoid...we'd avoid a lot of traffic that
way; of course there's some downs to that in terms of who maintains what, but.. .
Bailey/ That would be a fun IDOT question. Is there any interest in pursuing that?
Champion/ If you routed it further east to Scott Boulevard, no, it goes north. Highway 1...
Wright/ Highway 1 goes north. I mean, just from...from the (several talking) but seems obvious
to me would be to maybe have it go up... l intersects with 218, send 1 up 218 on 80, over
to the Dodge Street exit, and then back and forth, so just pull some additional...
Champion/ Do you think people really use that Highway 1?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 41
Correia/ Why would you want to do that? Like, what's the purpose?
Wright/ Uh, well, and I...when I first brought this up, it was would that make any difference in
the amount of traffic that's coming through Burlington, and up Governor, down Dodge.
O'Donnell/ I can't imagine that would (several talking)
Wright/ I don't know if it would or not.
Correia/ ...because people who are really traveling that know where...bypass Burlington Street
because they don't want to take that route. We want people to bump into downtown.
Wright/ Except you don't really bump into downtown if you're following Highway I . You're.. .
Correia/ Yeah, you do! Burlington and Clinton Streets.
Bailey/ So is there a general interest in having this, a more in-depth discussion with a
transportation planner here? Okay. It dies (mumbled). Next?
Wright/ Um, in talking to Jann Ream, I'm sorry, rambling...
Bailey/ You know, you could talk to John Yapp about that and see....
Wright/ I did talk to John Yapp about it. He said he didn't want to do anything until he knew if
the Council was even interested (several talking)
Bailey/ He might know if there was...if it had been discussed. Okay, next?
Wright/ Uh, I was...in talking to Jann Ream, I found an interesting gap in our sidewalk clearance
policy. Um, alleys are no one's responsibility essentially. Where a sidewalk crosses an
alley. (several responding) Where a sidewalk crosses an alley...as I understand it from
Jann Ream, the City obviously does not take responsibility for that stretch of sidewalk,
but the property owners on either side have no responsibility for that piece of sidewalk,
which is one reason I'm guessing why those alley crossings tend to be nightmares. And I
think that's something that we ought to address in our snow removal ordinance for
sidewalks.
Bailey/ Well, we need to talk about alleys too. We're doing an alley inventory. When is that
slated to come back to us? Awhile?
Helling/ Later this year, I think, summer, fall, something like that.
Wright/ Well, if we...could we incorporate that into the...into the discussion on alleys or should
that.. .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
O'Donnell/ Who's property would that be?
Page 42
Champion/ Well, I think if you have an easement, if you have an alley between two streets that
you have a legal easement on that alley, both parties do, so they can use the alley. You
don't have two alleys. So I would think whoever...I think the house on the corner would
have to shovel that, their half of the sidewalk. Seems logical to me.
Dilkes/ No, generally, in the city...there maybe some exceptions, but the alleys are city right-of-
way. Um, and I don't think we could assign the responsibility to clean the crossing to a
property owner, because their property does not abut that piece of sidewalk. And...and
under the State code, the way that we can require people to clean, clear their sidewalks is
because they abut the property, clear their sidewalks, maintain their, etc. So I'm not sure
that we would have the authority to...
Wright/ (several talking) so how could we get those cleared?
Champion/ I would think a good neighbor would take care of it.
Wright/ Precious few do! Trust me!
Champion/ That's amazing.
Dilkes/ I think wrapping it into the whole discussion about alleys makes sense. Because...as
alleys are a very low priority, you know, maybe...I don't...
Bailey/ Okay, so...we'll wrap that into our alley discussion.
Wright/ That's fine!
Bailey/ What else do you have for us, Mike?
Wright/ I'm done, thank you.
Bailey/ Does anybody else have a list? How could you follow that, huh? (several talking) You
can't top it. Okay, um, we just scheduled some pending discussion items. Um, let's see,
are there upcoming community events or Council invitations that we should be aware of,
that we should be attending? All right. Let's discuss meeting schedules.
O'Donnell/ I want to comment on one thing.
Bailey/ Oh!
O'Donnell/ I heard, Michael, you're doing a great job down there welcoming back the...
Bailey/ Oh, thanks for doing that!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 43
Wright/ Oh, you're welcome. That was a lot of fun.
O'DonnelU Several positive comments about that.
Wright/ Thank you for passing that on. I enjoyed that. It was much better than the deployment
last year.
Bailey/ Always better to welcome than to deploy. Okay. Let's discuss the meeting schedules.
Correia/ Quick question to start -just to, so we only have...we have three scheduled in June. We
didn't go into July. Does that mean we're not planning to meet on July 6th and 7th?
Karr/ We're not talking about July right now.
Correia/ And I'm wondering why we're meeting (mumbled)
Karr/ I had simply given you every...every other...I'd done the schedule in June, giving you the
first and third, um, you don't have to meet at all. This is the point of this discussion. I
hadn't gone into July or August yet.
Correia/ (several talking) the first, third and the last for June.
Karr/ You're right, I did. (both talking) I, yeah, my fault.
Correia/ (mumbled) okay, that's what I was wondering if we were doing that because we were
thinking of July...okay.
Bailey/ Okay. Additionally, we, um, indicated to Michael that we would talk to him again, just
evaluation sort of things, after budget, so we might want to attached an Executive Session
to that last meeting in March. One of those work sessions, or the formal. And with our
prioritization, to which we all committed, we need to, um, probably schedule an April
and May...a couple of half-days potentially, and then a couple of evenings. So we don't
have to have long work sessions, or we can commit to having long works sessions. But
we did commit to the prioritization so it would be good to get it on the calendar.
Champion/ I think we need to be fresh when we discuss that. (mumbled)
Bailey/ Okay, Kevin hasn't come up with the schedule yet, but I wanted...so I thought we would
get something on the calendar, um, if you know, and I'm always inclined to schedule
more and cancel, rather than try to scramble at the last minute to get everybody together.
So, in addition to these meetings, we'll want to look for that, as well. So...
Karr/ You want to do that tonight or not?
Bailey/ I think what we should do is, um, are...if there are particular days that work better, um,
Michael was talking about maybe a half day. Let's shoot for, you know, half day, when I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 44
say that I mean four hours, um, if there are particular days, if you're on vacation, um, we
could start a work session with that and move into a work session, if you want that
freshness, but that, you know, that takes you out of work for that day. Get your schedules
to Marian, but we're going to look to do a couple day time, and a couple additional
evenings. Okay? In April and May.
Champion/ Well, in June there's, um, actually three meetings scheduled on here, so we probably
don't need three meetings.
Karr/ Just forget the last set in June.
Bailey/ How 'bout if we start...how bout if we start with March. How bout if we start
sooner...okay, so February we're set...March...
Lombardo/ I'll add, and I...I'll give you a memo to back this up, but we're, um, planning a family
trip away on the week of the 16th.
Karr/ That's spring break and there's absences gone anyway, so we had cancelled that out.
Bailey/ Um, I had asked...I had indicated, and I think it's on our tentative schedule, um, I'm at
a...
Wilburn/ ...person that month.
Bailey/ What?
Wilburn/ I had written down that someone had requested a combined.. .
Bailey/ I had requested the combined on the 10th (several talking) flood conference, the 10th of
March (several talking). Does that still work? (several talking)
Karr/ Work session, formal...yes.
Bailey/ Okay. All right. Thank you. (several talking) It'll be combined on the 10th.
Karr/ ... on the 10th. Nothing then the 9th.
O'Donnell/ What time on the 10th, do we know?
Bailey/ We don't know yet. We..it's hard when we combine. (several talking) That's a great
time to shoot for. Okay. The 23rd, 24th - is that good for everybody?
Champion/ Yep!
Bailey/ Okay. Let's...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 45
Karr/ And you want to work in an Executive Session one of those?
Bailey/ Yes, let's work that in (coughing, unable to hear) 23rd please.
Karr/ Okay.
Bailey/ Is everybody in agreement with that?
Champion/ I don't know. That's pretty early after spring break. Um, could we do it like the
next...yeah.
Bailey/ We could.
Hayek/ Executive session on...
Bailey/ April 6th. She was saying spring break.
Hayek/ Topic of Executive session?
Bailey/ We told Michael we would check in with him after the budget.
Hayek/ Got it.
Bailey/ Okay. And I'd like to follow through on what...
Karr/ So the 6th?
Bailey/ Yes, I think that's a good idea, Connie.
Karr/ At the end.
Bailey/ 6th, Executive session. 6th and 7th in April work for people?
Hayek/ Uh, yeah.
Bailey/ Uh, sure?
Hayek/ That's fine. It's just my wife's birthday.
Bailey/ Which day?
Hayek/ 7th. Great concert (mumbled). No, let's stick with the 7th. I'm being facetious.
Bailey/ All right. Um, 20th and 21st?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 46
Wilburn/ I just found...of April? Um, this is just an FYI, I mean, um, I will need to leave on the
21st. I just found out yesterday I've got to go on a recruiting visit.
Champion/ I'm sorry.
Wilburn/ I have to go on a recruiting...
Champion/ You're all mumbling over there, I think.
Wilburn/ I have to go on a recruiting visit on the 21st.
Champion/ We could combine on the 20th.
Bailey/ Are you asking us to combine on the 20th?
Wilburn/ I'm just saying I can't be there on the 21st, if uh...
O'Donnell/ The 20th sounds like a good day to combine.
Karr/ Combine on the 20th?
Bailey/ Is there a general consensus to combine? Okay.
Wilburn/ Thank you.
Bailey/ Could have done that with the 7th. May...um, 4th and 5th? And the 5th may be a sales
tax election.
Karr/ It will be a sales tax election, if you pass the resolution.
Bailey/ Yes, it will be a sales tax election. Often we have not met on an election night, um,
but.. .
Hayek/ I'm pretty bad that whole week.
Bailey/ Okay. So let's not meet on that election night. Okay.
Karr/ Do you want to move it, the 4th and 5th, to the 11th and 12th? Then, or just...
Wright/ I'll be unavailable then.
O'Donnell/ Can we do one meeting on the 18th and 19th?
Bailey/ Keep in mind we're also looking for extra meetings in April and May. You're making me
nervous.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Correia/ Right now we're on.. .
Bailey/ May.
Correia/ ...4th and 5th, and we're saying what?
Karr/ Mike...Mike Wright, you'll be gone the 1 lth and 12th?
Wright/ And 13th and 14th.
Karr/ Cause we might as well just pencil that in right now if you're going to...
Page 47
Lombardo/ The 7th and 8th is my daughter's college graduation too, um, so we'll be attending.
Correia/ I'm gone the whole week of April 27th.
Bailey/ (several talking) as long as Marian's keeping track.
Wright/ So going back to the 4th and the 5th, we have the election probably on the 5th. (several
talking)
Karr/ Yes, it would be the 5th.
Bailey/ Sometimes when we, if it's an election day we don't meet.
Correia/ Well, I mean, I understand that when (both talking) running, I mean, what are we going
to be doing?
Wright/ I agree. I think we could, let's go ahead and meet on the 5th. It shouldn't be that big a
deal.
Hayek/ That's fine. I may or may not be here. That's fine.
Bailey/ All right.
Karr/ Would we...do you, if it's a busy night for you and you think (coughing, unable to hear)
combined again? Do we want to do a combined again on the 4th?
Champion/Matt, can you show up on the 4th?
Hayek/ I'm not sure about that either. I have a trial that week, so...
Karr/ Right, so I was trying to figure out if one night would be better than two.
Champion/ Well, if you were a good lawyer and you won right away, you could get done early!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Correia/ I think it's really hard to combine (laughter)
Page 48
Bailey/ Why don't we just stick to the 4th and the Sth...(several talking)...let's just stick to the
4th and the 5th. Matt's willing to deal with that, I mean...and um, he's a good lawyer so
he won't be tied up so you'll win or get a settlement for the...I don't know.
Hayek/ The answer is "C".
Bailey/ Okay. Fine. I'm not going to get in the middle of this. Okay. 18th and 19th?
Karr/ I will be gone, but Julie can be here.
Bailey/ Okay. We'll miss you. June 1st and 2nd?
Hayek/ Let me...let me interject. As we try to cram additional meetings into this schedule...
Bailey/ Yes.
Hayek/ ...my preference is to try to make...is to try to piggyback on existing meetings as much
as possible, and not set up different meeting dates.
Bailey/ I agree. I'd rather meet for a long time than take another day (mumbled). But...part of it
is this group's schedule.
Wilburn/ I'm just starting to run out of vacation time.
Bailey/ Yeah. Well, it might mean later meetings, um, you know, starting with (mumbled)
discussions and going into sort of the more standard discussion. Why don't you let
Marian know your preferences and what you can do...
Champion/ Well, I'm...I have preferences that they're really not (mumbled) flexible.
Bailey/ Okay. (mumbled) Okay (several talking)
Karr/ If you have some preferences, then when Kevin and Michael have some dates, we could
come back with a schedule that matches up with some of your preferences though, if we
knew it ahead of time. If there's certain days of the week, a certain week out of the
month. We'd rather hear about that when we schedule it.
Bailey/ Right.
Champion/ I'm totally flexible.
Bailey/ Okay. Let's go to June 1st and 2nd, good? (several responding) 15th and 16th? (several
responding) And shall we keep the 29th and 30th?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council
Champion/ Well, maybe you could keep that for...
Bailey/ 4th of July.
Karr/ 4th of July's the 6th and 7th, the 4th is a Saturday this year.
Bailey/ So what's the holiday? The 3rd?
Karr/ Friday.
Page 49
Bailey/ Okay. We still don't want a meeting on the 6th and the 7th. That means we have to read
a packet through the fireworks.
Champion/ Well, we can talk about that later. July's a long way...
Bailey/ Yeah, let's keep those three for now in June, and...
Hayek/ Would it be (mumbled) suggest that...that April 6th meeting be combined?
Bailey/ No.
Karr/ I'm sorry. What was that?
Hayek/ April 6th. (both talking)
Bailey/ We're combining the 20th too. No, it's not (mumbled)
Hayek/ Softly push for it...but.. .
Bailey/ Are we...okay with combing the April meetings?
O'Donnell/ I don't have any problem.
Correia/ So how would we do...a work session, a formal meeting, and Michael's evaluation, all
on April 6th?
Wright/ That's going to be quite a full evening.
Hayek/ Scratch it.
Bailey/ Um...
Hayek/ You're right, you're right. It's not...
Karr/ Well, can (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 City Council Page 50
Champion/ We could do his evaluation on the ....
Bailey/ The 19th, or wait...no, the 18th.
Champion/ ...or the 19th of May.
Bailey/ Well, we could do it on the 24th.
Karr/ What about if we did (coughing, unable to hear) Michael's evaluation like at 8:00 in the
morning? On the 7th.
O'Donnell/ On when?
Karr/ On the 7th. Does that help you at all? Cause your conflict is in the evening.
Hayek/ Yep.
Karr/ On the 7th.
Bailey/ You'll have to take vacation.
Wilburn/ Any time we meet in the day time (mumbled)
Karr/ What time are you done on...
Correia/ ...standing meeting that day.
Bailey/ Okay. Uh, Amy can't meet on the 7th.
Hayek/ I don't want to push my personal agenda and cause somebody to use...let's leave it as is.
Bailey/ We all get at least one personal agenda push.
Wilburn/ If we meet for a block of time longer than three hours, I'm going to have to take
vacation.
Karr/ How about if I go back a step. (several talking)
Champion/ It's not going to take us three hours to do Michael's evaluation.
Wright/ We certainly hope not.
Karr/ How about if we go back a step? What about Michael's evaluation the 24th instead of the
23rd of April?
Bailey/ Right, so (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.
February 9, 2009 Ciry Council
Karr/ ...from spring break.
Bailey/ Yeah, let's do that.
Wright/ The 24th of...
Karr/ Of March.
Wright/ March.
Karr/Before or after the formal meeting.
Bailey/ Okay.
Karr/ So we still (mumbled)
Page 51
Bailey/ All right. (several talking) Okay. So, Marian will put out a schedule. Give her your
preferences and your availabilities, um, and if you have them for the summer, it's easier
to get them on the calendar now, so we...as we move forward, and then we'll need some
day time meetings, and those day time meetings, I suppose, well, I guess we were doing
for availability of staff so weekends are the same...weekends are the same as the
evenings. So, if you would prefer other evenings, I guess, is the option. So...okay? Did
you get what you needed, Marian? All right. See you all tomorrow night. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special work session meeting of February 9, 2009.