Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-03 TranscriptionFebruary 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1 February 3, 2003 Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn Staff:': Atkins, Dilkes, Helling, Karr, Miklo, Nasby, O'Malley, O'Neil, Trucblood TAPES: 03-14, BOTH SIDES; 03-15, SIDE ONE TAPE 03-14, SIDE ONE PI,ANNING AND ZONING Lehman/Planning and Zoning matters, Robert'? a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 18 ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 1.6 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) IO PUBLIC (P) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1828 LOUVER MUSCATINE ROAD Miklo/Our first item is setting a public hearing. Lehman/Hold it. (Knocking sound) Lehman/First item is what? Miklo/Sctting a public hearing for some property that Kirkwood recently acquircd. It's currently zoned CC-2 based on our Zoning Ordinancc. Publicly zoned property should be zoned P, and, therefore, that's what the hearing will be about in two weeks. b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 18 ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED ARTERIAL STREET PI,AN. Miklo/Itcm b is also sctting a public hearing. It's on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, updating the plan to include the revised Arterial Street Plan. And again, that would be in two weeks. c. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-5) PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD BY AMENDING THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD CODE. (REZ02-00024/SUB02-00027) Miklo/The third item, Item c, is a public hearing tomorrow evening on amendments to thc Peninsula Neighborhood OPDH plan and the regulating plan that accompanies that. This represents only a reasonably accurate t~anscription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2 There are a series of amendments proposcd; most of them have to do with moving buildings from one location to another. For example, in this area, the original plan shmved a small apartment building; that's proposed to bc moved to the other side of the street. The site is more favorable in terms of size for that. Thc townhouscs that would have bccn there m~d the roadhouses will be moved to this side of the street where there are some odd-shaped lots. Also, in this area four of thc lots are being made narrower to allow an additional lot, Lot 7A to appear here. So that would result in one additional single-family house. Overall, the dcnsity of the development is not increasing. There are also changes to thc OPDH guidelines and regulations as they apply to thc peninsula. For cxample, our current City-wide regulations prohibit more than eight spaces for backing onto an alley. That was adopted a number of years ago to address the situation on South Johnson, South Van Burcn streets where there are several blocks of high-density zoning and we had locations whcrc there would be row upon row of cars parking, backing into an alley. We are proposing to amend that for the peninsula in that it has very limited areas where multi-family uses or more than eight spaccs would back onto an alley; we know where they arc, so you won't have the blocks that we have on South Johnson and South Van Buren streets. So we are recommending this amcndment. We're also proposing some clarifications on how somc of the measurements are taken and that's not going to have an actual physical change in the way the peninsula dcvclops; however, some of the language is unclear to the building ofllcials so we're trying to clear that tip. And lastly, we are adjusting thc height in some of the buildings. The original Neighborhood Codc spccificd that the heights of singlc-family homes would be limitcd to 25 feet, where it's 35 feet elscwhere in the City, so wc're going back to 35 feet. And then for the small apartment buildings, we're also proposing to increase that to 48 feet. That's in order to allow 10- foot ceiling clearance and that's not uncommon with planned developments that wc increase the heights. I'd be happy to try to answer any of your qucstions you might have. Kanner/Bob, start with the last onc first. One of the reasons we're going with this development is becausc of the New Urbanism philosophy, and one part of the Ncw Urbanism says that there's certain ratios or feel that you should have on a strcct, that certain buildings should not be too overwhelming. Miklo/Mm-hmm. Kanner/It seems that a key part of it is the height of the building. We're saying 25 feet originally and now we're going to 35 Feet. How does that affect the whole New Urbanist philosophy that we went into this thing. Miklo/I'd say that the New Urbanist philosophy would support thc taller buildings. One of the principles is you create more compact neighborhoods by building up rather than out, so 1 think that certainly falls within those principles. We're not, at most wc xvould have three- and four-story buildings in thc pcninsula which does not sccm extreme by City standards. Champion/1 don't think it, and my house is well over 35 foot tall and it's, you know, I think, Bob, that neighborhood is kind ofxvhat we're trying to build here. I have houses that are half the size of mine, a third of the size of mine, maybe bigger than mine. I think the idea, This rep~ esents ouly a reasonably accurate ti anscription of the Iowa City Council Mcctiug of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3 my whole thing about thc idca is having all these mixed houses together to mix thosc economic levels (can't hear) and everything, I don't think the height is that crucial. Some people build a townhousc that is three stories high, they make thein smaller, more compact, and livable. It would have to be at least 35 feet. Lehman/Bttt this is a large area. What is it, 60 acres? Miklo/Right. The first phase that we're looking at is 40; the entire plan applies to about 80. LchmaW Yeah, I mean it'd be diffcrent if we ~vere looking at a really small dcvclopment with great big tall buildings. This is a big area. Champion/That's not tall. Lehman/1 don't think it's (can't hear) Wilburn/No. P fab/Can you refresh my memory here'? Hoxv far from the sidewalk or the street will these buildings be? Miklo/It depends on thc type of building. They rangc from--- Pfab/Having specifically ones that will have higher heights or will they ail be that xvay? Miklo/I believe the small apartment buildings can be right on the sidewalk. Pt~ab/Be right, OK. And what about thc single? Miklo/Thc single families arc generally 7 to I5 feet back from the sidewalk. Pfab/OK. That's good enough. That's precise. I wasn't worried about that. Lehman/Other questions for Bob? Vanderhoef/Yes. Specifically, in several places you're talking about changing the definition or the definitiou is different than it is in another location and I found that very confusing. And specifically, it's on page 174 of our packet, if you have the packet, but it has to do with back yards. There's a section on alleys and the right-of-way of the rear of the lots and talking about the parking there and then we get back down to back yards and the open portion of the lot behind the building or front yard; they're calling it thc fi'ont yard, what typically I would call the back yard, including thc open side of the lot. And then you make this note, this definition differs from thc definition of rear yard. Miklo/l think what this is saying is the backyard is opposite the front yard. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcriptiou of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. Fcbl~aary 3, 2003 ( ouncil Work Session Page 4 PI'ab/Versus the side yard, you mcan? Vanderhoef/But you're talking about the open portion of the lot behind the building. And then it says "or £ront yard." And that doesn't make sense to me. Lehman/Well, arc they refcrring to the samc as the open spacc being referred to as a front yard or the open space in, bchmd thc building, or in thc front yard. Vandcrhoeff They're talking about this as their definition. Miklo/That's what I bclieve. Lehm an/Pardon? Miklo/That's the intent, I believe. Lehman/The intcnt means it's either thc space behind the building or the space iu front of the building, which is the front yard. Miklo/No, it's saying that the space bebind thc building or thc front yard. Lcbman/Are you saying the back space behind the building, in this case, is the front yard'? Miklo/No. Lehman/Then I don't think--- Miklo/It's the yard that's behind the front yard, which would be the back yard, or behind the building. There are cascs where tbe building doesn't go the full length of the lot so there will be--it's similar to a side yard, so that portion behind the front yard all the way to the back of the lot is considered the backyard that has to be opcn. Lchmatff OK. Vanderboef/Could you xvork on that wording there? Somehow or another? Miklo/Well, no, I hear what you're saying, I think--- Dilkes/This is the staffreport, right? Are you looking at the staffreport, Bob, or the actual--- Miklo/This is the definition. We'll take a look at it; I mem~ if it does cause somc confusion, we'll see if there's some way to make that clear. Vandcrhoef/Well, maybc it's just me, but [just kept rereading that. And then when you say in italics that this is different than thc other definition and to change definitions on anything, whethcr it bo this particular one or on the buildable areas, there was another--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of thc Iowa City Council Mecting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5 Lehman/Bob, does the back yard in this case--is it different because it includes the open space beside the building? Miklo/Con'ect. Lehman/That's the difference which it specifically says. So that part is different because it includes thc open spaces beside the building. O'Donncll/Dee, do you have a suggestion to clear it up because I kind of agree ~vitb you? And I rcad it thc first time and I tbougbt--- Vandcrhoef/It's j ust--- Miklo/We'll look at tbat and scc if we can come up with something clearer. Vanderhoef/Thank you. Dilkes/The item--i havcn't even £ound where you are yet. So, but 1'11, we can talk to Bob about it tomorrow and take a look at it. Vanderboef/It's in Ibo--- Dilkes/Your scrccn number means nothing. Vanderhoef/...Principles and Regulations for thc Neighborhood, which is page 174 in our--- Dilkcs/Which means nothing. Lehman/Page 6 ofthe--- Vandcrhoeff Principles and Regulations lbr tile Ncighborhood. Dilkes/It's page 6. Miklo/it's probably something we can't come up witb a clear definition on tbe spot, so xvc'll try to get back to you tomorrow. Lehman/OK. Vanderhocf/Yeah. Thank you. Lehman/OK? Kanner/So, lbo Peninsula Neighborhood Code that you, tbat we just looked at, this is part of it; this is a work in progress? l'his represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. I:ebrua~y 3. 2003 Council Work Session Page 6 Miklo/No, it's not. There were two versions. One that's labeled work-in-progress xvas the one that was before Planning and Zoning, and there were some changes that they wanted to discuss; that's why it was labeled as a work-in-progress. The one that's actually attached to the Ordinance is the draft that's being proposed for adoption. Kanner/So you included thc work-in-progress to give us those notes that were just mentioned? Miklo/Yeah, we generally scnd anything that went to Planning and Zoning to you so you can see the same matcrial that they worked from. Kanner/OK. Can you explain again thc, 1 didn't quite, the backing into the allcy. This will be, they'll be allowcd to havc more thai eight cars or more backing directly into the alleyway? Miklo/Right. That would be subject to approval by the building official at tbe time of site plan review. Kanner/And thc feeling is that there won't be too much of this happening as opposed to like you mentioned on Johnson'? Miklo/Right. It will apply to limited areas. 1 think there are, for example, in phase one, it could apply here and here. So we know that it's not going to be block alter block. And it may be, l think at thc most it would end up being 16 spaces; it might not even be that many. Part of the reason for that is to provide more open, or green, space on the lot itself instead of paving it for an additional driveway. Kanner/Aud the all-street parking will not be required for some ncighborhood commercial? Miklo/Right. For the live-work milts. Vandcrhoef/But the alley parking then is what you're providing for the multi-family milts? Miklo/Right. Right. Vanderhoef/And are those alleys being built to street standards or alley standards? Miklo/There is, they're going to be concretc and there are some very specific standards and 1 don't recall the details, but they're not what you would think of as our old traditional alleys. These will be concrete; i believe they're going to be I6 feet wide, so they are going to be--I wouldn't say like a street--but they're going to be more passable than what we're used to. Vandcrhoeff Well, that isn't the concern that I have. The concern I have is thc depth of the concrete and thc wearability o fit and when we talk about doing garbage pickup and so forth, you know, we have certain places in town that we cannot go with--- This ~epresents only a reasonably accurate transcription of thc Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Cuuncil Wnrk Session Page 7 Miklo/When we developed these standards we worked closely with thc Public Works Department; that was one of their concerns and that xvas addressed in thc standards. Vanderhoef/1! would seem to me that if this is going to be parking for all those buildings, and 1 suspect then for thc live-work units, there'll be some parking in the rear, too, and thcy're going to have a lot el'traffic on them. So the standard of that alley needs to be cquivalent to thc street. Miklo/Sure. I don't know if it would be cxactly equivalent but it was a concern of Public Works and then they were satisfied with the proposal, that it was sufficient for large trucks and heavy amounts of traffic. Lehman/OK? d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF MADISON STREET, DAVENPORT STREET, AND BLOOMINGTON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY. (VAC02-00008) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Miklo/OK, the next several items are associatcd with vacations of rights-of-ways that you've had public hearings on. They're on for pass and adopt. And (can't hcar) discuss these under conveyance, I believe, later this cvening. e. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING LAFAYETTE STREET, LOCATED WEST OF CAPITOL STREET. (VAC02-00006) (PASS AND ADOPT) f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE NORTHERNMOST 60 FEET OF THE DEAD-END ALLEY ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF 405 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET. (VAC00-00001) (PASS AND ADOPT) Lehmar~ Item fwould be deferred until after we consider 8 and 9, is that correct? Dilkes/That's correct. g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE EAST-TO-WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 27 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT, LOCATED BETWEEN MARKET AND BI,OOMINGTON STREET WEST OF DODGE STREET. (VAC02-00007) (PASS AND ADOPT) Lehman/And Item g would bc, consent would be deferred until after we consider item 107 Dilkes/Correct. Lehman/Eight and 9 and 10 are conveyance items with the value of the property included in the conveyance. Tlfis reprcseuts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8 Pfab/I'm conccmcd that we're still waiting on an offer, as far as I know of, from Mercy. Lehman/I think we have that. Lct's get through the Planning and Zoning items. Kanncr/There's a letter in the packet that that (can't hear) better. PI'ab/Then I missed that. h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (RS-5/OSA) FOR 5.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1520 N. DUBUQUE ROAD. (REZ02-00019) (PASS AND ADOPT) Lchman/H is a pass and adopt. i. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PI,AT HEARTHSIDE REFUGE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB02-00024) Miklo/And finally we havc a subdivision that goes along with h that establishes for residential lots; one lot already has a house on it so this could result in three additional houses. The lcgal papers and construction draxvings are now in order so this is ready for approval. Vanderhoef/ls it parkland dedication or money in lieu'? Miklo/I believe it would bc money in lieu in this case. There was, this is not an area where Parks and Rec would want land dedicatcd. Vanderhoef/I agree. I just didn't sec any comment on that. Lehman/Any questions for Bob? O'Donnell/No. AGENDA ITEMS 8. CONVEYANCE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF A TWENTY-FOOT-WIDE BY SIXTY-FEET-LONG VACATED PORTION OF THE ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 405 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET AND 338 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET TO PHYLLIS TUCKER. 9. CONVEYANCE OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF A TWENTY-FOOT-WIDE BY SIXTY-FEET-LONG VACATED PORTION OF THE ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 405 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET AND 338 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET TO SUE M. TRAVIS AND ANDREW D. ROBERTSON. Lchman/Well, thc next are Agcnda items: 8 and 9 arc conveyance that would have to occur This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9 before we did Item f. In both of those cases, we've been offered $500 for property that does not appear to be an appropriate stun; I mcan, to me it doesn't. Pfab/Not enough money? Lehman/No, and the staff won't, if I remember correctly. Dilkes/You have a memo--- Lehman/ I'm sorry, go ahead. Dilkes/You have a memo dated January 9th, 2003, from Mitch Behr of my office about the offers being made on these parcels, and our calculation of what the amount would be if it was based on assessed value, there are no utility easements or any other conditions that are being attached to these conveyances, so as a staff, our position is that xvc can't--we don't have any basis on which to recommend something less than assessed value in the absence o f an appraisal. Lehman/Right. Kanncr/Could you tell us again what that assessed value--- Dilkes/Using the square-foot figure for assessed value on the Tucker piece, you know half of the alley is going to each property owner, is $6,000, and on thc Travis and Robertson piece on 405 South Summit is $4,800. Vandcrhoef/Eleanor? Dilkes/Mm-btam. Vanderhoel7 Tell me. i'm uncomfortable doing the vacating if we don't plan to convey. Lehman/That's why we're not--- Dilkes/That's why we recommended that by motion you move Item fro after thc disposition. Vanderhoef/But the question that I have is if we go ahead and do third reading--- Lehman/We won't. Dilkes/You won't do third reading if you don't approve the conveyance on those terms. Lehman/Right. Dilkcs/You'll defer it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10 Lehman/Dcfcr it indefinitely, would that bc the case? Dilkes/If you don't, I mcan if you want an appraisal, you're unwilling to agree to the $500, or then, we'll defer both indefinitely. Vanderhoe/:7 OK. 10. CONVEYANCE OF THE PLATTED ALLEY IN BLOCK 27, ORIGINAL TOWN, IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO MERCY HOSPITAl. 4. Lehman/ltowevcr, on item 10, we have an offer from Mercy Hospital for $15,000 for that vacation. Also, I believe there's a letter wc have received tonight from Tom Gelman. There was a letter from your officc, Eleanor, I believe, from Mitch Behr who indicated that we would not consider an offcr of less than $12,000, ill rccall. Dilkcs/Right, that we wouldn't be willing to recommend an offer of less than $12,000, and the reasons are in his--- Lehman/Right. And subsequently, we now have received an offer for S15,000, and in Gehnan's letter I think he's explained the numbers there. So we do have an offer for $15,000. Now, should that, on item number 10, should the amount in that be changed to $15,000 or should it be amended? Dilkes/You'll have to do it by amcndment. Lehmm¢ By amendment. We have to amend it and then either vote it up or down. And if we approve item 10, we will then go back and do the third reading, thc vacation? Dilkes/Right. Lehman/Are there other agenda items that we should be--~ 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY PARK POOL FILTRATION SYSTEM. 4. d. (6). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 18 TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE FISCAl. YEAR JULY 1~ 2003, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004~ THE PROPOSED THREE-YEAR FINANCIAl. PLAN~ AND ALSO THE MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2007. Atkins/Emie, I have, Terry's hcre tonight if you havc a question on the pool filter. Kevin's here for the accountant, and Ron is hcre for the Airport. 1 asked them to come this evening and if we can answer lhe questions, they won't have to come out tomorrow. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the iowa City Council Meeting of Febroary 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 11 Lehman/Well, the Airport is thc, the pool actually came in belo~v estimate. Champion/Oh, good. Pfab/1 have a suggestion. IfTerry's hcre, might he speak to that, what he found out'? Lehman/The pool? Pfab/The bid. Lehman/It's in thc packet. The bid's $179,000. Pfab/1 see that. It's--- Lehman/ Or it's $173,000. We have the bids right here. Pfab/Did you have, maybe he wanted to make a comment on them? Trueblood/Yeah, it's lower. Champion/He's happy. Lehmm'~ It's lower than the estimate. 4. e. (2) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS FOR THE NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION PART TWO, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1-4 OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION, A/K/A AVIATION COMMERCE PARK AND THE NORTH COMMERCIAl, AREA. Champion/Which is, what was the Airport on? Karr/It's on thc Consent Calendar. Kanner/What's the restriction--- Lehman/He asked--- Atkins/Kevin--- Lchman/OK. Kanner/I'm going to ask that it be pulled from thc Consent and vote on separately. Lehman/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 12 Pfab/Which one is that, Steven? Lehman/Consent Calendar item e (2). Kmmer/And we got also in our packet--this is also in our computerized packet--and we got a hard copy tonight of Exhibit A, Return of Restriction. Lehman/And these, I believe, were compiled in consort--- Atkins/With the FAA? Dilkcs/We got a letter from the FAA approving the sale conditionally. Lehman/Right. Dilkcs/Basically, with conditions that we protect the Airport and we have incorporated those into the restrictive covenants and will in a navigation easement as well. Lehman/And these are the restrictions that the FAA xvould like us to--- Dilkes/No, there are restrictions here that we want to see or the staff wants to see. Lehman/Oh, OK. Dilkes/They're not just FAA restrictions. Pfab/Did we get any indication from the FAA what they wanted or were willing? Dilkcs/Yes, they sent us a letter approving the sale of that property subject to some basic conditions that one would expect them to attach essentially that we make sure that we have regulations regarding height and place--- Lchmm9 They moved the field line--- Dilkes/...navigational aids and that kind of thing. Yeah, that we had done, that we had had to revise the plat because of that earlier. Lehman/Right. I think we've done that. OK. Dilkcs/Ron, anything else you want to add about that? O'Neil/That's it. 16. CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE IOWA CITY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, IAFF, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 610, AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY. Kanner/Stevc, field this question about thc contract? Item number 16. Hclling/Mm-hmm. Kanner/Currently, the firefighters are, they pay $20 per month for health insurance? Helling/Toward Family health coverage. Kanner/For single, thcy don't pay any. Hclling/Right. Kanncr/OK, and that's going to $40 per month. Helling/Correct. Kanner/Is that being asked for the other unions also? Helling/lt's on the table. I mcan, the figure that we arrived at here is specifically $40, and he looked at it in conjunction with the wagc increase; I can't tcll you what the others would agrec to $40 or something more or something less at this point. But we are--an increasc in that payment, co-payment on the premimn, is on the table for the other units as well. Kanner/What did you ask for the fircfighters? Helling/ I'm sorry? Kanner/What did you ask'? Helling/Originally? Kanner/Yeah. Hclling/I think we, the original proposals, we had a series of things that they could look at as far as modifications to the coverage and one of thc things w'as, I believe, we suggcsted $100 a month increasc. Kanner/And what's the change for funeral? Deleting the word "up to," what docs that change? Helling/ It basically says, right now it says up to, 1 don't have thc contract with me, but l can gct that tbr you. But what it says is they get tip to a certain amount of time off for a fimeral, subject to the approval o£the chief and that they felt, I think, that the words "up to" suggested something less than Full amount. It's still up to the approval of the chief and the chief could approve something less because, it still needs to be there, but in most This represents only a rcasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14 cases, in the vast majority of cases for a funeral leave, a close relative, people would use thc max. They need the max amount of time which I think is for the fire--two or three shifts, I don't recall which. So. Vandcrhoef/Is the $200 a month for thc captains, is that new or is that just an ongoing? Helling/It's an adjustment in the range, that the differential between the lieutenants and the peoplc they supervise and the captains and the pcople they supervise is very small, and they felt that that differential should bejust a little bit wider. So this is one way to do it so it will actually raise the range of lieutenants and captains by $200. Vandcrhocf/A year. Helling/A year, that's correct. Vanderhoef/ OK. And this is first-year consideration of any change in there? Helling/This is just a one-year agrcement. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said about the Pamily insurance. Family insurancc--- Lehma~¢ They pay $40 instead of $20. ChampioW $40 instcad of $20. ttelling/Right. Vanderhoef/But the individual employee, they don't. Helling/For single coverage only, employees do not pay; that is correct. Kanner/Can I get a copy of the £ull contract? Hclling/Sure. Kanner/I'll try to look at it by tomorrow. HelIing/I'll get you one before you leave. 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, "ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTER 5, "MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIE," SECTION 3, "COMPENSATION," TO ALLOW CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY'S GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Couucil Work Session Page I5 Kanner/We got a racine for thc cost on thc health here. Now, so if this were to apply to all Councilors as far as covering the expenses, the City covering it, it would be $236 times 12 times seven. Is that what the cost would be to the City? Atkins/Yes. Kanner/That the City would pick up? The cost? Atkins/The $236--- Dilkes/That's single coverage. Kanner/Single coverage. Atkins/OK. That's the current rate. Dilkes/Mm-hmm. Atkins/That will increase the first of July and my understanding is that Council members can start to take advantage of this on July, or January I of '04, so it would be higher than that, but I don't know the dollar amount at this point. Kanner/OK. Lehman/If it's, wouldn't the increase in the ncighborhood of 15 pcrcent--- Atkins/Yes. Lehman/...so, 1 mcan, the $236 would probably be $31 or $32. Kanner/$12.50 seven. Dilkes/But if you're asking about cost, you have to consider l~amily coverage as well. Because a Council mcmbcr could choose to access the family coverage, and if you want to detennine what the cost would be to the City, if the City paid the cost, you have to look at that as xvell. Kanner/Although I'm thinking that perhaps the Council should consider picking up the cost, the maximum would bc for single, 1 think, there's a lot of people out there that are wcary of giving up positions to run for Coancil and because thcy don't have health here and I think we need to start getting those people into the pool. I think we should have a consideration o£not just allowing pcoplc to buy it, it's good if you've got thc money, but thcre's a lot of us that don't have the money, and I think it'd be good for the City to afford it. I don't think in thc scheme of things it's way too much. I think Mike's on the right path; we cut back a little bit on travel, somc of the Washington trips that people take, and we've put it into health care. I think that's much more needed. You know, maybe we talked about this represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. FeN uary 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16 $3,000 a person for health care costs. P fab/What are you proposing or what do you suggest'? What possibilities are you considering? Kanner/Well, tbat the City pay for health care for Council Members. O'Donnell/For the single--- Kmmer/Up to the single, yeah. Pfab/In other words, similar to other people, other employees? Kanner/Yeah. P~ab/And what about family? Kanner/1 think at this time we just go with single and maybe in the future talk about--- Pfab/Well, what happens if yon have a Council person that has a l~amily? I think that has to be addressed, too. Kanner/Well, I think you're right. Pfab/1 mean, it's, you know--- Kanner/This could be a start. Or you, even, I don't know, a lesser amount. But I think we have to give people tho opportunity to get the health care at a reasonable cost. Lehman/Well, I think this, oven if we, if we have the ability to buy the healtb insurance at this rate, which is $236 a month, that is significantly loss than any of us can buy it on our own. Pfab/Yeah, but we're not the only people in the City that may be in this position. Lehman/I don't Follow you. PtSb/I mean, there might be younger people that would come to--- Lehman/ Right. So they would still have lho opportunity to buy health insurance at a very, very significant savings. Pfab/Well, OK, but also, OK, so you have an individual. What if they're married and they have Lehman/Significantly less than if they go out and buy on their own. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Com~cil Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Conncil Work Session Page 17 Pfab/There's no provision as far as I understand it. Lehman/If they, the resolution that I believe that we have in our packet for tomorrow, all it says is that after the first of the year, Council would be able to purchase health insurance at what it costs thc City. Pfab/Oh. Lehman/So it would mcan if you werc buying single coverage you still would--- Pt~ab/So it opens it up. Lehman/...a lot less than you would if you had to buy it on your oxvn. if you wanted family coverage, it would still be significantly less than you could buy it on your own. Dilkes/What the ordinance that is placcd before you at your directions essentially docs is allow Council Members to access group coverage. LehmaW Right. Champion/I think it'd have to be at your own expense, which obviously, we're not employces. O'Donnell/I agree. Champion/1 mean, we certainly can't have the City giving tis benefits. I think the idea of being able to buy health insurance, as many of us who purchase it on our own, it's a really good deal. Kanncr/I think thcre's a lot of people that, in currently across thc nation, tl~ere's 41 million people. Thcre's a number of people in Iowa City that, they can't even afford that, and even if we considered it a part-time job, I think to offer 50 percent reduction in the cost, 50 percent covered by the City would be a good thing. I think it doesn't help a large percentage of people that we would want to draw in to be Council Members that don't run--there's a great gap ofpcoplc that are in between. O'Dmmell/I can't imaginc somebody giving up a position to run for Council, Stevcn. I just can't. Kanner/Oh, I mean--- O'Donnell/What's that? Kanner/I've done it. I put a lot of effort into it. 1 think it's a thing that should be compensated reasonably and I think that there are people out there that aren't running because of thc time and eflbrt that it can take, Mike. There's a lot of people I talk to. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of Fcbruary 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Sessioo Page 18 O'Donnell/1 can't imagine it, Stcven. This, tbe Council has never intended to be a career. I think tbe very idea of being ablc to buy it at a group rate is a tremendous bargain so I would support, you know. Wilbum/1 think I'm going to support this as is, and I think it's something to open up. I would keep in mind, too, that it will soon be time for a Charter Committee to put up, and 1 would hope that compensation package, in general, for Council would be something that a Charter Review Committee would recommend. And that I'd rather see more some reflection From the Committee. Dilkes/I don't think that that's something that the Charter Committee typically addresses. Wilbum/Can they discuss it? Dilkes/I mean, thc requirement by State Code is that the Council compensation be set by ordinance and I think that i£anything the Charier references that. Wilburn/Can they make a recommendation? Is that unallowable, not allowable? Dilkes/I'd have to look at it. Pfab/I believe, it is my, as I look at this, that it's probably not going to affect me one way or another just bccausc of my age and dignity that I have arrived at, so that what that will pass out over very lightly--- (Laughter) Pfab/But anyxvay 1 do believc that it is something that young pcople or people that are raising families, it has to be something that they can make work, and it looks to mc, if I do the math real quick, you have to pay to do Council work just to cover your insurance. You'd owe the City more than you make. I don't know what the City--what is the cost ora family coverage, what is the City's cost? Dilkes/Currently $689.33. Atkins/It'll be close to $9,000 next year. Pfab/$9,000. And your City Council position pays you $6,000, it leaves a little discrepancy. Cbampiol~ They're not really related. This is--- Pthb/Well, I think I don't know the answer and I don't have a recommcndation on something to put to say this is what I want to support and go to the wail with it. But I think it certainly lbnits thc people who have access to get into political process. Lehman/Well, h-vin, I agree with you np to this point. No Council person has ever been able to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 (?ouncil Work Session Page 19 take advantage of thc savings that the City enjoys with their health plan. Ail this would do is allow a Council person, if they chose, at no cost to the City, to purchase health insurance at a more attractive rate than they would be able to purchase it on their own. Now, if we're interested in providing health insurance to thc Council to the tune of $3,000, basically what we're doing is we're raising thc Council's salaries from $5,500 to $8,500. Pr:ab/Well, maybe--- Lehman/I think that's not what we're talking about. Pfi~b/1 don't have the, I didn't tell you I had an answer--but I think if something, yes, for, there arc, I think it xvould be advantageous to the City to have people of various age levels and various life cxperiences to be sitting on this Council. We're kind of an elite bunch of--- Champion/Wc have a baby over there, for crying out loud. (Laughter) Lehman/WcI1, anyway, the way it's on thc agenda is--- Wilbum/Diapers and all. Lehman/The way it's on the agenda for tomorrow night is that health insurance would bc made available to Council Mcmbcrs at whatever the cost to the City is, and it would be effective the first of January of next year. Pfab/Well, OK, now does that mean that this discussion couldn't be delayed? Let's say that you dccidcd that you were going to work on this a little bit more and let's say it was deferred, say, a month. That wouldn't affect anything--- Lchman/Or you could change it to the first of August and say the City's going to pay it all. Pfab/No, no, no, that's not what I mean. It can't go into effect until lbo first of next year, right? Lchman/Right. Pfab/So, there's time to do some--- Lehman/If there is interest on thc part of Council--- Pt:ab/ OK. Lchman/...to make it differently, my strong suspicion is that there is not that interest out them, SO. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20 O'Donnell/Why don't you say--- Lehman/Pardon. O'Donncll/I have several (can't hear) Lehman/Well, tomorrow night wc vote. (can't hear). Any other agenda items? 4. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. 4. b. (2) IOWA CITY CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION: JANUARY 8 Kanner/Dale and Steve, we have minutes from Civil SerMce. There's something going on, it wasn't quite clear--of an appeal of some sort. Hclling/Right. Kanneff I was wondering if anything's been resolved or what's happening with that'? What's the problem? Helling/It's a termination that's being appealed and the Connnission is in the process of setting a hearing date. Kanner/Does that have to--- Helling/I think they havc set it. Kanner/OK. So it's a termination. It wasn't clear what thc cause of the appeal was. And is that process for appeal to Civil Service been used in recent memory? 1 don't remember reading about it. Hclling/Oh, yeah, it has. Not in the last several years; I don't recall when the last hearing was, probably three or four years ago though. Dilkcs/It has been. I think wc may have rcsolved one prior to hearing most recently. But, yeah. Kanner/Are those public or--- Hellmg/Yes. Kanner/Can thc person who is doing lhe appeal request that it be private? Hclling/No. Kanner/Thank you. Helling/OK. This represents only a rcasooably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. Fcbruary 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21 Kanncr/Oh. Wilbum/Oh, no, something else. Another item. Lehman/OK. Agenda item? Kanncr/No, that wasn't an agenda item. OPTIONS FOR ZONING RE: BARS Lehman/All right, we're going to go to tho bars, guys. Thcy don't close until 2:00 in the morning. Some time ago there was some discussion on thc Council as far as limiting the number of bars and I believe at that time, Eleanor, you gave us a memo a couple ycars ago, is that not correct? Saying that the City did not have the ability to restrict the number of bars in the City but that there might be some manner in which we could restrict thc bars by zone? Dilkes/I think what I said was we cannot limit the number of liquor licenses that we issue. Thosc are licenses of the State and we can'tjust say we're going to limit the numbcr of licenses. But that we can address thc land-use issues by way of zoning. Lehman/OK. Anyway, wc got a mcmo in the packet, obviously restricting the use of bars, or bars in the district, there's a lot to it. So, Bob, go ahead. Miklo/What I'd like to do is first present the memo or most of the qucstions in the memo and hold your questions until we get through all of them because there's somewhat inter- related, and then come back and go through each question one at a time. I hope that what we can achieve by that discussion is to determine, first, given this information, do you want to pursue such zoning regulations? And if you do, we'd like some more dircction from you in regard to which tcchniques you would like us to pursue. We wouldn't necessarily need to work on all the details tonight, but at least give some directioo. We researched thc practiccs of other cities in Iowa and found that most do not distinguish between bars and restaurants. Des Moincs is an exception. They recently, within the past fivc years, rewrote their zoning ordinances in relationship to bars and we'll discuss the technique they used a little bit later. Nationally, it's not uncommon for cities to use zoning to regulate bars. They do so by generally specifying that bars have to be so many feet from another bar, a residential neighborhood, or a sensitive land use like a school or church or daycare. This separation distance is generally anywhere from halfa block to two and a half blocks, and it dcpends on thc city and what thcir objectives are. Five hundred fect, or just over, more than one downtown block, is pretty common in tenns of distance separation that cities require between bars. Thc most difficult part of drafting zoning rcgulations for bars is how do we make a distinction between bars and restaurants. One approach, which I'll for discussion purposcs, call the "blanket approach," would simply say that any business that has a liquor license or serves alcohol is considercd a bar and must be, for example purposes, 300 feet from any other bar. This would control, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcript/on of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22 obviously, thc opening of new bars downtown, but it would also have the consequence of prohibiting restaurants that might also have a license and sell only a small amount of alcohol along with meals. Thc first question is this a consequence that the City Council is willing to accept in order to rcgulate thc bars? I don't want you to answer that now, but we'll come back to it. If this is not a consequence that you're willing to accept, how do we distinguish between bars and rcstaurants? Pfab/Can I get a question here? (can't hear) is there, as you look across the country, is there a predominance ofcither deciding that anything that serves liquor is a bar? ls there a, for instance, does the tavern--- Miklo/I'm not sure I understand your question. Pr:ab/OK. You had mentioned that therc's very few of these in Iowa except in Des Moines. OK, so, then, my next question was you said there's an option which you said is some people, some ordinances say il'you serve liquor, you're a bar. Miklo/Right. PI'ab/Is there a prcdominance? Miklo/Based on nay reading that's pretty rare that connnunities go to that length. Some do, but that's pretty rare. Thc next question is how do we distinguish a bar and a restaurant? Communitics that do use zoning to regulate bars generally establish a certain percentage of sales that can come from alcohol before something is considered a bar. If the pcrcentage of sales is less than that, then they're considered a restaurant. And there's quite a range from thc communities in thc research--anywhere from 40 to 75 percent, that the more restrictive cities say that only 40 percent of your sales can come from alcohol. The more libcral alIow up to 75 percent. I'm going to rcfer to this typc of rcgulation as "percentage-based" versus the blanket regulation I described carlicr. An example would be Arlington, Texas. There if you have an establishment and 60 percent of your revenue comes fi-om food, you're considered a restaurant and the zoning is fairly IiberaI in that regard. If40 perccnt or more of your sales comes from alcohol, then you're considered a bar and that city rcstricts bars pretty severely. The difficulty with percentage-based regulation is it's very difficult to enforce. It requires that restaurants and bars submit their books to the City--- TAPE 03-14, SIDE TWO Miklo/...to the City so that it can be determined which category they fall into. It's also problematic in that when a business first opens, they may not know what percent their sales in food vcrsus alcohol would be, and we'd have to take their word at it and then come back after they've been open for a timc to sce if they did meet those targets. This is also a problematic approach in that businesses change over time and business conditions change. It may be that the first year a restaurant's open they do very well in food sales and they're considered a rcstaurant. Thc next year tbcir menu may deteriorate; their food This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23 sales drop, and they sci1 more alcohol; then they're considered a bar by our zoning purposes. The questiou we would face is do we go in and shut that business down? That's very Iikely thc type of scenario we would be facing if we adoptcd this percentage-based type of regulation. So you can see it's not an casy thing to do. Another, or one way of dealing with this problcm is to set the percentage of alcohol sales fairly high, for example, 75 percent. In setting it high, we'd be regulating only those establishments that Iimited food sales. For example, Dan's Bar. Businesses that have at least 25 percent of their sales from food would be considered a restaurant and it's, thc shift of business from food sales to alcohol sales probably wouldn't be that grcat from year to year that a business would go front a restaurant to a bar with that scenario. It still wouId be, even if wc set it high, it still requires us to look at the books of individual businesses which can be problematic. Giving the complexity of the percentage-based regulations and the difficulty of cnforcemcnt, we want to know if you want to pursuc this in more detail before we spend a lot of time looking at specific percentages and enforcement mechanisms. Another approach that is lcss commonly used is to regulate busincsses by size. Some cities regulate bars based on the square footage or the person occupancy load. Thc larger the bar, the square footage or the larger number of occupants, the greater tho regulation. Under such a scenario, a small pub might be Fairly easy to open, but a large dance bar would be more difficult to open. This is generally a bybrid approach in tbat it docs require still looking at a percentage between food and sales and then also square footage or an occupancy load. An exmnple might be if you established that a business that has 75 percent of its sales from alcohol, or more than 75 percent of its sales from alcohol, tbey're considered a bar, and then if they have an occupancy of lower than, say, 150, they're considcred a bar that it's more difficult to open and the spacing requirements could be greater. By using that approach you would more, most likely regulate bars such as The Cage or Etc., that recently opened that have fairly high occupancy load and have very little food sales. So that's one approach. The next question is do you want thesc typcs of regulations to apply city-wide or in the downtown zone? And then finally, most cities that do regulate bars also regulatc liquor stores. Thcy have specifications such as, if more than 30 perccnt ofyour floor arca or 30 percent of your sales comes from liquor, then you're considered a liquor store and there are zoning rcquircments in terms of which zones you can go into. This would allow businesses like grocery stores and drugstores to still sell alcohol as an accessory use, but once their sales primarily came from alcohol, they would be regulated by zoning. I'd now like to go back and revisit each of those questions one by one and also discuss any other issues that you might identify. Vanderhoef/I've got a question before we even get into all of this discussion. As I understand it, liquor licenses are given to the bar owner, not to the bar itself. So the owner applies for the license and receives it from thc state. So, if we're talking about grandfathering, which you mentioned in hcre, which there's a problem with all this. Dilkes/No, because you're talking about the liquor liccnse. We're talking about land-use issucs, so that's really irrelevant. Vanderboef/1--- This reprcsents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24 Champio~ Oh. Vanderhoef/No, I understand that we're not regulating that, but it throws me into this problem that if someone chooses to seII their business, they could not necessarily get another license. Champion/Yeah, no, they could. Lehman/Yeah, they could because--- Champion/Because we're talking about land use--- Lehma~/Land use. Dilkes/But that's from a liquor license perspective. And ownership is paramount when you're talking about liquor license because what you're examining is the moral and character, ctc., of thc applicant, the person who's going to run the business. That's not what you look at from a land-use perspective. You look at the use of the property and whether that use is continuing. Kanner/Dec, I just--- Vanderhoef/So, you're saying that as long as Owner A sold it to Owner B, that use would be grand fathered in'? Lehman/Right. Dilkes/Il'thc use did not change. Vandcrhoc£/If the use did not change. So someone else would bc eligible to get a liquor license. Dilkcs/For land use, wc're not talking about thc Iiquor license. From a land-usc perspective, ownership is not the relevant issue in terms of grandfathering. Vanderhoel7 As long as it stays use. OK. Lehman/You can sell it for a shoe store, then the lines for use would be gone. Dilkes/Better keep your mind offthe liquor license. We're not talking liquor license. In t'act, we can't talk liquor license when we're talking land use. Vandcrhoc£/Well, that's what 1 was confused in here, and thcn if that is the scenario, I would say doing an ordinance by land use is probably not going to meet the purpose of why we're trying to do this in Iowa City. Lehman/Except that if we did it, wc would not have 15 bars that are going to open in the next ]his represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of'the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 25 three years because they would be over whatever limit we set and they would be unable to get to like they had from 62 to 67, the number of bars within a block of campus, per mile of campus. Vanderhoef/So, there isn't space to do it anymore. Dilkes/You're right, Dee. You're not talking, you're not going to affect the existing uses and the continuation of those uscs. You would be looking at affecting new bars. Pfab/So in cssence you're locking in what's there. Champion/Yes. Lehmmff But, through attrition, for example, if thc Fieldhouse Bar was sold for a pinball parlor, that use would be gone. And that would not be renewed unless they werc within the parameters of land use that the ordinance set. Pfab/How could a pinball machine ever afford to compete--- Champion/Well, he's not intcrestcd--- Pfab/No, no, I'm just saying--- Lehman/Connie, turn that down. Pfab/Where are you going to find a usc that's going to gcnerate more funds to that building owner than a bar? Champion/Well, then it can be a bar. Pfab/Well, it will be a bar for perpetuity. Kanncr/One of the questions to examine is how quickly will it change things and one can argue it might take too long, and that's what we have to discuss; that's what we're discussing. And another question along those lines I have and I'm going to try to pursue this, but docs anyone have a sense from an cconomic, economist point of view. What does it do, it gives a monopoly, essentially we're giving a monopoly--- Pfab/Right. Kanner/...to the current bar owners, which is good and bad, but do they deserve that? And I want to hear more discussion along those lines and what that means to have a monopoly there. Lchmal9 I think with the prescnt situation there's probably little or no danger in giving present bar owners a monopoly. But let's say we set the number at 40 average. By thc time you worked your way down to the 40, there would be a significant value in owning a business This l epresents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa Cily Com~cil Meeting of February 3. 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 26 that had the sale of alcohol as a permitted use, because if you went to sell that business, obviously there could bc a, thc cry for that business would be enhanced dramatically by the fact that tbere are no new licenses being issued and you're one of them. Champion/No, no (can't bear)--- Lehman/No new land uses being allowcd. No, I think you're right, that could be 25 or 30 years away, but there is, that is an issue. Champion/No, for thc liccnse--- Pfab/So, then how would you decide, if there were limited uses and let's just say from a wiId idea, that they're now worth $10,000 and they got to be $100,000, which is not possible, but not likely. OK, so at what point docs the City tax base change and how do you dctermine that? Lehman/It has nothing to do witb taxes. Pfab/Oh, yes, it does. Lebman/No, you're--- Pi:ab/Because that piece of property is worth a beck ora lot more because it's designated a land use as a, it's the zoning raises the value of that tremendously. Lehman/My suspicion is that that is the blue sky portion of the sale, that the real estate becomes the--- Champion/It's blue sky. Lehman/Yeah, I think it is. I can't imagine an incrcase--~ Pfab/Oh, so then there's no advantage to the City to do it. Champion/No, well, there is m the long mn to the City--~ Lehman/Except, well m the long run there might bc an advantage to restricting the number of bars, but find tbe advantage to limiting the land usc of(can't bear) of an area as the amount of-~- Pfab/See, ii'it increased thc ones that are there by a i~actor of 10, then the City could say, you know, that would bring in more revenue so maybe we ought to take a chance on it. But if we say that thc value of the real estate is in blue sky, because it's so valuable because you're never going to have any more competition, you're safe. I think this something that's done in other states, similar; 1 don't know if it's liked as a land use. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. I,ebruary 3. 2003 Council Work Session Page 27 O'Donnell/Wc're sitting here again trying to redefine what a restaurant and a bar is and that's a nightmarc. You know, we've determined now that if 50 percent of your business is alcohol, that you are a bar, didn't we? Miklo/That's question number 2; we're not there yet. (Laughter) O'DonnelI/Well, 1 know tbat, but l'mjust wondering how far we want to pursue this, and now we're talking about making this more complicated downtown to try to do business. It's getting, it's very close to having a palm pilot if you want to go downtown to get a drink. Lehman/I think you're right, Mike. 1 can also tell you that I'm not at all ashamed, it doesn't bother me one bit, to say that we got too many bars downtown, and I would like to do sometbing that would prevent more bars downtown. I'm not apologizing. O'Donnell/1 don't expect you to, Ernie. Champion/Let me bring up something clse. What we're doing witb all this alcohol business, you know, all this, that crazy ordinance we have, now talking about land use zoning, what wc're really talking about is trying to decrease the drinking downtown. And it seems to me, we can solve all of our problems if we just went to 21 bccause this is.just all bull. (Several talk) Champion/You know what our capital problem is--nobody has the ncrve to tackle thc problem. It's .just nonsense. O'Donnell/Last ycar we had--did I read 2600 OMVIs downtown? Lebman/Oh, undcragc--- O'Donncll/2600 underage drinking. Vanderhoef/So whatever we're doing, I don't care about PAULA's. Whatever we're doing appears to bo working. I mean, we're up, I forgot the percentage but it seemed like such a substantial percentage we were up. So what we're doing is working. Pfab/But how many are not'? O'Donnell/We're up fi'om like 1200 to 2600. Lebma~g No, no, Mike, the problem is--- (Laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 28 Lehman/...that we got 2200 pcoplc violating the law and if it was 21, you might not have had those people in there to start with. O'Donncll/And you know what, Emie, we have probably 100,000 kids a wcek going to the bars downtown and we arrest 2600 in one year. That's really--you know, you can't assume bccausc you're underage you're downtown doing (can't hear) something illegal. And I've just--I think we're getting into something here we really don't wm~t to spend an incredible amount of staff time. I just can't--- Miklo/There would be any .... PPab/My appointment is going to bc somewhat similar to what Connie said. Is the problem just to go to 21 and enforce the law and then that would take care ora lot of problems? Because it would be a lot less enticing to a person that was going to buy a bar if he knew, or he or she knew, the pcrson knew that they could only serve liquor to people ovcr 21--- Champion/ That's tile way it is now. O'Donncll/All you can do anyway, Irvin. Champion/It's not what--- Pfab/Well, how do thesc underage people bc caught for too high in alcohol content and thc only place they were in the last three or four hours was at a bar'? Now, maybe it's the water and maybe it's the air, I don't know. O'Donncll/Or mayhc it's a fake I.D. or maybe they drank at home, who knows? Wilbum/Connie, I asked that question that you raised ora friend and he was pointing out that what you're doing is put against some kind of long-term protection about a proliferation of bars in a concentrated area which looking at it that way, it makes sense. However, a future Council can undo that action, you know, if we were to put that into place. So, 1 guess you'd have to weigh that. Champion/I mean, this would make sense to me if this had bcen done 20 years ago. If we did-- O'Donnell/It does. Champion/If we didn't want the downtown to become an entertainment center, and that's what it bas become. And I personally don't think that's bad. And I think wc have a tremendous amount of young people coming to Iowa City for entertainment, and they're not all from Iowa City, and thcy're not all under 21. And, I mean, I'm not going to push 21, (can't hear) at this point it's not worth it. But I don't think it would hurt the bars downtown if it were at 21, because I think you would have even more young pcoplc coming from outside of Iowa City, who don't want to deal with a bunch of drunk college students for the entertainment. To mc, it's just, thc downtown bas become a large entertainmcnt Tlfis represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of thc Iowa City Council Mceting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 29 center (can't hear), but I don't necessarily think that's bad. And I would have, I know I was for this when we first talked about it, and I might still be for it, but I think it's, I just don't, 1 think we're trying to solve our problems the wrong way. I really do. Pfab/We're hoping it goes away. Champion/It's not going to go away. PPab/I know. Lehman/I don't think yon're the only one on the Council who--- Champion/ (can't hear) Anyway, we can keep looking at tbis. I think the bars downtown would love it. It would bc an asset to them to say I have--- Pfab/The bar. Champion/1 have the bar. I have a bar, which means if I were to sell my business, you can sell a lot of blue sky. And I think back to the time when I grew up in Chicago, you know, they had an absolute limited, not land use, but liquor licenses, and it came with the biggest wrap in Chicago. Tbcy eliminated it. People were selling liquor licenses. It was hundrcds of thousands of dollars and I'm hoping we're not going to get ourselves in thc same situation here where we have to pay somebody to get information on who's going to bc selling their bar, i£you want to open a bar. We are, those kind of regulations, I think we're all regulating to death, and I did support this (can't hear), and I know I said last weck I suppot~ted it, but the more I think about it, the more I think 1 was just going crazy here. I mean, I really have to wondcr. O'Donnell/Join the club. Cbampio~H Because we can do it, we're going to do it, but it's not going solve any problems. O'Donnell/And that brings up my point, Emie. You know this, wc've got a grcat deal of staff time on tbis and our time. Why don't we see if this is something we're really interested in? P~ab/Well, maybc let's look at it anothcr way. O'Donnell/I mean, I ask you again, Emie, why don't we see if this is something we're interested in? Pfab/Maybe look at it another way. How many pcople are willing to go to 21 ? Lehman/Well, is there interest on the part of the Council in discussing a 21 ordinance? Champion/Wcll, 1 would. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcript/on of thc Iowa City Council Meeting of Feblxlary 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 30 Lehman/1 would be willing to. Wilbum/Put it back on the table'? Lchmm~/Wc askcd five people who would discuss thc 21 ordinance. Pfab/[ think this may be the thing that's going to push the ones that are sitting on the fence, when yon look at this maze that we can get into and never get our, find our way out, by going down this alley. It might make looking at 21 a lot more, it might increase the attraction at some point or other. Champion/I mean I didn't want to bring it up. I don't think it is the right time to bring it up, but- Lchman/When is thc right time? Champion/I don't know. I'm not willing to deal with all this alcohol nonsense we're doing to try to get around the issue. Dilkcs/I think the question we have to ask now, I mcan, if there are five of you who want to talk 21, we can schedule that for another day. The question we have to answer right now is are there four of you who want to pursue this zoning angle, and if so, wc need to go through the questions that Bob has outlined. Lehman/May I suggest that we put the zoning thing on the shelf until we have our discussion on 21 ? I think that if wc address the 21 issue, we may not have reason to come back. Wilbum/It will have a more immediate effect on what's downtown than the long term this would would. Vanderhoeff It certainly would. Lehman/Is that, everybody agree with that? Champion/Yeah. Wilbum/Sure. Lebman/All right. Thank you, sir. Miklo/Makes my job easier. Lehmat¢ Don't spend any morc time on it. Champion/(can't hear) initial that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of Febn~ary 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Cotmcil Work Scssion Page 31 Pfab/Thauks for speaking up, Commie. Champion/I can't stand this guys. (Laughter) O'Donnell/Oh, what, l'd bring it up, but Emie wants the (can't hear). (Laughter) Pfab/It's just your personality, Connie. Lchman/I've had a timeout requested. Pfab/Arc we going to takc it out for ten? BREAK COUNCIL POLICY ON LOANS/GRANTS FOR HOUSING Wilbur~ ...Aud because it involves CDBG and I'm--I have a conflict ofintercst, Vanderhoef/Have a break. (Wilbum left room due to conflict of interest.) Nasby/In September thc Council the passed a housing policy for interest rates for CDBG and l:tome-funded projects and between Septcmbcr and when the policies came back to you in December, at the Dccember meeting therc were a couple of members of the Council that expressed an interest at looking at the interest rate policy for housing projccts, specifically as it rclated to home ownership activities. And so, what we did is we waitcd for thc application cycle to come in. Applications came in at the end of January so now wc want to address this question bctwecn now and when funding is awarded so we can give the applicants the right policy to pursue their projccts. In your packets, in the Couucil packets, you got a letter from Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship and Habitat for Hmnanity that outlined a couple of issues. In the information packet, I did a quick memo to you that laid out the policy and then referred to the Greater lowa City and Habitat letters, and I also came up with a possible option that could be put on thc table in the event that the Council wanted to make somc modifications in the policy. Basically, from Greater Iowa City and thc Habitat for Humanity perspective, the kcy really was affordability, and with the payments of our second mortgage by the homeowner we're looking at, what it would do to the homeowners, it would make them have to get a smaller first mortgage. So that would affcct the affordability for them long-term but also affect the amount of money that they can qualify for upfi'ont. So that was one of the keys. Another one of the keys in this was that what we want to do it talk about how to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeling of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 ( ouncil Work Session Page 32 maximizc private scctor involvement in projects and then also Council's policy was to get the money back and recycle it for future usc. So I was trying to balance a nmnber of those things with this. I think what, just as an example, what our currcnt policy, if someone bought a $30,000 lot and we had a second mortgage on it at tile 1 percent interest, that would generate us an annual payment of about $1,162, which is 97 bucks a month. So lha{ would be counted as revenue that we would be getting back into the City for reuse. Now, I also figured out interests and payment for the option that I've proposed here, which is to makc it payback tho end of the term, so it does not affect aflbrdability to the homcowner while they're paying off the first mortgage. So, basically we would be getting $39,000 oil that same lot, which would be the $30,000 lot plus I percent interest each year for up to 30 ycars so we'd gct $39,000. And if they had done the amorturize the loan that 1 had rcferrcd to earlier, the total of the payments would come up to somewhat less than $35,000. So you cai] sec there's a little give and takc herc, but the big differcnce for thc Council is we could bc getting money in the future versus getting an annual paymcnt. That's really the big difference in this. Lehman/Well, tile other difference is that annual payments, monthly payments of $97 a month with a reducing balancc each month, is significantly different than 1 percent simple interest on $30,000. Basically--- Nasby/The difference would be about $4,200 over a 30-year period. Lchman/But interest on $30,000, if you applied 1 percent and compounded over 30 years, it would be like $65,000 or $70,000 instead of a $9,000 amount. Nasby/Yes. Lehma~ff It really would be like $40,000. Nasby/Yeah. In this proposal that I had it was simple interest, not compounding. So that's why I got the $9,000 numbcr. Lehman/No, I figured that out. Nasby/OK. Yeah. Lchman/It wasn't real hard. Three times three is nine. Nasby/That's why I picked it. Champion/One of the things I think we're really intcrested in dropping was that for-profits should pay more intercst than nonprofits and homeowner affbrdability was gearing this. Is that the word'? O'Donnell/I think that, yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcriplion of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 33 Champion/And I don't want to (can't bear) to damage our not-for-profits, as far as creating affordability in doing thcir thing. If you were to compromise, if you talk to them, is that more suitable to them that that--- Nasby/I did talk to Greatcr Iowa City this afternoon and I talked to Brad Langguth, who is hcre representing Habitat, just this evening. In my conversation with Greater Iowa City, it would be something that they could work with. However, both organizations did say that thcy still would prefer a loan, or I'm sorry, a grant versus a loan. Lehman/Well, 1 would too--givc me the money instead of making me pay it back. Champion/Well, and that's with 1 percent interest? Nasby/Correct. Champion/So how do people fed about amending that to like a half percent? Lehman/Well, I think that your proposal has merit bccausc the front end ora mortgage is always thc tough part. And you look at inflation over a period of time and many times those ills heal tbemselvcs. The part that 1 guess that I would perhaps--I'm just thinking out Ioud-- but if30 years is a long, long time, 20 years probably would bejust as workable and it would start repayment; in fact, you could start the repayment at the end of 20 years, bring simple interest ttp to 20 and then beginning at the 20th year, compound it or pay it all at once. Either one, which gives anybody with a 20-year window to move into a bouse and start to own that house, probably would have no problem at thc end ot'20 year. Twenty ycars is a long time. Nasby/Yep. Thirty years--- Lchman/Thirty years is--- Nasby/Yeah, I used that term just because that was in your policy you had a not to exceed. But it could be a predctermined time, less than 30 years. Lehman/But that would be a significant benefit if yea went for 20 years, let it accmnulate for 20 years; at thc beginning of the 21 st year, either require repayment or start repayment schedule based on the purchase price of the whatever it happened to be, plus whatever intercst had accrued. Nasby/Right. Lehman/In this case, it'd be $6,000 on $30,000, so at the end of 20 years the repaymcnt would start bascd on $36,000. Nasby/So you could cithcr balloon it at the end o/'20 and pay us offer as you're suggesting, maybe take up a I O-year amoritizcd loan at that point. This represents only a reasonably accoratc transcription of the Iowa Cily Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 34 Lehman/I don't suppose we have any information that tells us the average length of time that someone stays in his borne. I mean, 1 think the 20 years exceeds by Par the average. Nasby/I can only relate you our experience with the five houses that we had on the Sycamore on South First Avcnue, we called them Sycamore View houscs. We had one on Rundell Street and one on 1109 Fifth Avenue, and I believe the Sycamorc View houses were put in place in '91, and I think all of those but one has turned over. Lebmard Yeah, see what I mean? Nasby/1109 has turned over twice, the Rundell housc has turned over, I tbink, two or three times. Lehman/Thirty years is a long t/mc. Vandcrhoef/So, tell me, if it's sold before thc 20 years, would therc be a per alta payment of interest when the house is sold? Nasby/They would pay us the principal plus any accrued interest up to that point. Lehman/That is corrcct. Vandcrhoef/Up to that point. Nasby/Yep. One year, three years, ten years. Lehman/But, it still, again it would be simple interest, not compounded interest--- Nasby/Correct. Lehman/...so at thc end of 20 years on a $30,000 lot, thc bill would be $36,000. Ifil xvere a compound interest, that bill in 20 years it would be over $60,000. Nasby/I'd have to figure it out, but--- Lehman/I mean it's a huge--- Nasby/It's a significant break. Pfab/I have a question, ls this, now, you said these houses, some of them, most of them, all of them turned over once, some of them tumed--- Nasby/All but one had turned. Pfab/OK. The majority turned over oncc. Now, does that fnnding fi-om the City stay with that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 35 housc if it goes to an eligible purchaser? Nasby/That is what we've donc in the past. We've come back to you and said the house is being sold to another low-income buyer and then we've rolled our assistance over. lfthe buyer either wasn't low~income or they didn't want to accept our silent second position, we'd have been paid Pfab/So, how--let's suppose a person stays in there 10 years, just for round numbers, and you say it's a 20- or 30-year mnortization-- Lehman/Well, he thought 30. I was suggesting that 20 might be a better number. Nasby/Not to exceed. Pfab/OK, all right, Iet's say 20. OK, now, there's 10 years left on that. Where does the new owuer, the new purchaser, where do they get in--- Nasby/l understand what you're talking about here. What we've done with some of our other homes, wc either bare started over because we have a schedule on some of other houses, wherc they build appreciation for cvery year you're in the bouse, you get a percentage of that. Pfab/OK. But forgivable loan? Nasby/No, it's just a, actually it's a resale provision, where they collect-- Vanderhoef/Equity. Nasby/...equity as the longer they stay in the market, they collect. What we've done with new pcoplc if it's within the first five years, we've let the new person come in and pick up that schedule with the other homeowner left off, but if it's beyond that we start them back at year 1 again. So, I would imagine with this, ifwc set a policy that had to be paid offat the end of the 20-year, that homcowncr would pick it up where the other one left ofl: Vandcrhoef/OK, so tell me, though, making the differencc between 30 years and 20 years, what docs that do to the monthly payment for the homeowner? And does that take him out of the affordability? Nasby/Well, I think Ernie's point is tbat their first mortgage will be paid down relatively significantly and then, so they'll have the ability to take out that second loan to pay us oftl Lehman/Right. Nasby/And just the time value of money that that payment that they're making on the first mortgage having bcen fixed lbr that long, they would then have an affordability to pay This represents only a rcasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of'February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Couucil Work Scssion Page 36 OURS. Lchmarff If you factor the 3 percent cost of living for 20 years, at thc end of 20 years, that $30,000 lot should have gone up to $48,000. The debt on that lot at thc end of 20 years is $2,600. So, I mean, it appears to mc it covers most of it covers most of the bases. It still is, by Par, far more afibrdable at $36,000 at the end of 20 years than it was at thc beginning at $30,000 if you factor in inflation. Nasby/Yeah, because this is at I percent. Vandcrhocf/You're getting rich on that. LchmaW Right. Nasby/Exactly. Lehman/1 mean, the affordability issue, I think, is addressed vcry well. If you take the first 20 years, accrued at I percent and makc no payments, at the end of 20 years, that lot is far more aftbrdable with thc interest added on than it was to start with. Nasby/I believe that's probably--that would be the case using today's market. Lehman/And that's only figuring at 3 percent cost of living, and i realize we've been thcre for the last few years, but historically, thc cost of living has gone significantly more than 3 percent. Kmmer/Ernie, I think that as you mention, thcre's turnover. The point--thc thing we have to look at is--affordable for this individual group, let's say Iowa Housing Fellowship, versus us getting money in a pool to put back out therc. That's what we're looking at. How do we rcconcile that kind of thing? And it seems to me thc conditional occupancy loan is thc best thing in the long temp. Even though it's decades down the road, when thcse stop being affordable, we'll get that money back and put into thc pool. I think right now some of the points made in the letters fi'om the Housing Fellowship and Habitat are well madc. For instance, the idea that it's hard to sell the loan on the secondary market when there's that lien that we'rc putting on there. I think thc way to go is to not have the necessity of an interest rate. That could be up to HCDC or the staff. Let's say it could be zero. And say that it's a conditional occupancy loan that after it ceases to be aflbrdable, as we define "affordable," which is usually 20 or 30 years, then we would, if they sell it at that time, we recover, we'd get our money back, the $30,000. To me, for example, a one-time intercst rate to figure in if you sell it too, that might work also. After it becomes affordable. I think what we need to allo~v it to be affordable because--- Lehman/Agree. Kanner/...it's not just for one £mnily selling it. It has to be kept aflbrdable. Thc land is usually a separate item fi-om the house, and I think we need to encourage what's going on currently This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription o1' the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 ¢7ouncil Work Session Page 37 as much as possible. Lehman/l agree with you, but I really, really have a problem in locking something up, locking it in al, take the $30,000 you brought in, a $30,000 lot today at tire end of 30 years, that $30,000 lot could very well bo a $50,000 or $60,000 lot. And adding on the interest after 20 years stiI1 makes it far more aflbrdable than it was today at $30,000. I mean, the affordability actually goes up, even if, though, it's accruing l percent for 20 years. Kanner/And again, then i would say don't collect until after the affordability period. Lehman/l think 20 years is adequate. I think it's more than adequate. Kanner/I think if they're going to continue to make it affordable, I think why not let it go the full amount of time, because we're also--- Lehman/ Because I do think we also need--- Kanner/(can't hear) ...until it finally sold. Lehman] I think we need to make the money go as far as we can make it go as a City as well, and if we can start getting some of that money back after 20 years, we have not significantly impacted affordability; in fact, it's more affordable than it was to start with, and now we start getting money back to make somebody else's lot more aflbrdable. Kanner/I'm not so sure. I have to think about that. Pfab/OK. Let me share a word of caution here. 1 can remember when the houses do~vn by Lakeside, that Skogman Development, what was the interest rate and what was the cost to getting into those? It seems to me it was like $400 or $500, you would get in and take, was it a 40-year FHA--right, but I'm concerned that we've lived in pretty fat times here the last few years. We may not see those. When you look out at the world scene and the nationai scene, these may not be continued. We may be working almost into a deflationary time, and we don't see wages an}avhere keeping up with the cost of living for most people. 1 mean, you're watching the wage earner becoming less equitable with the cost of living as time goes on and if you push the housing to the limit, you're going to cause problems. I think 1 would rather err on tho side cfa little less looking out for the City and a little bit more looking out for the individaal. Champion/Yeah, but we're not looking out for the City; we're looking out for future development of affordable housing. Pfab/Well, no, no, no, this is the City. I mean these are City funds. Lehman/Any Council, they're also, if the economic situation were to change drastically, any furore Council can change that from 20 to 30. They can take the 1 percent off after 29 years--you don't owe anything. They can give them tire ground. What we decide to do This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 38 here can be changed by any future Council. Kanner/Can we ask if one of the folks representing thc two organizations that wrote the Iettcrs, if they want to give a final pitch for one way or another? Lchmm9 1 don't care. Pt'ab/1 would appreciate it if we could. Champion/I would like to hear what they say. Kmmer/Does someone from one of the groups want to speak to the issue for a moment? Pfab/l don't pretend to bc an expert. Charles Eastham/I'm not quite sure what I want to say. Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm Charlie Eastham. I'm president of Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. Steve and I did discuss this this afternoon and I've discussed some of these issues with some of yott, also. I guess there might be a point. I think Stcve's recommendations seem to be workable. I understand Ernie's point, and actually, Ernie, I think, if you had provided mc a little education in that the notion is that if property values do appreciate, they may not appreciate at 3 percent a year actually. Lehtnan/No, no but long-term. Eastham/Right. But they may appreciate more than 1 percent per year, and I think your point is well taken that if that's the, if they do appreciate more than I percent a year and the interest are Iow (can't hear), then the land docs become more afibrdable over time. It might make some sense then to ask the homeowner to repay part of their, o four partnership. So, I think Steve's options are certainly worth looking at. I am very concerned about what will happen the first time we go in with one of these, some of these tenns to a lender and they start talking to their secondary buyers, if that, because being able to sell these Ioans on the secondary market is absolutely key to being able to do this project in the City, at least from the Housing Fellowship's programs' stand. So if we come in and we have problems on the secondary market, I may have to ask you to look at it again (can't hear) perhaps an emergency situation. Lehman/I understand, and well, no, no, and I don't think that we would ever put you in a situation where a rule that we have in place will prevent a project from being successful. You know, 1 don't think we'd ever want to do that. And l'd be more than glad to talk to, and obviously any of us, to talk to a banker. I think when you're talking that many years, you probably will, if you're talking five-year balloon or 10-year balloon or even a 15, 1 think you're lookiug at some problems. But I think if you're looking at a 20- or 30-year balloon, I would hope that wouldn't impact selling on the secondary tnarket. But we can sure find that out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 39 Eastham/OK. Kam~er/So, I'm not sure why you're in agreement--you're in agreemcnt with thc memo that Steve sent lbr COL for 30 years. That's what I read with the suggcstion from Stevc. Eastham/1 think the term, the period is, I tbink we could try 20 years, you know, if the Council majority's in favor of that. Thirty years might be--I'm avcry cautious person so 1 would prefer 30 years--to 1 percent simple interest. 1 think that's something to try. Lehman/But it also may give the Fellowsbip more cash at the end of 20 years; now we start getting some more money that goes out for more lots for affordable housing. Eastham/Yes, I agree with that. But I sense that given even a 2 percent inflation rate, which rcalistically, 1 don't think that would occurred over a 20-year period, I think it'd be more than that. To mc, it's a win-win for everyone: the person who buys the house, hc gets it paid down, he bought it in today's dollars, he's paying it in dollars 10 and I5 and 20 years from now, with inflationary dollars, as compared to today. The land stays at the value it was purchased at. It does increase, hopefully, at some rate during that period of time. The interest is at simple interest; and it seems to me that that would be a win-win. Vandcrhoef/I'd like to hear from--Brad is here who represents some banking--that he might have some thoughts on the secondary market. O'Donnell/Oh, good. Lehman/Make sure the rccorder's on here. (Laughter) Langguth/Tbank you. I'm Brad Langguth, and thank you for letting me speak here. Actually I'm here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, but your answer--I don't know the exact answer on the secondary market--but my guess is it would be somewhat difficult, actually, to make that work. 1 think they might be limited a little bit to some of the in-house products that our local financial iustitutions provide. But as far as a subordination idea came up, I think we'd sure try to work with any applicant ifhe were so moved to do that subordination aud his homes are refinanced. I'm not familiar exactly with what their situation but I would assume that they're doing like many other homeowners have done and tricd to get a lower first-mortgage interest rate, and--- Lehman/Sure. Langguth/...so lots of that has happened here in the last few years. But I want--if I could--I'd like to visit a little bit about Habitat. We have used your grants and very successfully. 1 think we purchased niuc lots in the past with the funds. Habitat is a little bit unique iu that we are actually the lcndcr to the families that we provide these funds to. And we serve a population that's at 25 to 50 percent of thc median income in our area. And thc othcr This represents only a reasonably accurate transcript/on of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 ( ouncil Work Session Page 40 unique tbing is that the Habitat loan is at zero percent intcrest. We only are allocating the cost of the actual materials that are requircd to be put into the borne. So, in average, our homcs ovcr the past couple of years have becn about $50,000. And we do usc a 20-year amortization. That's prctty easy to figure because it's.just a declining--now it's over 24 months. The length--1 appreciate us even being able to apply for these funds, because they truly make land affordable in this municipality. As you know, it's really difficult to find any land to build on and our mission is obviously to work with folks that want to be homeowners. These are folks that will pay taxes on an accessed value that's in multiples at what they're paying it back to Habitat. The neat thing about Habitat funds is that all of those funds are rccyclcd. Every dollar that we receive back, wc reinvest in new homes tbat are built, and right now the repayment on our existing homes pays that. But back to your exact discussion herc. I need to find out--it's something I haven't done before tonight--if International will allow us actually to do something like this with a grant that wc pay interest on. And l'm not able to answer that question herc tonight, i do want to say though, you'rc probably right, thc first, well, we've been building homes for eight years and wc have 23 homes now occupicd, and wc have not had any turnover. Now, mainly that's because it's such a remarkable program that thc folks would be somewhat silly to consider moving, but the first 20 years they have that home paid off--that's thc amortization we usc--and then assuming wc would do your grant repa3qncnt at that point in time, it's ahnost like paying for the house again, which is what interest is all about. Again, the reason we applied for the fi~nds is to make the land cost in lowa City affordable, and we'll .just do our best to try to work with whatever you decide to do. I would like to find out tomorrow before your meeting exactly what guidelines and regulations we have to abide by for the international level and I hope that it's not a problem to pay interest, because we do not--- Lcbman/This isn't an agenda itcm for tomorrow night. Langguth/OK, very good. Vanderhoef/So you have time. Langguth/Very good, vcry good. Lehman/It's rcally, it's obviously something that 1 think we would like to put some thought into. We'd like to do something; l would like to do something. LangguthJ I understand what the City wants to do because you're trying to recycle these funds .just like we do with every house we built. Lehman/We'd lovc to after 20 ycars--you give us back the $30,000, we give it right back to you, buy another house. Langguth/Exactly. TAPE 03-15, SIDE ONE This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4l Kanner/I guess thc difl'crence betxveen you and the Fellowship is that you sell thc laud to the homeowucr; they mostly kcep it as a land trust, ls that correct? Laugguth/I'm not Pamiliar with them. Lehman/That's right. Kanner/How docs that figure in, Steven, to the equation, the land trust versus the selling the land? Nasby/Charlic and I talked about that earlier today. They essentially would be thc owners. So it would be their name, Greater Iowa City's name, on the lieu. So at the end of the 20- or 30-year pcriod, that Fellowship would thcn purchase the property, aud they could either have it in their name or thcy could sell it to the homebuycr. They could ask a future Council to roll it over, that there would be some options at that point. In Habitat's case, the homeowner, their name would be on that loan, that then would start at that 21st year or thereabouts, and then they'd amortize out to purchase the land that way. Pfab/Steve, but there's another point here. The persou with Habitat, they get the appreciation of the value of the lot. Sec, where the other ouc, the homeowner doesn't get that appreciation. See, so I mean--- Vanderhoeff Fellowship doesn't. Pfab/Yeah, I mean, well, it, whatcver it is. But there's something else I'm going to speak out of turn here just a second. I think also something about Habitat, what Habitat does is that they go out and collect money for a home to be built and charge for the material. In some far-offdistant land, they also get to build two or three more houses at ridiculously low prices, as far as we're concerned, but I know people who worked ou them and these houses are--they're houscs for families that would never have them. So, 1 mean, there's a lot more than meets the eye here. I know my sister-in-law helped build a house in Honduras or someplace, and I just commend what they do. I mean, I can't be supportive enough of them, if anything that was (can't hear) them up, I would do that. Laugguth/Something I did waut to qualify also is we do place a covenant on the land so that if there is a transfer of the home, the future sales must be to families that are less than 80 percent of the median income. So, it would stay somewhat tied to your original purpose to providiug the funds. It isn't completely--- Vanderhoef/It's provisional occupancy. P fab/I have a question. We arc going through and helping families refinance houscs. How nluch different werc those conditions than what we're proposing now? Lchman/Well, we don't help refinance, do we--it's to buy it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeti~g of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 42 Pi~ab/No, no. Wcll, wc help them buy it. But by giving them forgivable loans--- Lehman/Down paymcnt. Pfab/...down paymcnt, now what wcre thc conditions of those? Lehman/Well, they're second mortgagcs on the property. Pfab/But were they at interest? Nasby/The down payment assistance, that program's changed a couple oftimcs. I bclieve we do have an interest charge with it. P fab/I f we what? Nasby/We do have an interest charge with it. Lehman/I think it's more than I percent. Nasby/1 would like to believc the program, the down payment assistancc program, was 3 percent at one time. Lehman/Yeah, thrce times the--- PPab/Is that on an ongoing basis? Or on an amortized basis? Nasby/They were paying us 3 percent for interest per year and thcy would have to pay us that interest, so if someone had a $5,000 down payment assistance loan, they would give tis a $150 check for the first 10 years; after that then there were no more interest payments. But with our expcrience, the houses would turnover, so--- Pfab/OK, what I--- Nasby/That was a lender thing, we had to put that limit on thc interest for the lender so they could sell it on the secondary market. Pfab/Before I move, I'm comfortable to move forward here, I ~vould like to say pick out the 10 previous homes that we worked through, that we refinanced, and just tell us what the 10 or 15 something like that, what were the actual beginning--these are success stories. Lehman/They are, but we'rc dealing with two very different programs, with lowa City Housing Fellowship and with Habitat for Humanity. PlUmb/No, no, no, I'm saying--by helping people with down payment and low interest, we're helping renters bccome owners. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. Febrnary 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 43 Lchman/That's right. Pfab/And more stable citizens. So what were the conditions under which this money, how we helped, assisted these people? Were they grants, forgivable lomas, lower interest, secondary, second mortgages, or what? Lehman/I think thcy're all second mortgages. Nasby/They'rc all sccond mortgages. We are up practically out of down payment assistance money so wc havc reapplied for down payment assistance money for this next cycle. And wo will meet the interest rate provision that the Council has passed; ~ve're charging 1 percent, so. Pfab/Is that going to be much different than say--- Nasby/It's going to bc the same. Well, we submitted the application--- Pfab/No, but 1 mean as it was that wc're--- Nasby/Well, yes, because we're talking about home ownership and that would be home bettcnnent. Pfab/OK, so who pays the, is that an extra burden that I'm asking you to do to take the last 10 and just say, well, when did they start, what were the, I don't necd names, just how did it work? Because thcse arc success stories when we help these people refinance, I mean--- Lehman/Well, they're not refinancing. But xve're dealing with a whole different situation ~vhere Iowa City Housing Fellowship does not sell the land; they own the land. Habitat for Hmnanity is a totally different situation. So how our down payment assistance program works is not really going to be rclevant to these two. I would prefer to do a little visiting on this one before we come up with--I mean, i think we're going to come up with somcthing that's going to work OK. I don't think we've said anything tonight that all of us can't livc with if we need to. But I'd likc to do a little checking. Pl~ab/Well, 1 would too. Lehman/And this isn't something that we have to know tonight, is it? Champion/Fairly soon. Nasby/Fairly soon, bccause HCDC will be considering their application funding around starting on February 20th. Lehman/In other words, you'd like to know by a week from, by two weeks from tonight? This represents only a reasonably accurate trm~scription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 44 Pfi~b/By our next Council meeting, you'd like some information, is that--when is it? Nasby/She said the 18th is tho next Council meeting. O'Donnell/I don't expect (can't hear) Pfab/So if we come to some dccisiou by next Council meeting, will that work for evcrybody? Lehman/Two wceks from tonight, we'll, can we--- Kanncr/Well, 1 didn't hear any opposition from either of these folks and they were the main, pcople writing tiao main concern, and 1 think we should see if peoplc would accept 20 years at 1 percent. Champion/Well, Habitat didn't know if they could do that. Lehman/I want to be sure that works. I like, it's an attractive concept for me, but I don't know that it will work. if it will work, I think it would be to their advantage and to the City's advantage and to those folks who we're trying to help. But therc may be things I don't know, I think. Nasby/Both of them had indicated that they would be willing to give it a try and if we come up with an obstacle, as Charlie mentioned, if we can't sell it on the secondary market, we'll come back. Lehman/All right, then do we xvant to decidejust to do that? Champion/Yeah, let's do it. Let's try it. Vandcrhocf/Lct's go ahcad and put--- Lehman/All right, let's do it. Champion/If it doesn't work, you have to come back? Lehman/Simple intcrest for the first 20 years; at thc end of 20 years the payments would start on the principal and interest. And if we have to change that, so be it, we'll change it. O'Donnell/Sounds good. Vanderhoef/And we may find out some things before we pass this, but ifwc havc it on for the 18th, we'll--- Pfab/You just did--- Lehman/Well, wejust did it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 45 Pl~ab/A point of, just a point of confirmation, now you're saying simple interest. Now, is that payable once a year or at the end? Lehman/No, there's no interest payable until the end of 20 years. Pt~ab/OK. And then what, then you have a--- Lehma[ff A $26,000 loan that you make annual payments on at 1 percent. PPab/OK. I have no problem with that. Lehma~ff Or you can pay it off. Nasby/Or you can pay it off. O'Donnell/It should be, yeah. Lehman/All right. We did it. Are we OK with that? Nasby/I will put that into action. Thank you. Lehman/Thank you. OK, do we have--- Champion/Wait a minute. I have another question. Just remind me. What are we doing for interest on for-profit? Vanderhoef/Three percent. Lehman/Three, I think it is. Vanderhoef/No, no, cxcuse me, 2 points below prime. Champion/OK. Atkins/Steve, they need you. Lehman/I think it's (can't hear) to prime. Vanderhoef/Got it. Champion/We did talk about--- Lehman/Profits are 2 percent below prime interest? Nasby/No, ycah, you didn't change any of the (can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 46 Lehman/I know, but that's what we were charging. Nasby/Two points under prime; I believe the rate's 2.25. Lehman/OK. O'Donnell/OK. Vanderhoef/I was beginning to wonder if we ought to say, and no lower. Kanner/Yeah, it's going to be lower than zero percent. (Laughter) Pfab/Yeah, but how arc we going to pay them to tal(e it? Kanner/Actually, it's going to bc lower than, if we say I percent for nonprofit, that could vcry well be higher than the for-profit. We ought to--- Lchmm]J If we have to deal with that, we can--- Nasby/Again, ~ve can address these things as they come up. Lehman/If that comes up, we'll deal with it. Kanner/Prime is gctting--- Vanderhoef/It should never go below 1 percent. Nasby/No. Vanderhoeff And that's the statement I had a conversation with--- PPab/But you're going to have a conflict of interest here awful soon. Vanderhoef/Well, Ict me finish. Pfab/I'm sorry. Vanderhoef/We have our statement here. Where is it? Champion/We're going to end up giving them the money and then they (can't hear) on thc progress to do it. Vanderhoef/Oh, I can't find it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 47 Kanner/What, are you looking for the mcmo, Dee? Vanderhoeff Yeah. Anyxvay, ottr policy presently is 2 percent, 2 points lower than prime, and we should have an addition onto that "and ncver to go below" whatever we choose: 1.5 or 2 percent, because we're getting down thcre. Lehman/Well, we'll wait, 1 don't know if'that wilI ever really--- Vandcrhocf/Well, it--- Kanner/It could happen. Vanderhoc£/...it's 2 in the water right now. Nasby/Actually, wc are into structure this cycle (can't hear) for the whole year is set at 2.25, because we set it as of January 1st, the whole year. Kanner/2.25 is the Iow, is prime minus 2? Nasby/Correct. Pfab/I would say if we put a floor in it, we also should put a cap on it. Vanderhoef/No. PI~ab/What happens ifwc turn around and there's interest at 12 percent? Champion/Well, you know what, that's--- Pfab/You've lived through it. Champion/Well, surc I did--- Vanderhoe£/And a policy will be made at that point, but i'm more concerned--- Pr:ab/ But, sce, so, what I'm saying to you, Dec, if you want a floor, il'you guys want a floor, also put acap on it. You know i£you--- Vanderhoef/The cap would be 2 points below and it was adjusted at that point. Pr:ab/That is not a cap. That's a (can't hear) Champim~J That's right. Pfab/So, if you go 4, 10, 20. if you want to put a cap on the bottom, put a cap on the top, too. i This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 48 think that's only fair. Champion/You don't mean that, Irvin. Vanderhoef/I'm not intcrestcd m that. Pfab/1 know--- Vauderhoef/But a floor to be sure that it never goes below 2, as long as we've got a I percent for nonprofits. Nasby/l'm sure we will revisit tbis in future Council meetings. Lehman/It xvould seem to me the policy we have is working. If we rend the situation, we have to deal with that issue, wc can deal with it. Nasby/Absolutely. Lehman/OK. Thank you. COUNCIL TIME Kauner/A couple things. I'm planniug to go to the Legislative Day. I have to turn in my notice to Marian and thc deadline is February 5th for early registration. It's next Wednesday the I2th. I was wondering il' anyone else is going, if we can share a vehicle. Lehman/Sure. Kanner/You leaving in the morning? Lehman/Yeah. In fact, we'll be leaving, I think--- Vandcrhoef/What time arc we leaving? Lehman/Well, we'll probably leave here no later than 7:30. I think we need to be there at 9:30, right? Wilbum/Yeah. Lehman/And it's two hours, So. Kanner/Ali right, I'm in. O'Donnell/It should be interesting conversation. That's what it's about. Wilbum/Sum. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3. 2003 Council Work Session Page 49 Lehman/No, that's--you're--- Kanner/You're going to stay for the whole day of activities? Lehman/Well, I will be rctuming no later than 5:00, 4:30 or 5:00. But I think tiao activities for the day appear to be over with by 4:00 or so. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. So you can got back over to the hotel because they bus us over from the hotcl to the capitol so we don't ail have to--- Lehman/ We're not driving to thc hotel, to the capitol and parking? I'm with you, babe, whatever you say. (Laughtcr) Lehman/At least you'd be back in Iowa City by, i would think, no later than 7:00. O'Donnell/Evcrybody is going? Kanner/ Yeah. .lust as long, yeah, we stay for all the events, l'm--- Lchman/I will need to leave no later than 4:30. I have; OK, anything else for Council Time? Kanncr/Just wanted to mention. I was going to ask Dale, actually, who was chosen for the, to do the study for public power, and I notice an article we have which is going to be in our packet, but it's in thc Cityscapc. i submitted it for our next packet. And Bob Latham and Associates, was chosen. Pfab/An average (can't hear) Kanner/Has been chosen and now it's going to come back to us and we need to anticipate bringing it up for approval. Helling/At your mceling two weeks from tomorrow night, you would havc something, a rcsolution for approval. 1 am not sure if they completed negotiating the agreement with Latham or not. But that was their, he xvas thc prefcrred oue. We didn't have all the figures in time to get anything to you for this meeting. The league, or I mean, IMU wants it by the 21st. Your next meeting is the 18th, so wc should be able to do that. Kanner/Can wc get the info as for the, in our info packet first? Hclling/That was my inteot to gct you something this week, i£1 have it. Kanner/OK. Groat. This represents only a reasonably accuratc transcription of the Iowa City Cottncil Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 50 Lehman/This is an agreement that will have been rcached with all of the (can't hear). A number of different cities are going in on this. A nnmber of people are doing it. Helling/Right. Somewhere--I 5 to 18 possible participants. Lehman/Bnt my position is that that's an agreement between 15 or 18 people, there probably is not a great dcal of latitude thut we have over the .... too. The rcst of them don't want to, I imagine their contract --- Hellmg/Yeah, it is a contract. Yeah, we can talk more about it if you want when it comes up to you. But I think at this point and particularly if it's Latham that's going to do it, because they're an Iowa company m~d they're very familiar, that you probably want to spend the least amount to do thc basic feasibility study, get the basic number first; they arc readily available to then refine that in any way you want to refine it in terms of energy savings, idea, that sort of thing. Kanner/OK. Lehman/Anything else? Champion/Wcll, l just, 1'11 address this to Steve, and I was going to, I was walking down the alley--we've been talking about how filthy the alleys are. And Jim Clark's boys were out there. They swept the whole alley, got every bit of trash and gravel, and they gave most of--I mean, a Iot of times (can't hear) but the alley hasn't been that clean since (can't hear). Lehman/OK. Any other? We arc mecting a week from tonight, 6:30 at the Airport, in the Airport terminal building, second floor, with the Airport Commission. If there are any issues that you really want to be sure to get on thc Agenda, please tell Stcve by Wednesday or Thursday at the very latest, because 1 really think it would be helpful for this meeting that the Airport know some of the things we want to talk about and give them a heads-up for the weekend so they can respond to some of our conccrns. Karr/Stcve? Just to clarif~v--you want this in this week's packet? Atkins/Oh, ycah. Dilkcs/So it would be before 9:00 a.m. Thursday. Atkins/OK. 9:00 a.m. Thursday. Lehman/But I'm thinking that there are specific issues that we would like the Airport--- Dilkcs/I just didn't want anyone disappointed if they callcd at 1:00. l,chman/...we need to make sure the Airport Commission gets those. l'his represents only a reasonably accurate transcription oflhe Iowa City Council Meeting of February 3, 2003. February 3, 2003 Council Work Session Page 51 Atkins/Or the public, too. Champion/At 6:30. Lehman/6:30. Ail right. That everything? Seven o'clock tomorrow night, guys, gals. This represenls only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeling of February 3, 2003.