Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-19 Transcription#3 ITEM 3. COMMUNITY COMMENT. Page 1 Bailey: This is a time for people who, um, wish to address the Council on items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you wish to speak to an item that is not on tonight's agenda, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Dvorsky: My name is Melvin Dvorsky. I live at (noise on mic). I'd like to address the Council this evening on a matter concerning the moratorium on building, uh, more...more bars here in Iowa City. Bailey: Melvin, this is later in the agenda, in Planning and Zoning, I believe. So, if you could speak at that time, that would be helpful.. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to address the Council? Ford: Hi, my name is Liz Ford. I'm with Friends of the Animal Center Foundation, um, and we support the Iowa City Animal Care and Adoption Center, and um, I think that, um, you got a letter from the Foundation, uh, telling you a little bit more about what we do, so I'm not going to go into that. Um, but...what I did want to tell you is that while we're still waiting for, um, the final word from FEMA, and still hopeful that it's going to be a yes, um, we're sort of starting to take some steps and looking at where, you know, where to locate the shelter, and the Director of Animal Services, Misha Goodman, and I met with, um, or we went to the, um, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting last week, and we gave to them, um, just a really brief description of some ideas that we had about possibly locating the new animal shelter we're hoping to build for our city in a park area, and I have copies for you guys tonight, um, I made eight copies to give to you, so I'll hand that over. Um, the Foundation wants to, um, really wants to locate the animal shelter in a park type area. We really think it would benefit the City in many ways. Um, the animals, the people that care for them, and the people that use our recreation in the parks, um, we're hoping that the City will also be, um, happy to promote that too, and we'd like to ask Council to support that. So...um, I'm going to hand this over, and thank you. Bailey: Thanks, Liz. Fidelis: My name's Libris Fidelis. I just have a brief complaint. Um, as you know, there are parking structures throughout the city. There are, uh, rental apartments that are next to these structures. Uh, when people park their cars or even when they're not even quite at their car, they could be a couple floors away and they push their automatic, uh, buttons to unlock their cars, their headlights come on. These headlights are often times coming on bright, and with these new halogen headlights, they're much brighter than the older headlights were. Um, the way that the parking structures are made, these headlights shine directly across the street. Now I live at 320 S. Dubuque Street at Capitol House Apartments, and I live on the fourth floor, and when people come in the parking structure, get in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #3 Page 2 their cars, or even when they pull in and stop and shut their engines off, the lights are on for a certain amount of time. These lights shine right directly into the apartments, and when I'm using my computer, the only place I can put my computer so that in the afternoon when the sun comes in I can see my screen is facing the window, and when these lights come on at night, they're very bright, and I would like to see a barrier of some sort that will prevent headlights from cars shining across the street into these apartments, because they go directly into the windows. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Sanders: Good evening. My name's Gary Sanders, and in one of those funny coincidences about life, uh, Sunday the Des Moines Register, front page, had an article about the FBI doing a surreptitious infiltration of a peace group in the city before the Republic National Convention. And then the next day, I was substitute teaching at City High School in Randy Brown's American Studies class, and we were looking through this book. This is the particular book we were using, and we happened to be in the chapter on Richard Nixon. And I just want to read you a sentence. It says...it says to silence anti-war and civil rights protestors and other critics, the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Richard Nixon and Attorney General John Mitchell illegally tapped phones and broke into homes and offices, searching for information to embarrass and discredit them. In addition, undercover FBI agents joined the ranks of SDS and African-American militant groups such as the Black Panthers. In some cases the agents deliberately set up violent clashes between these groups and the police. I really, in my naive, even though I knew the Bush administration had sunk pretty low did not realize that they were authorizing spying, uh, domestic surveillance of groups, especially...I know some of these folks here, and this is not a dangerous group. Uh, yes, they were...they publicly stated in Meeting Room A of the Library that they wanted to go up to the Republican National Convention and do some blockading of streets. Illegal activity -yes. Violent activity - no. I would like, therefore, ask the City Council to consider, as I wrote to you, a resolution stating an opinion on this sort of activity by the federal government in this town, but I realized before that you would need an opinion from the City Attorney. So I would, therefore, ask the City and County Attorneys to read the entire 800-page document, um, unredacted if possible, and to report to you and the city whether this group actually posed any sort of threat. I would also like to know how much money the federal government spent on this infiltration by two undercover agents, and I would like further that the City and County Attorneys draw up a response, saying how should the City and County react to federal law enforcement agencies in the particular of this case, of spying on anti-war groups or other domestic groups, and in general how to interact with the federal government and law enforcement. And my...my long- term goal in maybe six months from now is that the City Council would pass a resolution saying they do not approve of the federal government doing infiltration of peaceful groups in this city. Thank you very much. (applause in background) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #3 Page 3 Bailey: Would you please hold the applause! This is not a performance. It's a meeting. Anybody else wishing to speak at public comment? Okay. We'll move on to Planning and Zoning items. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #4 Page 4 ITEM 4. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 23.25 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE 400 - 500 BLOCKS OF N. VAN BUREN STREET, THE 300 - 500 BLOCKS OF N. GILBERT STREET, THE 300 - 700 BLOCKS OF N. LINN STREET, THE 200 - 300 BLOCKS OF RONALDS STREET, THE 200 - 300 BLOCKS OF CHURCH STREET, THE 200 - 500 BLOCKS OF FAIRCHILD STREET, AND 200 - 400 BLOCKS OF DAVENPORT STREET FROM NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION RESIDENTIAL (RNS-12) ZONE TO HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY/ NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION RESIDENTIAL (OHD/RNS-12) ZONE AND FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) ZONE TO HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY/MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OHD/RS-8) ZONE. (REZ09-00001) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Wright: Move second consideration. Bailey: Moved by Wright. Correia: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Correia. Discussion? Uh, this would be a good time to disclose any ex-parte communications on this matter. Hayek: None other than, last night at our work session, uh, I was asking Mike Wright about getting support for looking at the historic preservation regulations, outside of this, uh, particular vote, and he asked if I was, uh, consistent in my position from the last meeting, and I said I was (mumbled) Bailey: Okay, anyone else? Okay, any further discussion? I know that the public hearing is closed. We had extensive, um, discussion last time. If there are new items to introduce, we would be willing to hear those, but um, if nothing new need be said (mumbled) Okay, roll call. Item... Hayek: This is a good opportunity, Madame Mayor, if I can just inform the public that, uh, at the last meeting I mentioned the idea of having the Council work with the Historic Preservation Commission to examine our regulations, with a view toward, uh, assessing whether they might be improved in terms of respecting the realities of modern day living and environmental concerns, and energy efficiency concerns of homeowners, and there is that interest, and last night at our Council meeting we decided to take a look at that, and uh, that doesn't impact the vote This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #4 Page 5 tonight whatsoever, but I think, uh, we'll have an opportunity at times to go through that exercise, and it's on our to-do list, and we will be tackling that. Bailey: Okay. Item carries 6-1, O'Donnell voting in the negative. Wilburn: Excuse me, Madame Mayor, if I may. Uh, did we get new correspondence from the group, uh, the...the...public, did she hand us something new? Bailey: Tonight? Wilburn: Yeah. I thought she... Wright: From the Neighborhood Association? Wilburn: Oh, from the Animal...group? Bailey: I mean, we haven't (several talking) Voparil: Yes, from the animal group. Wilburn: Okay, move to accept correspondence. Voparil: Yes. Bailey: Motion by Wilburn to accept correspondence. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. All those in favor say aye. Voparil: Also I have correspondence to accept under item 4.a., that we just voted on...that you just voted on. Bailey: Okay. Hayek: Move to accept. Wilburn: Second. Bailey: Moved by Hayek, seconded by Wilburn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #4 Page 6 ITEM 4. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND A USE CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS AND ALCOHOL SALES-ORIENTED RETAIL USES AND ESTABLISHING MINIMUM SPACING REQUIREMENTNS FOR DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND FOR ALCOHOL-SALES ORIENTED RETAIL USES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2), CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-S), AND CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB-10) ZONES. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move second consideration. Correia: Second. Bailey: Moved by Champion, seconded by Correia. Discussion? Melvin, this is the time that you.. . Dvorsky: Thank you. I'd like to recommend to the City Council that a moratorium be put on any more liquor licenses and to any more bar establishments in this town. I think that they are way too many, and with all the fights and, uh, problems we've had within the last six months, uh, something has to be done, cause we've got to consider the safety of our, uh, elderly and senior citizens also. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Bailey: Thank you, Melvin. O'Donnell: Thanks, Melvin. Bailey: Further discussion? Braverman: Uh, I'm Jody Braverman from Iowa City. Uh, I believe that the proposed, uh, zoning change with regards to drinking establishments is too restrictive. iJh, I've spoken with each of the City Council Members individually or left voicemail messages for the City Council Members individually to talk about this. I think that the plan to limit by distance the number of facilities that provide liquor by the drink, based on hours of operation in any sector of the city would be better if it was changed to percentage of sales. We've initiated discussions, uh, ourselves as a real estate developer and uh, and a contractor, uh, with the operator of a couple of ethnic restaurants in Johnson County to open a third restaurant in the Old Towne Village area, uh, we have now also talked with somebody who would be opening a potential bar in that area, uh, yet the proposed zoning change may preclude the openings of these types of establishments because of restrictions This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #4 Page 7 based on hours of operation, and their proximity to Blackstone, which is an upscale, contemporary, fine dining site. Neither our restaurant prospect, nor Blackstone, would have the majority of its sales ion alcohol, yet under the proposed zoning, only one of the two restaurants could have a liquor license and operate past midnight. Um, the root problem with drinking is downtown Iowa City. And that's where your efforts should be, uh, should be, uh, concentrated. While we applaud the sentiment, and certainly encourage the City Council to do everything in its power to deal with both the underage drinking problem and the overall binge drinking culture, including without limitation, raising the bar admission age to 21, I don't believe that limiting the proximity of restaurants with liquor licenses will do anything other than push decent restaurant operators who wish to enhance a patron's dining experience with the availability of adult beverages. The system...the systemic problem is downtown, and you should focus your efforts in that area. Uh, the solution must be downtown. The problem is not the newer sections of town. The problem is not the outlying sections of town. Certainly there is an occasional rogue operator elsewhere that must be dealt with on an individual basis, and you certainly have the power to do that by the...with the appropriate authorities. Um, we shouldn't be a community that rolls up, um, the sidewalks at midnight, uh, we're a cosmopolitan city of letters and literature and culture, and quaffing an adult beverage beyond bewitching hour with a friend in a comfortable neighborhood commercial setting, uh, should be acceptable. Um, I understand that there was, uh, in the, uh...Planning and Zoning Commission there was a vote to amend to 250 feet instead of the 500 feet, which is in the current regulation. That vote failed on a 3 to 3 vote, so there's certainly considerable sentiment in that regard, as well. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Any further discussion? Fidelis: I'm Libris Fidelis. I live downtown. Uh, just like to~ make the comment that I think, you know, it's been quite adequately discussed in the last, uh, Council meeting, and also the Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, the pros and the cons. I'd just like to say that I think that the present consideration is more than generous. I was actually disappointed that the 1,000-foot separation was not approved. But when you stop and think about another issue, and that's parking, if you have a restaurant that, um, attracts patrons who wish to imbibe alcoholic beverages, that is an attraction which brings a parking problem. That brings more people to the downtown area. So I think that the present consideration is more than generous. Bailey: Thank you. Further discussion? Among Council? Correia: What's compelling to me is the research that was shared with us from University Student Health, or Health Iowa group, um, that looked at just the block level, um, increasing the density of alcohol permits or whatever terminology is, um, increases crime and other negative neighborhood-based impacts, um, and I think that it's more fair to have it citywide. It...the...have, don't have to worry about This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #4 Page 8 down the road having to deal with a potential, um, new area where there...where we're having issues related to alcohol density. So I don't have any, um, problems supporting the ordinance as it...as it's presented. O'Donnell: I didn't support this last time, and I'm not going to support it tonight. I think it goes beyond what we were trying to accomplish. Um, I think it's good for new development, but we certainly can't compare Blackstone's to a downtown bar that holds 2,000 kids. We just can't do that. I think we missed an opportunity to, um, open more fine restaurants that...where the idea isn't to go in and drink all night. So I...I will continue not to support this. Wright: Well, I will continue to support this, because fine restaurants can open, if they don't make it the opportunity to drink all night. It's just a matter of having them close up at midnight (mumbled) that shouldn't inhibit a lot of restaurants from coming in. I think what this will do is prohibit, uh, higher concentration of bars popping up elsewhere in town. I think there's actually a fairly realistic possibility that that could happen, uh, we certainly don't want that to happen, and uh, wherever it happens to the other areas of town are much closer to residential sections than the downtown block is, and I think we need to be cognizant of that, um, I think this 500-foot, uh, distance regulation is pretty reasonable. Champion: The restaurants were a concern of mine, but I talked to several restaurant owners and they didn't see a problem with it, because they said 99% of restaurants are not open after midnight, and they wouldn't hesitate to open a restaurant, and I think open it next to a bar. So I'm going to support this. Wilburn: Couple points that I would like to add, um, I was one when the multiple times that the Council has considered a 21-ordinance, this is related to the issue downtown, that um, I was less willing to consider some type of zoning approach. Uh, but um, the, uh, Councils past have not been willing to support a 21-ordinance, in addition to, uh, some supports in the community. Um, (mumbled) the establishments wish to come forward and change their mind related to 21-ordinance, then I would be willing to reconsider, um, a zoning approach. Um, but until that happens, I'm willing to go forward with this. I think the information related to, um, the overall number of, uh, liquor licenses in the community having an impact on the broad community that was presented by, um, the Health Iowa group, uh, is compelling, and I think we have some, um, we have some experience in the County, uh, in North Liberty in particular, related to an establishment not typically where students are that had some issues a few years ago, in terms of the noise that...that, uh, you know, a...a bar, bar/restaurant so near a, uh, a neighborhood, um, a neighborhood can raise some issues in terms of, uh, the noise and the...the volume, and um, the distance factor is exactly that, trying to not have, uh, you know, compact areas with multiple...multiple liquor license establishments, um, so since it is out near a...a residential, that would be in certain areas of the community, that, uh, you'd want to try and prohibit that, and, um, you know, in some of the development areas, I mean, I think you need to go ahead and get out This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #4 Page 9 and measure the distance to see whether you...you can or cannot, uh, but those are the reasons that I'm willing to support it. Champion: I just want to correct something that a couple of people have said. We're not limiting liquor licenses. Bailey: Right. Champion: We're limiting the number of liquor licenses to bars that are open from 12 to 2. Wright: Establishments (mumbled) Champion: Okay, thank you! Hayek: I, uh, originally, and still uh, support this as it relates to the Central Business District. That is, uh, because it is, there's the public health side of it, were presented to us in the economic development concerns that we discussed, support that kind of move downtown. But as it relates to the rest of the city, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I think it goes well beyond what this ordinance is designed to, uh, address, and I can see no compelling reason to discourage restaurant establishments, whose operation would be covered by this ordinance, in neighborhoods that we simply do not have these issues in, and I can understand the prospective approach to this, that you want to keep this from, uh, moving into other areas, but the scope of this is so broad. You're taking this ordinance into neighborhoods and parts of town where it's not perceived, uh, there being anywhere close to the kind of issues that we see downtown. And I have concerns about it discouraging economic development in places like, uh, the Old Towne Village and...and similar places like that, so I...I won't support it for those reasons. Wilburn/ (several talking) Excuse me. I think I remember, uh...if you'll allow me. I think I remember when we had, um, the request for the outdoor service area, um, in this bar, and a couple other bars that are in neighborhoods, we did have some correspondence from some of the neighbors concerned about that, so again, I don't think, and also with the experience North Liberty has, I don't think it's, um, it's a, um, reaching foreign concept that...that the concern about noise and potential, um, alcohol-related issues...is...I don't think it's a stretch to... Bailey: No, I don't either. Um, I spent last weekend in that neighborhood, and...and any kind of concentration, I mean, that would be two establishments opening and... and, or closing after midnight. I think could, um, cause some problems in the neighborhood, given the proximity to residential. So I think that this makes sense. Now a restaurant, I mean, this will cause economic development problems if we frame it this way. Please, give me some restaurants that are open till midnight in Iowa City, please! I mean, I think that that's right. 99% of them are not. It would be great to be able to eat at 11:30 at night, but so there's an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #4 Page 10 opportunity. There's the gap! Let's address that, and then when we have a proliferation of restaurants that are serving till midnight and patrons who want to stay there, after midnight, throughout the city, then let's talk about revising this ordinance. I mean, Jody's right. We have some systemic problems in Iowa City about drinking, and the thing about systemic problems is they rarely confine themselves to a specific geography. Yes, we see it mostly downtown, but if we don't address this issue, there are going to be three or four Councils down the road who will have to be addressing issues of concentration in bars in other neighborhoods and other challenges. So let's approach it now. I don't think it's too stringent. And I think it's actually foresightful, um, addressing what we've seen happen. We know what can happen. We know that our downtown is going south of Burlington. Let's address these issues now. Let's have some restaurants that will stay open till...till midnight, and...and go from there. I think that this provides the balance and I'll continue to support it. Any further discussion? Okay, roll call. Item carries 5 to 2; um, Hayek and O'Donnell voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #6 ITEM 6. Bailey: Page 11 ASSESSING A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST HEAD HUNTERS GLASS, INC., PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2) (2009) A) CONDUCT HEARING This is a hearing (bangs gavel). The hearing is open. Chappell: Good evening, I'm Andy Chappell from the Johnson County Attorney's office. On February 13, an employee of Head Hunters Glass, uh, provided, not sold in this case, but provided tobacco to a minor, um, that...that action is a violation of 453A.2 and as this is the first violation by that business, um, I would recommend that they be assessed a $300 civil penalty, pursuant to 453A.22. Bailey: Is there anyone from the establishment here wishing to speak at the hearing? Okay, hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) B) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Roll call...oh! Hayek: No, I mean, this...there's no, uh (both talking) strict liability, for lack of a better word. If you sold it, there's no discretion as to whether it was... Dilkes: It states once...once there is a conviction it's pretty much automatic shall is the language that's used. Hayek: Got it. Bailey: Thank you, Andy. Hayek: Thanks, Andy. Bailey: Roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #10 Page 12 ITEM 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE IOWA CITY PARKS RECREATION AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN FINAL REPROT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Champion: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Hayek: This is an ambitious plan. It's comprehensive, thoughtful, uh, the product of quite a lot of input from both Commission, staff, and citizenry. I think, you know, it's tempered by the financial realities we face, but it gives us something to work toward, and uh, I think it's a great guide...set of guideposts for us. Bailey: it's very visionary. Wright: I'd like to thank the Commission and the folks from the public who did supply their input. This really turned out to be a lot of work. Bailey: LTh-huh, the Commission worked very hard on that, and I think with the implementation they will continue to work hard. Any further discussion? Roll call. (both talking) Voparil: Motion to accept correspondence. Wilburn: So moved. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Hayek, um, all those in favor say aye. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #12 Page 13 ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Moved by Wilburn. Wright: Second. Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Roll call. Oh, discussion, sorry! Yes, please. Daily: Um... Bailey: Just state your name. Daily: My name is Morris Daily, and I have been, um, a member of the University and Iowa City community for about 25 years, and I have, um, corresponded with a few of you regarding my request to amend the, uh, HMGP demolition, uh, guidelines to permit us to stay in our house for an extra period of time. Excuse me, I'm just getting a cold I'm afraid. Um, as we...I guess I'm not going to go into detail about why we want to stay, other than the fact that we've been there for a long time. We've put immense amounts of money into the house. We've also just repaired it, and really we just love living there. That's the bottom line. Um, as we heard yesterday, HMGP guidelines do permit some flexibility up to this maximum three-year limit. Um, and at the present time, based on my discussions with, uh, meetings with various staff members and what I heard last night, I...I don't see any really good reason why the City should not honor our wishes, and at least try to make this plan work. Now, if in the end there's some reason that it really can't pan out, well so be it, but um, I don't see this. real effort to make it work for us yet. So let me...let me just go through a couple of these issues and I'll try to be very brief here. Um, one of the issues raised, uh, especially when I was talking to some of the City staff a month ago was that delaying the demolition of one house might increase the cost to the City, um, well I know now that in fact demolition contractors have not even been asked if there's any additional cost to that, so we...there's no data to even suggest that that might be true. Um, and in fact, if the City, uh, requires this of a contractor, they may well just say that's part of the deal and it won't cost anymore. We just don't have any data to suggest otherwise. Um, furthermore, the demolition costs are reimbursed to the City by FEMA up to $20,000 so uh, most likely, uh, unless there was some massive increase in costs, which doesn't really make any sense, uh, the cost to the City then should be zero. And the third issue regarding the, uh, fiscal part of this is that, um, by keeping my house on the tax rolls for an extra two and a half to three years, the City, uh, would, or at least we would pay, I'm not sure how much the City gets, but we would pay between $10,000 and $15,000 additional taxes, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #12 Page 14 and I know the City needs properties on the tax rolls. If you demolish the house and take possession of the property, that tax income obviously goes away, and that amount of money for my house, and in addition to the one other resident on Normandy who's apparently in the same position that I am, uh, you know, that's a significant amount of money, which should defray any additional costs, if there are any such costs, um, at all. An additional important issue was raised last night by the Mayor, one that I think, um, obviously all of us have to, um, take very seriously is that of safety, and so I want to just address that issue very quickly here. Um, the incremental risk to the City of allowing one or even two additional houses to remain for a short period of time, the incremental risk is...has got to be as close to zero as you can get, um, there will still be over a hundred houses in that area, many of which are in the 100-year flood plain, uh, and at least a half dozen or more of which will be along the river, as our house is, uh, so I think that risk is minimal. Secondly, the way the floods happen in Iowa City, we do not, we're simply not susceptible to the severe flash floods that cause fatalities in most other areas. We have the dam upstream that doesn't protect us indefinitely from floods, but I...in the two floods we've had in the last 50 or 60 years, there has not been any question about having tons of time to get out of your home. Uh, even after the mandatory evacuation last year, my wife and I could easily walk back and forth to our house for several days. I mean, it's just not the kind of flood that...that is a risk for us, and I believe not a risk for, um, for first responders for the City either. Um...I think any risk, first of all, I'm willing to assume any risks from our point of view, um, and I think we can minimize any risk to me and what infinitesimal risk there is to, um, City emergency staff, um, by simply evacuating the house when a flood is imminent, uh, before the water gets to a level which even come close to being dangerous, and I think we would be actually not only willing but would do that regardless, having seen the power of last year's flood. Um...so, in summary, there's two of us, I believe, that want to stay on Normandy Drive. I think we have, um, pretty good reason for wanting to do that. Me primarily cause I want not to move before I retire in a few years, and plus the fact that I just really love that house. Um, and I think it really wouldn't make any difference to the City. There's no additional risks. I don't think there will be any additional costs, and so I would make the plea to the City that it's reasonable for us to, um, ask the City to at least to try to make this work. Bailey: Mr. Daily, at last night's meeting a majority of Council did direct staff to look for, uh, an extension period. Obviously it's going to have to be less than the three years that you requested, so they are working on that and I don't know where they are on that, but they're certainly looking into that. So, um... Daily: So perhaps this will have been, or will be addressed by them. Bailey: (several talking) we have directed them to address that. Daily: Well, I just wanted to make sure that my comments were on the record, and that everybody heard them. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #12 Page 15 Bailey: Yes....I...I think that that was one of the motivating factors in last night's discussion, and...and directing staff to do that. Daily: All right. Well, I want to thank you for your attention and I...so that I'm not totally sound like a misanthrope here, I'd...I want to state that, um, how much I and the rest of us appreciate what the Council and the Mayor, and uh, everybody's done for the neighborhood down there. It's, uh, a major bright shining light in a period that was less than desirable. Bailey: Thank you, and then David and Steve will be able to give you that deadline once it's established. Thank you. Okay, further discussion? Okay, roll call. Item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #16 Page 16 ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION. OF THE BURLINGTON STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT. Bailey: Um, we have some staff here to talk to this, so I won't read the details. Helling: You do have a handout. Bailey: Yes. Yes. Um, I need this... Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Hayek: Second. Bailey: Thank you. Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Gannon: My name's Denny Gannon. I'm the Assistant City Engineer. Um, we took bids today. It was actually a rebid from two weeks ago, and um, this time we got three bids, and if you look at the summary there, the three bids are all higher than the engineer's estimate, but the three bids are all, uh, pretty close together. And we are recommending the, uh, the award for the base bid, uh, engineering, Public Works, uh, would actually have gone with the base bid plus the .alternate bid, except, um, in the...uh, in, let me, um, summarize that the...the, uh, alternate bid includes a new railing. That's the difference between the base bid and the alternate. The, uh, the DOT would like the base bid, plus the alternate bid, and I believe the University of Iowa would too, and all three of the, the University of Iowa, the City, and the DOT are players in this, um, the University of Iowa's budget right now is only for the base bid. They didn't have enough time today to, um, talk about the extra costs that would be involved. Um, so what we could do is, uh, go ahead and approve the contract tonight with the base bid, and we can have conversations with the, uh, contractor, and we could, uh, do a, uh, a change order or an extra work order to include the railing. That would be in the near future. And would be for that same price as the, as shown on...on your summary there. Bailey: So the same price as the alternate...the base plus alternate. Gannon: Base bid plus the alternate. Bailey: The $802,000. Gannon: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #16 Bailey: Wright Bailey: Page 17 Yeah. Any questions? Given that the University hasn't had a chance to (both talking) apparently discuss this (mumbled) I think that makes a lot of sense. So will this come back to us, um... Gannon: No, we wouldn't have to do that. You go ahead and approve the base bid and then we would do that, uh, internally with a...a change order. It would have to be approved by the contractor and of course the University of Iowa, and uh, the DOT would have to agree. Helling: This would be a substantial change. The only, we would make sure the Council knew if that happens, but (both talking) by a change (several talking) Gannon: That's why I'm bringing it up now. Dilkes: We might want to talk about how (several talking) Bailey: ...authority to do that, or are we simply voting on the base bid? I want to make sure people know what they're voting on. Dilkes: You're asking them to award on the base bid. Gannon: Just the base bid. Dilkes: Um, but the alternate bid is open for 30 days beyond the receipt of the bids, correct? Champion: What's the difference there? Gannon: We would have to do this fairly quickly because the...the alternate bid (several talking) substantial amount is handrail, and uh, to get this project done in the summer, they're going to have to have it, uh, made, uh, by a supplier, so we would have to decide on this fairly quickly. Dilkes: No, I'm just...I'm asking if we...if we needed to have the Council award the alternate as well as opposed to doing it by change order we would have to...we could do that at the next Council meeting. Gannon: Um... Dilkes: We'll have to talk about that. Um, so right now you need to award the base (several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #16 Page 18 Helling: Yeah, actually if time is of the essence, we actually have a meeting next week too that we could (several talking) Champion: I thought we authorized the City Manager up to $25,000 or something like that. Bailey: $50,000 (several talking) Dilkes: No, that's a different issue. That's a consultant services' issue. This is a bid issue, and my...my only concern is with the size of the change order and whether we need to do that by award as opposed to change order, but I think we can figure that out before next week, and...and if we think we need to have you award the alternate, we'll just do that then. Bailey: This is just a point of information, cause there's nothing we can do. Our...our bids, and bids across the state, have been coming in very well. This is...is not what I would consider very good situation and we had to rebid it. What...do you have any speculation as to what happened or just the nature of this type of project? Gannon: I think it's a different kind of a project, plus um, the bidding, the construction time, the window, is summer. We have to have that done before the...fall for school and also for football games and... Bailey: So the time constraints probably, okay. I understand. Dilkes: Can I just ask one...Denny, is there any, um, would there be any problem with deferring the award until next Tuesday, and... and awarding, if we want to do the alternate at that time, just awarding the base... Gannon: It does delay things, because we want to get started June 1st, which would be, um, like two weeks from yesterday. Dilkes: Okay. Let's go ahead and award the base bid then. Bailey: Okay. Any further discussion or questions for Denny? Thank you for being here. That was helpful. Okay, roll call. Okay, item carries 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #17 ITEM 17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. Page 19 Bailey: Um, we have quite a few openings. Uh, Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment, one vacancy to fill an unexpired term, two males and zero females currently serve. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment again, one vacancy to fill afive-year term. Airport Zoning Commission, one vacancy to fill asix-year term, 3 males and zero females currently serve. Board of Appeals, one vacancy to fill a five year term, um, and one for mechanical professional, five males and one female currently serve. The Human Rights Commission, one vacancy to fill an unexpired term, four males and four females currently serve. The Youth Advisory Commission, one vacancy to fill a...two-year term, um, we're looking for a person from Tate High, three males and three females currently serve. And those must be received, those applications...must be received...I don't have a deadline. Um, by 5:00 P.M. Wednesday June 10th. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #18 Page 20 ITEM 18. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. Bailey: Previously announced Board of Adjustment, um, two males and two females currently serve. New vacancies, Historic Preservation... Voparil: Excuse me, Madame Mayor. Um, weren't we going to appoint for Human Rights? We did have some applicants for Human Rights. Excuse me. Bailey: Oh! (several talking) Yes...we were. Let me just read through the...the vacancies and we'll do that next. Voparil: Okay. Bailey: Okay. Um, new vacancies, Historic Preservation Commission, one vacancy to fill a long...for the Longfellow representative, four males and five females currently serve. Library Board of Trustees, three vacancies to fill six-year terms, four males and two females currently serve, and a new vacancy, the Telecommunication Commission, one vacancy to fill an unexpired term, three males and one female currently serve. These applications must be received by 5:00 P.M. Wednesday June 24, 2009. And at last night's meeting, um, we...informally agreed to appoint Kelly Fleming to the Human Rights Commission, and I would entertain a motion to that effect. Correia: Move to appoint Kelli Fleming. Wilburn: Second. Bailey: Moved by Correia, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? All those in favor... Wilburn: I was going to say, a lot of good applications for, uh, for this particular commission. Typically get a lot, so... Bailey: And if those applicants are interested in serving on other commissions, um, that's...that's, um, certainly there's availability. All those in favor of appointing Kelli Fleming to the Human Rights Commission say aye. Motion carries. All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #20 ITEM 20. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Bailey: Um, let's start with Amy tonight. Correia: Nothing. Bailey: Okay. Matt? Hayek: Nothing. Bailey: Ross? Wilburn: Um, nothing. Page 21 Bailey: Really? Okay. O'Donnell: Just a quick one - Dale, I was driving on Scott Boulevard, and there's some really encrusted potholes developing on that road. You might want to take a look at that. Helling: We'll do that! O'Donnell: All right! (laughter) You don't have to fix 'em yourself though! Bailey: Connie? Champion: Nothing. Bailey: Wow, um, last time we went very late, and I...I wanted to talk a little bit about the pass...we talked about passenger rail last night, and I had the opportunity to ride the train, um, from our facility to the Quad Cities, into Moline, and I...I've got to say, I really look forward to the opportunity for everyone to do that. It was great ride, and it's very interesting to see communities along the rails from that perspective. It was, um, many of us are from Iowa and very familiar with the area, but we had... sometimes had a hard time knowing what town we were in because you don't usually see them from that perspective. So, um, and we...we went at the rail speed. I think it was around 45 miles per hour, and still it didn't take us that long. So I can't wait until we have 79 miles per hour on those rails. So, I appreciated Rebecca's presentation, and I appreciate the Chamber's advocacy for the Chicago Flyer. Weegand: (unable to hear from audience) My name's Matthew Sullivan Weegand, um, I grew up in Iowa City. Have a degree in Cultural Anthropology with honors from the University of California at Santa Cruz. I've been working in the restaurant industry for six years since I came back from college, and I would very much like This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009. #20 Page 22 to open up a stand down, uh, in the Ped Mall. I know that there's only eight spots available right now, and uh, I was hoping that you could consider making a new spot or two available, uh, because I was told by the City Manager, or Assistant Manager (mumbled) that, uh, the...decision to give it to someone is based on seniority and cart design and items on the menu. Well, we have great ideas for the design and great ideas for the menu. So, uh, we were just hoping, uh, we don't have seniority is what we don't have, so...um, I was hoping that somewhere down the line you could consider opening that up, uh, for business. Thank you. Bailey: Okay. Champion: We can talk about that. Bailey: Yeah, we can certainly talk about that. Thank you. Weegand: Thanks a lot. Bailey: Thank you. Welcome to Iowa City. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council Regular Formal meeting of May 19, 2009.