Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-07 TranscriptionApril 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1 April 7, 2003 Special Council Work Session 5:40 PM Council: Staff: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef; Wilburn Atkins, Boothroy, Cate, Dilkes, Dulek, Franklin, Helling, Karr, Klingaman, McCafferty, Winkelhake TAPES: 03-28, BOTH SIDES; 03-27, SIDE TWO; 03-29, BOTH SIDES TAPE 03-28, SIDE ONE REGULATIONS FOR NUISANCE RENTAL PROPERTY Lehman/It's the work session and the first item is Doug talking about the Nuisance Rental Property. Boothroy/Since we last met in the end of January, as my memorandum indicates, I've met with the Greater Iowa City Apartment Rental Association residents, some residents from neighborhoods; consulted a number of different ordinances that are listed in the memorandum; talked to my counterpart in East Lansing, Michigan, who's had the ordinance, the community has had the ordinance in effect for five years; as well as communicated with a counterpart in Rochester, Minnesota, where they've had the ordinance in effect for two years. And as a result of all of that input and communication with various groups, I've come back with some proposed changes which I think have improved the ordinance from what we looked at last time. And I thought I'd use the memorandum sort of as a talking points for today's discussion and step you through the changes in case you haven't absorbed them and thought about them much. So, if you' re ready I'll get started. One of the things, the first change that I mentioned in my memorandum was that the triggering events for enforcement action has been changed. Originally, the proposal had one triggering event for serious criminal activities. Now, it's been changed to two. This was in part of our discussion that occurred in January and I think this is a reasonable number for triggering what would be considered a chronic property. Any comments about that? In reviewing other ordinances, we, you can see two, you can see three, and some cases you have other combinations, but generally, the ordinances I looked at with maybe the exception of Davenport, which I don't list here, generally started with at least two triggering events and some had three within 12 months. Number 2 is probably the most significant change in this document and that is the co- compliance settlement meeting and I would point out that this is required meeting prior to proceeding to any kind of penalty phase prior to any rental permit sanctions. It's required on the part of the City in this particular amendment to call the relevant parties involved with a property that's have co-compliance problems and to set up a meeting with the landlord, the tenants if they're involved, other relevant parties if they're involved, to then meet with the City, which would be a representative from the Department of Housing Inspection Services and the police department. I believe that this, as I've indicated in the memorandum, I believe that this process will provide the opportunity in most situations to solve and come up with solutions without having to go to the permit sanction piece, in talking to East Lansing, Michigan, it was their experience that five years that they had not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2 issued any sanctions, that most of the situations were resolved through the meeting process and what they came up with is terms of conditions, which the property owners agreed to and were following through on. So, I think that's evidence that it can work. I think the other thing is that in my experience as a Code enforcement person, I have found that in a situation where you're able to get people to a meeting, sit down and talk it through, and come to an agreement, it's very difficult for those that are involved not to follow through on the commitment that they've made once they've made that commitment to you face to face. So, I think that in 90 plus percent of the time, we should be able to resolve our situation and come up with a good solution for the neighborhoods in which these properties are located. Any thoughts about that particular? Lehman/I think that's, you know, our purpose here is to keep livable, comfortable neighborhoods, not to stick tenants or make life miserable for landlords, and I think that's a really, really, really good provision. And I'm not surprised that with a provision like that that most cities don't have sanctions because, I mean, that they don't have to enforce the sanctions. Pfab/My point would be, I think, this this probably the greatest thing to come out of this whole process of working Neighborhood Nuisance, however the names are used there. And I think that this is probably a trend setter that, as we look as problems across the City, just being able to sit down and talk to each other and having the ability to have some method of encouraging that for those who may not be too willing to do it. And I think the success at Lansing just speaks for itself. I think all the effort's that been put in, if we can get to this, I think it was all well worth it. Boothroy/Steven? Kanner/Yeah, I, too, think this is a move in the right direction and thanks for including that. I had three questions regarding this. The first one, you talk about relevant parties, would that include the complainant and if a possible complain taint, a neighborhood person--- Boothroy/It could. Kanner/And ~vho would sign off on letting them be part of that? Who has the final say-so that who is part of this meeting? Boothroy/The City calling the meeting or the HIF would be calling the meeting. I think in a situation where somebody wanted to be involved and it was appropriate, yes, we would have them involved. Not everybody wants to be involved; they want to be anonymous. Sometimes they don't want--and so I think--our experience is that most of the time people want to remain anonymous so they're not identified and get into potential future conflicts with other folks. Kanner/So is that who you meant by other relevant parties? Boothroy/It could be guests of the tenants as well that may have been causing the problems. So, in other words, it may not just be the people on the lease. It could be--I left it open-ended so that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of thc Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3 other individuals could be involved if it was appropriate to involve them in trying to come to a solution. Kanner/And, now you talked about there'll be incentives and disincentives for people who show up or are part of this. Give me a scenario where the landlord doesn't show up. The landlord lives in Hawaii and really doesn't have much of a management firm and doesn't show up and that's part of the problem because they're not really watching their property. What's the scenario, what happens, OK the person who had a nuisance of not cutting their lawn or something, does show up. They've been cited twice for not cutting their lawn. But what's the scenario? How do you envision the scenario taking place at that meeting? Boothroy/First of all, any out-of-town landlord in that and I think it's defined in our Housing Code, any landlord or property owner that lives outside of Johnson County, is required to have a designated agent to attend this meeting or be able to legally conduct affairs within this community. So, we certainly would--just being in Hawaii--doesn't excuse you from coming to the meeting. Your designated agent or property manager should be able to attend that meeting. Therefore, if we're ignored, as the ordinance talks about or specifies, then we can move immediately to the penalty phase which would be sanctions against the property owner. Kanner/And, so you would try to work with the tenant and say, please comply or--- Boothroy/In the case where a tenant doesn't participate in the meeting? Kanner/No, the tenant participates in the meeting, but they're the one that is the object of nuisance complaint. Boothroy/You could issue additional municipal infractions in that situation. If you're saying that if they agree to not have those noisy parties or whatever it is that we're dealing with and it occurs again, that would be a violation of the Housing Code. We could issue additional munies, or municipal infractions, against that person to get their attention. Kanner/I'm trying to get at what happens, what's the scenario--we have a meeting--you have one of the parties there. You have just the tenant there and not the landlord and vice-versa; you have the landlord and not the tenant. How do you see it proceeding? What's the discussion? What's going to happen there? How is this going to move the objective along of creating less nuisances in the future? Boothroy/I think you can have a quality discussion with the landlord concerning the situation without the tenants being there. It would be better if they were there. It would be considered, as I said, it would be considered a violation of the Housing Code, and we may go ahead and cite them. But in the interim we could talk to the landlord about what kinds of actions can be taken to deal with the issue and try to support them in some fashion. What I think is most important at the table is certainly to have the property owner there who has control of the premises or the property in general and try to get everybody else involved that we Can. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4 Karmer/And can you--you've answered perhaps in part my last question, but you mentioned terms and agreements that were arrived at in other cities using this process. Can you give some examples of some terms and agreements that were arrived at through this process? Do they sign a sheet saying, "I'm going to not litter any more. I'm not going to have loud parties." What are some of the--- Boothroy/Well, that's one that I recall that they sign an agreement not to have parties, not to have large parties with alcohol on the premises. You know, I don't recall the other, off the top of my head, I just don't recall some of those conditions that were arrived at. Certainly, another one as I stand hem thinking about it was where they had guests that were being problems. The guests were identified and they were precluded from being on the premises and I'm not sure how that was enforced, but that was one that I remember seeing. Kanner/So, maybe it was an informal agreement worked out at one of these meetings between the landlord, tenant, and the housing staff--- Boothroy/Right. Karmer/...saying, we want you to do this and--- Boothroy/Some lease provisions were added in another case that I can recall, that the tenant and the landlord agreed to amend the lease that was a deal with the issues so that if the tenant violated it, then it would be considered a violation of the lease, and I assume that they would move for~vard with whatever penalties would be involved there. That's three things that I can think of. Any other questions? One thing I'd also mentioned about this process is that if you hadn't thought about it is that, one of the things that I heard sometimes is that landlords had difficulty confronting tenants. That can be a very confrontational situation, both for the tenant and for the landlord. One of the things that this does is it makes it much mom neutral. The City is the one calling the meeting. It supports the landlord in trying to work through the problem, and it can support the tenant as well in terms of having a less emotional backdrop for discussion than if they were just confronting each other outside of the apartment or doing something, it could lead to other problem. Another change was that, there are some other additional defenses for enforcement action that's been expanded. These defenses are available to the landlord if they meet with the City to talk about whether they follow through on those, and I'll just mention that C and D are the two new ones. One is the showing and documenting that they have taken, made the effort through due diligence to deal with the issue. The other one is if they have proceeded to put together a property management action plan and they have that in place; that could be a defense to rental permit sanctions. Questions about that? Four is definition of premises. It used to be a thousand feet; now the criminal activity or other violation must occur on the premises; the thousand-foot-standard really was unworkable, particularly when you get close to the downtown area, and this is a much more quantifiable way to deal with a violation and deal with the issue. And so that's been dropped. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5 Lehman/Now, define "premises." Is that, I mean, I would assume we're talking about that property, the housing unit, and the property upon which it sits. If you have a 16-plex that is 400 feet long, any place on that property where that 16-plex sits is the premises--- Boothroy/The common area of the property--- Lehman/It isn't the guy next door. Boothroy/That's correct. Lehman/OK. Pfab/And the same, am I, is it safe to believe that the same would be true in a condominium complex? Boothroy/Yes. Because the land is owned in common. Lehman/Right. Boothroy/So it'd be--yes. A couple of other minor changes--reinstatement of suspended or revoked permit in a situation where that might occur. What I've added here is that prior to reinstatement we would like to have some kind ora plan that would continue compliance with the Code and that would have to be in place before we actually reinstated the permit, and any questions about that? It's pretty straightforward. And, finally, I have added the definition of "property management action plan," which talks about what that document's all about in terms of having a written plan that's been approved by the City to deal with ongoing problems on the property. If you think that this ordinance is in good enough shape to go forward, if you support this ordinance, I'm here to find out so that I can put it in ordinance format. At the last meeting, you discussed the possibility of holding a public hearing so I'm assuming that that's the way you want to proceed. If that's the case, then on April 22nd, your meeting, we would set a public heating for your May meeting, which is May 6th, I think, and hold the public meeting that night on the ordinance. I talk about this because public hearing is not required in this situation. We could do first consideration on the 22nd, so I think that's something I just need direction on from you folks. Champion/(Can't hear) Pfab/I certainly don't see the need for a public hearing after the length of time this is--- Boothroy/So, should we just go first consideration. We just can't get public--- Pfab/That would be my suggestion, because they can speak anyway. Boothroy/OK. Lehman/Well, I guess you're asking the Council is this, are the changes that you're proposing palatable This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 6 to the Council, do we want to move forward? Boothroy/Yes. Lehman/I mean, I applaud your efforts. I think--- Pfab/Yes, I think, I'm not sure, it's kind of the same ordinance, or the same set of rules that we started, but it's certainly a great evolution. Lehman/Well, I think, it would. All we're looking for is a result and I'm impressed with what--- O'Donnell/I think the arbitration part of it, Ernie, was big to me, that means a lot if you can get them face to face and sit down and talk and try to resolve the problem. Lehman/Right. O'Donnell/I had a question. Boothroy/We've gotten some positive feedback from some property owners so it's, it is going in the right direction, as far as some are concerned, so. Go ahead. O'Donnell/If you do find it eventually necessary to evict me from an apartment,--- (Laughter) Champion/Good luck. O'Donnell/...can you--- Boothroy/I'I1 put my designated agent. (Laughter) O'Donnell/Please do. If this does happen, then what are the odds of getting housing in another area? Boothroy/I'm not sure I understand what your question is. O'Donnell/If I'm evicted from this apartment house under these guidelines, can I then go to an apartment house across the street? Boothroy/Yes. This does not restrict movement or leasing anywhere in Iowa City. It only--- O'Donnell/Just the individual property. Boothroy/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 7 O'Donnell/OK. Boothroy/And whether or not that person is evicted is ultimately the property owner's responsibility--- O'Donnell/Fine. Boothroy/...and decision. It won't be the City's. O'Donnell/Fine. Vanderhoef/Doug, tell me how much of the City Code, the things that we're trying to enforce, are presently in the leases so that a tenant has signed off on them? Boothroy/Boy, that's a--you mean this particular ordinance? Or, you said City Code, and I'm having a hard time narrowing it down. Vanderhoef/No. City Code. You know, what noise, what our Code is on noise, what our Code is on litter, all of those kinds of things. Boothroy/Many leases--and I think, I'll stand corrected on this if somebody knows anything different-- but my understanding is that the model lease that is given out by the Apartment Owners Association as well as leases used by a lot of different landlords in this community have a general provision that talks about the violation of the lease if you are in noncompliance with local Codes and regulations. They don't specify a list of Codes and regulations, but the noise ordinance would be one of those. The difficulty that I've been told is that that particular provision has not been one that they have been able to be very effective in enforcing. When they've had tenants that have broken the law and they've proceeded with the eviction action, they've not prevailed. Vanderhoef/Why? Boothroy/I don't know the answer to that. I'm just telling you that this is what I've been told. This particular document will provide some other alternatives, some other solutions. It will also, this ordinance, ifa tenant violates this ordinance they will be specifically in violation of the Housing Code, which in talking to some property owners would give them additional support for proceeding ~vith eviction because under the State Landlord- Tenant Law, it very specifically says violation of the Housing Code is an evictable circumstance. Whether or not that gets translated at the Court level with the magistrates, the judges make the final cai1 on that. Vanderhoef/So you're saying specifically it has to be a Housing Code versus these other kinds of Municipal Code. Boothroy/I've been told that a violation of the Housing Code is additional support if they wish to evict, but I don't have any evidence or anything to say that that's an absolute, that it will work in every case. I think every case is different and it's before a magistrate. The eviction This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8 process has not been effective in dealing with some of these issues, criminal issues. Yes? Dilkes/The clear and present danger provision of the Tenant-Landlord Act is not limited just to Housing Code violations. Boothroy/That's true. Dilkes/Because as we've discussed before also, just to remind you, you recently amended the Code to provide for the lease addendum which does have some specific requirements that the tenant has to sign onto. Occupancy, etc. Lehman/Right. Pfab/Prior to the start of this committee and nuisance, the general topic, I visited with a number of landlords and they said why take it to court? We lose. And that's--- Boothroy/There's that general feeling. Pfab/Yeah. Boothroy/That's correct. Champion/What did you say? Pfab/Why take it to court to enforce it? We lose. Champion/Oh, I see. Lehman/And this may change that. Pfab/Yeah. And this idea is to help support the landlords when there definitely is a violation and kind of level the playing field. Boothroy/Right. Wilburn/I guess the only comments that I would add--one of the concerns that, or I guess is a fundamental disagreement that I've had--and one of them worked with in some way moving it from one violation to t~vo. So I certainly appreciate acknowledgment of that concern from the group that worked on this. I guess the question is whether or not you believe that problems have risen to a level that our criminal and juvenile justice systems aren't being effective or perceived not being effective, you know, but if I'm going to lose to a version, I'd rather lose to this version of it, especially with, you know, the meeting 'process that you outlined, and again, making the adjustment to two occasions. I mean, an example of concern that I would have, if Connie's has txvo, is running if she has problem with two, one of her kids having the possession under legal age and the proceeding starting in. You know, if it's a chronic problem, you know, I still see it as a juvenile This represents only a reasonably accurate U'anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9 justice system work instead of as opposed to the Housing Code, but--- Lehman/But I think that that wouldn't preclude with, if we have the meetings. And I'm not at all sure that it would necessarily have to be evicted or whatever. My understanding is the way that it's written as long as there is a good-faith effort made on the part of the landlord and the tenant, he will be issued--- Wilburn/And ! understand that with my experience working with folks involved with this example, the juvenile justice system, this is another, it's potentially another setup for that child to fail and the pressures that occur. It's just a disagreement; you certainly have the vote to proceed without it. If there are others in the community that have a concern about this approach with housing, as opposed to allowing our juvenile and adult corrections systems handling this, I would encourage those folks to come forward when this is up for first and second and third consideration to hear from those, and maybe I'm--- Champion/Ross, I think that's a really valid concern that you're talking about. And I'd like to just ask a very specific question. Let's say that I rent a house, I don't know if anybody would rent me one, but let's say I did rent a house, and I had a child who got arrested a couple times for possession of marijuana, possession of alcohol underage or whatever. During this meeting, if there's a good-faith effort on the--- Wilburn/Parents' part? Champion/On the parents' part, or whoever's name is on the lease; it could be a guardian or whoever. It could even just be a responsible adult. That this child is getting, we're going to encourage this child and actually you couldn't like force them, but to get treatment like from MECCA or some other agency from social services. That should fulfill that obligation of best effort. I think that's a very legitimate concern to bring up. I really do think it is. And I hadn't really thought about it. How would that concern of Ross's be addressed? Boothroy/Well, we address that now in some of our public housing situations or Section 8 where you have that kind of dynamics going on, and typically, if the client is receiving treatment through MECCA and is being monitored and they don't have a relapse, then they're in good standing. Champion/What if they have a relapse? We're talking about minors basically. Boothroy/That can be a problem, i think it depends on the circumstances. I mean, I can't categorically say what would happen, but what we do is look at the circumstances, hear from the folks and find out what happened and why it happened and so forth before we make a final decision on that. And it can work and it does work in some situations where they go through treatment, and I think that's a very appropriate way of handling an alcohol or substance abuse situation. Dilkes/Remember, too, Connie, that this activity has to occur on the premises. So, your child who's arrested for possession of marijuana out partying some night is not, would not be covered This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10 by this. So it's significantly narrowed. Wilburn] But, that still happens, and you know, the experiences you're sharing, I've seen some of those work out and some not work out. But it goes back to just the fundamental question, do you believe that problems have risen to the level that we need to, in addition to all the other things that we've done and trying to back law enforcement with some of the things we've tried to encourage them to do, do you think that this is another step that needs to be added on? And I just don't think we're at that point, but I'll be interested to hear--- Champion/l'm not willing to drop your other question yet. Boothroy/What's that? Champion/I'm not willing to drop your other concern yet. I'm sorry. Boothroy/That's all right. Champion/What provision, I mean, what about even if there is somebody living in the house who, I mean, I know we're getting really specific here, but if they're under the monitoring of the juvenile justice system, would that exempt the family from being thrown out in the street literally? I mean, I've got, I think this is a real concern. Boothroy/I think that everything that we've talked about are circumstances that could exempt a family from being evicted; however, the City doesn't make that final call. I think that one of the things that there is an advantage here is if the tenant family and the landlord and the City are all in the room, this could be something that an understanding is developed with the landlord and in fact can support the family in that situation so that the family, the landlord or the property owner, doesn't immediately move towards eviction and getting rid of them. It may actually work out that they can improve or stay in their homes. So I don't think you can just automatically assume that they're going to get evicted because we're having this discussion. And I think that's what this discussion does; it opens up the parameters for problem solving beyond anything that we've even talked about here. We don't know what everything's going to be put on the table and I think if we're under some kind of structured system that is showing progress, however that being said, any time there's a failure, there has to be consequences. And if their failure is real and substantial, then you have to look at that as well. Vanderhoef/Well, I'm looking at this sort of like Ross is and I like the idea of the meeting to get people to sit down and understand on both sides what things are creating a problem for the City and for the neighborhood. But moving towards the disincentive and the plan and all of those things, I think I would like to just look at what we've done up to this point with nuisance ordinances. As Eleanor said, we have put some things in place so that the tenants are now going to be signing off on understanding that these are the City Code things that are a concern to us, particularly for single or multiple unrelated folk living in the same establishment and that doesn't preclude some of them in family situations. But I'm just not sure that I'm ready to go forward with an enforcement kind of action. It This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 11 seems to me there ought to be enough there to get the conviction for the eviction and before I go forward for sure, I want to know what it is that's throwing these out of court. And I want to know what the leases are presently saying that gives a judge that feeling that they haven't been notified or know what the Code is. Wilburn/That would be interesting to know, and I will, for those of you that are supportive of this, and again, I'd rather lose to this version than the prior version. Dilkes/Yeah. Wilburn/The--I see a potential--or I see where this could have a potential successful effect would be for some of those house parties, the loud noise, getting some of the people that are having problems with that, sitting down with their landlord and the City. That meeting process is a good potential, and that extends the potential for some of the things going on in the, you know, Section 8 and public housing, into another arena. So, that, again I would see as a positive and complement (can't hear) O'Donnell/I wonder if we're not--go ahead. Dilkes/I just wanted to comment a couple of things to make sure we're clear. Number one--the, kind of the comments that Doug is talking about landlords saying that they're not successful in court--that is very anecdotal. I mean, I suspect if you talk to people who represent tenants, they would not concur with that statement. So, let's be careful about how much weight we give that. Number two--eviction, this ordinance does not create the eviction remedy. Champion/Right. It's different. Dilkes/It does not create the eviction--that remedy is there. In fact, you comply with this ordinance if you--you don't have to get an eviction. You have to attempt to evict, assuming you've gone through all these other stages and you're at that stage. You still have the oversight of the court to determine whether eviction is appropriate or not. Boothroy/That's there without this though. Dilkes/Right. And that's there without this. This does not create the right to evict. So, I just wanted to make sure we're clear about those. Lehman/I don't think it creates the right to evict, but it does trigger the mechanism where we can have a discussion between the landlord, the tenant and the--which I think is really kind of critical. I mean, I think that's the key to this whole thing, is the conversation that may occur and settle these difficulties prior to an eviction. Boothroy/Right now there's no mechanism without this ordinance that would address the problems in the manner that we're talking about. In other words, we have a fine, but as we talked at the last meeting, that criminal fine doesn't seem to have any impact on the reoccurrence This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 12 or the occurrence of these particular problems. And in fact, as we talked at the last meeting, it can be up to six months before the person is even brought to trial on that matter. This ordinance places, puts responsibility back to the property owner to be engaged, to be involved. It puts responsibility on the tenant to be engaged, to be involved, to deal with it, and it's talking about people coming together and coming, and enforcing codes that we have on the books. It's not going to necessarily create any new codes, but ensuring that we have people that are law-abiding in our, on our properties, and in our rental properties. There is nothing now that we have that provides any kind of incentive or disincentive for anybody to take action against a behavioral issue that's going on in property beyond just a criminal citation. Pfab/I think to borrow a term that Eleanor used there, I think the neat part about this ordinance is it does trigger the need to sit down and talk it out, talk it through. Lehman/Well, I like it. I think it accomplishes what we're trying to do, and I hear what you're saying, Ross, and I suspect that if I felt that was a--my guess is that--well, as Doug has already said that cities already using this process have almost never had to enforce sanctions, which means that they're very successful. Well, I suspect that mediation may be the decent word, that it tends to work. I think we should do it. Pfab/My point is, sometimes we do get lucky, and I think this is a time we got lucky. Lehman/It's not luck--he worked very hard on this. Pfab/I know, but a little bit luck didn't hurt either though. The run into the people and make the thing work; I think it's a great idea. Vanderhoef/Well, tell me then, what you're talking about in, on the second page, the C part of number 2. Boothroy/Second page, C part. OK. Number 2? The parties may not choose to--- Vanderhoef/Ur-huh. Boothroy/OK. Vanderhoef/What are your strong disincentives then that you're talking about? Boothroy/Rental permit sanctions for the landlord. If the--- Vanderhoef/But, see, that throws it back onto--- Boothroy/There has to be a consequence for not getting involved on your property. If you just had the meeting process and didn't have a consequences for not participating, well, let me tel1 you that there are people in this community that will violate the law and that will ignore any action taken by the City. That is a fact. And you have to have some way of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13 expressing to them that there are consequences for inaction. And this is one way to do it. Pfab/False teeth. Boothroy/You've got to have teeth. Did I answer your question? Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Boothroy/OK. Champion/I'm going to support it, but I do have the concern that Ross has. I was hoping that there's a human side to this for you. And I've (can't hear) Boothroy/Pardon me? Lehman/Nice changes. It's going to work. Boothroy/I didn't hear the last part of your--- Champion/I'm putting my faith in you but if you leave we might be in trouble. (Laughter) Boothroy/You know, this is sort of a, this ordinance is sort of a blending of East Lansing, Michigan, and Boulder, Colorado, and on the website of Boulder, Colorado, you can see all of the input that they received from folks and they went through an extensive process of coming up with this neighborhood involvement type of thing, and I think they did an excellent job looking at all these issues and coming to a conclusion. This is what was needed for the community, so I'm certainly, you know, if you want that website address, let me know and I can get it to you so you can look at the documents on there. Champion/Yeah, I'd like that. Boothroy/They have their minutes and everything--not their minutes, but compilations of things that were talked about. Am I to--do I hear a consensus here about--- Pfab/Yes, I say let's vote. Dilkes/Can we see? Boothroy/Hands? Dilkes/Can we see hands? Karming/I have some concerns about this but I think, Ernie, we ought to have this public hearing. I think we need to hear with a separate time to have, to give people the opportunity to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14 present their concerns with some of the issues that are brought up. We still have the issue of seating before guilt is and adjudicate it. And then the issues that Ross brought up and Dee, and I have some concerns. I think it behooves us to take it a bit slowly in terms of having a public hearing at the next meeting, set a public hearing for May. I don't think we lose anything by pushing it back a few weeks and allow that--- Lehman/What's the mst? I thought I heard earlier we didn't--obviously anyone can speak to this at any one of the three readings. Vanderhoef/But that doesn't--- Lehman/Do we wish to have a public hearing? Vanderhoef/I tend to go along with public hearing. Lehman/OK. We have Dee, Steven. Anybody else? Wilbm-n/It would be fine. As long--if this version is to be--put the version out and get people a chance to respond to something that's on paper so--I'm always comfortable with people coming to the first reading, too. Champion/We'll wait--- [,ehman/OK. We'll do the first reading and obviously we'll take public input. Wilburn/Well, first, second, and third reading. Lehman/Right. Champion/And I've never seen Ernie not let people speak. Boothroy/I just wanted to soften up for a first consideration for a complaint--- Lehman/Now, are we in agreement on this? Several speak/Yeah, yes. Champion/Let's raise our hands so we know. Lehman/How many are willing to put this on for a first reading? Well, now wait a minute--you are not? That's three. Boothroy/So you get four. That's enough. Wilburn/That's enough. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 15 Dilkes/You've got four. Lehman/We have four. Boothroy/Four to three. Lehman/All right. Kanner/All right. So for April 22nd or for May? Boothroy/I understand what you're saying is for the next Council meeting to put it on for first consideration? Lehman/Right. Pfab/Right. Wilburn/And that still gives the opportunity for public input. Lehman/And we'll have three readings. Boothroy/And that means three public meetings. Wilburn/Right. Boothroy/And three opportunities for comment. Wilburn/And three opportunities to vote here then. Boothroy/I ~vanted to say one last--go ahead. Vanderhoef/We can always defer at first reading if enough stuff comes up. Lehman/Right. Or we can amend as well. Boothroy/Not to get off the subject too much, but there is a recommendation from the HCDC committee about not funding the additional housing inspector through CBDG money. I just want to make the point tonight--- Wilburn/I need to back away from the table because of a conflict of interest. Boothroy/All right. Sorry. Dilkes/No, I think. It's OK, Ross. Wilburn/Are you sure? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16 Dilkes/This relates to--yeah. Wilburn/Are you sure? Dilkes/1 think it's--- Boothroy/That's OK, Ross, as far as I'm concerned it's not a budget issue. I just wanted to make the point that the need for that position is critical for the ongoing operations of the Housing Inspection Division. We haven't increased staff since 1992. We've had an increase in the number of inspections. Dilkes/Doug, I'm sorry. I think we can talk about how it relates to this. Boothroy/I am. Dilkes/OK. Boothroy/OK, anyway, if you recall those numbers, any additional regulations that we adopt continues to impact our ability to perform. And without the additional staff, our level of service will degrade. Whether or not you adopt this ordinance, our level of service will degrade over the next year. There's been a commitment, I think, by you folks to follow through on the recommendations by the Neighborhood Task Force. It will become increasingly difficult for us to perform if we don't have that staff'person. That's all I have to say. Pfab/OK. Lehman/We got you. Thank you very much. Boothroy/OK. I just had to have that commercial in there. O'Donnell/Thank you. Lehman/OK. Four minutes. Do you want to tel1 the Conference Board we're ready? Karr/Mr. Mayor, we've got the urbanized area policy first, I think, in the Conference Board, according to the agenda? Lehman/Yeah. The Conference l]oard is next. ***** (Conference Board meets; not transcribed here) ****** (Council Work Session Resumes) REVIEW OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 17 Franklin/OK, first of all, on the table--some of you've already grabbed them--are the project resource book for the CBDG Home Funding. You don't have to take them, but it's all the projects that you will be considering in that allocation process. Champion/OK. a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 22 ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY / SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY (RS-12/OSA) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-12/OSA) FOR 2.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MEADOW RIDGE LANE AND NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03-00009) Franklin/OK. Planning and Zoning items. First item is to consider setting a public hearing for April 22nd on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from high density single family/sensitive area overlay into planned developed housing overlay for Meadow Ridge Project, Meadow Range Lane and North Dubuque Street. This is for 13 townhouses on North Dubuque Street. b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 22 ON AN ORDINANCE COMBINING THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE MOFFITT COTTAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT INTO ONE HISTORIC DISTRICT NAMED THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT. (REZ03- OO0O4) Franklin/Second item is to set a public hearing for April 22nd on combining the Longfellow Historic District and the Moffitt Cottage Historic District into one, named the Longfellow Historic District. c. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AN EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PLAN (OPDH-8) TO ALLOW A 64-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 255 OF WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 12, LOT 255, A 7.93 ACRE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT COURT STREET AND ARLINGTON DRIVE. (REZ02-00022) Franklin/Item c is-- Pfab/Karin, can I interrupt? Franklin/Yes. Pfah/Go back to the first one. Can I ask a question? Franklin/Yes. Pfab/How--what was the final result there for the Planning and Zoning Commission? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 18 Franklin/The Planning and Zoning Commission vote on that was 4 to 3 in favor of the rezoning. The three opposed, two were concerned about the number of units, and the third, it is my understanding, was concerned about the access to Dubuque Street and any further development going on at this time. Champion/At Dubuque Street, we're going to have to address them earlier. Lehman/Then do that at the heating. Franklin/Well, the Commission made an ancillary recommendation to you in relation to this project concerning that, which you will get also next time. Item c is a public hearing on an ordinance to amend an existing planned development housing plan to allow 64-unit residential development for Lot 255 for Windsor Ridge Part 12. This is a project on the east side of Iowa City on Court Street, extended near Arlington Drive, which was originally approved for 72 dwelling units, or four 18-plexes, roughly in the configuration that you see on the drawing on the screen. This is the old plan. The new plan is for three 12-plexes and 28 townhouse units. The townhouse units are along Court Street and then to the interior of the space are garages and then the three 12-plexes on the southern part of this property. This project does not encroach any further into the sensitive areas. It does encroach more into hydric soils. One of the issues that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission--well, a number of issues that were discussed, but one that got quite a bit of play--was how this common area was going--- TAPE 03-28, SiDE TWO Franklin/...tier, this is kind of a little picnic area and this has been worked out with the staff and the applicants so that more picnic tables were provided in this location. I say that only because it got a lot of discussion in the minutes. These are the townhouse units along Court Street and I think I have an illustration--yeah--this is the style of one of the collections of them, and then there's another style for some of these other parts. There is a pedestrian way that continues from north of Court Street in the Windsor Ridge development to the north that will come down along this development and then connect with the trail system that goes along the south side of Ralston Creek here. I think those are the major features that I would point out. It is recommended for approval by Planning and Zoning on a vote of 7 to 0. Vanderhoef/Karin? Franklin/Yes. Vanderhoef/Are the 12-unit multi-family buildings going to be condos that will be for sale? Franklin/I don't know that. That was discussed. Can either of the Commission members help me on that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 19 Don Anciaux/Question? Franklin/Were the apartments going to be condominiumized or are they apartments. Anciaux/They're supposed to be condominiums. In fact, that was part of the reason for the garage. It was--- Lehman/All right. Franklin/OK, Don. You'll need to come up to a mic. Anciaux/They're supposed to be condominiums, not apartments, and they're hoping to sell the individual units. Part of the reasons for the garage was because some other units that they had had garages underneath them. They thought that they couldn't sell those outright and they ended up renting them. They felt that this way with the garages and the townhouses that they could rent them--or not rent them--but sell the units. Franklin/Now, that is not a condition of the Zoning. Vanderhoef/No. Lehman/Right. Franklin/And typically we do not get into rental or condominiums as conditions of Zoning. Were you done, Dee? Vanderhoef/Well, .just to follow up on that is, I would like staff to just check and see what the selling price might be in the multi-family buildings and see if it would fit our ad-hoc program. Lehman/Fit what? Franklin/Oh. Vanderhoef/Fit the ad-hoc program. Kanner/What's the ad-hoc program? Franklin/Affordable dream home. Vanderhoef/Affordable dream home. I constantly look for sites that get the sites diversified. Franklin/OK. Lehman/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20 Pfab/The question I had was what created the most difficulty of getting this through Planning and Zoning? Where was--- O'Donnell/(can't hear) set amount. Franklin/I think if I might, and I again would ask the Commissioners to embellish on this if they would like to, I think probably the biggest thing was the change, the four 18-plexes that were part of the original planned development were quite a difficult undertaking, politically, to get approval, if you recall. The fact that it was being, that a change was being sought at this point after that difficulty was questioned, at least initially, and I don't know, then there were the amount of space that was being used when you look at this particular rendition where the buildings and the parking is here--this is all open space-- that you have more space taken up that is by the development in this revision. Is there anything else that Ann or Don that you--- Anciaux/I think you covered most of it. Basically, the footprint of it, they thought, some of the Commission members thought there was too much concrete there. But if I might add something else, the owner's association out there came in and said that they were for this project as it was and the developer did a good job contacting the neighbors and--- Franklin/Mm-hmm. Anciaux/...people that are, the residents that are already living out there to get their input into it, too. Franklin/Mm-hmm. OK. Steven? Kanner/There was a report, I think it was ECICOG--that said Joe Fowler was looking at a study of public transportation in outlying areas. So, I don't know--I was going to ask about that later, but I think it's relevant here. One--where is the closest public transportation? Is there one that goes down Scott? Franklin/It probably is, yeah--it's Scott and Court--is going to be your closest place. But I think Joe's in the lobby. He's coming in shortly, if you want to just hang onto that one. Joe--- Fowler/Yes. Franklin/Come here. Kanner/I'll ask, continue with Joe--- Franklin/Yes. Karmer/...but we're doing a revision of the Code and it might not be easy to get this through with the case in court about collecting fees for the thing that has to be open space or collecting fees in lieu of that open space in some areas. But has there been talk in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21 revision of--saying that developments, outlying developments might have to do some sort of payment for future public transportation? Franklin/Has there been discussion of that in our local development code or the state legislature? Kanner/No, in the local development code. I'm trying to figure out how this all fits in. It's hard to get public transportation out until there's a certain density, because you don't have the required ridership. Franklin/Right. So it has to be very heavily subsidized. Kanner/Yeah, and I was wondering if we could ask or if there has been any consideration of asking developments such as this, which is trying to be a little denser, which I think is good, to work on that. Franklin/We have not pursued that and particularly in light of the Supreme Court decision regarding impact fees, we have not pursued it. In the legislation that's being introduced, or has been introduced and being considered in the legislature this session, it speaks only to parks and recreation facilities and not generally to development fees which was one of the concerns of the development community and why they have resisted any development fees at all including the parks and recreation facility fees. But the Supreme Court decision is that we can only--we cannot charge those fees if they are determined to be a tax. And they determined it was a tax in the case of the West Des Moines Parks fees. So, no, we haven't considered that yet, are watching what's happening at the State level in terms of enabling legislation, but even that enabling legislation that's being considered now is only for parks and recreation facilities. Kanner/But sometime can we do, consider rezonings or planned developments, we can negotiate, and perhaps that's one thing that we could negotiate. Franklin/With direction from the Council, we certainly would be willing to include that in our negotiations. Kanner/Maybe, Joe, at this time, I mentioned that--I didn't know you were out here--but I saw a note that you're doing a study into public transit to outlying areas. Maybe that's at the request, we've had a few letters in the last six months or so, requesting that. Fowler/We've had requests from both west and east sides of town in the newer neighborhoods as they've spread out for expanding bus services out to those areas. One of the things that we talked about doing is looking at our existing service because we don't believe there'll be more money allocated for transit at this time. Excuse me. And looking if there are modifications, we can make the current routes that would give us additional hours that we could put into other neighborhoods. You know, one of the things that we've discussed is the Seventh Avenue route which has very low ridership--you know are those hours, could they better serve the community by taking the hours there and putting them out in one of the outlying areas. Could we reduce hours of service on a Saturday by one hour at the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22 beginning or the end and use those hours to reach out further. Those are the kind of things that we're looking at now. Kanner/I was thinking maybe it's possible that we can start looking at when we do these planned developments, say, maybe we can work with you private-public partnership of some sort. Look at fixed, non-fixed routes, which I think we are starting to look at to a certain extent, but maybe we could accelerate that. Especially here, it seems that it would be selling point also for the developer to be able to have buses that come in closer to their development, and I don't know if there's any interest on Council or if there's a way to pursue that on a staff level or how you're looking at it now. Are you kind of exploring some of those ideas? Fowler/That one, no, we have not. Dilkes/I think if Council's interested in talking about that we probably should put it on the agenda. I don't think we can go much farther on this item with this discussion. Pfab/I'd like to make a comment. But I'd be happy to put it on a work session. Anybody else? Kanner/Well, I think we have to define it a little more, Irvin, about what it is. I think though we should keep in mind that we could ask for more perhaps in planned development and in the interests of the whole community. Pfab/I was going to, in light of what Eleanor stated about the fact of the court system or I guess maybe it was you, Karin, that it would be a tax. I'm aware of, somebody was telling me, like in Boulder, Colorado, I think was the name of the city--- Dilkes/(Can't hear) Pfab/...where they made--instead of requiring--- Lehman/Hey, we really can't talk. We're talking about subdivisions--- Pfab/No, no, no, no--- Lehman/No, no, no, no. But this is a totally different issue and I think Eleanor's right. If we want to talk about busing in new subdivisions, it has to be a work session item. Is that correct? Dilkes/Yeah, I just think we're getting beyond the agenda items. Lehman/We're really off, totally off what we're talking about. Pfab/No. Lehman, No, we are. We're talking about this subdivision. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23 Pfab/OK. Lehman/That's a different issue and one that we may very well want to address, but this isn't the right time. Pfab/OK. Lehman/Anything else on item c? d. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM NEIGHBORItOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL (RNC-12 & RNC-20), HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RNC-12/OCD, RNC-20/OCD, RM-44/OCD & RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE COLLEGE HILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE COLLEGE HILL NEIGItBORItOOD. (REZ03-00005) Franklin/OK, item d is the public hearing on an ordinance to rezone from Neighborhood Conservation Residential and Medium Density Single Family Residential to Conservation District Overlay. This is for the College Hill Conservation District, and I guess what I want to just point out is that--- Vanderhoef/Karin? Dilkes/(Can't hear) say something, Karin? Vanderhoef/Before you go into this--- Franklin/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/...items d, e, f, and g, I have a conflict of interest because I am a member of the fraternity that's in this district. Dilkes/That's not directed by me. Dee feels like she has a conflict of interest and is not going to vote. Franklin/OK. O'Donnell/Did you say a fraternity? Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Franklin/OK. (Vanderhoef leaves table) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24 Franklin/OK, this is for a conservation district, which is very similar to a historic district in that the properties need to be primarily 50 years old or older. One of the differences between the conservation district and the historic district is that the conservation district is focusing on the character of the neighborhood as opposed to looking at individual buildings, and so the requirements for existing buildings are not as stringent as they are in the historic districts. This is, as I said, the College Hill Conservation District that's being proposed. As it was originally proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission, there have been modifications to it. After they held their public hearing, they eliminated any commercial property, commercially zoned property that was included in it. They have held neighborhood meetings and a public hearing. It has also gone through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Both Historic Preservation and the Planning and Zoning Commission are recommending approval unanimously. e. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL (RNC-12), DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ03- 00001) f. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL, (RNC-20), TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, (OPH/RNC-20), DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT 802 WASHINGTON STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK (REZ03-00002) g. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL, (RNC-20), TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, (IHP/RNC-20), DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT 726 IOWA AVENUE AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ03-00003) Franklin/E, f, and g are landmark buildings that are pulled out of the district as a whole for a designation as landmarks. The first one is 802 Washington Street, which is the Haddock-- no, sorry--is the, in terms of my illustrations, is 30 South Governor Street. Lehman/Right. Franklin/The Stevenson-Baker house. The second one that is illustrated--sorry these aren't in the order they are on the agenda--is 726 Iowa Avenue. This is the Crum-Overholt house, and then the third is 802 Washington, which is the Haddock house. As I said, those three are recommended for landmark designation. The property owners have been notified, and there has been no protest from the property owners to that designation. Pfab/Karin, I'm going back to e, where the conservation district was? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 25 Franklin/Yes. Pfab/What kind of objections came up in the Planning and Zoning--or (can't hear) as it went through the process. What problems--- Franklin/Planning and Zoning, I don't believe that there were any objections in Historic Preservation, there was certainly response from some property owners, again primarily, in the commercial districts, in which they were concerned about property values and then the Commission took out those commercial properties. There may have been individual concerns from property owners, also, again about property values. There was an evaluation done of the impact of historic district preservation on various areas of the City, comparing an area that was zoned a certain way, say RS-8, with a historic district and without a historic district. In the RS-8 zone, there was some increase in value. As far as the multi-family zones, it didn't seem to have an impact either way. Pfab/Was there--did it come up, the fact that it may preclude or keep people with more modest incomes out of those districts? Champion/For what, for what reason? Pfab/Pardon? Champion/What reason? Pfab/Because of the cost being driven up. Champion/That's not true with Historic Overlay, with the overlay. Pfab/I mean, I just wondered. I--- Franklin/I can't answer that question. Mike McHarry, who is chair of Historic Preservation, is here tonight and may be able to answer that or tomorrow night at your public hearing, whichever the mayor wishes. Mike? LehmanJ You can talk right here, Mike. Mike to the mic. McHarry/That's me. Yeah, we did do a survey to determine whether there was an impact with the property values in a historic district or without a historic district, and really, we found it was a wash depending on zoning. It really didn't matter, the property values are skewed, even within a certain district itself. So we didn't feel it was a burden to people being too high--nor, there were also concerns that it would drive down property values, and we didn't find that either. Pfab/So, basically--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 26 Lehman/No impact. Pfab/...no impact or a wash. McHarry/Correct. Pfab/OK. Thank you. Lehman/Thank you. Kanner/Karin? Franklin/Mm-hmm. Kanner/Did Shelley or anyone else in your department talk with the board of directors at 802, now it's known as (can't hear) House, part of River City Housing Fellowship? Do you know? Franklin/Specifically? Kanner/Specifically. Franklin/They were notified definitely of the landmark designation. McCafferty/Yes, there were representatives from the River City Housing Coop that spoke, both in favor of 802 being landmarked, as well as the conservation district. Kanner/Spoke at where (can't hear)? McCafferty/At both Planning and Zoning and Historic Preservation. Franklin/OK. Thanks, Shelley. OK. Move on? h. CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE TO CB-5, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE FOR BLOCK 67 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT, EXCEPTING THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03- 00006) i. AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE TO CB-S, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE, FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ02-00021) Franklin/OK, item h is a continued public hearing from the March 1 lth meeting. Both h and-- oh, we need Dee back. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 27 Pfab/Dee is coming. (Vanderhoef returns to table.) Franklin/Both h and i, which pertain to the rezoning of a block, the shaded block, as well as the individual lot at the comer of Dubuque and Market Street from CB-2 to CB-5. There is a protest that represents 20 percent or more of the properties; therefore, an extraordinary majority vote will be required for this zoning to pass through the City Council. You've had your initial introduction to this item as well as public hearing on the item already. I guess I'll just, if there's questions, any issues that you want me to address? Vanderhoef/Well, I just, I have an issue of doing any rezoning on this north side area until such time as we have the completed Code review. There are several different zones up there. This map doesn't show all of those, but we've got RO, CB-l, CB-2, PRM, RM-44, I guess they do show all of them. Franklin/Yeah, mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/OK. Anyway, the way that it is all cut up in there and with conversation that Karin alluded to earlier that they may even eliminate one zone up in there, I think we're just moving far too fast and that it would be better for us to deliberate for the whole zone, the whole north side area how it's being zoned out. So I won't be supporting this. Pfab/I'm going to have difficulty supporting it because it looks like it opens up a quite well- established part of town that seems to be working quite well and I don't know where--I'm still uncomfortable because I can't understand or I can't be comfortable with changing that part of the area there because it seems to be working right now. Champion/Well, is it working for that one lot? O'Donnei1/There's nothing going on there. Champion/There's nothing. Pfab/Well, you got a number of churches; you've got a few businesses there. O'Donnell/No, we're talking about this block. Pfab/Well, but--- O'Donnell/We have something that's been through Planning and Zoning, approved 6-0, and staff recommends it; I think all these things we're talking about have been taken into consideration. Pfab/Well (can't hear), first consideration I'm going to vote no. So. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 28 Lehman/Well,--- Pfab/I'm not comfortable at this point yet. Lehman/There are two items here. One is rezoning of the entire block; and one is rezoning of the parcel. Both are going to require six votes to pass. Franklin/And there aren't six votes. Lehman/And there aren't six votes. O'Donnell/OK. Franklin/OK. Item j, second consideration on the child-care home--- Kanner/Well, before we go on, though, is there anything that would change people's minds? Is there any negotiating that can go on? Is this the only thing that the landowner of this block that triggered all this said they want? Would they settle for something else? Franklin/Well, the reason that they wanted the CB-5 or higher, the reason they discussed the higher intensity zoning with us was to see what could be done on this piece. It's a very small piece. Champion/Very small parcel. Franklin/And if this area is going to develop intensely as an extension of downtown, and I think that is the issue that is the crux of this matter, is to whether this block or as Dee refers to the larger area, but at least this block is going to be developed like the downtown and have a very urban feel to it. With CB-2, it is difficult to do that on this property. The rest of the block is pretty intensely developed already. It is built between the churches and Brewery Square is built--Brewery Square could not be built today under CB-2. It could be built under CB-5, but not under CB-2. So, if it is to be developed in the manner in which a part of the block is already developed; that is, that a building covers this lot as opposed to a parking lot or the existing small building and the parking that is there, something has to change because you can't do it under CB-2. Lehman/The proposed development would be consistent with the rest of that block. Franklin/Yes. Champion/I don't see any reason not to support it. Lehman/Well, I don't either but--- Champion/I mean, I'd like to know the reason that you don't want to support it because it fits This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 29 right in with what's already there. And actually the other buildings there are non- conforming. Franklin/Well, the churches aren't because we don't require any parking for churches if they were built before 1962. Champion/Right. Franklin/But any private development there--Brewery Square is essentially it--would not be conforming; nor is the house that's there conforming to the existing zoning. Now, the house wouldn't be conforming to the new zoning either. Lehman/Right. Champion/But if we want that lot developed at all, the only way that they could afford to develop it is if we change the zoning. And it would actually be--the lot is kind of ugly. Franklin/Well, 1 don't want to mislead you in any way. But with the building that's there right now, you could put in some kind of commercial use. A little retail or an office or something, a florist's shop. Pfab or O'Donnell???/A bar. (Laughter) Franklin/And you'd have parking there for that use and what you see there today is what you would continue to see, or you could have the gas station back. Champion/I think with the price of land and the price of (can't hear) in Io~va City, it would be impractical to do that. Vanderhoef/Well, one of the things that concerns me--I looked at this for quite a while this weekend and then I talked with Karin this afternoon--was that I was looking at the RO designation, but that comer, because of not only a very busy commercial piece on the north side of the street, we're sitting at the intersection between two arterials. And this is such a small piece that to have a lot of in and out traffic to the property concerns me. Lehman/There would be more traffic in and out with the parking lot than there would be with the proposed development. O'Dormell/Or with a gas station they had (can't hear) for 40 years. Vanderhoef/But, what I was looking at was the RO, which would then be office versus the commercial designation, and we have along Dubuque Street several places that are more in the office or two or three, that whether they'd be doctor's offices or clinics or what- have-you, but with the RO, you also could have the parking underneath and have a place This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 30 for the business owner to put parking under there and it wouldn't be nearly so intensive. It's a real concern for me to have--- Lehman/Wouldn't the parking under for a business office be about the same as being parking under for residential? Vanderhoef/If it were, say, accounting offices, any kind of multiple office kinds of things that someone would come in in the morning, maybe see two, three clients all day. Lehman/Then they couldn't afford that spot if they're only going to see two or three a day. Vanderhoef/Well, they do so much on the intemet now that, you know, it's just a thought. And the other piece of it for me was that this is the entryway into downtown on Dubuque Street, and because we still have another two blocks of University properties lining Dubuque Street to the south, I think my commercial as starting down at Iowa Avenue, and that's just personally the way I think about it. What we have right now is buffering along Dubuque Street with the exception of the Mini-Mart, and we have a lot of nice what is more in the terms, my thinking, neighborhood commercial, than to the east of this. But it's buffered and it's tucked into the neighborhood. And to put any more at that comer is just too intense. O'Donnell/What would you put at that comer that wouldn't be intense though? Vanderhoef/Well, that's what I'm thinking is the office, commercial. But until we look at that whole scenario down there of how we're going to change zoning and if we're going to change the CB-2, you know, it's just too soon for me. O'Donnell/Ernie, this requires a super majority, 6 of 7. We can beat this to death all night. Lehman/No, we're not going to--- O'Dormell/Let's move on. Franklin/OK. Champion/Irvin, why are you uncomfortable with this? Pfab/I'm uncomfortable because it's basically, you have an area there that, what, there's four churches sitting in there, and you have one commercial. Champion/One large commercial. There's actually a couple of commercial. Pfab/Yes, there's a couple large commercials. Champion/Right. So. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 31 Pfab/So, and I guess the, when you look at the objections, you have to say, is this the place to put this? Lehman/What would you put there? Champion/What would you put there? Franklin/What is likely to be there would be, what is likely to be there will be a parking lot. Champion/Which is certainly not attractive. O'Donnell/That's a great entryway to the city. Pfab/I'm just, I guess I'm not ready to make a decision on it and so to do that, if they want to postpone it. I'm not opposed to looking at anything, but as of right now I would vote no. Lehman/Well, the issue is we have, we did continue the public hearing. We do know what they have proposed. It isn't going to be any different two weeks from now. So at least we know where we are. Ail right. Karmer/So were you hoping, was the staff hoping that there'd be a vote on this tomorrow night? Franklin/It's on for first consideration because it's a continued public hearing. Lehman/It's on for first consideration. Karmer/For both of them to have a vote? Franklin/Yes. Kanner/Yeah, I think we should continue to keep, to have the public hearing, and perhaps the people that are opposed to it could sit--have they sat down and talked with the owners of that property? Franklin/Has who sat down and talked? Kanner/The people that have opposed this, that have filed a formal opposition to the property owners. Franklin/I couldn't answer that. Kanner/Maybe that's one thing that would be helpful is to have them sit down and talk and come up, I don't know if we necessarily have to come up with what's going to be there, but I think if you get the neighbors sitting down and talking together. That's what we just talked about in the other case with the nuisance thing is that it's good to sit down and talk. And I think, we're saying we have some concerns. I, too, share some of the concerns This represents only a reasonably accurate t~anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 32 Dee and Irvin ~vere saying. And I think we should say ~ve're not ready for this; let's hear what your concerns are and let's sit down; we'll help facilitate it. Franklin/Understand that this was requested by someone who is purchasing the property. The property owner agreed to pursue the rezoning because they have a purchaser in line. There are other purchasers in line who would like to use this property for parking. So I'm not sure that the property owner has an impetus to sit down and talk. Kanner/You never know. Lehman/OK. Franklin/There will be a question before the Council as to whether you want to zone it CB-5 or not tomorrow night. Lehman/OK. O'Donnell/Unbelievable. j. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE B, ENTITLED "ZONING DEFINITIONS," AND ARTICLE M, ENTITLED "ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS," SECTION 1, ENTITLED "PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS." (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item j is second consideration on the child care that you spoke of earlier and voted on for first consideration. k. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 1.6 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO PUBLIC (P) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1828 LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item k is second consideration on the rezoning of the Kirkwood property to P. I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 2.8 ACRES FROM FACTORY BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL (RFBH) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY 12 (OPDH-12) AND AN OPDH PLAN FOR SADDLEBROOK ADDITION PART 2 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HEINZ ROAD EAST OF PADDOCK BOULEVARD. (REZ02-00019) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item 1 is pass and adopt on the planned development for the Saddlebrook Addition. m. CONSIDER A LETTER TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING FROM Al, RURAL, TO RS, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, FOR 1.31 ACRES OF PROPERTY IN FRINGE AREA A ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 320TH STREET, EAST OF PRAIRIE DU This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 33 CHIEN ROAD. (CZ03-00001) Franklin/Item m is to consider a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of a rezoning from A1 to RS for 1.31 acres of property in Fringe Area A on the south side of 320th Street. I apologize for this slide; it's very faint. But there is something in your packet which is the same illustration. It just gives you a general sense of where this property is. We're looking at Interstate 80 hem, Prairie du Chien Road and then 320th Street here. The Harding farm is approximately here, and there is an illustration in your packet of a concept plan, which shows the existing house being lot I and the plat would follow this, of course; this being lot 2, and then the remainder of the strip which is zoned A-1 at this point in time would be an out-lot consistent with the fringe agreement. Given the fact that the result of all of this--even though much of the property is currently zoned RS, which would allow construction of a farm or of another building--that it was preferable to have the buildings next to each other on 320th Street where it would have access to 320th Street would be out of the flood plain of the creek and could allow at some future time further development of this property if that was desirable upon annexation many, many, many years from now. So, this was supported by the staff as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 7 to 0 and is consistent with the fringe agreement. OK? n. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTRATERRITORIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WINDY MEADOWS ADDITION, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. (SUB03-00003) Franklin/Item n is Windy Meadows Addition. This is something that we have talked about before with zoning and is for the Wingate family. You'll be seeing a--you've got the preliminary plat which shows lotl and lot 2, which will be used immediately by the family. This is lot 2, the daughter of the woman who lives in lot 1, would like to build a house here. This access point will be the access that will be used for lot 2, and what is shown here is the ability to have a road there at some future time should any further development occur. At this point, it will be a gravel drive. There are two out-lots, one of which will be owned by the owner of lot 1, out-lot B which will be owned by the owner of lot 2. Each of these are designated for open space consistent with the fringe agreement. And again, that is recommended by the staff and by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 5 to 0. Pfab/I remember sitting in on some of this. Is that--are those (can't hear) lots--is there ever the possibility that they can be subdivided or is there a physical, something on the lot that--- Franklin/No, it could happen at some time far in the future. We would go through all of this process again if that ever were to occur. But one of the reasons that we wanted this access in here was to allow for--there's also an easement that goes right here, if you can see that rather faintly. Pfab/So, that would give access to the other two lots? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 34 Franklin/It would. P fab/OK. Franklin/It's just an easement. What we wanted to ensure was that there was a roadway in here such that if this property were ever to develop, it could use this and that ~vould be part of the legal documents for this plat, that this road can be used by this property at some time in the future, should it develop, and then it would have to be improved by development. Pfab/So that's not a private driveway. Franklin/It would be for the time being. But if further development were to occur in this area, this property would have access to it. Pfab/OK, so there would be, now, is this a public street, would that be a public street? Franklin/Only with future development. Pfab/OK. Franklin/Now it's a public access easement. Pfab/OK, but it's--- Franklin/Or would be accessible. Pfab/OK, but suppose, let's suppose somebody through the bottom of that on the diagram there were to come in and develop that, who would maintain it and who would have right to use it? Franklin/These people would have the right to use it; they would have to maintain it. Any development that were to happen here other than the two lots would be required to put in a street at City rural design standards and would be responsible for its maintenance. Because this is all on the County, remember. Pfab/So, while, basically, as I understand, they have a right to use it and some kind of an arrangement to help maintain it, if the new developer on the lower side of that would come in. They just have a right to negotiate, they would--- Franklin/They would have a right to use this space for access for this property. Pfab/At no cost to them. Franklin/At no cost to these people. Pfab/What about any cost to--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 35 Franklin/Yes. It would at their cost. Whoever develops, whether it's these people down here or it's these people here, if there's any development that happens here, they ~vould have to improve that road and whoever developed it would have to pay for it. Pfab/Yeah. Franklin/I'm done. Lehman/Thank you, Karin. Franklin/You're ~velcome. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS: AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (1)~ AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION (2)~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION--WOODLAWN DISTRICT (1) Lehman/OK. Council appointments. O'Dormell/Mark Anderson for Airport Commission. Lehman/OK. Council appointments. O'Dormell/Mark Anderson for the Airport Commission. I believe that's the only one, isn't it? Lehman/Airport Zoning Commission, right? O'Donnell/Yeah. Lehman/Is that OK with everybody? Vanderhoef/Absolutely. Lehman/And I believe that's the only application we had, is that not correct? O'Donnell/Yep. REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/OK. Agenda items. Kanner/Number 4 (can't hear--page?), Marian, there was, page 53 of ours, there was no vote listed in the official Council action. Kart/I'm sorry, Steven, it's page 50--is it the complete? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 36 Kanner/No, it's before that. It's the meeting that was held, I think last week. Ah, there you go. It needs to have a vote and a complete description listed. Karff OK. I'll take care of that. Karmer/And Karr/Is it the special meeting of March 19th? Kanner/3/19/03. Official Council actions 3/19/03. Kart/There is no votes put in the official actions. The completes have the votes because the officials that are published, the resolution number indicates passage. Kanner/OK. (Can't hear), thank you. And then in regard to number 4e, I guess this is for Steve and Dale. Who's moving into Tower Place, I'm just curious what type of business? Atkins/It's an office use, a firm Bradley and--is that correct? Riley? Dilkes/We understand that it will be used for professional offices. And it was signed by a member of the Bradley and Riley law finn. Atkins/So, whatever's within the Zoning Code will limit what they can do, but it's an office use. That's what we understand. Kanner/Do you know if they plan to divide it or is it going to be one--- Atkins/To my knowledge it's to be one. They've given us no indication about dividing it. Now, we had discussed with it earlier--we had two purchasers on this one and chose to sell the complete property as opposed to the other purchaser who wanted to split the property. You may have heard about that. But to my knowledge, they're going to use it all--is Joe here? Lehman/Yep. Atkins/That's what Joe understands. Pfab/Is there anything to prevent the purchaser from splitting it? Subdivide it? Atkins/(Can't hear) you know other than Zoning restrictions on square footage and things such as that. But that also has to do with the use. Dilkes/There are provisions in the condominium declaration regarding new condominium units. Atkins/That's what we know right now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 37 Kanner/Do they need our approval for it? Dilkes/I'd have to look at it. I can't remember exactly what the--do you remember Joe? They don't, no. Atkins/Joe's answer was no, he doesn't think they do. Wilburn/OK. Kanner/Thank you. Atkins/Mm-hmm. Lehman/Any other agenda items? 21 AND OVER ENTRANCE TO BARS Lehman/OK. Moving on. Eleanor, do you want to conduct this 21 and over entrance to bars? Dilkes/Sure. Lehman/And I think that before we start the discussion, we need some indication, ! believe, before we get into a lot of conversation and work on this, is there an indication from the Council of their interest in pursuing this? Pfab/I'm interested in pursuing it. Champion/I'm interested. Lehman/I mean, how many are interested in pursuing this? All right, Eleanor, go. Dilkes/The memo kind of lays out the general framework of the ordinance and highlights some issues. I can go right to the questions that I have for you. I can give you kind of an overview. Which is your preference? O'Donnell/I think we're all familiar with it. Just the questions. Dilkes/OK. We can go right to the questions, that's fine. The questions are on the last page of my memo. Generally, the way that this is set up is that the prohibition of having people under the legal drinking age, under age 21, in the establishment applies to all establishments with a liquor license or a beer and wine permit. And then there are a number of exemptions. The big one, as far as the establishments are concerned, is the exemption for having food and non-alcoholic beverage sales in excess of 50 percent. And there's a procedure established for proving that that is the type of establishment that you have. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 38 O'Donnell/Eleanor, would you refresh me what the procedure is. Dilkes/The procedure, as I said in the memo, I borrowed a lot from the Des Moines ordinance. And in Des Moines, as in the ordinance as drafted, the establishment would either file an affidavit, saying, you know, kind of like we do for smoking, saying these are, I have sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages in excess of 50 percent. Here's my actual percentages, etc. In Des Moines, in order to start off the process, they require that the establishment file verified statement by an accountant. I think the thinking there is that enhances the reliability of the statement, perhaps requiring less additional proof. And arguably, you know, that increases the cost presumably. I have found out by talking to, finding out more about dram shop insurance, that they have to get, the liquor licensee has to get new, do a ne~v application for dram shop insurance every year, has to report those, the figures and then those figures have to be verified down the road to set the premium by an audit, so I think there's probably some auditing going on. I don't know how extensive that is. I don't know, I think some dram shop insurers rely on the audit submitted by the establishments. Some do their own. I suspect that varies quite a bit. Yes? Pfab/But does the dram shop insurance or the procedure that you're describing there, is that required just for the liquor sales or for the total sales? Dilkes/No, they compare liquor and food sales but it's not going to be like you can just look at the dram shop and use it for this because the way dram shop works is if you have to have very low alcohol sales, more than 50 percent to qualify for what they call a family restaurant. It's like a 30, 35 percent and everything above that. It's in the other category. But they do have to report their food sales as compared to their alcohol sales. So, the establishment essentially seeks that exemption. TAPE 03-27, SIDE TWO Dilkes/...have the accountant, and that's one of the questions I have for you is what you want to require. We'll do this on an annual basis with the liquor license renewal. To start with, it would be required at the effective date of the ordinance that they either have a notice posted saying you can't come in if you're under 21 or they have their exemption posted. So, to get everybody started, we're going to be off cycle from the liquor licenses. But I think we have to have everybody starting at the same time and then it will renew, each establishment will renew as their liquor license comes up for renewal. The police chief or his designee is responsible for stamping that exception. As in Des Moines, the proposed ordinance gives the police chief the right to request additional proof, tax returns, dram shop applications, that kind of thing, if there's reason to doubt the numbers. We've talked extensively with the police chief about this and the thinking is that there will be few cases where that information is requested and only if the police department by their experience with a particular establishment, or for instance, let's say we have an affidavit on file in connection with a no smoking in food establishments ordinance that conflicts with the filing, some reason to have question about the initial filing would we ask for additional proof. Irvin? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 39 Pfab/OK. That brings up something and you just touched on it. What is happening, how do we work around with the smoking ordinance? I understand some trial periods or whatever those periods were that you could declare something and then go on, but after their status had changed, they weren't changing their method of operation. That's what I'm being told on the street. Champion/I don't think that's true. Dilkes/Well, that's an issue that's not involved in--- Pfab/It is, but it's because we would, if it doesn't work for the smoking office, how would it work for the dram shop? Dilkes/Well, I have not proposed it in this particular ordinance that there be. I think what you're talking about is the provision in the no smoking ordinance which allows--- Pfab/No, no, no, it's just, these people apparently their status has changed but their behavior at the establishment has not. Dilkes/You're going to have to give me more detail than that. I'm not understanding that. Pfab/They are no longer eligible to be a smoking whatever-it-is, but it is not being enforced or they're not posting it as no smoking. Champion/I think that's a rumor. Dilkes/Yeah. I don't know how to address that, Irvin. Is there a question that--- Pfab/All right. So what I'm saying is if they change from whatever percentage, however we do it, there from one in a group to another, if their status changes and we don't change, their behavior doesn't change--- Dilkes/The ordinance that we're talking about now, the under 21 ordinance is something that will be done annually with the license renewal so either the affidavit or the verified statement, whichever you all decide to will have to be filed annually. I think that frankly is a deficiency in the no smoking ordinance that we don't do an annual one for that, and that's something that ~ve might want to look at down the road. But this will be done annually. Wilburn/And the appropriate documentation would have to be posted on site whether it's your 21 only and/or if it's a bar that wants to have a special alcoholic event, they can request whether it's a sticker or something like that to have that posted on site that this is a special event. So that information will be posted and as law enforcement does their rounds, this is part of that experiential thing that will aid in enforcement is my presumption. This represents only a reasonably accurate ~ranscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 40 Lehman/I think the question that Eleanor has is whether or not we want a verified statement or we want an affidavit. One is verified by an accountant. The other one is the way we're doing it for the smoking ordinance. O'Donnell/I think an accountant's statement is fine. Pfab/That would be the way I'd go. Lehman/Do we have verifying (can't hear) Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. I'll go with that. Kanner/Seeing as my dad's a retired accountant, I vote for that. Lehman/Most places will have this probably as a result of (can't hear). They got it. It will be a verified (can't hear)--- Dilkes/Well, I know, most places--you mean other cities? Lehman/No, I think most businesses usually--- Dilkes/Most establishments will have that information that they can access. OK. The next question I had for you is what penalty do you want to set for the individual who is under the drinking age and is an establishment that prohibits persons under the drinking age from being present? As you know, the state set charge for possession of alcohol under legal age is $100 plus fine and court cost and surcharge. We are recommending--staff is recommending a $250 fine for this offense, being present in a bar when you're under 21 based on our perception that there is little deterrent effect as a result of the fine for possession of alcohol under legal age. You can go up to $500, anywhere between $50 and $500. We suggest you would set the fine and not leave it to the discretion of the judge so that the fine can just be imposed rather than a warrant issued if the person does not appear. I need to correct--there was a big misstatement in the DI article about this which said that I was suggesting that we raise the PAULA fine from $100 to $250. That is not the case. These are two separate offenses. Council does not have the authority to raise the PAULA fine. Champion/If we could raise the PAULA fine to $250, we would not be talking about this. Lehman/That's right. Dilkes/There you go. So--- Lehman/Now the PAULA fine ~vould also--in other words if we have a fine of $250, an individual would also probably be charged with PAULA and have a, that--- Dilkes/They could. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 41 Champion/They might not be drinking. They just not, can't be there. Lehman/That's true. Dilkes/Right. That's right. But it is possible that you could have multiple charges. So you need to set the fine for that. Champion/$250 sounds good. Lehman/$250. Pfab/$250. Vanderhoef/That's fine. Champion/That will take care of it. Pfab/But not up to, it's $250? Lehman/No. It's set at $250. Pfab/All right. Vanderhoef/Is there any provision for second offense? Dilkes/The second offense is just not workable. There is, you can do that with PAULAs, but when the police officers are out charging people, it's just--there's not a good system for trying to figure out whether it's a first offense, second offense, third offense, so. Vanderhoef/OK. Dilkes/It's just, I think it's better .just to set it, the first one at a level that. Yeah? Kanner/This is related, I think, in regards to the amount and the questions your asking. Dilkes/Mm-hmm. Kanner/What's a likely scenario of how you see this being enforced and likelihood of people being charged; in what manner would that happen? Dilkes/Well, I mean, I, it would be police officers in the bars like they are now, and they typically charge possession of alcohol under legal age for people under the legal drinking age who are in possession of alcohol. Instead of that, with this offense, it would be if there are persons in the bar who are under the legal drinking age, then they can be charged with this offense. So, in terms of the individual charge, that's how it would be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003, April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 42 done. We're not recommending that it be a criminal fine against the establishment for a number of reasons. I think that's going to be a difficult criminal charge to make stick due to the difficulty of having to identify who let the person in the bar. There is no what's called "vicarious liability" for criminal charges, i.e., you can't just charge the bar because there's somebody in there criminally. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard, we would suggest that for the establishment it be a municipal infraction and that licensed sanctions be pursued through the ABD or perhaps if Council chooses to do so at renewal, based on the nmnber of underage people in the bars. We have spoken to the Alcoholic Beverages Division. They are prepared to pursue licensed sanctions based on the number of underage charges within the bars. Champion/My only problem with that is, Eleanor, is with the proliferation of fake IDs, I think that makes it really difficult on the person who is letting people into that bar. I don't think the bar can be responsible if you're there if you have a fake ID, unless it's really a grossly fake ID. But they're glancing at them, I don't 1,n~ow. O'Donnell/I don't think they would. Dilkes/I think the Alcoholic Beverages Division takes the position that the establishment is responsible for controlling the activity on the premises and that includes who gets in and who doesn't. And if, I mean, I think their position would be that if there are many charges for underage persons being present in the bar, then something is not being handled. There are methods to more closely identify IDs, there are scanning systems, and so I don't think that it would be just one or two, but if it's--and we've seen this in cases before the ABD, where it, the evidence is such that it's clear that the establishment is not making attempt to control who does and doesn't enter their bar. Champion/Then why haven't we been able to go through that with certain bars that have a large number of PAULA's? Dilkes/Actually, it's, the position of the ABD has in the past been that the number of PAULA's alone is not sufficient. That may be changing. The most recent indication that I've had from Lynn Walding is that he would pursue it based on the number of PAULA's alone, i would not be as comfortable doing that because I think with possession of alcohol, it is harder for the establishment to control because of the ability to get alcohol from other people that are within the bar. Champion/How do we know that they haven't tried to limit it? Dilkes/Pardon me? Wilburn/You know, we do have examples of some bars locally who at least we know they were and have been making the attempt to--- Champion/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 43 Wilburn/...I mean, I don't remember, it might have been like brothers that walked in with the big stack of--- O'Donnell/That's exactly who it was. Dilkes/Yeah. Wilburn/And I think they were also paying even their person at the door five bucks per fake ID day. So there are some examples of--- Lehman/Most of them work pretty hard. O'Donnell/And the scanning is another thing. We have kind of a melting pot here of students from all over, all over the country really, and many licenses do have a bar code. Others do not. So that's not foolproof. Dilkes/No. My understanding that a very significant number of states do. I think last time I checked it was something like all but nine or something like that have that bar. O'Donnell/I don't mean the Midwest. Dilkes/Yeah. Wilburrff Maybe R.J. could comment. I thought that they used to have a, didn't they used to have a book of different state 1Ds that were--when you all went through the training with officers or did I make that up? A book that shows examples of IDs from other states, what they look like? Winkelhake/We have a book. It's the ID Manual Identification book that will give you all the driver's licenses by all the states. You're correct. Wilburn/And how does a, how does a bar establishment get that? Do they buy that from the City? Winkelhake/I think they're available through the publication that puts them out. I know we subscribe to that, get an update probably twice a year. ! can't tell you offhand what that costs. I don't know the name of the publisher, but we do have it. Wilburn/And is that information provided for the bars in the past that have asked for assistance and gone through the training? Winkelhake/As far as I know. I can't tell you with any degree of certainty but as far as I kno~v, yes. Wilburn/OK. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 44 Dilkes/I mean, there may be, in terms of pursuing license sanctions, you can collect additionaI evidence for an administrative proceeding in addition to the charges within the bar. And frankly it's not ABD that's going to make that ultimate decision, it's the courts. Pfab/I, and so apparently the burden of not going into the bar is going to be on the individual and not really on the bar, according to the ordinance that will work. Dilkes/No. I didn't say that. What I said was we are not proposing that there be a criminal penalty against the establishment or the employees of the establishment. Because I don't think that it's worth the resources to pursue criminal penalties due to the reasons I--- Pfab/But what about a civil penalty? Dilkes/We are going to pursue civil penalties. Pfab/Oh, we are? So that's--- Kanner/Question number C, Irvin. Dilkes/And so what I'd be asking, I'm asking you to tell me what municipal infraction penalty you want for the establishment. Wilburn/I would suggest the general one. Pfab/I would suggest--- Dilkes/Just the general one? Lehman/Yeah, I think so. Pfab/You what? What was it you said? Lehman/$100 for the first, $250 for the second, $500 for the third. Pfab/OK. All right. OK. Wilburn/That's interesting. Pfab/As long as it didn't say at $250. Dilkes/And frankly, I think the municipal infraction penalty is not going to be the one to get the attention. It's the fine. And I think the civil penalties that are going, make more sense to pursue and put our efforts into are the license penalties through the ABD. And you don't need a conviction to pursue license penalties through the ABD. Lehman/Is that, are we all OK on the--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 45 Karmeff Well, I think if you're going to, the establishment should have a stiffer penalty than the individual, I think. Lehman/Well, it starts at $100 and it's $250, $500, and then $750. Pfab/It starts at what, a hundred? Dilkes/Oh, no, no, no. Our general penalty, under State Code, you can do up to $500 for the first offense and up to $750 for subsequent offenses. Our penalty provision, unless you specify a specific one, is $100 for the first offense, $250 for the second offense and $500 for the third offense. Pfab/I would say start at $250. Champion/No, I would start as Iow as possible. Pfab/No. Champion/You know, Irvin, you know, I mean--- Lehman/We're not trying to make money on this. Champion/We're not--- Pfab/No, we aren't making money on it anyway. Champion/But, you know, some of those bars have a lot of people going into them every night. I think people are personally responsible for their own behavior. And it bothers me to make the bar owner responsible for every minor that gets in his bar. Pfab/Well, then, if that's the case then, I would rather see the, and that was where I was coming to, then I would see that the minor, well, whatever, the person that's not supposed to be in there, I would suggest it starts at $300. Dilkes/Wait a minute though. We're not going to be charging a municipal infraction for every underage person in the bar that's cited. I envision a municipal infraction and the penalties through the ABD to be used when there appears to be a pattern that is, you know, we're not going to be charging every establishment for every person that we charge. Champion/OK, OK. Dilkes/If we had the ability to do that or successfully, we'd probably do a criminal offense, you know. Champion/OK, that makes me feel better because we could bankrupt them really quickly. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 46 Dilkes/I just don't think that, I think it's going to be tough to do. Champion/(can't hear) control it, right, OK. Pfab/So are we agreeing then on $250 for the first one? O'Donnell/$100 up to $500. Pfab/No, not up to. I don't want this "up to" business. I want it to be a number so if they don't show up, it's forfeited. Dilkes/Well, do you want to make it $250 and $500. O'Donnell/Up to $500 is fine. Pfab/No, not up to. Dilkes/We need to set it. O'Donnell/Then $100. Champion/$100. It starts at $100. Lehman/I don't think this is a big (can't hear---deal?) Dilkes/Do you want some, I mean, there's an appearance of--I mean, do you want to make it the same as for the person charged, $250 or do you want it to go lower? I mean, that's--- Pfab/1 ~vould say start at $250 and the next one at $500, as long as, just because somebody's caught in there and there is, just because someone is underage that's in the bar, it isn't automatic that the bar isn't responsible. But if it gets to be a, if there's a distinction between obviously the bar knew that person was underage, then I think the fine should be. Ifnot--- O'Donnell/How do you determine that? Dilkes/But that's--- Champion You can't determine that. Dilkes/No. If I thought I could prove knowledge in every case, I'd propose a criminal penalty. Champion/Right, it would be impossible. Lehman/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 47 Dilkes/So, we're talking about a municipal infraction. How much we use a municipal infraction, how much we use the ABD process, those things are just going to have to play out as we go along, seeing what works, what kind of, you know, how many charges we have for underage, I mean, so, but I--you just need to set the municipal infraction penalty for an establishment who, you know, allows a person under 21 to enter or remain on the premises. Wilburn/I think, in my opinion, since the ABD option is there for problem cases, I'm fine going with the $100, $250. Lehman/$100, $250, $500--how many? Pfab/I'll go along with that. Vanderhoef/Yeah. Lehman/All right. Eleanor? Dilkes/And then my final question is whether you anticipate accomplishing the third reading of this ordinance before June 1 st such that an effective date of August 1 st is reasonable? I'd like to have a 60-day period between the third reading and the effective date, because we're going to need to go through this process of establishments filing to get their exemptions and that kind of thing. Pfab/I have a slightly different position and my position would be, once we determine what it is, have the City Council start the referendum process immediately and have a referendum on it. Dilkes/The City Council does not have the ability to start the referendum process. That is a process that is begun by citizens. Pfab/OK. So the Council cannot--- Dilkes/The Council cannot put something on the ballot. Pfab/OK. So we know it's going to happen. Dilkes/Absent, if there's a referendum, we'll go through the referendum process. Pfab/OK. Well, then, I think that it's quite certain that there will be a referendum and I think that's a good thing, because if there isn't community support in it, then the City Council's wasting our time. Lehman/Well, the question here is are we willing to address this issue and have the final reading prior to the first of June? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 48 Champion/Yes. Wilburn/Yes. Lehman/So the day could be August 1st. ?fab/But I'm sure the referendum process is going to come in here someplace. Lehman/Referendum (can't hear) but that's (can't hear) Dilkes/The referendum process--- O'Donnell/Irvin, we have nothing to do with that. Pfab/No. Dilkes/Signatures would have to be gathered within 60 days of the final publication. Lehman/They can't even have a referendum until after we pass it. Dilkes/Yeah. O'Donnell/No. Lehman/All right. Pfab/OK. Lehman/And so, are we in agreement that the 1st of--all right. You have your answer. Dilkes/OK. O'DonnelI/Would you answer me a question? Dilkes/Uh-huh. O'Donnell/And before I say anything, I fully support supporting the law. And the la~v is you can't drink until you're 21. I understand in this, in the ordinance as I've read, you can go in if you're with a spouse that's 21 or a parent. If somebody comes from out of town and their son is a Phi Gamma Delta, can you take him and his friends--could a father take him and his friends out to a restaurant that is over 50 percent alcohol at night after 9:00? Dilkes/The friends would not be accompanied by a spouse, a parent or a guardian. So, no. O'Donnei1/So they would have to call their mother or father. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 49 Lehman/They'd have to go to a restaurant. Dilkes/They'd have to go to a restaurant as we've defined it. Champion/I'd like to bring up one point too. The only--I have two problems with this ordinance although I'm very much in favor of it. And I'd like for Council to seriously think about the 9:00 p.m. (can't hear). I think that's awfully early. I've checked around. Most of the kitchens close at 9:30, 10:00. A lot of people don't go out and eat dinner until 8:00 or 8:30. Or they're going to meet friends at 8:00 and by the time they get seated, it's 8:30. By the time they get their food ordered, that means they're going to kicked out of the restaurant at 9:00. Lehman/No, kicked out of the bar. Restaurants they can eat in. Champion/Well, I know, but there's a lot of bars that serve food. O'Donnell/You're splitting hairs, Ernie. Champion/And there's actually good food, some of the better food in Iowa City is served in the bars. O'Donnell/My second point was that, too, Connie, and I just--- Champion/So, I mean, I have trouble supporting the 9:00. Ten o'clock seems much more reasonable to me. Not everybody eats at 5:30, I know I don't, and I don't, and I do think 10:00 is much more reasonable, since most of the kitchens close at 9:30 anyway. And it just seems, it seems unfair without really trying to put the restaurant part of the business out of business, and that could be a secondary problem of this ordinance, and I'm only interested in keeping the drinking under control. So, I'm not begging you, I'm asking you to seriously consider setting the time for 10:00. Pfab/Connie, I'd like to address that. I brought that up and of course I suggested 6:00 in the evening. Champion/Well, Irvin, you probably (can't hear) Pfab/I know, but anyway, the point is, I understood that I was told that if you are in there and ordered food, you could stay there until you left. O'Donnell/That's ~vrong. Pfab/But that's not the way this says. It says you are out of there at 9:00. And so I think that because of that I'd have no trouble going with 10:00. Champion/Oh, thank you, Irvin, I love you to death. This represents only a reasonably accurate la'anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 50 (Laughter) O'Donnell/Get that in writing. Lehman/We're having a love-in here, folks. Champion/I mean, I just think it's important that we deal with the problem we really want to deal with and eating at like Vito's or the Fieldhouse, that's not the problem we're trying to deal with or the Sanctuary or any of those. Dilkes/I think you need, obviously you ~vill set whatever time you think is appropriate. I think you need to--R.J., do you think there are some enforcement issues with going to 10:00 or are you OK with that? I just want to go into this with our eyes open. Winkelhake/When we had spoken about that particular thing, we were looking at the 9:00, and I think the suggestion came out of this group actually at 9:00, and for the enforcement efforts, we thought 9:00 was better than 10:00. It gives you a transition of a very clear period of time from 9:00 getting out of the bars until 10:00 when you start seeing an influx of people coming into the bars. So that one hour seemed to work fairly well from us from an enforcement standpoint. That's where our discussion had taken place. Wilbum/I remember that. Winkelhake/And officers had agreed and we would make our recommendation to you--sorry about that--it would be 9:00 is what we would recommend. Wilburn/And we had examples of them starting earlier and a little later, and ifI remember, I don't know if it was me or someone else there at 9:00, it might have been me that threw out 9:00. O'Donnell/But we have home basketball games that end between 8:30 and 9:00 and many parents come in and take their sons or daughters out--- Vanderhoef/Well, you can take them in. Champion/Well, they take their friends all out. O'Donnell/But they what? Vanderhoeff They can take--- Champion/But they take their friends all out. When I take my kids out, I think there's 13 of them. Lehman/Well, after a basketball game, there's no way you're going to go into a restaurant and This represents only a reasonably accurate l~-anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 51 be served by 10 o'clock anyway. So that's not going to be make a difference (can't hear) the ball game. O'Donnell/That certainly is, if you hop on the bus and get downtown, you can't go in and have a pizza, Ernie, because you're--- Lehman/Pizza places aren't going to be, they're going to be restaurants anyway. O'Donneli/A lot of the bars serve pizzas at night. I mean, it's just not cut and dried. Lehman/Well, what do we want to do? Vanderhoef/I think we ought to stick with 9 o'clock. I understand what you're talking about, Connie, and yet the enforcement piece is a real concern because if you watch the traffic moving into the establishment, 10 o'clock is about when they start coming in, and once they're in there and it's crowded, to go in and check IDs on everybody and make sure that they get out at that time, is a problem. The more people that are in the establishment at that point, the harder I think it will be for enforcement to be sure of who's of age and who's not of age. Kanner/! think this ordinance if it's going to work is only going to work on sort of a self- enforcement kind of thing and it's not going to be necessarily because police or others are going to be finding large amounts of people, I think like smoking ordinance or other things of this nature, it's going to be because it's known that it's a simple thing. You have to be out at a certain time and I think 10 o'clock seems more reasonable for a lot of the reasons that you mentioned. I would support 10 o'clock also. Lehman/Well, how many want 10 o'clock? O'Dormell/What do you think, Emie? Pfab/I have no problem either way, but I'll support 10 o'clock. Lehman/Really, I guess I'd probably go along with (can't hear---). I think there may be some problems and as far as clearing out and being able to enforce it seems to me that that would be a pretty good hour, if you do things right, you could. Serious drinkers come out later. But I could live with either one. Pfab/I can live with either one. Wilburn/I would consider 9 o'clock for that enforcement issue. It is true and other communities have to wrestle with how they're going to go about getting the message out that, you know, whether self-enforcement, there's still going to be some folks pushing the limit, and you know, that's where some of the fines will come in. And also, but also, xvell--- Champion/Those towns have been 21 for a long time, which I think makes a big business, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 52 because restaurants open as restaurants then and bars open as bars in towns where it's 21. But we have a lot of restaurants that become bars because it's not 21. So I think we're going to damage those businesses. O'Donnell/A good point. Champion/I mean, if you're 21, you've been 21 for years, then nobody goes in and opens the big bar that's going serve food till 9:30 or 10:00 o'clock, because they know that they have to get people out of there by 9:00 o'clock. The most proper dinner hour is 8:00 o'clock. Wilburn/Yeah, I'm not arguing that over time you're talking about essentially a change in the culture and environment. My only, I guess, point that I would make, I was putting my reasoning and rationale behind what the enforcement related to the 9:00 o'clock, I would stick with that. If you picked 10:00 o'clock people are going to make the same arguments, if you pick 11:00 o'clock, the same, so. That's where I'm coming from. Champion/Yeah, that's rational. O'Donnell/But we're the ones that set that limit though. That's the thing. We can set 9 or 10 o'clock. Wilburn/And if you pick 10:00, ifa majority picks 10:00, I'm sticking with 9:00. Be prepared for some people to push you beyond 10:00 o'clock. That's the only--- Champion/ No. O'Donnell/That's going to happen with speed limits too. Lehman/I've got a question. I think Cedar Rapids is 7:00 o'clock. Ames is 8:30, is that correct? Dilkes/Ames does not have. Oh, wait a minute. O'Donnell/They do. Vanderhoef/Ames has one for smoking, but--- Lehman/It's 8:30 for smoking. Dilkes/I don't have my file with me. I can't remember it being--- Lehman/Do you know what Des Moines is? Dilkes/Des Moines is 9:00. Champion/If you've been to a restaurant in Des Moines at 9:00 o'clock, there's nobody in the whole town. This represents only a reasonably accurate t~anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 53 (Laughter) Pfab/I haven't been in Des Moines at 9:00 o'clock. Champion/I mean, there's nobody there. Lehman/All right. Let's lift up how many would be satisfied with 9:00 o'clock? Dilkes/No, Ames does not--I'm sorry, I do remember--Ames doesn't have a set time. If you can show that there are certain hours of the day and get a plan approved that you have more food sales than alcohol sales, then you can get exempt from that. Pfab/I think what we need to consider here is if we have to look at what the public will support, because this is going to a referendum. So, if we, at some point in time, we have to take that into--I think there's no question in the world that there's going to be a referendum on it. So we have to consider how we craft this so it either passes or doesn't pass the referendum. Lehman/How many would support 9:00 o'clock? Pfab/Makes no difference to me. Champion/Well, can we have it for 10:00 first? Lehman/How many will support 10:00 o'clock? Champion/Because I support 9:00 o'clock if nobody, if we don't have the support for 10:00 o'clock. Eleanor, that's what we've just counted for four people for I0:00. Dilkes/I got four for both. Lehman/You're right. Irvin voted twice. Pfab/No, I said I'd go either way--so if you put whichever came first I voted for it. Lehman/Irvin, you're the swing vote, is it going to be 9:00 or 10:007 Pfab/Well, I was under the impression--- Lehman/9:00 or 10:007 Pfab/Just let me make a quick, real short statement. O'Dormell/No, this is--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 54 Pfab/When I came in here, I was told that the police were interested in 11:00 o'clock. So I thought, well, 10:00 is closer than 11:00. Lehman/Who told you that? Pfab/That's just what I heard. So now when it comes back to 9:00, then I have a problem. Then I probably am trying to think more towards 9:00. O'Donnell/9:00 to I 1:00--right in the center is I0:00 o'clock. Lehman/Irvin, why do you say 9:00? Pfab/I'll say 9:00. Lehman/We have 9:00 o'clock. O'Donnell/Now, wait a minute, Ernie. (Laughter) O'Donnell/Now wait a minute. We had 10:00 o'clock 45 seconds ago. Lehman/But he voted twice. Pfab/No, I said it didn't make any difference. O'Donnell/Well, then let's go best out of three if that's the way you want it. (Laughter) O'Donnell/Let's take a break. Ernie, I think we ought to get serious on this. I think it's going to affect people a great deal downtown. Lehman/Right. I'll look at that question (can't hear) Kanner/I had another question for Eleanor. For marital status, someone's in a bar and they say, I'm married to So and So when they're asked to leave. How do we prove marital status if they say they're married? Dilkes/Well, again, I think--- O'Donnell/Last name. Dilkes/What's that? O'Donnell/Last name. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 55 Lehman/Nothing. (Laught~) Vanderhoef/Smart mouth. Dilkes/You know, I think what you would do is--- Lehman/Probably take their word for it. Dilkes/Well, I think you take their word for it unless it seems suspicious. I mean if it seems suspicious, then you'd probably get a name and an ID on each party and then determine whether they are married or not. That could be problematic in some cases, I suppose. Wilburn/And looking a little further, I suppose sort of the presumption is that someone is aiding in responsible behavior and if there's not responsible behavior that will take care of itself, whether it's a proprietor (can't hear) O'Dormell/You know, that's good, but you know you have to, we are all I00 percent in favor of enforcing the law, and we all raise our hands and say we'll uphold it. The Iaw's 21. But you know, today this is really troubling me, you can get marTied, you can take your older spouse in and have a hamburger. You can buy a car, you can buy a house, you can having children. You can go to Iraq. But you can't be in a place that serves alcohol after 9:00 o'clock at night unless you calI your mother. And that bothers me. Vanderhoef/Well. Wilburn/Well, you can get a learning permit to drive a car at 14--- O'Donnell/With a parent. Wilburn/...and no one's suggesting that the (can't hear) be 14. O'Donnell/With a parent, Ross. You can drive it with a parent with a learner's permit. Wilbarn/We have to pick something to go with and--- O'Donnell/Yeah, and I understand. Wilburn/Yeah. Champion/We all agree with you, Mike. O'Donnell/I don't expect to win every battle but I'd like to win one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003, April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 56 (Laughter) Vanderhoef/We have one more problem. Lehman/One more problem coming up. Wilbum/Related to--- Champion/I didn't get any cooperation on my last problem. I probably won't get any cooperation on this, but I'll just speak my mind anyway. Does that surprise you? Wilbum/You've got three votes to try and (can't hear) O'Donnell/I'm not sure if it's 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock yet. Lehman/It's 9:00 is what we--- Dilkes/I'm going to put in 9:00 and if you want to amend it on the floor, you can do that. Then we can take a formal vote. O'Donnell/Thank you. Champion/I thought we talked about private parties. What if somebody wants to have a rehearsal dinner, I'll just use the Sanctuary because they have kind of a separate room. And there'll be minors. (Can't hear) have your rehearsal dinner at the Sanctuary and you know you're going to have lots of people bringing their families. Like, for instance, we do a wedding in our house and everybody comes to the rehearsal dinner, which is sometimes 100 people. So you're going to have people there. You're going to have minors there and some of them will be without their parents. So I mean this is a minor problem, but it is a problem. So I thought we'd talked about addressing that somehow. Like could I go to (can't hear) my family's going to have this big private party at Vito's or the Sanctuary and it would be up to me to get permission from (can't hear) for me to take the family. We have to be isolated like in a separate room or something. Dilkes/Well, there's a couple--- Champion/Yeah, you know, we would probably have a champagne. My family is probably not going to have a (can't hear) Wilburn/Well, first you have to decide whether or not they're going to be over the 50 percent or not to start with. If they end up being a restaurant--- Champion/But they're a bar now. O'Dormell/And what time it is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 57 Dilkes/There's a couple things. Number 1, they may be under the definition in the ordinance, a restaurant as opposed to a bar. Number 2, if the kids that are there presumably will often be with a parent. Champion/Not always. If you're a young person getting married and you have lots of friends in college, a lot of them might be 21. Dilkes/That's true. I really hate to go--if you think it's a big problem that needs to be addressed, we'll try it. But the private party exception is a can of worms. Lehman/Yeah. Dilkes/And very difficult to draft to prevent abuse. I mean look at the New Year's Eve parties downtown, which they've argued are private parties, under our specials prohibitions. That's a really tough one, and you know, if you want to put it in there, we'll put it in there. But go into it with your eyes open and know that, you know. O'Donnell/You think it's not enforceable. Dilkes/I think it's really tough. Lehman/Well, but then--- Dilkes/Well, we can try it. We can make it more restrictive; it has to be the whole premises. You know, we can try it. Champion/That's (can't hear). I mean it can't, wouldn't have to be the whole premises. Dilkes/Well, we already have that. It has to be in our specials thing. It has to be, you know, they have to be identified in some way. Champion/Right. The area has to be defined. Dilkes/No, you have to be identified and some private party participants have to be identified. We can try it. I'm just telling you it is a very difficult provision. I have found it in no other provisions in under 21 ordinances in the state. Champion/Ames has one, don't they? Dilkes/Private party, no. What they have is--and I put one in here for non-alcoholic functions. If you're going to have, if you present a plan to the PD and show that you're going to suspend the serving of alcohol beverages for a period of time, then you can get approval for that event. That's the one that you typically see in under 21 ordinances throughout the state. I haven't come across a private party exception, I don't think. I can go back and look at them. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 58 O'Donnell/I think it's a good point. Lehman/Probably. Maybe an inconvenience on a few occasions. There are so many places that would be OK because they're restaurants. You might not be able to go to the exact place you want, but you still have some place to go. I do have a question thought that I find somewhat interesting. Is the golf course or a bowling alley? Now, for example, Colonial Lanes, which is obviously a bowling alley, I would guess although I don't know this to be a fact, that their sales of alcohol greatly exceeds their sales of food. Are we going to say that young people cannot bowl afier 9:00 o'clock? Or golf courses, i guess are going to be--- Champion/ Very good question. Lehman/What do you do with--- Dilkes/If it's a licensed establishment and the license authorizes on-premises consumption, and I assume you have some of those for bowling alleys--- Lehman/Well, but there is a significant--bowling alleys basically start at dark. And there's an awful lot of kids who like to go bowling and a lot of those kids aren't even 16 or 17. Champion/Right. Lehman/And we're saying--- Dilkes/And there may be more if you exempt them. Lehman/Well, I'm just--- Dilkes/I mean I'm just, the battle of consequences--- Lehman/I don't think that's at all what we're trying to control. Dilkes/Right. And we could certainly include exceptions, but consider if you except certain establishments, you may be, that may become a venue for persons who have been at other establishments that they can no longer go to. Champion/Boy, that's a really good point too. Lehman/Well, but a bowling alley--- Dilkes/I mean, you know, a bowling alley that now you can be under 21 and you can be there and you can drink, where you can't go downtown to your bar downtown, but you can go to the bowling alley or you can go to the golf course or whatever. So, I'm just, you know, think about the ramifications of that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 59 Lehman/Well, I can think of the ramifications of not allowing people under 21 in a bowling alley would be a disaster for a lot of bowling alleys. I mean, those kids--Colonial Lanes, my guess, is on non-league night, the majority of the people bowling there at 10:00, 11:00 o'clock at night are under 21. Dilkes/Not accompanied by a parent or guardian. Lehman/No, no, they're not. Champion/High school kids. Dilkes/High school kids. Lehman/And that is, as I remember looking at the police reports, we've checked them a number of times and ifI remember correctly we have not issued very many PAULAs, and I don't think kids go there to drink although I have been known to see a kid carrying a pitcher there. I think that's a significant problem for a bowling alley and not one that we are intending to, you know, put somebody out of business. We talk about kids finding venues other than kids going to bars. Admittedly a bowling alley might not serve beer, but it is not a bar, and for most kids I think it's a non-alcoholic venue even though there's alcohol served. Dilkes/We might be able to address that by including in allowing the inclusion in the--- Lehman/Sales, value of the bowling with the food. Dilkes/...sales for services that are not entertairanent cover charges, those kind of things. You know, might be able to address it that way. Lehman/Then a golf course (can't hear) Dilkes/I think actually Des Moines, when I think of their percentage figure, they ~vould maybe allow that kind of thing. Lehman/Well, I think we have to be able to (can't hear) O'Donnell/How is that different, Ernie, from some people like bowling, others like dancing-- how is that any different financially to a bar that hires a band and relies on the floor to pay the band? Lehman/Well, I guess, no, I don't know what the difference is, but you and ! both know if you look at the citations for PAULA's in bowling alleys as opposed to bars with dancing, there's a significantly higher percentage in bars with dancing. O'Donnell/I think average age in a bowling alley is at least 55, Emie. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 60 Lehman/Pardon? O'Donnell/I think average age in a bo~vling alley is over 50. (Laughter) Lehman/Not on non-league nights. Those people bowl in a league. Pfab/Eleanor, I have a question. What's to stop a tavern from say selling T-shirts or other things to--- Champion/ They do sell T-shirts. Pfab/No, no, just a minute, and say that we have other things. Dilkes/That's what I'm saying is right now the formula is very simple. It compares food and alcohol. It can and I think Des Moines allows you to look at--to include in that equation some services, other income but not cover charges, entertainment fees, that kind of thing. Pfab/Or else let's suppose they decide to sell, to have fortune tellers in there and that was another service they provided. Dilkes/You're right--pool, bowling, T-shirts, all that stuff: Do you want to include all that stuff? Champion/Hancher. Lehman/Well, but it would, is there some way of wording that where the principal source of revenue for the business. For example, a bowling alley is a bowling alley. Sales of food and alcohol are ancillary. The same thing is true of a golf course. The same thing is probably true, although I'm not sure, of a pool hall. I mean, in that case, alcohol may be the primary source. The primary purpose of, the primary source of revenue--- Champion/ Is alcohol. Lehman/...is not food or alcohol in a bowling alley. Nor is it in a golf course. Champion/Nor is it would be at Hancher and I'm sure the Englert will have wine served at half- time in a play and I think those are--- Lehman/And I don't know that there's any, I'm just thinking out loud, but if the primary source of revenue is not food- or alcohol-related, I think we can make a distinction there that is totally different from restaurants and bars. Dilkes/Yeah. I'll work on that. Champion/That's a good point. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 61 Wilburn/Well, I agree with you, Ernie, that if you look at the PAULA's, the source of the problem hasn't been bowling alleys. O'Donnell/Well, I think you have to look at the number of checks at each of these individual places. You only check a bar, you know, 50 times in a month and maybe a bowling alley is checked one time. Wilburn/I think we also draw upon our own individual experiences and my experiences at downtown versus my experiences at the bowling alley have been markedly different. Vanderhoef/And also--- O'Donnell/Well, then they should be because I bet you the average age of your league is considerably over 17, and I know I was in a league and the average age was over 50. Wilburn/Then don't support it. O'Dormell/I don't plan to. Wilburn/OK. Champion/OK, let me see if I have one more question since I got nowhere with my other concern. Karmer/A quick one--UI is subject to this ordinance? Lehman/No. Wilburn/State property. Kanner/So the Hancher wouldn't make any difference. Champion/So, but like there are places of entertainment that serve alcohol at intermission and they don't sell food. Kan:/We don't license them. Champion/Oh, we don't? Oh, OK. Vanderhoef/Riverside Theatre though would be--- Champion/ But we don't license them. OK, let me think, I have a question--- TAPE 03-29, SIDE 1 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 62 Champion/Oh, I just thought of it--- (Laughter) Lehman/You remembered. (Several talk) Champion/OK, the other--are you ready, Ernie? Lehman/Are you ready, Marian? Karr/Mm-hmm. Lehman/OK. Champion/The other thing that I wanted to bring up was I don't know if I'll have any support for it either. I'm just laughing because I'm the one pushing for this and you're all stricter than me. Do we want to phase this in so people who are here now are not affected, I mean, like do we want to go to 20 in August or 217 What is the restriction to get into bars Lehman/Twelve. (Laughter) Champion/Well, you could in Calumet City, but I'm talking about Iowa City. Kanner/There's no age. Vanderhoef/There's no age. Kanner/You can take a child. Champion/There isn't? Kanner/No. Dilkes/That's the thing. That's what we're trying to find an age. Champion/Wow. OK. O'Donnell/Start with 12. (Laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 63 Lehman/I don't think so. Champion/It might kind of take the sting out of this and give bars time to recoup and maybe think about what other kind of entertainment or venues they're going to do or other places. I mean, I don't know, will we start at 19 or we start at 20 and 21 next year--do you feel that 19 August 1st, 20 August 1st of next year, 21 August 1st of the year after that? Or do we start at 20? I mean, I don't know. I'm throwing it out. I think it would take some of the sting out of it and give people time to. It's not just throwing them out in the street, saying OK, kids. Because we don't have a lot of other venues that have developed because you have to be 21 to get into bars. Is it kind ora social service thing to start at 19 or start at 20 so that it gives time to organize other venues for people to do other things? Vanderhoef/Well, Connie, this has been brought up to me too and at first blush, I thought it was a great idea to change over with the University student age group so entering freshmen would be exempt right away in August and moving up, but then I started thinking of we get such an influx of people from other towns that come here specifically because they can get into a bar at a younger age, the underage. And then the reeducation every single year in the enforcement part of it also is worrisome to me. So I think we won't make the impact that maybe we're trying to make on the underage and over-consumption of alcohol if we graduate it in. I think we're putting ourselves in the position of enforcement problems and probably that everybody will continue to say it's not thinking. I did think about that for about a week and talked to a number of people about it and that's where I finally came down on it. Pfab/As unusual as it may be, I would associate myself with Dee's comments. I did look at this thing and I was thinking this may be an alternative and after I talked to a number of other people, I just couldn't find any other support in, I found very little support, so I feel that this is probably where the referendum is going to decide. Either we pick the right thing and it goes, it passes, it gets through to the referendum. If it didn't it won't make it and we forget about it. Lehman/Well, and I think, Eleanor, if you remember I talked to you about that two years ago, t~vo-and-a-half years ago that if we went 21, we'd phase it in. And I think most of the rationale that I've heard since them probably is that it's cleaner just to go to 21. What's the pleasure of the Council? O'Donnell/I think Connie's got a reasonable idea. It also would give the business owners downtown an opportunity to understand how it's going to affect them in varying years. Wilburn/I think it's cleaner just to go ahead and--if you're going to do this--make the decision and if the community wants to respond in a certain way, we'll have--- Pfab/I mean, at this point, the community knows when a referendum comes up, they know where they're at and either it goes up or down on its own merit. So I, at one point, I had planned to support that phasing, grandfathering in or whatever you want it called, but I can't find any other support except a couple people in the community. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 64 Wilburrd It would be less confusing like Dee was saying. Champion/OK. The other thing I wanted to bring up is if we pass this ordinance, then I would like to ask the mayor to send a letter to the University that they need to step in and provide some venues or something. I mean, I'm just suggesting that. Lehman/Oh, I'd be more than glad to. I think the University will be very supportive of working with us. What they're going to provide, I don't know. But I would be glad to do that. Champion/OK. I'm done now. Pfab/I have one more--- Vanderhoef/I'll go along with you on that, Connie. I thought perhaps it was time to make a challenge to the University to provide the entertainment and venue and I see in the paper and that's all I know about it, is that they're getting ready to do some renovation and an addition onto the Union and that if a dance venue that was similar to a bar but did not have any alcohol in it and it was used exclusively for that purpose and could also be used for live entertainment venue because that's another one of the things that we hear a lot from the young people is they want to go hear the music in some of our restaurant bar areas, and I think that's a legitimate want from the student population and the young people, whether they be high schoolers or not, and certainly them are dollars available in the student fees for providing entertainment. And they might be able to design something that is very regular on live music, both for concert type and for dance type activities, and I think we definitely need to ask the University to step up and assist us in making this a fun place for the underage people. O'Donnell/Is it, one final thing for me, Ernie, sorry. Lehman/Go ahead. O'Donnell/Is everybody comfortable? You remember we always were talking about putting Iowa City on a level playing field with our surrounding communities, and now we have a smoking ordinance. Nobody else does. We have an alcohol ordinance. Nobody else does. Now we're going to go to 21 and nobody else is. Does anybody feel that we're, we should be soliciting larger support in the community or the county, rather than just Iowa City? Pfab/I'd like to make a comment. I think it may address this. No matter what ordinance we pass will not work unless we have community support. So it looks like this is probably going to pass and since the Council cannot initiate the referendum on their own, as soon as we get it passed, I'll be out helping collect signatures together (can't hear). To see where the community is. Lehman/OK. That's a good way to end. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 65 Pfab/To get it on the ballot. COMMUNITY EVENT/AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING ALLOCATION Lehman/OK. The next item is Community Event Funding. Vanderhoef/Which one do you want to do first? Lehman/Well, I guess we got community events first. So let's do that one first. Vanderhoef/OK. Karr/Do we want to do aid of agencies first rather than community events? Lehman/Aid to agencies, that's--- KalT/I mean, simply because I, or which way do you want to go, Ross? Lehman/I don't care. Champion/We don't care. Karr/Well, but it makes a difference with Ross. Wilburn/Well, there's more people here that are here for aid to agencies. So I will not be participating in this discussion because I'm a member of an applicant agency and I have a conflict of interest and must not participate in discussion. (Wilbum leaves table) Vanderhoef/OK. Lehman/I don't have my list. Vanderhoef/Which do you want? This one? Lehman/Well, aid to agencies recommendations, yes, I didn't bring it. Vanderhoef/OK. I will share it with you. Lehman/I thought I had it but I don't. Well, why don't we, well, Connie, take your--- Vanderhoef/I'll go first. Lehman/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 66 Vanderhoef/Just as a reminder, back in January, Connie and I sent you a memo and said that we were looking at four specific things. The first one was equity in the total distribution of funds for aid to agencies, that the agencies are returning the services stated in their missions and goals, the duplication of services isn't eroding or diluting the value of the contributed funds and that there are not gaps in services within the community. So that was what we looked at and spent quite a bit of time on. The recommendation as you see it we have redistributed funds in a few cases. We also have taken $15,000 that we are not distributing at this point. This money is being reserved specifically for pre-employment and job training for youth at risk that are not part of the federal system of waivers for disabilities. Kanner/Excuse me, I'm going to excuse myself for a potential conflict of interest at this time. (Kanner leaves table) Vanderhoef/So, you won't be voting on this at all? Karmer/I might be but it hasn't been determined yet. But I thought it's better if I sat this out. Dilkes/Steven mentioned to me at the break that he does some contract work for ARC and asked whether I thought that would be a conflict of interest. I said I need more detail in order to answer that question. If it's a minimal amount of work, my gut reaction is that it would not be, but I can't answer that at a break. I need more details. You know, one can envision a situation where all a person's income comes from a particular agency and that could create a conflict. I don't know what the situation is. Champion/But we don't fund ARC. Lehman/Well, I know that, but it was--they requested--- Dilkes/They were an applicant for money though. Vanderhoef/OK. So what we came to the conclusion that Mayor's Youth Employment is serving a number of young people with disabilities and are on waivers. We would like to see this group to collaborate with a number of other agencies that are in the community that also work with youth. We think the gap is there definitely, that there isn't pre-employment and job training and we would invite any interested agencies to sit at the table and create a plan and bring it to us for specifically these youth at risk. Do you want to talk about the other one? Champion/Yeah, well, I think I just would go on a little bit more about Mayor's Youth Employment, at one time that was their mission. Their mission is totally different now from when the City started funding them. I think it's important that when we push somebody's funds around, it's not to say that one agency is better than another. I think, it's, you know, they're doing a good job at what they do, but the original funding from This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 67 the City is not what they're doing now. And one of the reasons we gave United Action for Youth was because they are doing some of this. Big Brothers and Big Sisters, we think is a very viable organization. It's a wonderful organization and has lots of different ways of raising money. And what really struck out to me when I first looked at this was that we're giving Big Brothers and Little Sisters $41,000 and we were given the Emergency Housing Project $14,000, or $ l 0,000, whatever it was. I mean, that really seems like a real inequity to me at this time when the agencies like Emergency Housing and the Free Medical Clinic and MECCA and the Crisis Center are really short of funds and having really high demands. So the fact that I recommended we take some money away from Big Brothers Little Sisters is nothing about the agency. It's a wonderful agency. And it was rather arbitrary, and I think every year we look at this and kind of get some equity in the funding. If they've been getting money from the City for years, they kept getting the increases and new agencies, I don't think are being funded for the amount of service they give to the community. It's always difficult to distribute these funds. We did not cut the Social Service budget, even though the paper said we did. We have not cut it. We have increased it this year, so it became more difficult on where to distribute these funds. I feel comfortable with what we've suggested. Everybody, even Mayor's Youth Employment, can apply for that $15,000. We thought that's what it was earmarked for. It is a collaboration between agencies. We really need that (can't hear) and it's a number one priority all over the country. I'd be happy to answer any questions or Dee might have something else she wants to say. We did think that there's duplication of services there between Arc and United Action--no Mayor's Youth Employment. Vanderhoef/Mayor's Youth. Which is a new service that Mayor's Youth has just taken on in the last year, as I understand it, in that they are doing respite services that are also available at the Arc. Lehman/Well, if I understand correctly, that you'd be asking staff to prepare some sort of guidelines or that anyone, including these could apply for that $15,000 as long as it was for pre-employment and job training for youth at risk. Is that correct? Champion/Mm-hmm. That's correct. Lehman/All right. Pfab/I think I'd probably object to that because it's another whole set of hoops that we're asking these people to go through and wasn't the mission of what we were doing here is to distribute these funds? Vanderhoef/Irvin, what we've said during the presentation was originally Mayor's Youth did do this for youth at risk and that's the piece that we're not seeing at this point in time; therefore, we're still funding their waiver service program for young people with disabilities, but we want to get back into serving youth at risk that don't fall into the federal waiver group. Pfab/Well, I think this is keeping money, if we're going to distribute it, let's distribute it. Let's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 68 make the decisions and run with them, win or lose. To start another pool off to the side and say, well, this will go on and this will go on. This money needs to be put to work and I think--- Champion/We want it put to work. Pfab/But I think we're kicking the ball down the street and not deciding where this money's supposed to go and I've--- Champion/ Well, we are--- Pfab/Well, have you made a decision? Champion/Yeah, we have decided--- Pfab/Well, what about the $15,000? What pementage is $15,000 of the total? Vanderhoef/Irvin, when we look at whether we are getting the best bang for our dollar, that's what we're seeing right now is we have a gap and we're not sure that we're getting the best bang for our dollar in pre-employment and job training. Later on, as a side issue, we're going to be looking at doing more on setting standards and of what we expect so when we write our contracts, we'll--- Pfab/Oh, but wasn't the mission here, wasn't the job description here was to distribute this money? Champion/Yeah. Pfab/Or is it put it off to the side and we'll distribute it later? You just, and that money, these are times that that money needs to be put to work. Champion/Irvin, when we were funding Mayor's Youth Employment, we thought we were funding job training for children at risk. Job training and jobs. And that's how the program originally started. That's how it originally got City funding. That is not even their main mission statement now. Their mission statement has totally changed. So do we keep funding them because they're doing a different function than what they were when we first started funding them? Pfab/Well, I think that's a decision that you have to make. Champion/Well, that's what we--- Pfab/Yeah, I know. But we have to make it and move on, not just set it over to the side and say, well, maybe, you know, we'll think about this and maybe we'll give it to you later on. Chanlpion/Anybody can qualify for this money. It's to fund a job we thought was being done, a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 69 service. Vanderhoef/A service. Champion/It's a service that we thought we were already getting done. Pfab/If we find out it's different, then don't give them any. Lehman/Let me just say, as I hear what I think I hear, is that the funding for Mayor's Youth we have been of the impression that it was taking care of pre-employment and job training for youth at risk, which we have felt, or this committee have felt was a very high priority and it's still a very high priority, and because it isn't being addressed by Mayor's Youth, they're asking basically to put it out for a rebid, which could occur. These are funds that go out after the first of July anyway. There's no reason in the world that this couldn't be distributed by the first of July. Pfab/Well, let's postpone it until we get that decision made and then we'll distribute it. Vanderhoef/We will if--- Pfab/When you cut the pie, let's empty the pie tin and not just keep a few pieces of pie, one big piece of pie, then we'll decide about it later. Lehman/I think the issue is that they don't feel that this very, very important service is being provided and that we should provide for that service. In order to do that, they want to reserve the $15,000 and ask these agencies to submit bids for that. Pfab/Well, didn't this, wasn't all this done in this, not only this, but in the United Way--didn't we go through that? That was a learning process that was supposed to have taken place. Did we not figure that out? Vanderhoef/I don't know what you're talking about. Lehman/No, I think that you're right. I don't think that we figured that out. Pfab/Well, then, so then we're not ready to make a decision. Champion/Well, yeah, we are. Lehman/I think we are except for--- Pfab/Well, except, you know, what percentage of the $15,000 of the total? Vanderhoef/It doesn't matter. Pfab/How much? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 70 Lehman/A little less than 4 percent. Pfab/OK. O'Donnell/Just--° Champion/No, we didn't cut out Mayor's Youth Employment funding at all because they are doing some job training. Pfab/Well, then divide it up and give them what you feel. Champion/We did. Pfab/Well, then, why did you have money left in the kitty? Champion/Because it's money we want--- Lehman/Not left. Champion/It's not left. It's going to be spent. Vanderhoef/It'll be spent. Pfab/Well, let's spend it all at the same time then. Champion/Well, we are spending it all at the same time. We're just--- Vanderhoef/We put it in the budget. Pfab/Then postpone this until this process is--- Champion/ Well, why would you do that? Pfab/Well, why don't you dispense the money now rather than sitting on it? And I'm going to say play more games with that $15,000. Champion/We don't play games with it. Vanderhoef/Don't we do reserve funds for general funds? Lots of places we have reserve--- Pfab/Do we have reserve funds previous years in this? Lehman/Up to $10,000. Champion/Yeah, we have a contingency fund. We do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 71 Lehman/Mike? Champion/And we've spent that. We've accumulated that $10,000 and four years ago when 1 did this, we divided, we gave out that contingency. We did not keep it. We let it grow and then we gave it out, because we want some contingency in case of a disaster. But once it gets to a certain point, we give that out. Yes. Pfab/My point is, is these are tough times for these organizations. Champion/Well, I agree. Pfab/And so it's not a time to build reserves. It's a time to--- Champion/ We're not building a reserve, Irvin. O'Dormell/It's going to be distributed. Vanderhoef/It can't be spent until after July 1 anyway. We have approved the $350,000 for agencies plus our $105,000 from CDBG monies. They are in the budget so we will spend them out. It's just a matter of making sure that we fill the gaps in services, that we're getting the best value for the contributed funds, and that we are fulfilling the stated missions and goals for the agencies. Pfab/I stand on my statement. That's all. Lehman/Do you guys have any timeframe for application for those $15,0007 O'Donnell/Let me ask one question on the United. You said the mission statement has changed? Champion/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. O'Dormell/Is that entirely, are they doing a fraction of it? Champion/Well, the mission statement now is to provide advocacy and support to youth and their families who face barriers to independence and that can cover a lot of territory. O'Donnell/Yeah. Champion/But a large percentage of their kids are kids on waiver and they are kids with disabilities of one kind or another. That's also ARC's mission and that's, you know, that's fine. But the number of kids that they serve, the number of at risk kids that they serve for j ob training and job preparation is pretty small. And we'd like to see that built up. And they certainly can apply for these funds. We'd like to see them apply for them This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 72 and come up with the funding. O'Donnell/Apply with a different mission statement too? Vanderhoef/Or it could be the collaboration of a number of agencies who would sit down and put together a program and different people would be doing different parts. O'Donnell/Is there a percent of the original mission statement? Like are they 50-50 or 40-60 or do we know that? Vanderhoef/We don't have the records from 35 years ago when the whole thing was started. Lehman/Well, today is April 7th. We basically have three months before the money is to be allocated. O'Donnell/Fine, then we'll have time to get some questions answered. Lehman/It's reasonable for us to say OK we will approve the funding of all of the recommendations and put a timeframe that this $15,000, applications must be received and approved prior to the last meeting in June, and if not, that money will be reallocated among the agencies who originally applied. O'Donnell/Fine. That's good. Vanderhoef/That's fine. Lehman/Let's make sure that the money is distributed, it is distributed by the first of July and gives an opportunity to react to this need that is perceived for these at-risk kids. Is that--- Pfab/Well, I think that timeframe is way too long, because April and June--- Lehman/No, no, no, you're not going to give the money out until July 1 st anyway. You must give people an opportunity to fill out grant applications in order to apply for that money and then review those applications and recommend it back to Council. It's not a lot of time. Vanderhoef/And the other thing is we don't just send blank checks on the full amount each time. As I understand it, it goes out by the month. O'Donneli/And the Mayor's Youth Program will be in the mix. Lehman/And they can apply and they may get it all. O'Donnell/So that's fine. Lehman/OK. Community events. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 73 Karr/Mr. Mayor, just a clarification. So do you want--do we need to amend the resolution to include that or just, you're just going to accept the resolution as is with the recommendations. Lehman/We can make the amendment tomorrow night, I believe, requiring that the, that in lieu of applications being acceptable and approved by our committee prior to the last meeting in June, that the money will be allocated to the existing agencies. Vanderhoef/And what I anticipate possibly is that that may even push the agencies to get this done. And as long as the money is spent out in the year of '04 that if these agencies need time to sit down together, bring everybody to the table and look at it and see what kind of program they can put together, and it takes them six months from now, then I'd be willing to allocate it until they're comfortable with the programming that they have put together. I don't want this to be rushed just because we set a date of July 1 to spend out the money. That isn't the point. The point is we need the best program that we can put together for these youth at risk and I think it may take the agencies a little time to sit down and talk it out and see .... Champion/So what we really need by the deadline is, at least the proposal that will be worked out. Lehman/An acceptable proposal. Champion/Right. Vanderhoef/Either a proposal or a request from a group that says we haven't quite got our proposal put together but we're working on it and may we have two more months or whatever it is. Lehman/Well, I think--- Dilkes/I'm hearing two different things. Vanderhoef/I know. And I think we're rushing it to say that they can get this done in three months because they're going to have to have some meetings because I truly see this as a collaborative kind of activity. Because some things will be done at different agencies, whether it be at Neighborhood Centers or whether it's done at UAY or whether it's done at Mayor's Youth. They each have their strengths in doing a collaborative. It can all be one program. There can be a pass-through agency and they all would get a piece of it. Dilkes/What has to happen, Linda, by July 1 st? You have to come to the mic. Champion/How much time would people need? Severson/Well, I would think typically, historically what we've done is people have applied for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 74 City funding through the direct funding process and so they've submitted information. I don't know if Council would think or if Legal would think we would have to have a request for proposal, publicize it, make sure that there's certain qualifiers in there that people understand what needs to be done, give them a deadline to complete that, and then is Council expecting to make the decision? Then it would have to come back to Council with the application and any recommendations or just my observations on the strengths and limitations--I don't know if you're seeing one application or several. So there's some things we would have to work out because we typically haven't allocated Aid to Agency funding in this method. Dilkes/And I guess what 1--is there a July 1 st deadline? What has to happen by July 1 st? Severson/The start of the fiscal year, but the funds through Aid to Agencies are distributed on a quarterly basis, so I don't know if there would need to be a deadline of July 1st, if something had to be in place, or we could be working on it. Typically, the funds are distributed throughout the fiscal year. Dilkes/OK, I guess that's what I'd, is not clear to me if some kind of decision has to be made by some point in time. Severson / That I don't have response for because this is never, this the first time for me in terms of distributing funds this way. Dilkes/OK. Severson / And not going through the joint funding process. Dilkes/It seems to me that we need to figure that out. Severson / Yeah. Pfab/Well, I would (can't hear). I think that to require these people who have limited resources and limited help to spend this kind of money for this allotment just doesn't make sense to me. Lehman/What kind of money are you talking about? Pfab/Well, you have the new proposals, it takes two months to do it, how much time, these people got other things to do that just submit proposals. They submitted one for CDBG. They submitted one for United Way. At what point is enough is enough. Vanderhoef/It's just one. Pfab/It's just one more. Vanderhoef/No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 75 Pfab/Well, you also went through--- Vanderhoef/It's only one. United Way, all of that is just one funding, joint funding. Pfab/Yes. CDBG, too? Vanderhoef/The joint funding. Lehman/Well, I think we need to know what we're going to do tomorrow night. Severson / And I guess too I'm unsure of what the expectations are for the $15,000. That would be discussed and decided on also. Vanderhoef/And that is being worked on as We speak. Lehman/Well, but I do think that we need to set a time at which we will either disperse those funds to the applications presently received or we will make them to a new, grant a new application. I don't think we can just leave that open-ended. What's a reasonable time? Severson / I'd need some time to do a request for proposal, I assume that would be the way that we would go, making it a public announcement, a press release. So I'd need a little time to pull something together and run it past Legal. And then typically grant applications, well, like through the federal government, you get the information last week and it's due today but I would think maybe 30 days to pull something together, particularly if it's a collaborative effort, if it's several agencies working together. They would need some time to bring their parts to it. And I guess again, some expectation of what City Council feels is reasonable for that $15,000. That's something we would have to put in the request for proposal. Lehman/OK, but say we have that and you advertise, put an RFP out there. What is a reasonable time that we could expect, a deadline for that to come back? Severson / I would say 30 days from the time it's announced. Lehman/So, is a last meeting in June deadline, how are--I mean that's almost 90 days. That's 80 days. Severson / I think we could work with it. Lehman/Thank you. I think we need to put that date and we need to be a firm date. If we don't have applications, then we reallocate. Pfab/Well, if we're going to, if we expect applications in 30 days, how long does it take to make that decision since we've already got a lot of that information, that we've gone through it and muddled our way through it, how much longer do these people have to be made to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 76 wait to figure out where they're at. Lehman/I think they're looking for a specific issue here. This is not shooting a shotgun. This is shooting a rifle. And it's for a specific purpose. Do we want to try that? Champion/Yeah. Lehman/OK. O'Donnell/Then we're done. Lehman/Community Events. Mr. Ross. (Wilbum and Kanner return) Kanner/I have a proposal. We tend to get into the minutia of this stuff and it could take a while and I don't think it would hurt anything if we defer this to our next meeting. It's getting a little late. We tend to get a little tired and I think this should have a little bit of deliberation. O'Donnell/I don't mind that at all. Lehman/Well, there's only one issue here. If we intend to fund fireworks, I don't know how, what their timeframe is for planning that, for putting together--I mean that's a pretty extensive sort of project. They did give us a plan of action. I don't know what their timeframe is but we're looking at the next meeting April 21 st. Is that--- Champion/Not a long way away. Lehman/Well, I don't know. Champion/That's getting right up to July. I mean April to May to June. I mean, really, they need to know. Lehman/It's (can't hear). I don't care. I don't know how--- Champion/Well, we're still not going to fund the fireworks. O'Donnell/Absolutely. Champion/So maybe we just make that decision. Vanderhoef/Could I make just a quick suggestion? I went down through this and we talked, in the budget we've got $45,000, and by giving everyone that we have previously funded the same as before, the only thing I did was round off the numbers--no I didn't either--it comes up to $43,534, which I though, OK, we've got $45,000, if we have $1,400 for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcript/on of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 77 reserve, we always get requests for something, and somebody will have an overrun, whatever, and if we don't spend out up to the total of $45,000, this is more money than what we've been doing before. Champion/What does that allocate to the fireworks? Vanderhoef/$5,000. Champion/OK. The only other thing that would leave $1,400, I would really like us to fund, and I brought it up before and that's how we got the extra money, was the Bill's things, the? O'Dormell/The pall mall? Wilburn/The flea market things? Champion/Yeah, the flea market things. Lehman/What was that--- O'Donnell/How much did they ask for, Ernie, on the fireworks? Vanderhoef/$12,000. Uptown Bill's was the other. Lehman/They asked for $3,500. Is that correct? Kanner/Uptown Bill's. O'Dormell/Is there any way we could get more than $5,000 to--- Vanderhoef/Well, we could go $6,000 and keep $470 in the reserve just for a little something. Pfab/I think you were talking, who brought up the idea of putting it in the flea market? Champion/Right. Pfab/I would support that. O'Donnell/It's a pretty important year for the fireworks out there. Vanderhoef/Yeah, we could take it up to $6,000, if my numbers are correct and I think they are. O'Donnell/I would like to see that be at least $6,000. Champion/It's not very much money. O'Donnell/No. Last year we had 10,000 or 12,000 people in that City Park at the fireworks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 78 There's no reason to think that we wouldn't have more than that this year. Champion/And what did we give them last year, Dee? Lehman/$5,000. O'Donnell/But remember there was a real shortage last year and they really had to go out and struggle for it. Pfab/I could, they could--- Lehman/They were talking about not being able to do it. O'Donnell/Not having fireworks. Lehman/It was a financial situation as much as they didn't have the manpower to do it. O'Donnell/Yeah, and both, Ernie. Lehman/Yeah. Pfab/Can I suggest an alternative? Just watch TV for a night. Lehman/I don't think that's not going to fly, Irvin. Champion/What about $5,500 and the rest of it for Wild Bill's? I really would like to fund that. We don't have to give them all of it, you know. Vanderhoef/That's OK. Lehman/I'd support that. That's a really good project. Champion/It is and they clean up that area and--- Vanderhoef/$5,500, and the remainder goes to Uptown Bill's. Pfab/How much is the remainder, $900? Champion/That's more than they've had before to work with and maybe next year we could increase some of these things. Karr/Dee, could you give me those figures afterwards or are you going to go through them now? Vanderhoef/Whichever. I'm going to do it afterwards if you don't have to. Karr/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 79 O'Donnell/OK. Pfab/Well, as long as it's allocated and used, that's fine. Lehman/But what we're saying--- Pfab/An extra $500 for fireworks and the rest goes to the--- Lelunan/Uptown Bill's and everything else remains the same as last year. COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE (INCLUDING STAFF EVALUATION SCHEDULE) Lehman/Meeting schedule. Do you have your calendars? Karr/What I did was put a proposed meeting schedule into place. As noted in the memo, it simply, the direction of the mayor. I put in two meetings a month, sticking to the schedule as much as possible and avoiding conflicts that I already had on my schedule. I think it's certainly important that we narrow down the summer schedule as soon as possible and it'd be great if we could finish up the fall schedule because it is an election year. We're already getting calls on forms. So it would be something to--- O'Dormell/Getting calls on what? Karr/Candidate forms. O'Donnell/Oh. Champion/What about the first Sunday in August? What's that date? That's my camp trip. Lehman/First Sunday. Champion/It's always the first Sunday in August. Kanner/There's the proposed meeting on the 4th and 5th. Karr/Fourth and 5th. Now, again, I Champion/It's always the first Sunday in August. Kanner/There's the proposed meeting on the 4th and 5th. Kan'/Fourth and 5th. Now, again, I simply stayed with the two meetings a month. I did not go with the reduced summer schedule. That's certainly something you can consider. Lehman/Well, let's start with May. Are we OK with May? I'm sorry, here we go. May 5th and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 80 6th? Kart/I think May 5th and 6th were pretty well firm on. I think the 19th and 20th, I think, Dee-- were you going to mention that? Vanderhoef/Let me get to my book. Pfab/May 5th and 6th and what then? Lehman/19th and 20th. That's tentative. Pfab/All right. I have those in already. Vanderhoef/The thing that we looked at this afternoon is whether we could go to one meeting in May or not. Lehman/I think May could be--well, I don't really know, but is that a month that we look at a lot of zoning and subdivisions and all that City (can't hear) Karr/Well, we certainly look at a special meeting on the 5th and 6th of May if Council is so inclined. I know, but a special meeting on the 5th and the 6th, a special formal. You could do two special formals. Champion/Two meetings one night. Karr/Yes. Like you just did tonight. O'Donnell/Fine. Pfab/A formal two nights in a row? Karr/Yes. Pfab/Not two in one night. Karr/Well, you'd have a work session after your special formal. Kanner/Well, I think, for me, I like two meetings in the month. Things get jammed in with just one meeting a month and ! don't see why we would deviate from it if we can keep it. Pfab/Some of the public kind of expects--- Lehman/ Well, I think in July and August, probably one of those two is a month that we probably could go to one meeting because of vacations or whatever. O'Donnell/Or both of them. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 81 Lehman/I only have one. Karmer/Ernie, let's stick with May. Let's see what we have. Lehman/I don't have any problem with May. Where's the rest of you? Champion/I don't have any conflict with May. Karmer/Well, there was the question Dee was being asked by Marian. Vanderhoef/Well, it was just in conjunction with June to see whether--- Karr/Dee had made a point earlier today that we had dropped to one meeting in June previously. If we stay with two meetings, can we get by with one in May was her question. Champion/I think we probably one. O'Donnell/Oh, sure. Lehman/Well, we're scheduled for--- Karr/You have nothing set for May 19th and 20th to date. Champion/What does that mean we have nothing set? Karr/You don't have like public hearings or appointments or--- Champion/ Oh, I couldn't figure out. Karr/Yeah, it's not, so your greatest flexibility is now rather than June. Champion/OK. Right. Kart/But it makes no difference. It's your call. Lehman/Do we know when we're going to get that revised Zoning Ordinance when we update our--- Wilburn/Not for awhile. Pfab/When? Lehman/Not for awhile. I don't know. Do you have any idea, Steve, what the schedule looks like in May? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 82 Atkins/No, sir, I'm sorry I don't. We just don't have any schedule work right now. I can assure you that--- Lehman/If we have two meetings--- Atkins/Two meetings a month moves business along better. Champion/Let's keep both of them. Lehman/I think we'd better keep both meetings in May, I really do. Karr/OK. Atkins/If for any reason we know--I can give you a heads up that there's a skinny agenda, but twice a month just moves business along. Champion/So, if it's a skinny agenda we could combine the two. Atkins/You could get a work session and a formal. Karr/But by the time that happens, you often have set your public hearings. Lehman/Right. Atkins/So we just don't know about that for sure. Lehman/So May is OK. Atkins/Yeah. Lehman/So, June we have the 10th, the 23rd and the 30th, three meetings. Champion/Well, we don't need three meetings. Wilburn/No. Kart/No, you've got the 10th and the 24th are your formal. Lehman/Ends July 1st. But we have, oh, I'm sorry. Champion/Well. Lehman/My guess would be the 10th. Champion/Well, if we got rid of the 30th and the 1st, that would still give us two meetings in June and one meeting in July. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 83 Kart/Yes. Champion/If we got rid of June 30th and July 1st. Lehman/But make that one, say, July 8th. TAPE 03-29, SDE TWO O'Donnell/That's my anniversary. Champion/But we have one the 24th, so the 14th and 15th should work fine. Karr/July 8th? Champion/That's only two weeks. Lehman/24th to the 14th? That's three weeks. Champion/Yeah, but, we're not going to have another one for three weeks. Vanderhoef/So, you're saying--- Champion/Get rid of June 30th and July 1st. Lehman/I would concur with that. Champion/Keep July 14th and 15th. Lehman/And August 4th and 5th and August 18th and 19th. Champion/We got to get rid of 4th and 5th because that's my camping trip. Lehman/We just did. Champion/Isn't it? Can somebody tell me--- Lehman/ Fourth and 5th of August? Champion/What's the first Sunday in August? Karr/The first Sunday in August is the 3rd. Champion/Right. Karr/So what we have right now is two meetings in May, two meetings in June, one in July and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of thc Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 84 one in August. Champion/The 18th and 19th. Kart/And I'll do a revised schedule. Pfab/But what's the time in July then? Kan'/July 14th and 15th. Pfab/OK. Karr/And then we go to August 18th and 19th. And then we're to September if everybody is thinking (can't hear) Lehman/We may have to change that if we have items come up, if we need--- Kart/But special meetings are always--- Pfab/Heaven forbid. O'Donnell/We can do that easily. Lehman/All right. Kan./OK. Can we do---yeah, go ahead. Lehman/We're through August. Karr/We're to September. Kanner/Hold on. So you're proposing July eliminate the 1st. Karr/And we'll just retain 14, 15, then we've got 18th, 19th. Kanner/OK, then August, you're proposing remove the 4th and the 5th. Karr/Correct. Vanderhoef/And going with 18th and 19th. O'Donnell/And we will get a copy of this revised schedule. Kan'/Tomorrow. Kanner/And September. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 85 Karr/September is where we are right now. We're just talking about September. Lehman/September, October, November, those are all normal meeting dates. Karr/No, September is altered because of Labor Day and a request from a couple of Council members on some schedule. Vanderhoef/October is, we're going to go from how--- Karr/We're going to go from August 18th and 19th to September 8th and 9th, then the 22nd, 23rd. Vanderhoef/So we've got three-week stretches. Lehman/We've got two three-week stretches. Vanderhoef/Oh, three of them. Lehman/June 24th to July 14th and July 14th to August 18th, that's over a month. O'Dormell/We can live with that. We can always have a special meeting. Champion/It works out in the summer. Lehman/Yeah. O'Donnell/No problem. Vanderhoef/Then August 18, three weeks again until September. Lehman/Well, August 19th meeting to the 9th of September, so it's three weeks again. Vanderhoef/Yeah. Kart/Is that going to work? Are we to October or going too fast? Champion/October? Lehman/I have no problem with anything from September though Christmas. O'Dormell/No. Karr/Because October, November we worked around the election schedule for the absences, the holidays. So you had one meeting in November and December. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 86 Karmer/Again, well, especially in November, that's the one I noted one meeting, I think it would be busy and there will be things that we want to get done and have two meetings then. Karr/In November? Karmer/In November. Lehman/We have two meetings scheduled. Karr/No. Kanner/No, we have one meeting. Karr/We have one meeting scheduled, the 17th and 18th. We have Veterans Day, the election, and Thanksgiving in November. O'Donnell/What date is the election? Karr/The election is the 4th. Lehman/We have November 6th and 7th--that's not right. Vanderhoef/November 4th? Kart/No, 6 and 7 was a typo that was on the agenda and I apologize. It should be 3, 4, and that is what I'm recommending canceling because of the election. We certainly can meet on the 3rd. Champion/We could do a work session, special. Karr/If you wish. Champion/We could meet on the 3rd. Karr/It's just the day before the election and typically, but we certainly can do that. Karmer/Does the City close on the 1 lth? Karr/Yes. Atkins/Yes. O'Donnell/I don't think we need one on the 3rd. We can wait and see--that's a long way off. We can always have a special. Lehman/Marian, can we go through October and leave it there for now? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 87 Kart/Yes. Champion/We can't handle all this at one time. Karr/Yes. OK. Lehman/We're all right through October. Kart/OK. Champion/We know we won't have a meeting on Election night. O'Donnell/We did the last time though didn't we. And a meeting on Election night, not that I wanted--- Champion/The City Council election? O'Donnell/Yeah. Wilburn/Yeah. Champion/We've never had a meeting on City Council election night. It was a regular--- Lehman/It was general election night last year. O'Donnell/It was general election night. Atkins/We've had them. O'Donnell/We've had Council meetings on City Council election night. Champion/Not since I've been on the Council. O'Donnell/Yes, we have. Vanderhoef/Not City Council elections. General elections, County, and--- O'Donnell/I thought we've announced before--- Atkins/We've announced--- O'Donnell/Many of us will be busy on the 4th so we won't--- Lehman/We need to schedule a special meeting for evaluations, sometime later this month or in the month of May. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 88 Pfab/Let's do May. Champion/Oh, I don't have--- Lehman/And that typically we've done in the morning meeting and usually, last year I think we started at 8:30 and were done by noon. Anybody have a preferred date? Champion/I don't have my market schedule with me bm if we avoid Mondays, it won't make any difference. O'Donnell/A Wednesday? Can we do it on a Wednesday? Lehman/Does that work for you, Ross? Wilbum/Wednesday mornings are fine. Lehman/Wednesday's all right? Wilburn/Wednesday mornings are fine. Lehman/All right, let's just pick a Wednesday. Karr/Are you looking in May? Pfab/How about the 14th? Karr/The 14th, Dee--when do you leave town on the 14th? Vanderhoef/First thing. Kan'/So the 14th won't work. Pfab/How about the 21st then? Kart/I'm gone the 21st. Lehman/I'm gone the 21st and I'm gone the 28th. How about the 30th of April? Champion/What day of the week is that? Lehman/That's a Wednesday. Pfab/Ho~v about the 7th of May? Vanderhoef/That's the morning after a Council meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 89 O'Donnell/Shall we do it on the 30th of May or April? Lehman/Does the 30th of April work for everybody? Vanderhoef/That works for me. Champion/The 30th of April. Vanderhoef/Nine o'clock? O'Donnell/Nine o'clock. Lehman/Well, better go 8:30. Champion/8:30. O'Donnell/8:45. Lehman/7:15. (Laughter) Champion/6:30. O'Dormell/Fine, I don't care, whenever. (Laughter) Lehman/Are we going to serve food or just coffee? O'Dormell/We'd better get a bagel at that hour of the morning. (Several talk, laugh) Pfab/Do we have a time? O'Donnell/Emie's crackers and cheese will be left. Karr/8:30. 8:30 to noon on April 30th? Lehman/8:30 till noon on April 30th. O'Donnell/Fine. Lehman/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 90 COUNCIL TIME Lehman/Council time. Pfab/Nothing here. Champion/TomoITOW is the last Jail Task Force meeting. Lehman/I saw that. Champion/And even though there are some people out there who think the task force did not meet their goals, I think the task force has done a really great job of kind of directing where we think the community wants to go as far as the criminal justice system in Johnson County. And everybody agrees there should be a new jail, built in increments. Like people are not going to support a new j ail right now. And there's a lot of other things going on in that Jail Task Force. But I think it's been very successful. I don't think we did what the supervisors wanted us to do, like just tell them we need a new jail and build it. That's not what we ended up telling them. I'm going to tell you that Bob Gibson who chaired the committee--- Lehman/Dick. O'Donnell/Dick. Champion/Dick. O'Donnell/"Hoot." Champion/...has become a real advocate for the task force and he's really a good guy. And he really, I think, grew with the task force and did a great job. O'Donnell/I've been to a couple of those meetings, Connie, and it really was a tremendous task and you guys did well. I mean, it was incredible. Lehman/We appreciate your effort. Champion/Very interesting. Lehman/You spent a lot of time and work on this. Champion/It is a lot of time and work. I think it's been very worthwhile. Kanner/I'm pretty excited about the recommendations and I was going to--- Champion/Me, too, Steven. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 91 KanneffWh~? Champion/Me, too. Kanner/Good. And I was going to bring up the fact that perhaps in a month or two after these have settled in and see how the board reacts, we ought to have a work session because we're a major player in the use of the jail and a lot of the suggestions come back on the City of Iowa City, and we can help give direction and help implement some of those things, some more directly than others. And so I think it's worthwhile for us to have a work session on that to talk about those things. Lehman/You know, I think that may be an issue that should be on the joint meeting. Champion/Oh. Lehman/This month. Everybody in the County is associated with that jail. Champion/Right. Lehman/I mean, every municipality, and I believe it would be a good topic. Ultimately, it's the County's decision what they're going to do with that j ail. I believe that if they're going to be successful in any venture it's going to require the support of this community. Champion/Of everybody. Lehman/And so I think it's very appropriate. But I think that's a great forum for us to discuss that and at that time indicate our willingness to work with them and to offer whatever we can. Karr/I'1i put it on the agenda. Lehman/OK. I think that's something that everybody in the County has got a real interest in. Karmer/I would agree, Emie, but I think we all realize that those joint meetings what it gets down to is if individual cities then come through and agree to pursue something, and I think we're being asked in some of those recommendations to support a certain policy and I think it would be worthwhile for us to have that discussion as a City also to look at those issues. Champion/We might want to wait till we see what the reaction of the Board of Supervisors is. Lehman/Well, we're getting at--I absolutely agree, Steven, but I think that politically we want the Board to ask us to participate. I think we're ready, willing, able, and I think without us, nothing's going to happen. But I don't want them to think that we're trying to run their jail. I want them to ask us for our input. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 92 Kanner/Well, they have asked. Lehman/I'm not aware--- Karmer/Carol has asked us numerous times. Lehman/No, that's not true. I've been to all the meetings that you have and there's never been a request to the City of Iowa City to sit down. Steve and I went to a couple meetings and there were supposed to be more meetings and the meetings the meetings never took place. A lot of--I mean, I think we're ready, willing, and have been able for some time to work with the Board. But I believe they're going to have to be sincere in our input. I don't think that--we're not there yet. They need to know that we're willing. O'Donnell/Fine. Vanderhoef/OK. Are you done? I've got just a couple of things. In looking at the things that are happening in the statehouse and the predictions that we have received for rollback for another year in the 47 percent range, I would like Council with Steve's help to put together a policy somehow or another on how we do our hiring. It's going to affect our budget big time if we go down to 47 percent. There's a proposal on the table also that they may well not fund cities the same way that they have in the past and I think we need to be prepared to react to this if it truly does happen. But it's over a million dollars that could well go away from unfunded kinds of things like homestead exemptions and elderly exemptions, various things that they're playing with. So I'd rather be thinking about it in putting something together or having the conversation about it. Pfab/I'd like to respond to what you said, and that is the weird way that is coming through the State Legislature to do property tax. That is travesty coming down the pike. You're, when you buy your house, that's your assessed value until it's sold. Champion/What? Lehman/That's kind of like rent. Champion/I'm going to love that. Pfab/Well, I think there's some people that will, some people that won't. Champion/No, I was joking. Pfab/But ! think it's a travesty compared, you know, it's, the people that have the ability to pay, it's going to change. Lehman/But I think, Dee's got, I'm sure Steve you're going to be on top of this. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 93 Atkins/We have to start preparing something for you because Dee's correct, there's--- Lehman/I mean that's something you're going to be-J- Atkins/Well, just so you understand, the State is proposing to cut the budget that you've already adopted. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/By 20 percent of the money that they--- Atkins/It's over a million dollars. You've adopted the budget and now they're going to change it. Lehman/A million bucks, yeah. ['fab/Can we also make a statement about the new way of assessing value? Is that part--- Atkins/Now, so far, Irvin, that's an idea that's being floated. Pfab/OK, so it hasn't got it, no? Atkins/No. It hasn't got lead in it. Pfab/But if it does, I think at that point we have to step up--- Atkins/I will give you heads up on that. I keep track of those carefully all year. Dilkes/If you want to talk about these issues, decide to put it on an agenda. Atkins/I'll be roughing up some ideas for you shortly. Lehman/I think that's something that Steve really needs to keep us posted on regularly. Atkins/I will. Well, they're down to the last couple of weeks of the session so you know what happens. But I'll have something for you. Lehman/Do you think that's probably when they get through, then we're going to have to decide what we're going--- Vanderhoef/Well, that's why a policy might well be in order sooner rather than later and just be prepared. Champion/I did notice an article, Dee, related to that and I just glanced at it, I haven't read it yet, on public service benefits. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 94 Atkins/No, I don't recall that one. Pfab/Public service employee benefits? Champion/Mm-hmm. Pfab/I remember seeing it but I can't recall what it was either. Lehman/OK. Vanderhoef/OK. And the only other thing that I would like to have looked at and I've talked to Steve about this, but I just wanted Council to know was that look at how we use our Street Code for trees and so forth, in particular, in the older sections of town where the front yards are very small. Kanner/How we use what? Vanderhoef/Where the from yards--- Kanner/No, what was the first thing, how we use what--- Lehman/Street Code. Vanderhoef/The tree ordinance and right now it's talking aborn the trees all being in the front yard and we have some businesses that have lost a bunch of front yard over the years because of widening of streets in front of their properties and I think this may happen--- O'Donnell/You're talking commercial. Vanderhoef/...commercial. And so I think we need to take a look at that particular code and see if there is something that could be adjusted that would address some of this and in particular possibly in the parking lot in the rear versus all of it in the front yard. O'Donnell/Fine. Let's look at that some time. Lehman/Well, is that something though that the staff could give us a little--- Atkins/We're doing the Development Code right now; we can just simply tack that on their agenda, the timing is just fine; it's not a problem. Lehman/OK. Anything else, Dee? Vanderhoef/That's it. Lehman/Thanks. Irvin? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 95 Pfab/Back to you're thinking about, Connie, what that article was about was some organization was recommending that they look at the benefit packages for public employees, and what the idea is is no more full funding of health-care benefits. Champion/Yes, exactly, Irvin. The thing I've been talking about all along, right? O'Donnell/I read that. Champion/It's become a problem. O'Donnell/We don't need a Cadillac when a Chevy will do. Kanner/The issue of minutes from our meetings--we accept minutes from our formal meeting. So we ought to give direction at our informal meeting and in the complete description which is not recorded as being accepted. And I would propose that we put those in the Consent Calendar as being, that we would vote on to accept them. I assume it would be pretty much the way we accept the formal minutes, too, and the way we accept the Commission minutes, that there wouldn't be much controversy. Occasionally, there might be some questions. But it gives a record of what direction we're giving an official and then we're accepting it. And I asked Marian as far as putting it in there, it's really not a problem, so I throw that out there. Lehman/Are there any legal issues there? Karr/I was just saying to Eleanor we'd want to just double-check. The official sessions are the actions of Council that get published. That's what you officially accept. The complete and the work session, as Steven had noted, are often direction-generated, but they are not published. I don't, I'd have to, the State Code records, I doubt it, but it'd just be a matter of putting it in a different spot in the agenda. O'Donnell/OK. Lehman/That's fine. Pfab/The work sessions are also transcribed. Karr/Everything is transcribed, Irvin. O'Dormell/Ernie, I did have one quick thing. When we have 40 people waiting to speak, I think it's very important that we've set a five-minute time limit on these people, I think it's very important that we either hold them to that five minutes. A lot of times Councilors will engage these people and sometimes these discussions can go 10 minutes, and I think we almost breach on talking too much with too many about certain events. Lehman/I don't argue with that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003. April 7, 2003 Council Work Session Page 96 O'Donnell/I mean, I think it's really important that we limit this. This is public discussion, public input. Pfab/Do you want to be our official timer? O'Donnell/No, no, I have no problem--I think we enforce the five minutes. Lehman/I have no problem in telling someone speaking when their time is up. On the other hand, if Council chooses to engage them into a 10-minute conversation, that's out of my control. O'Dormell/Well, but I do think it's public discussion. It's their time to speak and I think if we engage them, that's--- Lehman/ But then what you're telling me then is if a Council person asks them a question, I say I'm sorry, your time is up, you can't answer the question. O'Donnell/I think you have a five-minute limit. We either enforce it or we get rid of it. Lehman/Well, that's up to you guys as far as asking questions though. I mean I have no problem in limiting a presentation to five minutes. I have no control over the questions that Council asks. O'Donnell/Well, and that's what I'm saying, I think the Council should limit those questions because they're cutting into the speaker's time. Pfab/How can we transcribe that? Lehman/I think we just did. (Laughter) Dilkes/You could make it, I mean one option would be to make it clear to the person or to the public that their five minutes would include discussion by a Council Member. Lehman/Well, the problem isn't the public. The problem is the Council. The problem is our engaging them that's making them run over. Karr/One final reminder, the laptops, if you could leave them after your meeting tomorrow night, we're going to change the volume. The volume has already been full for the year. So if you could leave it tomorrow night, then we'll be sure your CD is loaded on Thursday when you pick it up. Lehman/Any other thing for Council time? We're out of here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of April 7, 2003.