HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-06 TranscriptionMarch 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 1
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session 7:00 P.M.
Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef; Wilbum
Staff.' Atkins, Davidson, Dilkes, Fosse, Franklin, Helling, Herting, Holecek, Karr,
Mansfield, O'Malley, Schoon
TAPES: 00-32, SIDE TWO; 00-34, BOTH SDES; 00-35, SIDE ONE
TAPE 00-32, SIDE TWO
Lehman/Planning and Zoning Commission and Lea. I turn it over to you.
6. d. CHANGING TItE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORItOOD
COMMERCIAL (CN-1) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-l) FOR 2.5 ACRES
OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON TltE WEST END OF FIRST AVENUE AT
TUDOR DRIVE (Mercy Hospital/REZ99-0015)
Supple/Thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this evening in
regards to this rezoning on the property at the comer, near the comer on First Avenue and
Rochester. In the five years that I've served on the Commission, we've met with the
Council maybe three times because we had a difference of opinion. There have been a
couple of times when the Council had offered us a meeting, but we have chosen not to
accept that mainly because we felt that it wasn't a necessary thing to do. In this instance,
we feel that it is necessary because we feel that you're looking at, it's possible that you're
looking at different things than what we looked at. And we would like you to understand
what our perspective was, and we thought that face-to-face was the best way to do that.
Dick Gibson wants to say a few words about our thrust of our argument. So, Dick, if you
would go ahead.
Gibson/I'm going to apologize upfront, I took notes at home carefully tonight and I got here and
on my way I realized I left my glasses home. My notes at best are legible only with
glasses, so ---
Supple/ Would you like Ann to hold it for you?
(Laughter)
Kanner/Dick, are you going to be speaking to both issues?
Gibson/No, I'm going to be speaking only to the Mercy Hospital issue on First Avenue.
Kanner/Then someone else will speak to---
Gibson/ No, I think we want to think of it as separate issues, and we---
Kanner/Right, I heard someone after that's going to speak to that later.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 2
Gibson/Yeah, I think there are several people that want to speak to the first issue, and I'm just
the first one to speak.
Kanner/OK.
Gibson/I want to try to explain to you why P and Z took the position that it apparently did to my
ability, in terms of my ability to explain it on the 6 to 1 votes. If you understand where
we came from, I think this is really quite important. It was not on the basis of how well
the developer went about responding to concerns about the specific Development Code.
It was based on concerns of inappropriate use for the CN-1 zone. That was strictly the
only issue Planning and Zoning looked at. We did not look at setbacks or traffic issues, or
driveways or anything else, only the appropriateness ofrezoning the CN-1 zone for this
particular singular use. The CN-1 zone is of necessity; it must be rezoned before an area
develops. Otherwise, you can't assemble the 7 to 9 acres, whatever is necessary to put it
together. This means that it's likely to sit in some stage or some degree of undevelopment
during a considerable period of its lifetime. It secondly means that the area surrounding
that CN-1 zone is likely to be undeveloped that time as well. And because of the nature of
the CN-1 zone, it's going to take some time for that development to occur to generate the
business necessary to justify the CN-1 zone. But we think it would be inappropriate to
jump in and just because there are undeveloped properties in the CN-1 zone to conclude
that there's too much CN-1 zone either in throughout the City or in any particular one
area and that it be appropriate therefore to rezone it to some other use. But we are
concerned that rezoning to some other use is going to have a deleterious effect on its
developability as a CN-1 zone, which is primarily the concern of the neighborhood
commercial zones, small businesses, and those sorts of things. Not something that draws
from a large area, attracts a large amount of traffic, but is primarily to serve a
neighborhood, and I think ideally--it may be idealistically--I'm not sure, it would depend
on a lot of walk-in trade for its business. So we did not think as a result of that kind of
logic that this particular CN-1 zone should be reduced in terms of its size simply because
the property was sitting there and was not developed, even though the developer did
propose that what appeared on the surface at least to be a reasonable development
proposal in terms of the physical factors involved in this issue. So, we believe that
because of that kind of rationale, that this should not be rezoned with a CN-1 zone
because not only is this CN-1 zone tested, it's not fully developed; more importantly,
there are a number of alternatives in eastern Iowa City that could be checked out and
indeed should be checked out, we believe, could be either used according to current
zoning which would accommodate this proposed development or perhaps more
appropriately rezoned, not to CN-1 zone, but to some other zone to satisfy this particular
area in light of what's been going on in this part of the community. So, Ben is, I think
you're next. Ben is going to talk about that subject about alternatives.
Chiat/One of the things that I was concerned around and brought up to our Commission is the
fact that there's enough existing land that's adequately zoned for the types of uses that
Mercy wants to implement, that they didn't need to rezone this particular piece of land.
Now, a high percentage of that land is used right now; it's in, you know, a less than
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 3
optimal condition, and my perspective was that it could be redeveloped in the zone in
which it was existing. And if we allow members of the community to come into the CN-1
zone and get rezoned for a use that it was not intended, that it kind of encourages, you
know, the disposable nature of society anymore, that this property, this land is zoned for
what it would take to build their clinics and instead of redeveloping that land for that
higher use, that they go to another piece of land, get it rezoned, and then we'd have land
that is underutilized, potentially developable, but not being redeveloped, as opposed to
the kinds of things that Dick was talking about. One of the things that I took a little bit of
flak about and suggested was that, you know, Mercy as a significant contributing member
of this community, had a bigger opportunity to take a bigger role in some of the
redevelopment on the east side that was possible. And, you know, it wasn't, you know,
disrespect, it was a lot of respect to the level of the project that they did and the work that
they do; the fact is it's in the wrong zone as we define zoning. I mean, the whole concept
of zoning isn't just a short-term process. I mean we have the Comprehensive Plan, which
is a long-range plan. We have the district plans, which, you know, I mean, lots of time
goes into guiding the future development of the City. Now, I don't want to get into the
First Avenue issue but, you know, the perspective of this quadrant of the City changes
pretty dramatically when, you know, some of the arterials and collector streets are put in
that aren't there now. And my position was that it's a mistake to take this out of CN-1 for
the purpose that the applicant, the Mercy group, wanted to put in and, you know,
basically hold them to a little bit, not a higher standard, but challenge them to participate
in some of it, that would look more like redevelopment of land that's zoned for the
purposes that they want to use. I mean, I think that's pretty clear. The other thing and,
Steve, you brought this up that when we're done with our presentation, I'm not really
looking for this to be a presentation on the part of this Commission. I'm looking for a
conversation with the City Council and for a dialogue and some, you know,
understanding. You know, you guys have the tough job. You know, you get, you know,
elected. You know, we serve because, you know, we do but we sit in this chamber almost
as much as you do and listen to all kinds of, you know, applicants and constituents of the
community and for the most part what we see is an audience packed full of the same
thing that you see on a busy night, which is everybody saying not here, not here, not here-
-over there. And the projects for the most part are good projects that we have to pass
some kind of judgment on. And we have to look at it in the context it is not about this
part of the City or this intersection or this neighborhood. We have to look at what's the
greater interest for the entire community. And one of the things that whoever's here on a
particular night opposing a particular issue, they don't see anything beyond their issue.
They really don't see how it affects the greater community. And maybe we don't see it as
clearly as we do, but we see it, and that's one of the things that is a big concern to us, you
know, on an ongoing basis. I mean, we're not talking about, you know, short-term, we're
talking about Comprehensive Planning and long-term, you know, Planning and Zoning
issues.
Supple/Thanks, Benjamin. It is difficult to separate the applicant from the application. A lot of
the time that we were discussing this, the City attorney sent out a memo to the City
Council and with copies to the Commission saying that it is inappropriate to consider the
identity of the applicant, that it is appropriate not to consider who's going to use the land
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 4
but how the land is going to be used. Not whether they will be tenants or owners or
modest income or high income or any other thing about the applicant. It is appropriate
only to consider the use, not the user, and Ann had a couple of thoughts in regards to the-
-when you do consider the applicant, if you do consider the applicant, one of the dangers
of doing that.
Bovbjerg/I don't know how to respond to that (can't hear)
(Laughter)
Vanderhoef/Oh, well, in that case, why don't I just pretend I never said it?
Lehman/Thank you.
Bovbjerg/My thoughts were what Dick had been mentioning, in general, as well. What I
remember saying is that any one use whatever it is, whether large and took over a lot of
acreage could preclude some of this was because the idea of the neighborhood (can't
hear). That's what I recall.
Supple/But I do make a comment about if you consider Mercy Hospital is the applicant, then if
Mercy Hospital is gone that the zoning is still there.
Bovbjerg/I do think (can't hear)
Supple/Having made your statement for you---
(Laughter)
Bovbjerg/A use or a building is what it is because of what's in it and that goes back to the
zoning issue. Therefore it is a (can't hear) what is said before, which is really a footprint.
It's important and it falls versus the lines, which is where I was on CO versus CN. And
that is something that you have to consider. You consider the (can't hear). But those were
my concerns.
Supple/Dick spoke to the integrity of the CN-1 zone and I think maybe because he missed his
glasses, he missed one of the points that he wanted to make.
Gibson/Thank you.
Supple/So can we go back to that?
Gibson/Yeah, thank you. This is almost a secondary issue but really a very important one and a
good deal, I think, to do with our decision, and that is that there has been some
discussion, some disagreement, some ambiguity about the effectiveness, the viability of
the CN-1 zone. Some developers in particular that I think you need to go to them only to
go out to the one on Mormon Trek and see one that sat there rather idle for a long period
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 5
of time and now it's fully developed now. Anyhow, we decided that while that may be
true, that Dee and I am one who has some doubts about the overall viability of that zone,
we did not think it would be appropriate to test the viability of that zone, given the
presence in front of us of one singular developer asking us to change that zone. We
thought it was indeed a pretty fundamental change that was being discussed, in terms of
the overall viability of the concept as well as that specific zone. So that was the
secondary reason, I think, that we rejected those changes, that if viability indeed is in
question, and we need to take a look at it, then we need to do so in somewhat, certainly in
a very objective manner, not with any particular applicant in front of us, seeing whether
or not that CN-1 zone needs to be reconsidered And I'm not sure whether we came up
with the decision that Dee did, but you have that--is this on this issue that you had---
Chiat/Well, I think we talked about that as an option, a possibility of revisiting, you know, what
constituted or what was allowed in the CN-1 zone. But the nature of that process takes
longer and we couldn't have responded in a timely manner to the request to rezone. Now,
you know, we're still open to that possibility of revisiting the CN-1 zone and what
happens if we're allowed in there. And, you know, in that process, we may come up with
some way that the type of use proposed would be more welcome in that zone, without
changing the nature of the zone. But it was more of a time issue.
Supple/I don't think anybody questions that Mercy would build a fine building and make an
excellent neighbor and keep the building nice, have a good landscaping, and that it would
always be an attractive building. We did separate the land use from the land user with one
possible exception. There was one amongst us who, well, I will (can't hear) in there---
Schintler/Well, I will add to that that I would have--the land user did not, does not like (can't
hear) for the rezoning. If somebody else would have came in with the same type of thing,
I would have voted for it. I am in favor of this rezoning. I voted to defer this application
because I felt the applicant was doing everything that was asked in order to get the
rezoning. I wasn't expecting to vote on the application that night. I voted no, thinking it
wouldn't be accepted without some changes, which the applicant had agreed to at that
meeting, and afterwards I did wish I would have voted yes. The neighbors were not
against this rezoning. Dr. Parrott, a neighbor, a dentist in that area, applauded the project
and asked us to approve it. It is still CN-1 space available in the Dmgtown location and
there are two comers at that intersection where a commercial could possibly go. I feel
that the project respected the land; it took in consideration the slope of the land and the
many feet of fill in the lot and positioned the building accordingly, disturbing as little as
possible. But most of all I feel that particular business would have helped the existing
businesses in that area. I feel the applicant really did try to find existing CO-1 property
that would work. I respect how my fellow Commissioners feel in the rezoning; however,
I can't come around to their way of thinking on this. I feel the application does respect
the land, would be a good neighbor, it would be good for the community, and I think it
was an excellent use of the land.
Supple/Thank you. And this one has been very hard for me because I have been on the other
side of the fence.
This represents only a reasonably accurate t~anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 6
Wilburn/One of the things when I was looking at this about a month ago, I looked on line in the
Code at the different descriptions of what the different zoning designation means. If I
remember right, doesn't it give examples of, for example, in this case, did it give an
example of a small medical practice, etc., etc. One of the things that the applicant brought
up and a question I had in my mind was, given changes in certain technology or just how
certain types of businesses are conducted, I guess this gets at the viability of the, you
know, the CN-1 zone, and that was kind of a question and concern that I had in terms of,
and the larger picture that the Council's going to be looking at ICAD development and
my question, I guess I am just encouraging at some point revisiting looking at the
viability of that and I think perhaps some other zoning given, you know, are we going to
be asking certain businesses to look at year-end, what makes sense according to if our
zoning is obsolete in terms of those descriptions, are we, are we setting rules that are
going to be impractical in implementing them as we're trying to address certain things.
You had mentioned--I'm sorry I forgot your name?
Schintler/Marilyp.
Wilbum/Marian?
Schintler/Marilyn.
Wilbtma/When you had talked about looking at, when you do look at the applicants and is it
going to benefit existing commercial areas, you know, in this case, Drugtown and
Handimart.
Gibson/I don't think any one of us would disagree with what you just said.
Wilburn/Mm-hmm.
Gibson/But I'm particularly reminded of a--I mean, I've been around too long on Planning and
Zoning--I've got an imperfect memory but I do remember some things.
Wilburn/Uh-huh.
Gibson/One thing I do remember that I think is really on point is several years ago we were
asked to permit the zoning of a large grocery store out ofa CN-1 zone at the end of Scott
Boulevard and Fourth Street, and we decided not to do it, even though grocery stores
were getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Because we believe that that is a function
that's getting everyone into their car, driving great distances to reach a grocery store, but
we didn't necessarily have to play that game as long as there were viable uses for that
zone. The grocery store could go find an appropriate place for itself. I think we felt
somewhat the same thing about Mercy; there are a number of places that it can be put
without having to change and probably degrade the viability of that particular CN-1 zone.
So we aren't arguing that medicine's care to change, and there's no question about that.
Whether or not that forces us to change our notion about what a CN-1 zone allows to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 7
accommodate is another issue.
Wilburn/All right, I guess in this place, is it appropriate to, since there is some changes in
medical practice, is it appropriate to have, as an example under that zoning, medical
practice?
Chiat/I think that what you're talking about is what I was talking about in terms of that we do
have the possibility and the opportunity to revisit what is allowed and the use that
happens in CN-1 zone and make it more possible for this type of use to happen in that
zone by changing the definition and nature of the zone. You know, when Dick talks about
the grocery store, I mean, you know, my opinion is that part of urban development is
urban redevelopment and the concept of highest and best use of a piece of land is going
to change over time and the point that I have been trying to make is that, you know, at
some point we have to draw the line in terms of what is available for development or
redevelopment and by zoning in and of itself force real estate to be redeveloped to that
higher and best use and redevelop worn-out, tired real estate. And if we keep, you know,
allowing things to change and change in a way that doesn't serve, you know, our vision
of this community, then we defeat ourselves.
Bovbjerg/Two issues that have come before Council recently that came through us was auto
drive-thru pickup for pharmacies, drive-up restaurants and the numbers of square footage,
and so that kind of thing does reflect how people make changes and how these changes
and those kinds of things are ongoing so that while people want reliability, they also want
flexibility, and we also have to realize that how people think of this is different. Their
argument that--or there could be more of one kind of thing--in this case (can't hear) in
one place. Maybe it's time to rethink that kind of thing, but as some of us have said, this
was not the time and place to make a wholesale change. But life does change, turning
lane, drive-thrus, drive-ups. I mean, life changes.
Lehman/What was the impetus for Mercy to change their, you know--apparently, I haven't
followed this all the way through--I saw the final product, but--obviously from the time
they first made their application until now, they made several changes in that project for
that lot. And whose--whose direction did they make those changes? I mean, for example,
the entrance on Tudor, or across from Tudor Drive was moved, the building was
repositioned on the lot; they spent some time and some effort and some money. I don't
understand why they did that. Does anybody know?
Chiat/Those were based on interaction with staff, you know, and when we made a separation of
this issue in terms of the zoning and the specifics of how well they did the building,
which we all acknowledge--they did a great job--but we cut it in half, the issue, and
looked at the appropriateness of this zone for the use intended or requested. And we, as a
Commission, did not get into how the parking was configured, how access was, curb cuts,
and all that stuff. We didn't get that far. We were looking simply at zoning and that use in
this zone and taking the intended CN-1 zone and diminishing the scale in that quadrant of
the City by letting the use for this.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 8
Lehman/But it seems to me, there had to be some feeling on the part of the applicant that there
was a possibility of this occurring, or they wouldn't have spem the money and time and
effort to redo this thing.
Chiat/That, unfortunately, is something that happens--and I'm speaking, you know, correct me if
I'm wrong, fellow Commissioners--but, you know, that kind of concern of a kind of a
dialogue that happens with the developer and staff, getting a sense of, you know,
permission, you know, from staff to develop and present something, and then it comes to
us and, you know, it gets shot down or radically changed, and the developer says they
were led to believe, you know, that if they did all of these things that their application
would be approved. And, you know, I think as a Commission we're very clear, you
know, in our, in the number of things we have and in the questions that we ask and the
way that we present, you know, possibilities, that we don't, we try very hard not to give
that misrepresentation that if they do these kinds of, you know, housekeeping things that
their project will get approved. But, you know, I'd like to hear from somebody besides
myself about this but I do think that it's something that happens, you know, more than
I'm comfortable with and I mean I try to speak a little more clearly with the applicant to
let them know that you know the issues are different than curb cuts and you know
connecting details and things like that. It's about zoning.
Gibson/If we were to allow that kind of situation to take us out of the (can't hear) so to speak,
then the staff would be making determinations about these issues and we wouldn't need
the Commission at all. And I think I'm (can't hear---) regardless of what staff does.
Those things need to be governed and considered by the Commission, or staffwould
make the decision. There's nothing wrong with that. But we've had a pretty good
relationship with staff over the years in my judgment, and I think this time we split
company on this one and we were quite agitated over the lot for awhile, to be quite
candid about it. But staff did what it did, we talked about that, and I think we've got a
clear protocol established now in terms of how we inter-relate with each other, talk to
each other. But we can't advocate the staff; otherwise, you simply don't need us at all.
Staffwould report straight to you and---
Kanner/But---
Lehman/The only reason I asked that was I can recall a meeting at Council level more than one
occasion where Council has requested that applicants do certain things and I personally
feel that if we encourage you to do something to try to make your project comply with
what we're trying to do and you make all these efforts trying to do what we're asking you
to do, that somehow it starts to become incumbent on us to see to it that we help the
project succeed. That's why I asked where the changes came from.
Gibson/We do the same thing.
Lehman/No, I know you do, and that's why I asked.
Gibson/In this case this impetus I think was coming from staff rather than the Commission.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 9
Shannon/Let me--we already discussed it but to my knowledge moving the building, I think
those were things we heard about but I don't think we--we looked at pretty much the big
picture, I think, pretty much all the way through, that should we change the zoning or
not? And the curb cuts came out later and I don't recall curb cuts or moving the building
or the parking lot being adjoined together, the parking lot. I think we pretty much from
what my recollection is, we discussed the big picture of should we or shouldn't we.
That's why we were somewhat distressed when we read it in the paper that they were
very close to a meeting of the minds, when we didn't recall any of that. So that got you
guys looked up (can't hear)
Chiat/I think, you know, let me try to answer your question, Ernie, in a little bit different way.
You know, all applicants start off with the staff. I mean, you know, we get it when it gets
to a certain level and it's ready for our review. But in terms of what a project needs to
look like, the elements it needs to address, the nature of what it would look like if it got
approved. Those details have to be, you know, I mean, you have to spend time and
energy and money to get it to look like that so that you can make your pitch, so to speak.
And then you know the Commission looks at it in a Planning and Zoning kind of a way.
So that there has to be that level of detail figured out.
Lehman/Oh, no, I understand.
Wilburn/You mentioned smoothing out the process with staff, if that's fair to say. Can you kind
of give us the nature of, I mean, what process did you work out with staff? Does any
more work need to be done there or---
Supple/ I think we're all satisfied, aren't we, that it's all taken care of?. Do you want to come up
with specifics of what we---
Wilburn/Discuss maybe general nature--was it timing or---
Chiat/Well, I think it had to do with if there are substantive changes that happen before or after
we vote, that it comes back.
Lehman/Then you felt---
Supple/ I think what we agreed was, in after the Commission has voted, if staff then changes
their opinion and takes a different position that they will insist it come back to vote of the
Commission again.
Gibson/Well, no, I don't think we knew necessarily through this process if staff really had the--
I'm not sure they've changed their opinion. I'm really candid about that. I think they may
not have but they continue to refine this product and then change their position because
they didn't ever really--there was no disagreement from staff as I remember through this
(can't hear)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 10
Chiat/I think staff's position on the second issue was not unclear. I mean, it was very clear, that
given the configuration and layout, etc., etc., that this project was OK for them on the
second end. And we shot it down basically as a zoning issue and then somehow woke up
the next day to find that something happened and staff sent it on with approval.
Gibson/I'll still be, the staffperspective being debated on a different level and a different issue
than what the Commission dealt with. ! think that's when we felt that something was
awry.
Lehman/Have you debated that with the same level that staff did? Do you surmise you may have
come to a different conclusion? Because I'm hearing that there were changes made after
you voted. We got a recommendation from staff approving the project, along with your,
and I think we all read the minutes rather carefully for reasons why you denied it. And
reading those things, I would concur given the set of circumstances and the facts you
were using, that you were exactly correct. Did they--were the facts changed? I mean---
Chiat/The changes that were made, I believe, had to do with moving the building here or there,
curb cuts, entrances, and things that were specific to the architecture and really had
nothing to do with the issue that we voted on to do with zoning. So that, you know, that's
kind of where we felt a little bit betrayed.
Bovbjerg/I'm thinking that was the staff was probably not much different from what they had
been saying before. Every applicant, regardless of what we do with an application, has a
right to come before Council, and that was my impression of what was happening. It
carried along with it the work that the applicant and the staff had done and the favor--I
won't use any other word than favor--with which I felt staff was regarding this particular
project. I think the disconnect between our particular vote and the particular apparent
favor of it was very disconcerting because as some of us have said, we were not basing
our vote on the presented project. We were basing it on more basic zoning and how that
land is being used, the concentration versus varieties.
Chiat/I think the bottom line was that this would come up again at our meeting, that it would
still get shot down on the zoning issue, and it might not be 7 to nothing or 6 to 1, but I
don't think that it would pass as a zoning, a rezoning, based on everything that we know
now. So that wouldn't change. And that our opinion as a Commission is that it's not an
appropriate use of this CN-1 zone or the way that that is defined, and that this is not
appropriate for that piece of land.
Kanner/Only one person would change their mind from the previous vote?
Chiat/I think the vote was probably would have been 6 to 1. And I think if we did it again, it
would probably be (can't hear).
Kanner/I have a question. So it seems, it hinges a large part on the square footage of the office
space. In CO, you're allowed larger spaces. What the applicant wanted was 10,000
square feet which is larger than allowed under CN, which is about 2,400 square feet. And
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 11
SO that, the reason for that under CN is to limit the regional attractability of businesses in
the CN. So, having said that, do you think the applicant with the rezoning, would there be
an increase, or would there be more regional attraction than something else that might go
in there under a CN?
Gibson/That's got to be a third.
Supple/Theoretically,
Gibson/And they weren't talking just about a 10,000 square foot; we're talking about a 20,000
square foot building that's going to be there.
Karmer/Well, no, 10,000 on each---
Gibson/It doesn't matter. There's all of the zone for the commercial office zoning, so they get to
put $20,000 worth, 20,000-square-feet of activity into that space. And anyone else could
for that matter. So it wasn't an issue of 10,000. I think this thought probably crossed all
of our minds as we were running along but it was cut down in terms of scale. Yes, the
fundamental idea behind the CN-1 zone is that it does not become a major regional
attractor, draw traffic into an area, and therefore make it more difficult for pedestrians,
more convenient access to the smaller-scale businesses.
Bovbjerg/At the same time, there's no way we're going to say these two businesses were there.
They would attract us; we know we don't know that; there's no way of guessing what
would have prompted the (can't hear). But that was our big (can't hear), the draw of
numbers.
Kanner/Early on before the staff gave their final recommendation and the remodeling, they
talked about possible uses for the part that they would lend out, like a child-care center or
something like that. Did that have an effect at all?
Gibson/That's one thing that we'll ask you as the new Council Members, keep in mind
whenever they see she's coming in front of you, when you rezone, you rezone. You're
permitting any allowable use in that zone. It has nothing in fact to do with the immediate
applicant in front of your guys under those circumstances. Once you rezone it, they can
mm around immediately and put something else in there that met the requirements of that
zone. So we try to look past the immediate applicant and decide is this an appropriate use
in terms of the described eligible uses of within that particular zone for this particular
piece of land. That's the reason we shouldn't focus too much on the immediate developer
because it can change in a minute, once you approve it.
Kanner/Well, there were some agreements, conditional zoning agreements, that were reached as
far as the layout. Can other conditional loan agreements be reached?
Gibson/As long as the uses can fit in there? No. That's what our legal counsel has told us. The
physical things you can work with as an effort to try to improve the quality of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 12
environment as being fit, but not the uses. Anything that's eligible according to zone,
look for that, you go in that once that rezoning is approved. And it's often difficult to
back that off to some lesser zoning standard as we all know.
Vanderhoef/I'd like to compliment the P and Z Commission for sticking to the zoning issue. I
had the same concerns that you folks because of the convoluted way of putting together
this particular meeting, and I wanted to be sure that this meeting took place. I supported
the change in the zoning so that we could have the conversation to be sure that we had
this conversation. Because I have been questioning for probably a couple of years the
CN-1 zone, just specifically, is it still meeting the needs of Iowa City in the year 2000. I
would like to continue that conversation without a project in front of me. I have said this
for quite some time. We've been waiting for this zoning review to happen and we've
gotten various time periods of when it will happen, upwards of two years and then
recently finally there was a comment that it might be done in about five months. I would
still request all of us to consider looking at the CN-1, the CO zoning, and see if we are
missing the boat, see if there is either some changes that we need to make in one or the
other or whether there is even possibly a third zone that needs to be in there, that meets
today's needs. Technically, I live in the neighborhood where this happens, I have no
qualms that Mercy Hospital would be a good neighbor, and I agree that it's good use of
the land for the 20,000 square feet because I've watched over the years that I've lived
there, all the fill that was put in there. I understand that completely. What I also have
watched in that area is very little activity in these little small retail spaces. Having some
history with retail in my family, I question whether you can ever put a viable business in
those spaces. I want to talk about it. I want to get this out and put it in the year 2000,
where are we, what do we need to be doing in these zones, and I would like specifically
to do that sooner rather than five months or two years from now.
Champion/Good point, Dee. I agree with you.
Pfab/OK, so are you saying that you'd say delay this until we have this discussion?
Vanderhoef/Because of the way our zoning is laid out, I don't think we have gotten past the
zoning question. Just what (can't hear) has said, we had not gotten through that to be sure
that this is a correct zoning when we don't have a project in front of us. It was brought to
Council with a project and a rezoning altogether. And I've been asking for this to look at
it because we've been putting more and more neighborhood commercials into our Comp
Plan and it's like--why? We aren't even sure that they're wanting where we have them
now. The west-side one did finally develop. This particular one has not developed. Yes, it
doesn't have the development within the residential that was anticipated probably when
that zoning was set up. It was even set up prior to the zoning of CN-1. I just think we
have to separate these issues, and we've got to talk about CN-1 and CO.
Pfab/I have a question for Dick. Apparently you have had some longevity in zoning and history
of how things happen over time. Have you seen many cases where something was zoned
for a particular operation and then saw the operation disappear and just change the whole
thing as it was doing, as it was supposed to be?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 13
Gibson/And I can't tell you that I have but I'm not that close of an observer over it. All I know
is what the lawyer tells us from the impact of our zoning decisions.
Pfab/That kind of scares me because you know, what you're saying, anything that's available in
the other zone can be put in if somebody ever lost the way.
Gibson/Well, if you doubt me, ask legal counsel on that point. I may be misinterpreting it but
that's what we understand to be the case.
Kanner/I think they're ready for zoning.
Dilkes/Sara, do you want to give them a sketch?
HolecekJ What I've said to Planning and Zoning Commission is that you cannot zone by
conditional agreement or otherwise for a particular use. Say, we can only rezone to CO-1
for Mercy Hospital's proposed use because when you vest those rights, you can't say that
they're only attached to the particular use. And so if that use moves on or is no longer
using that property, anything that is in CO-1 realm is fair game for use of that property.
But you can't particular it; you can't attach it to a specific use.
Pfab/So, you're saying once you give it away, you can't get it back?
Holecek/That's pretty much right.
Supple/Was your question answered, Emie? Would we change our minds if we had seen the
final plan that had been presented to us? You asked that question; were you, was it
properly answered? I think we skirted around it a little bit.
Lehman/Well, I think that's true, and I also think that, you know, from a, as a City, we are
frequently, at least at our level, we are badgered about the difficulty that folks have
sometimes bringing business within the community, and we urge our staff to be as
cooperative as possible and to help applicants whenever they can to work through things.
Obviously, in this case, it didn't quite work the way, I mean, they were doing obviously
what we as a Council (can't hear) like to see the staff do, work with the potential people,
trying to work out something that's going to work. And obviously not, obviously it did
not fit the CN-1 zone. I think the real question, I think the question the Council's going to
have to decide when we vote on this again, is the CN-1 the right zone? Obviously, it does
not fit the CN-1 zone. I mean, you folks voted exactly correct. But I think we have to
look--is that CN-1 zone the right zone? If it isn't, then what do we do about it? I have no
problem with the way you reached your decision based upon the zone. I think that was
the correct decision. But I think there may be a larger question is that the right zone for
that area?
Bovbjerg/Or do we need a new zone?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 14
Lehman/Well, that could possibly be too.
Gibson/Emie, I'd like to sort of answer your question too. I can only speak personally when I
saw this, but this is how we all perceived this. And I don't know that my fellow
Commissioners pemeived it in the same manner, but we were not oblivious to these
issues at all. We went through several and I think presentations amounting to 25 minutes
or more of why this was great and why they were being responsive to staff's lead. We got
that both from staff and from the developer and while we didn't specifically address those
issues, they were clearly in front of us; they were in the staff reports. So, I personally
cannot say I was oblivious to those issues at all. I think we finally decided collectively
after hearing this for a while that we're really, if we're going down this path, we're
focusing on the wrong issues. And I think we made that correction early on in the
process. But we were all pretty clear about what we were doing. But we were not
oblivious to the way that it was being presented, and some of the, the way we were being
asked to look at it. We were not oblivious to that at all.
Chiat/I'd like to just say briefly about what Dee was talking about. We are very clearly open to
the changing way of being in the world in this century, and there was some conversation
in the review of the Mercy project as to the practice of medicine and the nature of what
they were proposing today versus in the past. And if that means to revisit the nature of
that CN-1 zone, you know, I think we're real open to that in that conversation, but, you
know, we've recently worked on two other projects that I'd like to just mention. One is
it's the South District, the Airport Plan. And there's a little area down there that's CN-1,
and you know, the landowners want it to be something more like what it is than what
we're getting in CN-1, and you know, that's, when I talked about highest and best use of
the land, it has to do with capitalism. And you know the higher and the better use of the
land, the more money it's worth. So, you know, when somebody comes in and wants to
rezone something, you know, to get more money out of it. They can show us whatever
they want to get that zone redone. Once that zone is redone and they have that, they have
a more valuable piece of land, they can sell it to whoever they want for a higher dollar
and come in with that zone and do something the zone that was approved, and do
something completely different than what we'd given. And I think that's where one of
our concerns is. You know, in just showing ICAD favor to a piece of land because ....
TAPE 00-34 SIDE ONE
Chiat/...Yeah, Rochester.
Lehman/Right.
Chiat/And you know again, if neighborhood commercial doesn't work, a different zone was
requested and it's something also that we are in the process of revisiting, what use of that
process and you know I'm not trying to expand this whole thing into a big revisit of the
Zoning Ordinance, but I think that there are a lot of changing standards with 2,000 sides
everywhere.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 15
Pfab/I guess I---
Lehman/ Go ahead, Irvin.
Pfab/I guess I go back and ask Dee, you're saying now this is a question: Are you saying that
you'd have difficulty to approve this as it's presently zoned?
Vanderhoef/Well, we couldn't approve the project as it---
Lehman/ As it's zoned.
Vanderhoef/...in the present zoning.
Pfab/Right. So you're, OK, so---
Vanderhoef/So, getting past this business of what the zone is there and whether it's proper to
open up and change the zone and allow lots of different things that could happen in there,
without this conversation about zoning in general is real difficult. I think we're not
meeting our own Comprehensive Plan.
Pfab/If we change it?
Vanderhoef/Mm-hrnm. Until we have a good look at it and see, maybe that's what will come out
of the conversation, I don't know. But I want to talk about all of these zonings and find
out where we are collectively, put all the heads together and figure out what we ought to
be doing in neighborhoods.
Lehman/Well, I think we've got a pretty clear understanding of where the Commission is
coming from.
Pfab/Was it at this, at the Council meeting or was it someplace else I was at, where there seems
to be more of an emphasis to try to go back and work in cities on neighborhood (can't
hear) versus overall, and we're starting to see where (can't hear) should be ready to go
out and work for the neighborhoods and now the neighborhood development is central to
those communities.
Lehman/Well, I think the CN-1 zone is, that's kind of what we did.
Pfab/I mean, are we seeing, is it, was this context or maybe it was another meeting where it
appears that there's more emphasis, that people are deciding, or maybe it was at the
Peninsula, where there seems to be more of an interest to build a city by, to develop cities
by making stronger neighborhood centers, and does this help or hinder that?
O'Donnell/You know, I agree with about everything that's been here tonight.
Lehman/You're a pretty agreeable guy.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 16
O'Donnell/Thank you. I always--but we sit here, you know, we're posed right now with this one
project, and CN-1 versus CO-1. I agree that we should get them to stay in one zone. But
looking at the project right here now, I think it's very viable for this part of our
community. This is just what I think right now.
Lehman/Well, that's a decision we got to make in this, our second conservation. So---
O'Donnell/But I--maybe we should get in and talk about the CN-1.
Supple/The Commission appreciates you having this conversation with us and we do have an
advantage over you. You do get paid, and we don't; them is that. But---
Pfab/We get quarterly pay.
(Laughter)
Supple/You get the big bucks, right. But you are more political about it than we are. And
politics is an important part of what you do. Politics is not an issue for the Commission.
So we didn't look at anything political; we only looked at land use. And we recognize
that you're going to be looking at a bigger picture from that point of view, maybe not
quite as focused as we were on the zoning itself.
Lehman/OK. I think we understand---
Pfab/I would just like to make one comment. I really appreciated the input that the Commission
brought to this table. I'm very appreciative of that.
Supple/Thank you.
6. c. AMENDING THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-8) CONDITIONAL
ZONING AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO FOSTER
ROAD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 FOSTER ROAD. (Louis
Condos/REZ99-0016)
Lehman/The other issue that we are going to have tonight is the Louis driveway. Are you
familiar with the proposal that will be presented to Council tomorrow night?
Supple/Yes, the driveway.
Lehman/Well, the proposal, Council has the options we want, but the options I think that we will
be looking at is to deny the access, which is consistent with the agreement that was
signed on the zoning that was passed over a year ago. The second is to allow Mr. Louis to
continue using the driveway as long as lives, which is something you considered and
rejected. The third is a proposal you haven't heard yet that will allow him to use the
access to Foster Road until such time as the traffic on Foster Road reached arterial--the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 17
idea, obviously, of fewer cuts in arterial streets that's because of safety and traffic
concerns. And as soon as the traffic level reaches a certain level, he would have to at that
point provide his own access which would be different from the curb cut he's now using.
Those are the three options that the Council will be looking at tomorrow night. You did
talk about--and I think--at least give some consideration of letting Bud use that driveway
as long as he lives there. The other consideration would be allowing that driveway only
as long as the traffic on the road was of a low enough volume that it would present a
hazard to the, for the arterial street. Do you have comments?
Supple/Who would police that?
Lehman/The City can come count the cars; that's not too hard to do.
Supple/Would it be any less difficult to wait and let him keep using the driveway?
Lehman/I think that the reason that you prohibit all kinds of curb cuts in arterial streets are one
of safety and have nothing to do with how long someone lives there. Now the City has
computed and it's in this little disk which I can't seem to bring up right now.
Kanner/Two hundred-fifty occupants.
Lehman/Assuming that the number of homes are constructed that would generate the kind of
traffic that the traffic folks feel would be undesirable at that point and in the meantime
there would have to be an escrow fund set up so that the secondary driveway would be
built and then access would be discontinued as soon as the traffic line reached that point.
That's the question for tomorrow night.
Supple/Our vote on this was 4 to 3 against.
Lehman/I know that.
Supple/And the four of us who were opposed to allowing the driveway to continue, first of all,
questioned what the advantage was to Mr. Louis to put the money, put up the money
now. If you pay for it now, you pay for it later, but if you want to pay for it now, you just
as well have it now and particularly while the developers are still there and can do it for
you. So the problem is that Mr. Louis has is probably a developer problem, with the
developer, as it was to a problem with the City. And therefore it should be resolved with
the developer. See, for me personally, this driveway is what I call excess access. More
driveways than what is reasonable and when we first looked at this and approved this,
this must have been on our agenda for, I guess, six meetings, maybe eight, maybe ten. It
was on our agenda for a long, long, long time, denied once, came back for
reconsideration; it was there for a long time. We hammered out a lot of conditions. That
was one of them. And it took every single one of them to get my yes vote. I have voted
no for better subdivisions than this one because they refused to close up the extra
driveway, or what I call excess access. So, in my opinion, since it has to be paid for now
anyway with the money put in escrow, it's really not that much of an advantage. It will
Tiffs represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 18
have to be done sooner or later. It just as well be sooner.
Chiat/I would like to say that, you know, my opinion is that if something is going to happen
eventually, as this will happen eventually, and there are other issues in this community
that I could speak about with the exact same words. Why not get it done now? I mean and
then all of the politics and all of the time and all of the energy and all that stuff doesn't
have to be wasted. I mean, it's going to happen period. Get it done and move on.
Bovbjerg/This particular driveway was, didn't keep coming back like a song, and as with other
conditional zonings, there are some conditions that are so important that this project
would not have gone unless that condition hadn't been voted on. And that is the
seriousness, it's not whether the curb is (can't hear). Really, it's very safe, even with the
construction with Foster, that to me is a precarious comer and traffic is something that we
are very, very serious about. My opinion would be noted. I would love to cut out the
Foster (can't hear) and come out on that comer. I think at this point, last I saw, it couldn't
begin to hold access because of the curb and the (can't hear). That particular condition
was very, very basic to anything happening to anything happening on that comer. And
you know, you can do down with the ship on principle or you can look at it, saying that
this is important and conditions that were put on are very important and sometimes trying
to change conditions change OK. But in my opinion, nothing has changed so much that
this condition should be reviewed and for me the new municipal place, whatever, is a
safer, safer place to run.
Gibson/If we agreed to put it all on our own, on this issue, and decide the close vote, I
personally would not even have asked to meet with the Commission--I was absent at that
meeting. ! didn't think it was necessary for that part, we were so split. I agree with what
Lea said about our original decision. I think some things have changed, however, at that
point. I agreed and voted in the exact same way she describes. Some things changed. It
became quite difficult, too, to agree that that driveway that Louis has needed to get out on
that new street, and when I went out and took a look at it, the new road got built, it
looked very easy to me to get a driveway out in the street. What's more, it looked very
safe; in fact, it looked safer to me than the intersection, because of the site line and where
it is on the hill. So I started softening a little bit and I think maybe there's a little bit of
reason here for some humanity in terms of the decision that gets made. But it doesn't
have to made for right. I think you have three excellent options put out in ficont of you. I
had originally agreed to the middle one, but I would think that probably the third one
makes a good deal more sense because it's a little bit less persons, a little bit more
objective if somebody's got the courage to go ahead and do it. I'm in haste to have it
happen; that's always a problem, too. I would really encourage the Commission, the
Council, personally think we should go ahead and try to figure out some more
accommodations for this situation.
Chiat/I voted originally to let him to continue to use the old driveway. If you look at it, I think
there is a good site distance and I hear what Lee is saying and that makes sense, too, but I
like your idea and your alternative to; yes, he is on an arterial right now, and it's getting
busier all the time but it's far from an arterial and I think if you can work that out, I think
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 19
that would be the way to go and maybe that would be where he wants to go too, as long
as he wants to live there.
Lehman/It's measurable. You know.
Pfab/What was the number? I'm sorry again.
Lehman/I don't remember.
Kanner/It's a 250-occupancy permit, which is a great estimate of how many cars there'll be. So
it doesn't go on traffic count; it goes by how many occupancy.
Lehman/It goes by traffic count; traffic count is determined by the number of occupants.
Karmer/Yeah, but I mean, what's, the actual, physical thing that would trigger it is occupancy
permits.
Lehman/Which (can't hear)
Pfab/So, in other words (can't hear). That's after all the building is full before you get an
occupancy permit. But while all that construction going on, that doesn't have--no effect.
Lehman/That's right.
Pfab/How many traffic, tracks going back and forth that won't even---
Lehman/Well, we'll discuss that tomorrow night because that's another issue, so. Any other
comments? Folks, thank you very, very much.
Wilbum/Appreciate it.
Lehman/Now, we enjoy meeting with you and I realize this is probably what, maybe the first
time in six years.
Shannon/This looks like a regular agenda.
Lehman/So obviously it isn't very often that we have a disagreement. Very seldom, so, but
thank you for coming.
Supple/Well, maybe it's just because we respect your votes (can't hear)
Lehman/Folks, we're going to do five.
(Break)
Lehman/You're up. Private meeting is over, Miss Vanderhoef. I didn't hardly see over the (can't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 20
hear) but I still see you're there.
(Laughter)
O'Dormell/(Can't hear) is served up, Ernie.
Lehman/OK.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Lehman/Go.
a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCIt 21 ON AN
ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CItANGING TItE ZONING DESIGNATION
FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO LOW
DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-12) FOR 0.82 ACRES OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG TItE WEST SIDE OF BENTON COURT,
NORTH OF BENTON STREET. (REZ00-0001)
Franklin/The first item is to set a public heating for March 21 st on an ordinance to change the
zoning of the lot for Oaknoll on Benton Court. This is just setting the public hearing so
we won't have any discussion of it.
Lehman/OK.
b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 21 ON AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CItAPTER 6, ZONING, TO ALLOW
WIDE-BASE FREESTANDING SIGNS IN SOME COMMERCIAL ZONES
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Franklin/The next item is setting a public hearing on a sign ordinance amendment to allow wide-
based free-standing signs. Item
Kanner/Wait. That has to do with the Honda case?
Franklin/Yes.
Kanner/Oh.
Franklin/They're like freestanding signs that are plaid with something around it and so they're
like big obelisks.
Kanner/And the staff will have a position on this?
Franklin/Mm-hmm.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 21
Kanner/OK. And you're (can't hear) backing them?
Franklin/Yeah, well, we recommended approval on the wide-base signs as did the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
c. CONSIDER A MOTION AMENDING THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-8)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY ACCESS
ONTO FOSTER ROAD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 FOSTER ROAD.
(Louis Condo's/REZ99-0016)
Franklin/Item c is the Louis driveway that you just discussed. We've got figures. It's based on a
collector standard of 2,500 vehicles per day and then we just backed off of that into how
many dwelling units that would be and then subtracted out what exists, to get the 250.
OK?
Lehman/Right. Right.
Vanderhoef/Karin, on conditions, the "whereas" on page 71---
Franklin/ I don't have those page numbers. Just a second. Is it in the ordinance or the conditional
zoning agreement?
Vanderhoef/It's in the conditional zoning but I think it's, well, actual---
Franklin/OK.
Vanderhoef/But we refer west in the Peninsula area and there's a possibility of a lot more
development there, above and beyond what's on the Peninsula project. So I was thinking
perhaps we should just take the word "Peninsula" out of it and just put "west of Mr.
Louis's driveway."
Franklin/OK. Yeah, because there obviously is some confusion about that. When we're talking
about Peninsula, we're talking about that full area basically west of---
Vanderhoef/I understand that. But some place else might.
Franklin/I got you.
Vanderhoef/So, "west of' would suit me better. Does anyone else agree with that?
Champion/Yes.
Kanner/Karin, does the escrow account factor in inflation?
Franklin/Well, Eleanor and I were just talking about that. What this agreement provides for is
escrow. And another thing that we have to do, which will be another document, is have a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 22
specific escrow agreement. And usually when we require escrow, we require 110 percent
of the cost. So there's a little wiggle room in there for inflation. You know, we can craft
this the way we want to in terms of it covering the construction costs, the management
costs, and the materials and labor, the whole thing, and figure in an inflation factor. But
it's got to be something reasonable, not knowing what the time period is. So often the 110
percent will get at that very issue. Because you're not going to get 10 percent inflation in
one year; that would cover probably three years.
Champion/Escrow accounts grow also, don't they?
Lehman/Right.
Franklin/Grow?
Champion/Do they grow?
Dilkes/Do they bear interest?
Franklin/Interest. I think so.
Lehman/Yeah. Who gets the interest?
Franklin/So that's another, the issue--yeah.
Kanner/When is the estimate that it will reach that 250 occupancy permits? Anybody have an
idea?
(Laughter)
Franklin/No.
Lehman/No idea.
Kanner/Is it a couple years?
Franklin/Oh, it's probably more than that, 250---
O'Donnell/I think that's five years.
Franklin/...five years, yeah. I was going to say about 50 units a year maybe. And that assumes,
you know, it starts taking off right away, and I think it's probably going to be another
year anyway before things start to pop there.
Pfab/Isn't this, isn't the question here a question of safety?
Lehman/Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate t~anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 23
Franklin/Yes.
Lehman/This is the sort of thing--there's a public hearing tomorrow night--and we should be
talking about that at the public hearing.
Pfab/Oh.
Franklin/OK.
Lehman/Go ahead.
Kanner/Well, if there's possible compromises offered---
Lehman/I think how we even reach those, it's appropriate that we talk about that publicly at the
public hearing. We know the options now and I think if we craft a different option that
the public should be able to follow the way that we come up with that.
Franklin/So, do you want me to do a little thing at the beginning tomorrow night? Or--I'll just
take your cue, Emie.
Lehman/All right. That's fine.
d. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION
FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-1) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE
(CO-l) FOR 2.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
FIRST AVENUE AT TUDOR AVENUE. (Mercy Itospital/REZ99-0015) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Item d is the Mercy Hospital the CN-1 to CO-1 on First Avenue.
e. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO SENSITIVE
AREAS OVERLAY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OSA-5) AND APPROVING
A PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THREE
FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS ON A 2.72 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
ROHRET ROAD, WEST OF HIGHWAY 218. (Duck Creek/REZ99-0012) (PASS
AND ADOPT)
Franklin/And Item e is the housing development on the comer of Rohret Road, pass and adopt,
Rohret Road and Duck Creek.
f. AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT AND INCORPORATE THE
SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 218, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF
THE IOWA RIVER.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 24
Franklin/And then Item fis the resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the
South Central District Plan. You have a memorandum from Melody that indicates how
we'll handle the arterial street issue. One thing on the text of that, we had a direction
snafu. In that first sentence it should be the Sycamore L on the east. It's just a word
change which will be correct in the text.
Kanner/We had a letter from Housing and Community Development about possibly including
different income housing in the plan. And I was wondering what other folks thought
about that?
Vanderhoef/We did?
Kanner/Yeah, this was in another part of the packet, talking about, in their minutes, that they
were talking about. They--some of them--liked the idea of talking the plan should have
varied income housing. And I kind of like that idea, to talk about that. So, what we were
talking about in the Peninsula, and that's something that I think would be good to include
in there.
Lehman/But that, with type of land use, we don't talk income levels. They could be any income
level as they're developed, couldn't they?
Franklin/There's a general overriding principle in the Comprehensive Plan that pervades all of
the districts, and that's a principle that relates to diversity. Diversity in housing type,
diversity in income, diversity in age, ethnicity, whatever. Diversity is something that
we're after as we build the various neighborhoods that we're building. So when we get
down to the district plans, those principles still prevail. In this particular district there is
not an abundance of area that is for residential development. But where there is, there is
the manufactured housing park of Lake Ridge, and then there's some other residential
opportunities to the south as well as existing manufactured housing at Thatcher and
Baculis. So, I think it's covered in terms of the general principle being in the
Comprehensive Plan so we don't have to repeat it in every single district plan. But it's
kind of a given.
Pfab/I think, Steve, you're talking about intermixing different housing.
Lehman/That's in the Comp Plan.
Pfab/Yeah, but I mean that's--what you seem to be addressing now. A whole bunch of mobile
homes or manufactured housing, whatever (Can't hear). I think you're saying you'd like
to have this (can't hear)
Kanner/Well, no, I like what's in the Comprehensive Plan. I think it might be worthwhile. We
copied something from the Comprehensive Plan that we put into this other plan or district
plan. But I think this is something that's really worthwhile, that it's probably worth it to
put it twice. And like we do some other things.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 25
Lehman/If I'm not mistaken, all district plans are subsections of the main Comprehensive Plan.
Franklin/Right.
Lehman/It governs all of them so that if we say in our Comprehensive Plan that we want a mix
of income levels in housing, but that's in the main plan. It's also in all of the subplans. Is
that not correct?
Franklin/That's right. That's one of the basic principles of the plan. Now it doesn't get down to
exactly how you do that, which is, if that's what you're after, Steven, that's another issue.
Irvin's point of having them all mixed up in the same block, that is not something that is
articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. It is a general goal to attain diversity in
neighborhoods, which includes diversity of income levels.
Kanner/I just think that we talk about in the Comprehensive Plan about having a road go south
of the Airport, and then we got more specific with the South-Central Plan, and we might
do the same, to be a little more specific in the point in talking about mixed housing and
some ideas of how we might want to see that be accomplished.
Champion/I personally don't want that as part of the plan. I think what you're talking about is
great and it's ideal and certainly what we're talking about doing on the Peninsula. And I
think if that takes off and does well, that developers will see that that is a desirable thing
to do and they will take care of it themselves. I don't think we can dictate that. I agree
with you, but you just can't dictate it.
Vanderhoef/The total Comprehensive Plan, not specific just to this one, (can't hear---said?) that
we are committed to having mixed housing.
Wilburn/It's listed in the beginning there.
Lehman/Mm-hmm.
Vanderhoef/So as each project comes in, this will be the time to look at it because we'll be
referring back always to our Comprehensive Plan, to say these are some of our goals for
our City and to look at our Public Housing Authority Plan that we have to improve this
one (can't hear) whichever your choice is, but anyway, that is a goal of the Public
Housing Authority also, which we are the governing body for.
Kanner/Connie, I think there might be different plans out there that might work besides just the
Peninsula formula that we're using and I think we put a lot of staff time and City money
into saying that this is how we're going to develop a road in the South-Central Plan. It
comes from the Comprehensive Plan in a general sense, and I think some of these things
like mixed housing is worth putting a little more effort in and to say, we're going to be
proactive in this approach and these are some of the things that we're looking for in this
district. And I think as Council, if the Council so chooses, to say that's the direction we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 26
want to go and we want to be pointed in that regard. And we want to make more effort.
Franklin/I think if there are specifics that you wish to pursue, because I'm not exactly sure what
we would then, what you would want to have incorporated into the plan, but if there's a
majority of you that wants to do this, what I would suggest that you refer this back to
Planning and Zoning, and Planning and Zoning and HCDC have the opportunity to go
through this and attack it. There's also a North District Plan coming up that you, if that is
going to be the direction of the City Council, you need to give that direction at this point.
Lehman/Karin, the problem I have with this, that unless that is specifically mentioned in each
one of the subplans, which it hasn't been so far, and it is mentioned in the ones from now
on, I think an argument could be made at some future time that this was not a priority in
the Northeast Plan, it was not a priority in the Southeast Plan, and it became a priority in
these plans. And I think that the governing Comprehensive Plan covers it. The other thing
that particularly concerns me about the Southeast-Central Plan is that if we look at
income levels and we count the number of low- to moderate-income housing units in that
area right now, in the manufactured housing park that Mr. Wolfe has down there, and in
the other manufactured home courts, Thatcher and Baculis, that it's going to be very,
very difficult to make a case for low-income housing in that area when we're at such a
high concentration of low-income there already. Now, I think the Comprehensive Plan
certainly addresses mixed income housing. And I think that's sufficient for me. If
anybody has---
O'Donnell/Yeah.
Franklin/OK.
Vanderhoef/While we're still talking about the South District Plan, I would like to see us
remove the temporary road that is the dotted line on the map that says they're going to
build a temporary road to be followed by a connection between Mormon Trek and the
Dane Road. I think it's, these people that need it were sure that we will be building two
different roads there. And for my dollar and for our future planning, I think it's very
important that we build one road and get that established right away. And what I would
entertain is some sort of conversation or comment, something about the extension of
Mormon Trek east of Highway 1 to follow the flat land, connect with City road, at or
near the present County road, which still allows later on the other options that we had
offered and that P and Z has offered between the N-1 and the N-1.1 and point 2.
Franklin/OK, what you're, the guideline that you're referring to, Dee, is that on the map on page
22 or where is it? Because I only see one line for one road.
Vanderhoef/Well, but it's labeled temporary road.
Franklin/Temporary. I don't---
Lehman/What page, Karin?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 27
Franklin/The map I'm looking at is page 22, but I'm having trouble finding a dotted line that is
labeled temporary road in the plan.
Vanderhoef/It's on the black and white, I believe.
Lehman/Well, while we're looking for that, to me, I disagree with Dee, and we talked about this
earlier. But for us to tell, to nail down the intersection with Dane Road with Mormon
Trek literally eliminates part of the two options, as we said we don't want to nail down.
Wilburn/It's page 81 in our reference.
Vanderheof/Yeah, thank you.
Franklin/Mm-hmm.
Champion/So you would in a sense be drawing a line on the map by doing that.
Vanderhoef/Well, at least take this one out that indicates that we're going to do a temporary
road.
Lehman/I would concur. I think that's a good idea, but as far as locating---
Vanderhoef/And what the rest of the verbiage is, I don't care how that reads. I think our intent
has been not to go too high up on the hillside, so obviously if we bring it down to the
lower land as it comes up of the Mormon Trek where it presently ends at Highway 1 fight
now, isn't appropriate.
Franklin/Well, I just, I'm not finding, Dee, what you're referring to so maybe we can just look at
it afterwards and you can show me what it is, where there's a reference to a temporary
road in the plan.
Vanderhoef/OK.
Franklin/Is it in the plan or in a memorandum that you received?
Lehman/I don't see it in the plan.
Franklin/Me neither.
Vanderhoef/But because it's in the conversation---
Franklin/Oh, that's stuff that Mr. Dane submitted. It's not part of the plan, where it says
temporary.
Lehman/Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 28
Vanderhoef/But we've had the conversation about temporary road.
Franklin/OK, but that's not, it's not in the plan.
O'Donnell/It doesn't appear.
Vanderhoef/But it has been talked about in terms of the Airport.
Franklin/Right. But it's not in the plan per se, so you would not be endorsing that as part of the
plan. The plan is long range and shows a long-range general alignment from Mormon
Trek Boulevard extended, but it doesn't get into the detail of the timing and the
temporary nature of that Dane Road relocation, which I think we should talk about as a
construction project. Exactly what you're saying but it's not in here.
Lehman/Right.
Vanderhoef/And I'll--how can we get to this avenue?
Franklin/OK. Yeah, that's fine. I just don't see it in the plan. That was the important part, I
guess.
Lehman/OK.
Franklin/OK.
Kanner/I've got a couple other things.
Franklin/Mm-hmm.
Kanner/George Dane at one of the public hearings said that he would consider the possibility of
making that hill down to some sort of public way, and I think that's an offer we ought to
explore a little further. It might be worth seeing if there's anything to that.
Lehman/Could that be referred to Parks and Recreation Commission, because I would assume
that would be--let them pursue that?
Franklin/At the time when you actually land on an alignment, because as it is now, there are a
number of alignments that are possible. You're not deciding in this long-range plan
precisely where that road is going to go. And that offer of open space in, really, an
exchange for moving the road farther south is something that it would seem to me would
come into the deliberations when we get to the point of deciding the aligmnent. Did he
say that, did he offer that in writing?
Kanner/No, that was at---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 29
Franklin/Or was it a statement? Yeah, I remember.
Kanner/It was nothing definite. He said he opens (can't hear).
Franklin/Right.
Kanner/So I don't want to imply that he gave the OK---
Franklin/ Sure. Right.
Kanner/I just thought it might be worth planned on Parks and Rec to look into and to see if they
think it's something worthwhile. One other thing is in the Comprehensive Plan from
1997, it talks about Highway 1 and Riverside Drive, Highway 921 has adequate capacity
for current and projected traffic volume. Is that still the belief of the staff that it has
adequate projected traffic volume without the additional road that's being talked about?
Franklin/Jeff, do you want to address that? Those sections of the Comp Plan that are about the
districts were to give some background at that time because we didn't have the specific
district plans, and the idea was then to take and do the specific district plans and update
and embellish those sections. Essentially, each of those sections of the Comp Plan should
come out as these district plans are completed and added to the Comprehensive Plan.
That's the idea.
Davidson/Yeah, I think those sections that are referred to there, Steven, we would feel the same
way about. And given the projected density of development that is reflected in these
areas, with all of the sensitive areas, it probably will not be very intensely developed. I
think that was part of our basis for thinking the road should qualify.
Kanner/The road?
Davidson/That the projected capacity of the road, even with it more fully developed within the
City, that we feel capacity would be adequate and don't feel the need for programming
any extensive reconstruction projects. Now, that having been said, Iowa DOT has
projected reconstructing Highway 1 from the City limits down to Kalona at a Super 2
design, which does add to the capacity somewhat; but that wouldn't be a City project.
Lehman/Anything else on the South-Central Plan? Thank you, Karin.
Franklin/Mm-hmrn.
REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS
Lehman/Review agenda items. OK. That didn't take very long.
BUDGET
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 30
Lehman/OK, budget.
Kauner/Wait, wait.
Lehman/I'm sorry.
16. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTI-IORITY'S
PROPOSED 5-YEAR PLAN AND ANNUAL PLAN.
Kanner/I had a few questions. Steve, I don't know if you can answer these but I had some (can't
hear) about the Public Housing Authority's five- and one-year plan.
Atkins/I was planning to have someone come tomorrow evening if that would be preferable for
you.
Kanner/OK, I guess I could ask them at that time. I'll move on.
Atkins/It is, so you understand, this is a routine document that we have to put together to satisfy
some HUD requirements, but I can certainly have someone here tomorrow to answer the
specific on-point questions for you, if you'd like.
Kanner/But there's a number of objectives that are laid out---
Atkins/Yes.
Kanner/....and some are not checked and some are checked, and I thought it might be
worthwhile finding out the reasoning behind some of that.
Atkins/OK. We'll check those for you, have that for tomorrow night.
26. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
AGREEMENT FOR THE HIGHWAY 6 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT STP-U-3715(615)--70-52)
Kanner/And then item 26, resolution to build storm sewers on Highway 6. I didn't quite
understand talking about the state's share of the funds and the federal share. It's a little
confusing to me.
Atkins/It's Rick. We'll take care of it for you.
Fosse/We have an STP grant on that project, which is federal money administered through the
state and that's in the neighborhood of 900 and some thousand dollars ($900,000 and
some) and that is the agreement that's on the agenda for tomorrow night. Also, we are
negotiating an agreement with the state for state funds that will be used to pay for a
portion of the storm sewer as well, and that will be probably in the $300,000 to $400,00
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 31
range and that will come to you as a subsequent agreement.
Kanner/So, then $1.2 million of federal and state money, is that 80 percent of the project?
Lehman/2.8 is the project cost.
O'Donnell/2.8.
Atkins/Off the top of my head, I haven't calculated it, not tonight.
Kanner/Yeah, the cost is 2.8. So I'm still trying to figure out---
Lehman/Well, the maximum federal is $994,000. Is there, you say we may get some money
from the state in addition to that?
Fosse/Right. About another $300,000 $400,000 we're hoping.
Lehman/Or roughly $1.2 to $1.3 million out of a $2.8 million project.
Kanner/And then we're responsible for the other $1.5. So, OK, so that 80 percent is between the
state and the feds.
Champion/It's not 80 percent.
Kanner/Well, I still have figured 80 percentage---
Lehman/A maximum of $994,000.
Champion/Right.
Kanner/I'm just confused at what that 80 percent they're talking about.
Fosse/OK, if by chance the bids come in so low, it's not a factor in this project---
Lehman/Right.
Fosse/In other projects occasionally if the bids come in low enough, the feds' contribution will
not exceed 80 percent of the construction costs. That as well, yes, bridges and STP
Transportation Enhancement Funds, all those have that 80 percent level.
Pfab/So, what you're saying, so what, maybe this needs to be corrected just a slight. This
agreement provides for no more than 80 percent.
Champion/Right.
Lehman/Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 32
Pfab/That is what it says and that's why it's confusing.
Lehman/Well, 80 percent up to a maximum of, so that does say no more than.
Atkins/Yeah.
Lehman/OK.
Kanner/In any case, it's unlikely to come into effect, that 80 percent because we're not going to
get that low cost. And---
Atkins/Rick, you took my agenda.
VanderhoefJ OK.
Kanner/I think that's it. Thanks.
Lehman/OK.
9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TItE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TItE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND
TItE ARCHITECTS, INC. Near Southside Transportation Center)
Vanderhoef/I have a question, too. It's on item 9 on page 92. This is on the Transit.
Atkins/I'm sorry, Dee, I didn't hear you. Excuse me.
Vanderhoeff The Transportation Center.
Atkins/OK.
Davidson/Dee, I don't have page 92 on mine; could you tell me what section it is?
Vanderhoef/It's under the Project Description.
Davidson/Project Description. OK. Got it.
Vanderhoef/And about halfway down in the middle there, the structure will include space for
inner city bus operations, a day care center, public art, public bicycle parking, etc. Are we
being funded specifically by the feds for public art for this, or is that a component we're
adding because we don't have a policy about bonding for public art?
Davidson/It is our hope to have a public art element as part of the federal aid project, yes.
Vanderhoef/So that the---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 33
Atkins/And that is an eligible federal aid expense. In fact, they have very elaborate publications
they put out bragging up the examples of public art in federally funded projects.
Vanderhoef/OK, so they would pay the same percent?
Davidson/Yeah, it's 80-20 kind of an arrangement, right.
Vanderhoef/OK, that was my question. Now whether that was something we were adding and
we don't really have that policy even the 20 percent, but I just wanted everybody to be
aware of it.
Davidson/Right. And basically, what this agreement says is that it's something we're
considering. We will not be required, our agreement with the feds does not require us to
put public art into it, but gives us the opportunity to do so.
Vanderhoeff OK. Thank you.
Kanner/Jeff, I wanted to talk to you about that. And we talked--I asked before and I don't know
if Tom Sullivan did agree with this, but my thoughts were that we should talk to
Greyhound about kicking in some money, either in the design or in paying the initial
costs. I wondering if there had been any discussion along those lines.
Davidson/Yeah, our discussions with Greyhound, Steven, have only been along the lines of they
will lease the space from us after we--and that, the money from that lease will go into the
Iowa City Transit Budget basically. It will be set up accounting-wise to support the Iowa
City Transit Budget, so although they will not pay for the capital expense up front, that's
what the federal grant does; they will then lease the space from us so there will be a
revenue stream from Greyhound and Trailways for that space.
Champion/But I wouldn't discourage that.
Kanner/But we're going to be designing into their parameters?
Davidson/Yes. I mean, that isn't to say that they will get absolutely everything they want, but
we will work with them to make sure the space is suitable for them.
20. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BENTON STREET TURN LANE AND
NED ASHTON MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT.
Vanderhoef/I just have one other question on Item 20. Are there any private funds being offered
for this Ashton park?
Atkins/None that I know of, Dee.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 34
Vanderhoef/At one time, there had been funds that had been offered way back when I was on
Parks and Rec.
Davidson/That was a long time ago. The McKusick family--that's Ashton's daughter, right--
we'll have to double-check that. That was so long ago, Dee; I had forgotten about that.
Champion/What a good memory.
Wilburn/Ernie?
Lehman/Valuable memory. Yes.
Wilburn/I'm asking for about item (can't hear) rides for the Transportation Center. I am told that
(can't hear) had some questions about the site selection. Would it be more appropriate for
me to ask those at the public hearing tomorrow night? All right. I'll do that.
Dilkes/I have a comment on the Transportation Center, just to let you know, I am in the process
of requesting proposals for acquisition and relocation services on that project. It's my
intent to contract those out; that contract will come to you both because the relocation
will be an incredibly time-consuming thing that I don't think I have the staff to handle
and also because it's a good thing to farm out since the federal government will pay for
80 percent of it.
Lehman/OK.
BUDGET
Lehman/OK. Budget.
Atkins/A couple things, Emie, before you kick off the discussion. I'd like to suggest that you
sort of split your discussion either Operations, those decisions first; then Capital, or vice-
versa, but they are distinct enough, as you know within our budget that I suggest you do
it that way.
Lehman/OK.
Atkins/Also, can I--you can discuss the issues, but remember if you wish to amend the budget
it's tomorrow night. Seek a motion, seek support for that, and vote on the particular
amendment you wish to put forth. We could try to do it comprehensively if you could
agree on the two or three or five or whatever the number of items. But if you cannot
agree, each individual Council member basically has the ability to put forth a proposal
tomorrow evening to amend the budget. The same thing with tomorrow is the operating
budget and the capital budget. So, ---
Lehman/ Well, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. For example, if we choose to
talk about operating budget first, we should choose to do, obviously there are some
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 35
concerns among Council Members. If those concerns are discussed tonight, each, the
Council person who brings those concerns up may make an amendment tomorrow night
whether or not he has the consensus of the Council.
Atkins/Yes. That's correct.
Lehman/All right.
Atkins/That's the way I understand it.
OPERATING BUDGET
Lehman/Then let's work with the operating budget first.
Atkins/Well, the other evening you gave me a list.
Lehman/Go.
Atkins/And I---
Lehman/ Start at the top of the list. Yep, that was quick.
(Laughter)
Pfab/Meeting's over with.
TAPE 00-34, SIDE TWO
Atkins/OK. This is from the list I gave you. The first item up was a proposal to reduce the
Economic Development budget, operating budget, by $250,000. This is not a general
fund expense. It's $125,000 for four utility accounts.
Champion/Who proposed that?
Atkins/Steven.
Lehman/Steven.
O'Donnell/(Can't hear)
Lehman/OK. All right.
Atkins/Then we'll strictly move on them.
Lehman/Pardon?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 36
Atkins/Moving on?
Lehman/Yes.
Atkins/OK. Increased parking fees, that was also a policy proposal for a general increase in
parking fees. The policy implications you did not discuss. I think Steven proposed that
with the intent of encouraging public transportation through the increase in the parking
fees. Please keep in mind that really each ramp, on-street meters, off-street meters is a
variety of sources of revenue to figure into the parking fund so you kind of, if you want
to increase something, you need to give me some idea of what you'd like to see done
there.
O'Donnell/I'm not interested in increasing parking fees.
Champion/Don't we usually increase those fees when it comes in a recommendation from the
Parking Division?
Atkins/Well, if you'll recall, Connie, we approved the Tower Place and parking with the
understanding we would not have a fee increase at least for a couple of years. Now, of
course, our parking revenue is down. Our concern is that, not when it, not will it come
back but when it will return to those levels.
Champion/That's the same thing when we increase the time on the meters, like we started them
at 8:00 in the morning---
Atkins/Yeah, those are all revenue items, Connie, that's correct.
Champion/OK.
Atkins/And we had not proposed in the budget that you now have in front of you that any of that
would be changed.
Lehman/Don't we generally consider increase those when the revenues are necessary for the
operation of the department, either the retirement of debt---
Atkins/Yes.
Lehman/...or operations?
Atkins/That has been our tradition over the years, yeah.
Lehman/And the present situation is such that the rates are coveting the cost of retiring the debt
and paying for the operations, is that correct?
Atkins/Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 37
Lehman/OK. Is anyone interested in discussing that? OK, the next one?
Atkins/The third item is the reduction of three police officers, I note, by attrition; I thought
that's what I heard over a three-year period. It was reported and that's correct that we will
have four police officers eligible for retirement, if not today, they will be very shortly. If
we were not to fill those vacancies, it's about $50,000 per officer. Again, by attrition, I'm
assuming that the individual would leave. The budgetary implications because you're
spreading it over a three-year budget period are difficult to ascertain right now. I would
remind you that because someone is eligible to retire does not mean that they will retire.
That just simply means they're eligible.
Lehman/Well---
Champion/ Well, I'd be more apt to hire three more policemen (can't hear)
Vanderhoef/I would look to the chief for recommendations at the time that there are retirements.
Atkins/We have a current complement of 75 officers, ifI read this correctly; it would reduce our
complement to 72, in principle. You're all done.
Lehman/Well, is there any interest in discussing reducing the size of the police department?
O'Dormell/Let it go.
Vanderhoef/Not now.
Lehman/OK, next---
Atkins/Funding for Arts Iowa City. We currently do not have funding for Arts Iowa City in the
year 2000 or FY'01 budget. You recall last year you gave them $30,000 of a lump sum.
The proposal was to fund them at approximately the same level as some of our other
community events and ifI recall it was $7,500 was the, at least the idea.
Champion/I would very much favor doing this, but I think we have been giving them a
substantial amount of money this year; I would like a presentation from them next year,
and that's just kind of my feeling, that I think they're right, it should be funded the same
level as other things, similar things that we fund.
Wilbum/Something of the mid (can't hear)
Champion/Yeah, we have given them a substantial amount of money.
Vanderhoef/When we started the Community Events, we started a pot of money about four
years ago, as I recall.
Atkins/Mm-hmm. Informally.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 38
Vanderhoef/Because there were several things that were requesting money and we looked at, as
I recall, at least, we looked at the number of dollars that we thought should go into
Community Events and what would fit into our budget and then we divvied those out to
the events that were available. And I would like to continue along this basis rather than
going with, well, we always give them this amount. I think we have to look at this in total
on how much we can afford to budget out of our total General Fund.
Lehman/Yeah, I mentioned this to Steve and I think it came up from lack, when the Arts folks
came to us last fall and asked us for some money. I really think Council should consider
setting up a fund, if you will, and have the various organizations like the Arts Fund, the
Fourth of July, the Jaycees, all of those things make application to this, to a group of
people who then recommend to us, the same as we get recommended for CDBG monies,
rather than everybody coming in. I mean, we get asked for, every group comes to
Council. I really think that it would be well if we decided on what level we're willing to
fund Community Events such as this, give that group, or tell them that's their budget. Let
them meet with these groups and then recommend to us. Obviously, we can change those
recommendations if we choose to do it. But the way it is now, it just seems to me, we do
not have a handle on how much we're willing to fund. Now we added---
Vanderhoef/That's right.
Lehman/...$9,000 this year for the Jaycees, and I'm not picking on anybody.
Vanderhoef/No.
Lehman/But we've added to this and added to that, and then we have another group that comes
in, and if we felt, for example, that Arts Iowa City was worthwhile and really deserves
some funding and we had a pool of money, x number of dollars, we would have funded
them to some degree and probably someone else to a smaller degree. So I would--and this
isn't something we're going to decide tonight--but I just would like to see us---
Wilburn/Set up a process.
Lehman/...set up a process---
Vanderhoef/That's exactly what I was talking about.
Atkins/(can't hear) Would you like me to write some sort of a proposal for you?
Lehman/I just think that it would be very workable to---
Atkins/Community Events Committee or something like that?
Lehman/We can tell the community that we do have an interest in these things, but it would also
tell the groups who are looking for money that there is a process that they need to go
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 39
through and they compete with other organizations for those funds, just as CDBG money
does.
Vanderhoef/This is exactly the way they do it from Convention and Business Bureau, the same
thing, grant monies that are there, they have a set amount---
Atkins/Well, we'll prepare a memo then, let you react to that and take it from there.
Vanderhoef/OK.
Atkins/A Community Events Committee of some kind. What about this particular fund?
Lehman/I'd rather wait until we have a Comprehensive, we've gone through these things and I
would just as soon---
Atkins/I'll take that as a no?
Lehman/From me, but I won't speak for the other six people.
Vanderhoef/I agree with Connie that we have funded to a great deal this past year and we could
wait a year and put it into the whole pool.
Atkins/Two? Three?
Pfab/Four.
Atkins/Four.
Lehman/OK.
Atkins/Funding for Johnson County Crime Grant. This one has gotten a little sort of"loosey-
goosey" here. You had an original memo, remember it came in late for $21,000; I
contacted them, asked for them to prepare some sort of a letter and I've not received
anything and I haven't seen anything, at least to come in your mail, Emie, which I open
Emie's mail for him.
Lehman/No.
Atkins/And I've not seen anything---
LehmanJ But the communication we got from them, asked us for money to compensate for an
expected decrease---
Atkins/Yes.
Lehman/...in federal funding and a suspected decrease in state funding---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 40
Atkins/State funding, yes.
Lehman/...and to my knowledge, I've not been informed that either of those decreases occurred.
Atkins/I don't know.
Lehman/Well, I don't think any ofus---
Atkins/I spoke with Jim and I had placed a call to Marlene.
Vanderhoef/Would this group be eligible for CDBG money and would that be a more
appropriate place for them to be applying?
Atkins/Any feel, Karin?
Franklin/Could be.
Atkins/Karin says could be.
Lehman/Possible.
Atkins/What's your pleasure now?
Lehman/I'm not---
Vanderhoeff No.
Champion/No.
Lehman/No.
Atkins/Add three firefighters--that's a General Fund expense--S143,000 estimates the annual
cost for three entry-level firefighters.
O'Donnell/Did we add the last firefighters, Stephen, what is it in '77?
Atkins/Seventy-two. Now, your current budget proposal has three firefighters for '02 and six for
'03, assuming the timing is the opening of the fourth fire station. Of course, that's
dependent upon some of your other decisions.
Champion/And so these three firefighters would really be for the new fire station?
Atkins/Now?
Champion/(Can't hear) no.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 41
Lehman/These wouldn't, but the ones that---
Atkins/These would not. We have budgeted nine additional people for the fourth station---
Champion/OK.
Atkins/...if it were to open in '03 as planned.
O'Donnell/I think it's long overdue. ! support that.
Champion/And these three would be where?
Lehman/Just don't misunderstand this. These three have nothing to do with the new station.
O'Donnell/I know that, Ernie.
Lehman/OK.
O'Donnell/We haven't hired a fireman since 1972 and it's---
Lehman/I realize that, but until we get the new station, I don't, my understanding is we probably
don't need any new firemen until we get this new station put in there.
Atkins/And you also have to take $143,000 out of the General Fund. You can't add it without
taking it out.
O'Donnell/So then that these are intended for the new fire station?
Atkins/No.
Lehman/These aren't. But the ones that go in FY '02---
O'Donnell/When we build the new fire station, these three plus the additional six will come
(can't hear) the new fire station.
Atkins/No.
Lehman/No, these three.
O'Donnell/Now that I mention here, Steve---
Wilburn/We already have additional firefighters coming in, just sitting on it (can't hear) and
hold it up.
Lehman/Yeah, we have them plugged in.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 42
Atkins/No new firefighters in '01. We have three in '02. We have six in '03.
Champion/Well, that answers this problem.
O'Donnell/OK.
Pfab/Where is the question coming, to add the three now?
Atkins/Steven brought it up.
Pfab/OK, what did you---
Kanner/Well, yeah, I think we as a Council and myself as an individual, we've heard that,
especially with new responsibilities over the last number of years and with new OSHA
laws as far as safety about how many people can go into a fire, that they have to wait
until a certain amount of people are there, and often the delay is critical and the big thing
that the firefighters have said is that they need more people so they can accomplish all
that firefighting in a safer manner.
Pfab/In other words, they have, so many people have to be on the scene before someone can
enters so there's a backup for rescue if-~-
Atkins/There's an OSHA regulation that requires that two firefighters enter the building; two
must remain outside. We dispatch a pumper that has three personnel on it. When we have
a call for a working fire, a structure fire, we dispatch from two locations so that in other
words there are two pieces of equipment and six individuals on the site. Three additional
firefighters, simply to add them, is not going to change response time any. The fourth fire
station is what changes your response time.
Champion/And three wouldn't be enough to even cover---
Atkins/One (can't hear). We currently have 13 firefighters on duty all the time. With the new
station, that will increase to 16, and additional personnel and additional response time,
assuming you approve the fourth station.
Pfab/What would happen if instead of dispatching three firefighters, you dispatch four, would
that allow you to enter into a burning building sooner because then---
Atkins/If you put four personnel on each piece of equipment?
Pfab/Yeah.
Atkins/Yes. Then you're probably talking about adding a whole bunch of people.
Champion/A lot more than three.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 43
Atkins/A lot more than three.
Pfab/So that then these won't do that.
Atkins/You have nine new firefighters in your three-year plan.
Lehman/Steve, are we in a situation now where we are unable to enter a building because we do
not have enough firemen there?
Atkins/To my knowledge, it's never happened.
Lehman/OK. I don't think so.
O'Donnell/All right. Well, I withdraw.
Kanner/Well, I was also led to believe that when they had to call people in or they have to have
a certain amount of people from other stations to cover the fire, then they have to call
people off-duty---
Atkins/Yes.
Kanner/...and I think this helps relieve some of that problem.
Atkins/That it will. Yes, it will. That's correct.
Kanner/Maybe as much as anything else.
Atkins/That's true. That would have a bearing on it.
Lehman/How often does that occur?
Atkins/How often does a fire occur?
Lehman/Well, I know, I'm just trying to say that---
Atkins/I don't mean to be smart-alecky, Ernie, but the bottom line is it's really, it's almost
impossible to predict if you look at their incidences of fire, it is dramatically dropping.
It's all the other duties that are expanding, inspecting fires---
O'Dormell/Much of this (can't hear) vehicles in that---
Atkins/Yes. One of the things that I think that we should never, ever lose sight of is that we
have, in all my professional experience, we have a marvelous mutual aid agreement with
our surrounding stations and that goes both ways. I mean, we have helped them just as
much as--we choose to have full-time fire protection, that's a choice that we make. Our
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 44
surrounding communities do not. And we often find that we dispatch and we use our full
complement and we bring people in, often the mutual aid is to bring the individuals in
from the other departments to staff the station while our people are responding or at least
on the scene of another call.
Pfab/Has this come up in negotiation?
Atkins/It comes up usually every year.
Pfab/Is this a big issue when it comes to negotiating with the---
Atkins/Big issue? It's an issue. It's not any bigger. I mean, usually negotiations are wages,
hours, and working conditions. The agenda gets as broad and gets as thin depending upon
where you are in wages, hours, and working conditions.
Pfab/Does this affect working conditions?
Atkins/Not necessarily.
Helling/It comes up in terms of staffing and duties and so forth; however, if staffing isn't
managed right, you have the right, the City has the right to determine the staffing level.
And that's, we don't have to negotiate that. So the effect would be how much work are
they willing to go above minimum wages, which is---
Pfab/All right, now. Is it possible that maybe some of the duties that are not directly connected
with fighting fires or putting them out, other duties that could be done by other people?
Atkins/Sure.
Pfab/Is that, is there a danger of overworking the people that are off-duty?
Atkins/I don't believe so. I think that to the chief's credit he has used what I believe is a small
department very productively. And could we use civilian employees in some of those
duties? The answer is yes, but the advantage you have of using the firefighter in
performing some of the duties that might traditionally be done by a civilian--for example,
inspections could be done, you know, we have housing inspectors and building inspectors
who could be trained to do fire inspections--is the fact that they have the ability to
perform those other duties, far more technical, far more dangerous.
Pfab/So you'd lose an expertise that you may not get.
Atkins/Yep. You may not get back.
Pfab/Also, when these people are doing this, are they in a position where they could get needed
to come out to a fire?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 45
Atkins/Yes. When we take them out in the field, they will go out with the pumper and they're
there; they carry their pagers and they can respond inmaediately.
Pfab/I'm, I, myself, I can't find a reason to do that at this moment.
Atkins/Well, again, I just would remind you that your three-year plan has nine new people in
there already.
Vanderhoef/OK.
Lehman/OK.
Atkins/Shall I move on?
Lehman/Move on.
Atkins/OK. Increase the subsidy from General Fund to Transit. That issue was raised and I
wasn't real sure how to respond to that one so I just placed it, you know, on an item such
as that.
Vanderhoef/Well, I think 3 percent is reasonable and---
Lehman/ Well, we're talking about---
Vanderhoef/...it doesn't create any change (can't hear)
Lehman/No, no, we're talking about the transit.
Atkins/This one I've question-marked it, Dee.
Lehman/Steven, you suggested that. Can you give us your rationale for that?
Kanner/Yeah, again, I think we have to take a leadership position in promoting public
transportation and I think that we can, we need to cut other areas. We put so much money
into subsidizing car use that I think we need to put money into public transportation. It
should come more from the General Fund. It should also come, it makes sense to me that
it should also come from a parking ramp. That's one of the reasons why we should
increase the funds and again as I mentioned before, in JCCOG's report, they mention one
of the factors of why people continue to drive is because of cheap, accessible parking.
And I think our parking is relatively cheap and actually if we added a dime to that, there's
an estimate from the staffthat we could net $336,000 increase. And actually, we
probably, at a dime increase, wouldn't discourage that much driving. I talked to the staff
a while ago and they said there's probably a lot of room to increase funds, increase
parking rates. So I think because of the little line that we put into public transportation
versus private transportation, the general--and I'm also looking at capital funds in
addition to General Obligation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 46
Lehman/Well, Capital Funds on parking structures--you know they're paid for by users. Some
of those are--Steve, do you know offhand how much do we subsidize the bus system out
of the General Fund?
Atkins/It's about $400,000. That's what we budget. Now, keep in mind that that number will
vary annually. That's sort of the last resort funding. You get a little more federal aid, a
little more state aid, our expenses are down; we only actually transfer from the General
Fund exactly what is needed to balance that budget. And so it can vary.
Lehman/But it's in the neighborhood of $400,000?
Atkins/Yeah, and a couple of years ago, for example, Joe made a dramatic change in his
inventory system where we were able to, not to spend as much on inventory and that
allowed us to reduce expenses in Transit; therefore, that benefited (can't hear) to the
General Fund. That's our last resort. We take all the other monies as they come.
Lehman/Do you have any specific thing you'd want to spend for the increased funding in
Transit pool?
Kanner/Well, a couple things. I would like to increase the routes and also I'd like us to consider,
I think it's been estimated that for halfa million, we can maybe have no fares for all of
our bus routes. And I think that's something that's worth exploring to encourage public
transportation.
Pfab/I would encourage looking at that possibility, pursue it.
Lehman/Which possibility?
Pfab/No fares. To definitely encourage the (can't hear)---
Lehman/ Let's--do we have any idea just off the top of your head what the revenue is from the
box?
Atkins/$600,000.
Lehman/In other words, you want to increase the subsidy from $400,000 to $1 million a year for
public transit?
Atkins/Well, you also levy in a 95-cent, that's just the General Fund.
Lehman/How much is that?
Atkins/That's probably $1.4 million.
Lehman/Now, you're talking about $2.5 million a year in taxpayer money to finance the bus
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 47
system. That's what you're (can't hear)
Pfab/OK, now let me ask you something else here. I have a question; I don't know. Does the
federal government give us a certain amount of money for each rider that we have?
Lehman/I think they do.
Champion/Yes.
Atkins/There's a nose count.
Lehman/That's in addition to what we're talking about.
Pfab/Well, what would that play back in, about how much nose does that get (can't hear)
Atkins/Even if you doubled our ridership, that would be an additional $300,000. So, if you
doubled the ridership--that means 3 million passengers.
Pfab/Well, I guess from Steve's point of view, it's what it costs, what do we, does the City
spend for a driver--for a car transportation?
Lehman/We don't spend anything because the cars pay for their own parking.
Pfab/No, no, I mean, the roads, the---
Lehman/Buses use the roads; you've got to have roads anyway.
Pfab/Yeah, but I mean is, how much of that is subsidy for the (can't hear)? I mean---
Lehman/ Same amount that's subsidy to buses and fire trucks and ambulances and police cars. I
don't think we're going to get away from it. Is there interest in increasing the subsidy to
the transit?
Champion/Well, I don't know how we could get that money out of the General Fund?
Vanderhoef/How can we afford it?
Champion/I don't think we can afford it; however, I do agree with Steve, free bus transportation
would be ideal. And when I moved to Iowa City, bus transportation was free, by the way.
Lehman/Well, you haven't lived here that long.
Champion/Yes.
(Laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 48
Champion/If you think I haven't lived that long--and I agree but I don't think that's the way to
go about doing it. And that's one reason I'm really enthusiastic about the Transportation
Center, because I think that it's going to provide the assist--if our parking ramps can pay
for themselves and actually produce revenue to help build the next parking ramp, isn't
that correct?
Lehman/Mm-hmm.
Champion/That that Transit building with the daycare and the parking and the Greyhound (can't
hear), all the progress in that, have to go take away traffic. So I think we've got a dream
come true over there, a way to subsidize public transit without taking money out of our
General Fund, which never has enough money, and the Road Fund coming out of our
General Fund. The General Fund is where we have troubles with our money. So, I do
agree with you, that hopefully that parking ramp, I really, when you pay to park over
there, it should be a goldmine for our public transit system literally.
Pfab/Would it be a, would we be making a public policy statement by adding something,
increasing some of it?
Atkins/If you increase it, I think you need to specify the purpose of the advice. You know, really
tell us what you want done with the money.
Lehman/You put $400,000 in, I think the bus--we obviously do not have routes that go every
half hour. At one time we did. We seem to be servicing those routes fairly well. But what
would--you know, I don't---
Pfab/OK. I just, I was---
Lehman/What would you earmark it for?
Pfab/Well, it's, are there areas of the City that do not have access, to bus access? Somebody
came last night and said I'll (can't hear) on the other side of Mormon Trek.
Lehman/Yes, but that person, there is service to where that you're talking.
Atkins/Remember, folks, you just redid the routes less than a year ago. Not this group but the
previous Council. Redid them all.
Pfab/I made my point.
Lehman/All right.
Champion/People will ride it if it's free. I agree with you on that.
Lehman/OK.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 49
Atkins/Moving on. Correct? Recreation fees limited to the rate of inflation. What we did was we
took the recreation fees the previous year, added inflationary number, and compared that
number to what is proposed in the budget and they're within $5,000 of each other.
Pfab/Of a total of how much?
Atkins/$660,000.
Pfab/OK.
Lehman/And we've talked about this.
Atkins/Now, if you wish, there are recreation fees that went up 25 percent, but some didn't go
up at all. And if there are selected fees, then I would say to you send them back to the
Commission and let them work on that, but if--based on the policy that across the board
inflationary adjustment, it's real close.
Pfab/That's something we can work through afterwards, right?
Atkins/You can send that back to the Commission at any time you want.
Pfab/We don't have to be---
Atkins/Yes.
Kanner/Something there was some discussion of where the 45 percent (can't hear) came from. I
think my understanding is that it come not from Parks and Rec but from staffand/or
Council.
Atkins/I can give you what I understood the history to be, Steve, because it precedes me here, is
that I understand that when Terry Tmeblood was hired, one of the very first things he had
to deal with was the recreation fee structure program was a mess. And as they worked
through with the Commission to set up a fee structure to get the revenues recorded
properly, do all the things that had to be done, they set upon a policy of 55-45; 55 percent
tax, 45 percent to be raised by fees. It has stuck with us. I would mm to Ross and Dee
and their time on the Commission. That's sort of always been the standing rule that that
was your target when you were putting together your fee structure. Now, it's down a tad
bit, but I think it's in the 41 or 42, and personally, I didn't think it was down enough to
make a dramatic difference in sending it back to the Commission and saying you have to
come up with some additional monies. Does that sound like the history?
Vanderhoef/The way I heard it.
Atkins/Yeah. OK.
Lehman/Next.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 50
Atkins/OK. Front end is capital, pick up these last couple Operational.
Champion/I wanted to bring up the public art, but--is that we can talk about that in an agenda
item tomorrow as posed. Is there an actual agenda item that changed the policy?
Atkins/No, it's called a hearing.
Lehman/Yeah, it's in the--it's on the agenda, that's right. We'll adjust that.
Atkins/Well, that item came up.
Lehman/Right.
Atkins/If you were to increase the funding back to the $100,000, that's in the current level of
funding---
Lehman/Right.
Atkins/...then it'd be violating---
Wilburn/It'd defeat the resolution tomorrow, is that correct?
Atkins/Yes.
Lehman/That's correct.
Atkins/Half-time recreation supervisor. That is a General Fund expense that was put forth by, I
think, Dee.
Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm.
Lehman/Steve, I---
Champion/ Can we afford that?
Atkins/Well, it's a matter of permanent commitment to your budget. If there's one-time
expenses, we don't, I personally don't get as excited about it; but when you make a
permanent commitment to staff, your obligation is stepped up a tad bit. I mean, we hire,
we don't hire people, we bring them on board, we do the things that, we want to make
their employment a good experience, and thereby we benefit by it. And so I'm always
very cautious about full-time positions. And I think that what would happen here is we'd
have a half-time rec supervisor doing some of the duties that were being spoken of, we'd
expand it to full-time, I think. I don't think Terry wants two half-times.
Vanderhoef/No.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 51
Atkins/He'd want to take it to full-time.
Vanderhoef/When I visited with him about it, he (can't hear) and opposed it.
Lehman/Irvin?
Pfab/So, this is basically how we've (can't hear) it.
Atkins/No, the individual that was in the position is gone. It's now a half-time position. I think
they'd like to expand it.
Pfab/(Can't hear) the person that's in the half-time position?
Atkins/He's gone. Has left.
Pfab/OK, so it's open---
Vanderhoef/It's open.
Atkins/It's open now.
Lehman/The only reservation I have about this and I have no reservation whatsoever in adding a
half-time person, I have some real severe reservations about telling the Parks and
Recreation Commission how to use that half-person. I believe that Terry will use the
person for the duties as you suggest, but if we're going to make an amendment to the
budget, I would much rather see the amendment read "adding one half-time person to the
Parks and Recreation Department" rather than Council telling Parks and Recreation
Department where to put that half-time person.
Vanderhoef/That's fine. I understand your position and that's fine with me. It came to you this
way because I had a conversation with him and just said, if you had a choice between one
or the other and I was specifically thinking about the half-time in the Recreation because
it was open and is a real difficult thing to do his kinds of activities and have a turnover
and we know we get more turnover with half-time in any position than we do in full-time.
Lehman/OK. Next.
Atkins/Eliminate the DARE program. We financed the program in the schools. We have one
full-time officer assigned to it. I wasn't real sure how to present this other than I
understood it was elimination of the DARE program, and doing that would be $68,000. It
would eliminate one officer job. Or---
Pfab/Couldn't we reassign it?
Atkins/No. You don't save the $68,000.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 52
Pfab/No, but I--we reassign the officer to general duty.
Atkins/But then you don't save the $68,000. If you do away the DARE program, then there's
just no DARE program and you save maybe $15,000 a year for the materials and the
booklets and all those things. If you're going to reassign the officer, then that officer just
goes and does other duties. It's part of the 75, he or she.
Karmer/Well, I think the assumption is that when someone retires, they would not be, we would
not hire someone new to replace them and that's where the eventual savings would come
in.
Lehman/Go ahead.
Kanner/No, I think there's mixed studies--we received in our Council packet about how good
DARE was, but I just passed out to Council Members some other studies; that actually, I
do believe there's more studies that say really it isn't effective. And I think funding
someone like afternoon recreation supervisor is a much more effective way if we're
talking about in a sense of crime prevention. I think that's where we want to put our
money into. Afternoon is a critical time, studies have shown, for youth after school, the
time between getting out of school, and being home for the night. And I think that's
where we should direct our efforts as far as supporting youth and working for healthier
youth, in general. And the schools, if they're overly enthused about this, the DARE
program, I say let them pay for it. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of police officers
going in with guns. And that's what they do--they're on duty. And in trying to, I think,
make our schools especially weapon-free areas, and I don't like the message that that
sends.
O'Donnell/That's part of an officer's uniform, and this DARE program doesn't hurt one thing.
Studies have shown after '93 that it's much, much more effective. I like to drive around
the community and see "DARE to keep kids off drugs" on bumper stickers. I think it
establishes communication between the young people and the officer. I think if we do
anything, we improve upon this program--make it more education, more follow-up. I'm
certainly not in favor of getting rid of it or an officer.
Pfab/It's a great question that I ask you. How, what do studies say that the young people--how
do they respond to it? Is, I mean, it's a good deal for us. We dare to get kids off drugs, as
we drive down, see this on the bumper sticker and the side of the vehicle. But what is the
reaction to the kids that we're trying to reach? Is it a fun thing? Is it a very serious thing
or is it something, well, it's another thing that coming down the road---
O'Donnell/Well, I think it's a very serious thing.
Champion/We can maybe discuss this--this is going to take a lot more time.
Pfab/Well, that's just my question. I don't need a lot of discussion. I'm just saying---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 53
Lehman/But I think that this is, personally, I do not favor dropping something suddenly at
budget time without appropriate discussion. Now, something as the DARE program has
been around for years and years and years, so if we seriously question how viable it is,
then I think that between now and next year budget time, we should sit down and look at
it so that we don't find ourselves sitting down 20 minutes after 9:00 at night and deciding
we don't want a program that we don't, that we know very little about.
Wilburn/And the conversation should include not only (can't hear) but the schools and our local
human service network that deal with the network of substance abuse prevention, you
know, how do they---
Pfab/That's right, that's (can't hear) in question, and I think that we ought to move along and
just leave it alone.
Lehman/Well, but then, I think the point is do we want to put that somewhere on our pending
list to discuss it sometime during the year?
O'Donnell/Well, definitely.
Champion/Pending.
Atkins/Well, you're talking about having a meeting with the School Board anyway.
Lehman/All right, that's fine. Let's get it down, all right, fine. The next one.
Atkins/ICAD contribution is currently $50,00. It's been that way for six to eight years and a
proposed reduction by $25,000.
Champion/Was that your (can't hear)?
Atkins/No.
O'Dounell/I can't support this. ICAD has direct influence on 3,000 to 4,000 jobs in this
community and a payroll that goes, exceeds $60 million. I think an investment of $50,000
a year is a pretty good buy for that kind of group working for the community. I couldn't
support the reduction here.
Pfab/Why don't I just jump in here--in danger from all points. It questions somewhat that it
doesn't focus on Iowa City as it does Johnson County? Is that the question?
Lehman/Let me (can't hear---confess) some o£the, that's one of the criticisms that has been
heard, I think that's right. You know, on the next item on tonight's work session is
Economic Development Committee, and I think that once we get that in place and we
start working, we may have a much better idea of what ICAD (can't hear), but I feel the
same way about ICAD as I feel about DARE If we seriously are concerned about whether
This represents only a reasonably accurate ~anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 54
or not that's a worthwhile contribution, the time to do that is before it gets to the point.
Pfab/I think you made a good point; get it put on an agenda down the road.
Lehman/Yeah, I think we're going to get to that, with Economic Development, our own
committee, is going to be talking about some of those things.
Champion/And I think also, Stephen, when you look at the funding for those kind of programs, I
know it's easy because it's hard to put your finger on exactly what they do--except
maybe that little presentation like they did--but if we want things like free buses or
reduced busing or if we want parks and less Rec fees, all those things that you want and
we all want, affordable housing, housing subsidies, daycare subsidies, that's, you know,
they have to come out of industrial commercial development. They cannot come from
residential development. So, those kinds of things really need to be encouraged, that they
bring a lot of what I like to call "real money" into the community, and the type of idea on
how it might start on that real money. So that's, I really like to push that idea.
Atkins/That's all I had, Ernie, for operations.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Lehman/Well, then as far as the capital projects are concerned, obviously---
Dilkes/Excuse---
Lehman/I'm sorry.
Dilkes/I just need to make a clarification on the public art because Ross had mentioned that all
you needed to do was vote down the resolution changing the funding. You also need to
amend the budget because the budget appears before that resolution, so---
Atkins/That's correct. OK.
Champion/Then I would like to talk about that for one minute. That's a new budget item for us,
I understand that.
Atkins/OK.
Champion/It's also very new projects that were just getting under way. To bring some public art
into the community--I'm for public art so I (can't hear) have any---and I think to cut them
by $25,000, one-fourth of the budget, after they've only been operating for two years, it's
a little ludicrous.
Lehman/Can we count on you to make that amendment tomorrow night?
Champion/Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 55
Lehman/OK.
Atkins/I thought "ludicrous" was a little harsh but---
(Laughter)
Champion/(Can't hear)
Lehman/OK.
Atkins/OK? Capital projects.
Lehman/Let me just briefly address the first one, First Avenue-Captain Irish Parkway.
Obviously, this has been the subject of a lot of concern within the community for a long,
long time. Four years ago, we discussed this at some length. At that time, I very much
favored the extension of First Avenue and at that time, because of the cost of--at that time
we talked about Scott Boulevard but because of the cost of that project, which I think was
estimated at about $5 million, we never even considered building it. And we instead had
planned to build it four years ago at a cost of about $1.2 million. Now, today the
estimated cost is $1.7. It's a halfa million dollars more than it was four years ago.
However, in the last four years, Council discussed this, the Northeast Planning folks
discussed it, staff discussed it, and a year ago or approximately a year ago, Council
decided that First Avenue and Captain Irish Parkway or Scott, whichever you want to call
it, should be built at the same time and felt that that was a very important thing for the
neighborhood because all that traffic then would not have to go down First Avenue but
could be split and use Captain Irish or Scott Boulevard as well as First Avenue. I think
that was a significant switch in position from what Council was talking about four years
ago. I think then an awful lot of folks say an awful lot of things and I think a lot of things
that folks have said probably didn't need to be said and the way things have been said,
probably not too good either. I think for the most part we've got some very, very sincere
folks who think that First Avenue is an important part of our arterial street system. We've
got some equally sincere people who feel that First Avenue is not an important part. And
as a result, we've had some comments that have been less than civil, and certainly we've
heard them all as Council people. I really hate to see that. There's obviously some
division within the community. I think we add to that division when we don't make
decisions. I still believe that First Avenue is an important part of the traffic handling
situation on the east side of town, but I would suggest that the Council consider amending
the budget to remove the paving portion from First Avenue. In other words, we would
complete the grading, and the dirt from that grading project is needed on Captain Irish. If
we don't use that dirt, my understanding is we'll have to borrow the dirt somewhere else,
which will increase the cost of (can't hear---??) on Captain Irish. So, we complete the
grading, we put in the waterline which will be less than expensive to put in at the road
grade than it would be if we didn't grade it. That will allow us to continue with our plans
to acquire property and plan for the fire station which is really needed on that part of
town. By moving the paving portion of that project to the following fiscal year, which
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 56
would be '03, those folks who have a very strong concern and I think to some degree a
legitimate concern that folks are going to be cutting through on First Avenue would be
required to use Scott Boulevard for that period of time from which Scot Boulevard was
completed and the paving was done on First Avenue. Now, I think it certainly delays
First Avenue for a year. It ensures the fact that it will get done, which I think, long-term, I
think that's important. It minimizes any increase in expense that would be incurred if
they were separated. And I think most of all it starts to put this thing to bed, that we've
been arguing about and fighting about for, you know, ever since that's been on the plan
for the City, which is probably 30 years. I don't think there's a house built north of
Rochester that the person who built that house or bought that house didn't know or could
have known that that First Avenue was an arterial street. But we're just irritating folks.
Things are not getting any better. I believe we really have to have some resolve and move
forward with it in as least intrusive way as possible. So.
Champion/It would be my hope that if the Council agrees to what Eruie should talk about, you
know have talked about this, that during that interim period that we would ask staff--and
this was really my main concern, why I came to postponing First Avenue anyway--it's
because of the quote "dissension." But it's because I think we have several groups out
there with some real concerns on that road that haven't been addressed. I think we need
to address those concerns on paper, what is going to happen, how are we going to buffer
the park, what are we going to do with turning lanes and intersections? What are we
going to do around the schools? All those--what's going to happen to my house down
here on First Avenue? And I think if we can alleviate some of those immediate concerns
and give the people who have great dissension about this road the opportunity to at least
address their concerns and how could their concerns be decreased. Obviously, they're
never going to be eliminated, and you're always going to have people who are going to
fight this road no matter what we do. But I honestly feel that it will not hurt us to do this
road, to wait one more year. But I think it could be really damaging to do it when we
have so much dissension, and people really feel like they haven't been listened to. And
now we have people who want the road feel like they haven't been listened. I know it's
going to lead to pollution, but I think we have some valid concerns and I would like to
see them address them in a more specific manner on paper.
Kanner/I have a point of information (can't hear), Steve. In the revised Capital Improvement
Projects on page 123, the First Avenue Extended, the original one said $1.5 million
which included the water main---
Atkins/That's right.
Kanner/...and an 8-foot sidewalk. On the revised one, it still says $1.5 million, but it removes the
water main. So, are you saying that First Avenue without the water main costs $1.5
million estimated?
Atkins/Paving of First Avenue approximately $500,000. Waterline, First Avenue, $1 million.
That's the numbers to use.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 57
Kanner/OK, so this then actually should be $500,000 on the revised one.
Atkins/Yes.
Kanner/So instead of, the revised budget says $1.5 million. It should say $500,000, or 34920. Is
that correct?
Atkins/Yes, First Avenue extended, to pave it, $500,000.
Kanner/And so the---
Atkins/First Avenue project as originally envisioned, was a waterline, sidewalks, all those other
things that we looked at.
Kanner/And where did the water main then go into in the revised?
Atkins/Over one of the water projects---
Champion/There's no way to provide water (can't hear)
Atkins/Yeah.
Kanner/But I'm just trying to get it straight so we make sure we know we're talking about---
Atkins/The most important thing about this is the funding source, Steve, that's correct. The First
Avenue, the $500,000 would be road use tax and/or G.O., some combination. The water
component would be water revenue bonds.
Kanner/I assume you would still be $100,000 road use tax and $400,000---
Atkins/That's generally speaking, yes. I would do that. Of course, we don't know any of these
things, folks, until you bid them and then you have to arrange the final financial at the
time.
Kanner/So we're talking $500,000.
Atkins/Yeah. That's correct, Steven.
Champion/With gas increases, it means we have a water (can't hear)
Lehman/Tax doesn't change.
Pfab/I would'like to ask--is it absolutely critical that the water main be put in this year since the
water isn't going to come into it until we get the plant going? Is there any reason that that
can, is not going to be---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 58
TAPE 00-35, SIDE ONE
Atkins/There's two aspects to the water. One is to supply water from our new treatment facility
to the Rochester tank, that's a 24-inch, and then the other one is the 12-inch line that'll be
extended from Rochester to Captain Irish and that's to resolve the deficiency in water
pressure that we have in that northeast portion of town right now. And those two need to
be completed by the end of calendar year 2001.
Pfab/OK. So they could be done next year?
Atkins/Correct.
Pfab/So, in other words, this building season if it wasn't done, it would be (can't hear)
Atkins/That's correct.
O'Donnell/Well, it would be more expensive next year.
Pfab/All right. OK, so, I didn't realize what Connie would have to say, but I prepared a little
statement, and the reason I prepared a statement is so I don't talk too much. It's about
items of safety. But I'd like to read it. (Can't hear) at Council meeting, the budget
meeting, hearing of February 29th, the community is severely divided in its opinion as to
the extension of First Avenue. Accompanying an extension with Captain Irish extended
to Scott Boulevard and a variety of other combinations. I would like the Council to give
some thought as to how we might create a mechanism for continuing public discussion.
This leads me to suggest that we might seek to assemble a group of eight to ten, 12
people, each representing various issues, actions, and see if they could find some
common ground. I would suggest that if we choose to create such an ad hoc group, that
the City offer to hire an outside mediator-facilitator to assist them in seeking consensus.
Can the City stay out of it? Let the people go at it and see what they come up with. I
believe that ifa diverse group of citizens could reach consensus on the northeast side
transportation, it would be of service to the Council and to the community as a whole. It
might be that no consensus could be reached, but I agree that it would be worth it for our
while to give such a group the opportunity to discuss this matter and share with us their
thinking. Now, I think that this is, this so divides the City that while there's cost in
putting it off, I think working to try to get a consensus where everybody feels that they
have something at the table, is worth more than maybe the extra cost that we would lose.
That would be (can't hear).
Wilbum/If you take Ernie's option to put First Avenue in 2003, there's a natural chance for
public input on account of City Council election.
Vanderhoef/I thought you said in 2002.
Lehman/No, 2002 is Scott Boulevard. If you did both projects and removed the paving portion
until the following year, it'd be FY '03. I mean, the one, the first project would be done
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 59
probably a construction season ahead of the other project, which would enable the public
to have an opportunity to get accustomed to using Scott or Captain Irish, whichever you
choose to call it, before First Avenue was paved. But the big thing from my perspective is
that it would, frankly, it would send a message that First Avenue will be built and that the
dirt and the cost of the grading and the water line would be significantly reduced because
they could be done in conjunction with Scott Boulevard. The only other thing that we've
never discussed--there has to be a secondary access to that area. The secondary access if
it is not First Avenue which is constructed to arterial standards would be, for example,
like Hickory Trail.
Vanderhoef/Hickory Trail and whatever street connected to it that connects it to Captain Irish.
Lehman/Well, there will be streets that will connect to Captain Irish or Scott Boulevard and
those folks will be funneled down through residential streets that were not intended to be
collector streets. And that's going to happen. But I think, I would hope that, you're
exactly right, if that were delayed within, and the paving project to me if probably not a
whole--it's more money but--it is not a big project. The fine grade is something that can
be routinely done once the finished grade is done. The paving--that project--probably will
be reasonably short to do it, so it's not something that will be difficult to do. But there's a
lot of time between now and then to talk about issues, such as turn lanes on First Avenue
and stoplights, and the kinds of things, the schools, and the things that we should be
addressing.
Kanner/What's the cost that you found for, the costs of widening First Avenue south of
Rochester?
Atkins/OK. Hang on a sec. To reconstruct First Avenue from Rochester to Ralston Creek,
depending on whether it's a complete street reconstruction, just the existing pavement
and widening, and it's rough--S2.4 to $3.1 million.
Lehman/Why does it have to be reconstructed?
Atkins/Adding a lane---
Lehman/ A turn lane.
Atkins/...well, a turn lane in the center, yeah, widens it on both sides. At the time, given the age
of the street and should it be reconstructed--that's why there's a broad, why I gave you
the broad numbers, the $2.4 to $3.1, depending on the project that you would choose.
Champion/I understand that it would be sort of--or the road has--it would be sort of like
Kirkwood?
Atkins/No, more like First Avenue down by---
Vanderhoef/Between Bradford and McKinley.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 60
Lehman/Right.
Champion/Yeah.
Atkins/(Can't hear) Muscatine. OK.
Pfab/I'm not encouraging that it necessarily be put off at all. I'm saying sit down, come up with
something, and let's plan and do whatever comes up. Let the groups that are, have
difference of opinion sit down, have their point, and then be done with it.
Lehman/Yeah, Irvin, I don't disagree with that except with the Northeast planning sessions went
on for several months. Most of those sessions centered around First Avenue, and I don't
know, I do think there's a greater understanding as to why First Avenue is perceived as
necessary from the City's perspective and for the overall well-being of the community.
But I don't know that those two groups are a whole lot closer together than they were.
And they've done--and they did precisely what you're talking about--and they did it for a
long time.
Pfab/There seem to be a lot of discussion about what took place and what ended up being
recommended, and I can't resolve that. I was there for one of the meetings so, but,
anyway, I think it's time that we do something and move on, whatever it is, after that.
Lehman/Well, tomorrow, we'll decide. Are there other comments?
O'Donnell/No, we have considered the fire station out on Captain Irish.
Lehman/That's a huge component of protection for the east side.
O'Donnell/Absolutely. And how viable is it without an arterial street?
Pfab/Well, couldn't that be somewhat in the mix, people would have to sit down and (can't
hear).
O'Donnell/Well, putting a fire station somewhere is completely City responsibility. We view it
and we are protecting the citizens.
Vanderhoef/Leave that to their---
O'Donnell/We also, Old Hickory Trail, I don't see that used as an artery.
Pfab/Well, it doesn't have to be an artery if---
O'Donnell/Yeah, it's willing to be because it'd be---
Pfab/Well, if you go out the other way, there's no advantage to go that way.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 61
Vanderhoef/You can't develop out there until you have a secondary access onto Captain Irish.
Pfab/OK.
Vanderhoef/So wherever the road is built is where the cars will go.
Pfab/In general terms, my understanding is that you bring Scott Boulevard over here to Captain
Irish. There's this housing development here. If you put it, a second exit out to that way,
there'd be no advantage for people going up here to go out here to get over to there. Then
you might as well go out here and go around to give it a straight shot.
Lehman/Well, but Irvin there's a significant amount of property up in here that you haven't
accounted for that it is also (can't hear) access. This isn't going to count as that access.
That'd be a lot closer because you have, you can't have access up that far, but anyway---
O'Donnell/Well, and it goes (can't hear), too. We approved the Northeast District Plan.
Lehman/It was unanimous.
O'Donnell/Unanimous. Yeah, if we take an artery out of it, how viable is it? Do we need, we
need to at least amend it if not rescind it. We've taken a major artery out of this plan and
we have to ask Planning and Zoning about that.
Kanner/So, to change this, it would take an amendment on our financial three-year or four-year
Capital plan.
Lehman/Well, tomorrow night would require an amendment removing the paving portion from
FY '02 for First Avenue and adding it to FY '03. I mean, that's what it would amount to.
Is that not correct?
Atkins/That seems to be what I understood you to say, Ernie. Yeah.
Lehman/If that's acceptable, that would be the motion it would take to'do it.
Pfab/I would strongly impose a different motion than that, and that's to take First Avenue, the
water thing off for this year and completely.
Lehman/OK. Well, we'll talk about them tomorrow night.
Atkins/Quick break.
Lehman/OK. I guess we will. We'll take about---
Atkins/Any more budget?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 62
Vanderhoeff I have---
Lehman/Pardon? I'm sorry, go ahead.
VanderhoefJ One thing as I was looking at the out years and the things that might need to be put
into a year, I was looking at the Airport and the free zone, just south of the Airport, and I
think we should be considering putting in the Mormon Trek extension from Highway 1
over to Dane Road in like 2003.
Lehman/In '03-'04, and that's something to plan for but I think that is, I would concur, that's
something that needs to go---
Vanderhoef/Because that's about the time that we'll be looking at the Airport land. That gives
Planning time to see where that road should go. The--just the leg of Mormon Trek
between Highway 1 and Dane Road because that road becomes necessary when we have
to buy the land for the free and clear zone at the end of the runway to the Airport, with it
all combined in there together.
Lehman/And it might also eliminate having to put, using the money that the feds would pay for
a temporary road. We could use that road, that money to build a permanent road. That's a
ways away but it---
Vanderhoef/But get it out there and that'll alert our staff to start looking at and the alignment
and so forth.
Wilburn/Good.
Lehman/All right, we're going to take five minutes.
Champion/I have a quick---
Vanderhoef/We have to put that in---
(Break)
Lehman/Where'd Steven go?
Pfab/He went to the Coop to get some food.
Lehman/Seriously?
Pfab/He'll be back.
Lehman/OK. Marian, you're on. OK. One other thing was just pointed out to me by Rick. If we
do First Avenue the way it's been suggested, the construction of First Avenue would
occur at the same time that North Dodge Street is being reconstructed, which means that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 63
cars could not then a completed First Avenue as a shortcut. They would have to use Scott
Boulevard, so that traffic that will be generated from the construction or reconstruction of
Dodge Street and Highway 1 could not use that street because it would not yet be
completed. So that kind of fits into the thing pretty well, too.
Pfab/I just don't think--why put the water main in just to sit there and look pretty?
Lehman/You don't see water mains.
Pfab/I know.
Lehman/OK.
Pfab/It just lays in the ground.
Wilburn/How does that affect your suggestion (can't hear)?
Lehman/It works perfect.
Champion/Can you imagine the traffic going down First Avenue, if they were completed at the
same time as Scott Boulevard? It would be tmbelievable.
Lehman/Yeah. It actually, to answer your question, Ross, it fits in perfect. That means we would
be building First Avenue at the same time as North Dodge, which means that nobody
could use First Avenue as a collector, which would occur if it were completed.
Pfab/My point is if you delay it and put in the water main while they're grading First Avenue,
you kind of force the people to get together and come up with something that they all
agree.
Lehman/Well, I don't think you can ever force that.
Pfab/You can encourage them.
Lehman/The next item. We're trying to do that.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Lehman/The next item is the Economic Development Committee that would be set up. It would
be consisting of three Council folks. I'd like to recommend that Vanderhoef, Wilburn and
myself be on that committee.
Champion/I approve it.
Lehman/Is there a discussion of that, argument with that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 64
Vanderhoef/Great.
Champion/Good combination.
Lehman/Well, that went real quick.
Dilkes/Can I make a comment---?
Lehman/Yes.
Dilkes/...on the Economic Development Committee, just so you all know that that's obviously a
committee that you're appointing to advise you on policy and not, and Steven, I have
talked, that's an open meeting.
Lehman/Not even two of us can visit because that makes a formal meeting.
Pfab/What happens if you put four persons on that, so people could visit?
Lehman/Then you get a tie vote and you can't do it.
Vanderhoef/Well, and then that's a majority of Council.
Lehman/Two couldn't either.
Pfab/We just have some other experiences with that.
19. IOWA AVENUE STREETSCAPE
Lehman/First Avenue Streetscape--who's going to present that?
Vanderhoef/Mr. Mayor?
Lehman/Yes.
Vanderhoeff I will be leaving because I have a conflict of interest on this.
Lehman/All right. Don't go home.
Vanderhoef/Ah, shucks.
(Vanderhoef leaves table)
Fosse/Right now are Brian Clark and Chris Della Vedova from Brian Clark and Associates,
whom we've met before. Also with us tonight is Kim Shera, who is our new engineer. If
you'll recall a year ago at this time, you approved a new position in the budget. She's
sitting right behind you there, and this is one of my projects that she's working on this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 65
summer. With that, I'll turn it over to Brian. He's got about a less-than-ten-minutes
presentation, and then we'll open it up for questions.
Lehman/Right. Go.
Clark/Mr. Mayor, members of C0uncil, we last met about six months ago when design
development was completed on the Phase 1 (can't hear) for Iowa Avenue. At the design
development meeting, you recall Project Green had some concerns about tree species, in
fact, multiple tree species in the corridor. We've met with the Project Green a couple
times before the first of the year and have resolved the species issue and Project Green's
on board with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. The drawings here before you is the
Phase 1 project and its extents on Linn Street, Gilbert here, and the same block going
with plant material, the builder will go in there. Any questions?
Lehman/This is pretty much what we've been seeing for the last year and a half or so, very, very
minor modifications?
Clark/Yes, it is.
Lehman/And the time of construction of this, it would be what?
Clark/June 1.
Lehman/Of this year?
Clark/(Can't hear) those are the dates that I have. Construction is slated to start May 15th of this
year.
Lehman/Is that going to be compatible with the construction of the parking facilities?
Clark/Yeah, clear to coordinate. That's why we're trying to get it done this year so that while
that portion of the street is already torn up, we're not overburdening everything else.
Champion/The only concern I have on this and I said it before was the lack of delivery space. It
doesn't address at all---
Lehman/ No, this is only the---
Atkins/This is only the 300 block---
Champion/Oh, OK, you're right. I'm sorry.
Clark/And then on the site now we have workers out at the 100 and 200 block.
Lehman/OK. Are there questions regarding this?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 66
O'Donnell/No.
Lehman/I think we're pretty familiar with the concept and the timeframe, if we start the 15th of
May, when is the estimated completion date?
Clark/Off the top of my head, I can't recall.
Lehman/Is it this year?
Clark/Yes, it is this year.
Lehman/It would be this fall.
Clark/Yeah.
Pfab/About the time school gets, a little after school starts?
Clark/Right.
Wilbum/OK.
Clark/I'd say August 18th is when we're shooting for.
Lehman/Questions from Council? Gentlemen, you've done a great j ob.
O'Donnell/You've been very patient.
Pfab/Great presentation.
(Applause)
}IIGHWAY 6 EAST PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS
Atkins/That's mine, Ernie.
Lehman/Yes.
Atkins/This is the Council--I'll get Dee.
Lehman/I think Mike went after Dee. Did you find her?
O'Donnell/No, Karin's got her.
(Vanderhoef returns to table)
Lehman/Here she comes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 67
Pfab/Ready or not.
Lehman/OK. Go.
Atkins/Highway 6 East pedestrian overpass, you had a presentation made to you by some folks
in that neighborhood discussing from their vantage point the need to rezone this. We need
an engineering staff---
Karr/Steve? I'm sorry. I want to catch every word and I just can't hear anything.
Atkins/It's not working.
Karr/OK.
Lehman/Here. Why don't you come join us, Steve? Why don't you sit down? Join us.
O'Donnell/There's more than one plug-in.
Champion/(Can't hear)
Atkins/Highway 6 East pedestrian overpass, as you recall, the presentation was made to you. We
had an engineering study done. It's probably eight or nine years old. I need to know from
you all if you want me to pursue this. At that time, that was a $700,000 plus project. That
was for one. So, you know, you're talking a pretty big ticket item now, and then there
was the suggestion that we needed three of these things. Before I invest any more money
in doing any engineering updates, I need to hear--for one thing, does it stand a chance?
Champion/I need to think about that.
Atkins/OK. We don't need to know right now, but I don't want to put a lot of money into this
project.
Lehman/Steve, is them any sort of, before we spend a lot money with engineering studies and
whatever, is there any sort of--I hate to use the word--but feasibility study that we've
done to tell us how many people we think would be using it or--determine a need before
we go into---
Atkins/Last time that's where that began to break down. That there became the serious question
of whether just kids are going to use this thing. And they are, again, of some consequence
here in taking out property, taking out houses, the one at Keokuk, in particular, is very a
unusual one because of the slope. It goes all the way back on your way to the K-Mart,
where it'll rise up---
Lehman/Take Iowa State Bank out.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 68
Atkins/Yeah, well, you kind of have to re--I mean, you can see there's just not that much room
to build one of these things.
O'Donnell/What's it cost to tunnel, Stephen?
Atkins/Oh, I couldn't tell you.
Lehman/There's safety issues there, too.
Pfab/No, no, I'm not interested---
O'Donnell/Well, this is a very serious study and there's a lot of kids crossing that highway and
it's really dangerous.
Lehman/Well, I think that we need to determine that. How many kids do cross the highway?
See, I don't know that.
Atkins/It's a school district policy to---
Pfab/Bus them across.
Atkins/Yeah, I mean, it's the way they were configured and schools are doing what they
accomplish right. I think that there's no doubt, but you can certainly make a safety issue
out of the thing, the accident experience, to my knowledge, is not outrageous. That
sounds a little callous, but---
O'Donnell/But we have had accidents?
Atkins/Oh, sure.
Vanderhoef/Don't they just bus the students to the elementary but not to the junior high?
Pfab/I have a question. As an alternative, would it be possible to develop a little shuttle system
in there, I mean, reroute going that way?
Atkins/Well, there's all kinds of things you can do. I mean (can't hear) your obligations.
Pfab/There's people that have to get across.
Atkins/Sure.
Pfab/And the bus goes, the school bus goes up once or twice a day and they have been rationed
to go on, but other than that.
Lehman/Well, it's now, I don't know where their bus routes, we had that bus route that runs on
the east side from the Lakeside area all the way up to Regina and back. So I mean we do
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 69
have City bus service that goes across all those highways.
Atkins/But you're not going to solve it tonight.
Lehman/No.
Atkins/Do I have at least (can't hear) has spent some money, I don't know what it is, I mean.
Pfab/Give us some kind of idea what kind of money you're looking at.
Champion/The other part that I need and you probably know it, what about, because it is a state
highway, is there any state money? And number two, what will the state allow us to do
for better signalization?
Atkins/They will decide it. I mean, they did provide the grant, the extra timing at the Sycamore
location; oh, gosh, I can't remember when that was done; it was a good, many, many
years ago. When we were discussing the overpass, which was at the First Avenue, we
wanted to go up near the fire station and come down near a Systems house and we did it
because that takes the property out.
Champion/But there isn't any possibility of doing a signal like we have at Court and Muscatine
or is it all walk?
Lehman/Oh, (can't hear).
Atkins/A state highway, I doubt it very much. I doubt it very much
Champion/Because that really does take care of the safety issue.
Atkins/Now, I think, you know, we have to be realistic. That whole southeast part of the City
has popped to the last ten years year, really, really filled up, and Haddock, Saddlebrook,
and all that.
Vanderhoeff And the recreational facilities are on one side and the whole growth area is on the
other side.
Atkins/Yeah.
Vanderhoef/So it is a concern.
Wilburn/I have another question. You said you're were looking into it. A concern was brought
up that by doing the trail sidewalk on the south side that that will increase traffic. Is there
a way to think about you cut, if, when that is put in, might that also encourage people to
go to the lights to the intersections?
Atkins/I suspect it would. I mean, I find it amazing that the kids cross anywhere you want along
This represents only a reasonably accurate txanscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 70
Burlington, you know, we've all seen that.
Lehman/(Can't hear) cross the street from the ramp. So do I.
Atkins/But I can't imagine the same circumstances along Highway--you're not going to take a
risk walking up--(can't hear)
O'Dormell/Actually a shuttle is not a bad idea. I mean---
Atkins/Like it's a general fund expense. And that's the only thing is that I'm so reluctant to
recommend anything against the general fund.
Vanderhoeff Mm-hmm.
Pfab/Is it something that, if you put three in, you're looking at 2 1/2, 3 million bucks?
Atkins/Oh, easy.
Lehman/Or more.
Atkins/Easy.
Pfab/How much does it cost to put a bus and a shuttle and a driver, how long if you---?
Atkins/You know, the problem is, it still is the general fund.
Champion/And you've got to go from Point A to Point B, so how do you decide what is your
Point A and what is Point B.
Atkins/Well, we did get to use a shuttle at that time, an east-side shuttle has worked out
reasonably well for---
O'Donnell/What are the safety issues to stay with the tunnel?
Atkins/Oh, I think a couple of things. One is it can become an attractive nuisance; secondly,
they're dark and they have to be really big and really well lit before you can, I think, have
any of those safety (can't hear), and then again it goes down somewhere and come up
somewhere else. Where does that locate it?
Vanderhoef/And you are still (can't hear), aren't you?
Pfab/And it's still a densely used tunnel.
Atkins/Oh, yeah.
Pfab/As far as a tunnel is concerned. It's not like the University tunnel.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 71
Atkins/Please, do you want some more information?
Lehman/Yeah.
Atkins/Do you want to bang this around a little bit? But then you should be aware this is going
to be a big-ticket item.
Vanderhoef/Oh.
Lehman/Well, I don't think that we should give the impression that this is unlikely to happen,
but just something we can look at.
Atkins/Well, the thing that I remember the last time of the debate was that we flipped a question
to the parents, will your kid use that overpass? And most of them, Ross, after that can't
go in a straight line in where they're going to go. Is that going to affect us?
Vanderhoef/The length of them and the time to get to them and to get over was a huge concern.
Pfab/All it takes is a few squashed bodies on that highway and I think we change pretty fast.
Atkins/Yeah.
Champion/That still would (can't hear) based on---
Lehman/ Yeah, I know.
Kanner/Is there a space reserved for a school on the south side there?
Atkins/Yeah.
Kanner/What's the projected timeline for when it might develop enough? Are we talking five
years, ten years?
Atkins/Oh, I would say easy, Steve.
Lehman/At least ten.
Atkins/Yeah, I mean given how fast Saddlebrook fills in.
Champion/You will be (can't hear) the school down there though until---
Pfab/OK, let---
Atkins/Absolutely.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000:
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 72
Pfab/Is this something that City could corral, rather than spend the money for an overpass, we
could contribute something to the school to---
Atkins/Bus them.
Pfab/...j ust build a school there.
Atkins/Oh.
Champion/No.
Lehman/No, I don't think that's going to work there.
Champion/They got a cafeteria.
Kanner/Maybe the shuttle idea can be shared with the school.
Lehman/I'll look into it.
Atkins/What is more accurate information on the cost of these things and I'll bring that back to
you.
Pfab/And I think also look at one other, do some---
Atkins/Some other ideas.
Pfab/Yeah.
Champion/You know what would be helpful to me, too, Stephen--I don't need it right away-- do
you guys have any kind of drawing of what those things would look like?
Atkins/Yes, I do.
Champion/It sounds like they'd be unusable.
Lehman/They're going to build it to look like the one downtown.
Atkins/OK.
Lehman/A covered bridge.
Atkins/No, they're big, they're really big.
Vanderhoef/I remember the first ones and the length of them was just unbelievably long---
Atkins/Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 73
O'Donnell/ADA requirement.
Vanderhoef/...to get the ADA requirements in them.
Lehman/Yeah, but the right-of-way there has got to be 200 feet or more.
Vanderhoef/Oh, more than that.
Atkins/You'd be surprised, Ernie.
Lehman/More?
Vanderhoef/A lot more.
Atkins/Oh, I mean, the slope that starts way back.
Lehman/I know, but does---
Atkins/No, it already is, that's the point, it cuts way down, I mean like at Keokuk and K-Mart.
Champion/So, only kids walking on that block would use that.
Atkins/Sure.
Champion/They would never go out of their way to use it.
Atkins/That's part of the problem.
O'Donnell/Can we put in (can't hear) lights or something?
Atkins/No, that's a state highway. State highway's going to decide that whether they're going---
Vanderhoef/Maybe the conversation ought to be with the state first---
Atkins/Yeah, we will.
Vanderhoef/...to find out what they could or would consider doing.
Atkins/OK.
Vanderhoef/And then let us see whether it's worth pursuing.
O'Donnell/I think we have to do something, all right.
Atkins/But I think we owe those folks an answer of either yea or nay, and if it's going to be yes,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 74
it's going to take some time---
Champion/(Can't hear) You know, I find that hard to believe.
Atkins/OK.
Lehman/All right, you look into it.
Pfab/I guess, also, seek what input you can.
Atkins/Yes, we will. I know these folks anyway; we've talked to them before so.
DOG PARK
Atkins/Dog park.
Lehman/Yes.
Atkins/Basically, the same question, do you want a dog park project? If you do, the first thing I
do is send it back to the Commission because they weren't thrilled with it back in 1997.
Vanderhoef/It doesn't show up on their Capital Plan at all anywhere.
Lehman/But this is a policy issue more than anything else, and I do not believe this is a policy
that's going to float.
O'Donnell/Well---
Lehman/ I don't think the public's going to go for it.
O'Donnell/Ernie, the last time that we talked about dogs in Hickory Hill Park, the very next day
a cross-country skier got bit by a dog, and it's the third time that dog has bitten a person.
Atkins/What about dogs at Hickory Hill Park? Now one of the thoughts we had was out at the
south retention basin. We'd just fence the area in.
Champion/Or close it.
Atkins/Well, we know full well that the City's going to end up paying for the (can't hear).
People are not going to pick up after that.
Lehman/Do you not believe that a dog park will lessen the problem in Hickory Hill Park?
O'Donnell/Well, I do.
Lehman/You'll have the same people running down (can't hear)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 75
Pfab/I think---
Vanderhoef/I think we could outlaw dogs completely.
Pfab/I'm not so sure we shouldn't and really come down very hard on enforcing it, I mean.
Lehman/It's almost impossible.
O'Donnell/Enforcement's the key, I think.
Pfab/Right. I mean, if you know, we don't, we'll have to take the rule off. If you're not going to
enforce it, you lose it. Everybody---
O'Donnell/But say it's not enforceable there.
Lehman/Liability wise, we can't not put up a sign.
Pfab/Oh, I know that, but I mean it's the sense that--that you know, let's not pretend it's going
to work and it doesn't.
O'Donnell/This rule is not enforceable there because the park's not accessible for people to
enforce it.
Lehman/Do we have four people who want to pursue dog parks?
Pfab/Pursue them?
Kanner/Well, look into it further, yeah, I think---
Lehman/Do we have four people that want to look into it further?
O'Donnell/I would like to look into it, Emie.
Lehman/We've got one, two---
Atkins/Well, we get you one. We can have the thing--I mean, I'll get a flat piece of ground, put
a fence around it, and call it a day.
O'Donnell/(can't hear) Well, you're not going to get a new one because there's only two of us.
So we can move on.
(Laughter)
Kanner/The idea is maybe we charge in some way, have some sort of special license that was
mentioned in the literature so that a lot of cost is borne by those dog owners who are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 76
using it.
Atkins/For enforcement.
Lehman/Well, realistically, they just aren't going to pay the fee and they're going to mn their
dogs loose anyway. So what's the sense of having a park if they're going to mn their
dogs loose in other parks?
Wilburn/Is that five acres down where you were talking about?
Atkins/What we were thinking about, Ross, was the old soccer field at the south basin. Yeah, the
retention area. I mean if it floods, it's gone in a few days anyway. And that's where we
thought it'd be easy just to square up.
Wilburn/And that's not so large an area that---
Atkins/Well, there's a parking lot to park in; you can drive over.
Pfab/Would that be, would that help put that thing to sleep?
Lehman/No.
O'Donnell/Well, I think a part of your responsibility being a pet owner is to exercise your dog.
Atkins/Yeah.
Lehman/I think you're right. Go out and mn with it.
Atkins/Is it the government's problem?
Lehman/Is it the government's responsibility to help you exercise your dog? That's the question.
O'Donnell/Well, I think that there's other communities that do have places that people can take
their dog out and ran with it.
Lehman/Well, I don't think there's very many of them.
Atkins/Do you know any 6f them?
O'Donnell/I had a letter at home---
Champion/Well, it'd be interesting to know, I mean, probably there are places like that.
(Several talk at once)
O'Donnell/Well, the point is you can't walk in Hickory Hill without being attacked by at least
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 77
one dog. Now, I've heard that over and over and over.
Lehman/I've heard that too. We've had a lot of complaints.
Pfab/Well, it's not only Hickory Hill Park. It's other places, too.
Lehman/I can't make sense of that.
Champion/Now, I don't make sense of it either, but it does afford, I, people can at least hear
what these people have to say and go over the materials again. But there's no way I'm
going to hire someone to clean up dog do-do off of a dog park.
Atkins/Well, I can promise you we will have to do that.
Lehman/Do we have four people who want to pursue the concept of a dog park?
Pfab/I mean, have we got two?
Lehman/I've got two.
Champion/And I'd also be a possible person.
Lehman/We got three.
Pfab/I'll be a fourth.
Atkins/Yeah, how many Council, I'm writing a memo.
Lehman/All right, you got a fourth. Now just read your packet this week if you haven't read it
yet.
Champion/No, because I---
Lehman/ Well, you read all of the letters in there about the dogs running loose, you may change,
decide to (can't hear) impossible to work.
(Several talk at once)
Pfab/Can we defer this until the next time?
Lehman/All right, we're done with it right now. Steve's going to look into it.
Atkins/Yeah.
Pfab/Oh, OK. So no votes are necessary?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 78
Atkins/No, I'm going to send it back to the Commission.
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
Lehman/All right. School board meeting.
Atkins/School board meeting. I think there was some confusion, maybe on my part. ! think
Steven had brought up the idea about having a joint school board meeting with the
Council and I recollect that I thought we were going to put that on the agenda o£our next
joint meeting and decide it. But then Steve and I chatted about it, and we thought, no, that
we were pretty well decided that you all were going to get to the schools so we need to
put together an agenda.
Lehman/OK. We said something tonight we want to talk about?
Kanner/The DARE project.
Atkins/The DARE project is one of the items.
Pfab/I also, Southeast, over the ramp---
Atkins/All kinds of things.
Pfab/...plus Highway 6.
JOINT MEETINGS
Champion/Well, I think because the supervisors totally monopolized their last joint meeting of
governments, that I think it would be a good idea for the board and the City Council to
monopolize the next one.
Pfab/Now, who's the chair?
Kart/The next one is in North Liberty in April.
Pfab/Who would be the chair?
Karr/North Liberty.
Lehman/Well, but I'm hearing that you would like to leave this then just the Board and the
Council.
Pfab/That's what I think.
Atkins/With an agenda that we develop.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 79
Lehman/With an agenda--they can certainly bring things, too.
Atkins/OK.
Lehman/But the DARE program---
Karr/I believe also the last time you said something about maybe starting that meeting, the joint
meeting earlier, is what--that was the confusion and we left it at that.
Champion/Teachers (can't hear)
Kanner/Yeah, about a half an hour earlier.
Atkins/I knew I was confused on those things.
Lehman/About a half hour? The meeting generally is on at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon when
we have the joint meeting. I'm not at all sure that we shouldn't try to meet at 3:00.
Champion/OK.
Lehman/We can't do anything in a half hour.
Pfab/Well, I would think is it something that we might want to talk about on First Avenue, down
below First Avenue?
Lehman/Oh, no, if we choose, depending on what we do with First Avenue, definitely there are
issues along First Avenue---
Pfab/Right.
Lehman/...if that road goes through.
Pfab/(Can't hear) there's a lot of schools there.
Lehman/Yes.
Pfab/Is that something that should be on this meeting?
Lehman/Well, it depends on what we do with First Avenue.
Pfab/But I mean, it's there---
Lehman/It's there but it's been postponed.
Pfab/I mean, whether we do or don't, it's still something we need to talk about.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 80
Champion/That's my whole theory about postponing First Avenue to that year is so that those,
(can't hear) sit together and address the (can't hear?) concerns.
Pfab/OK. Now I'm hoping that we don't do any water main or any grading of First Avenue.
Champion/I think we've already decided (can't hear) should put a hold on that.
Lehman/We'll have to decide that tomorrow night but that is an issue that definitely we can do.
Kanner/Ernie, will you clarify then what we're doing with the School Board?
Lehman/Well, I think the ones that I hear--there is an issue on zoning.
Atkins/Enforcement of zoning regulations and if they're willing to---
Lehman/ Asking them to voluntarily adopt-~-
Atkins/Yes, that's a good idea.
Lehman/...some of our zoning regulations instead of us trying to zone, force our regulations on
the schools, which we may or may not be able to do, and it creates a little problem with
one governmental body telling them what to do. I think we can prevail upon them to
voluntarily accept some of our zoning regulations. I'd like to see that as their project and
I think it's really important. We want to talk about the southeast part of town, the
crossing, First Avenue issues--if First Avenue becomes a reality. There are some things
definitely that we can talk to them about.
Atkins/You can have a good agenda.
Lehman/I mean those are for some pretty meaty things.
Kanner/And the plan is for Steve to contact the superintendent and see if a separate time---
Lehman/We're meeting on 3:00 o'clock on the afternoon of the joint meeting.
Atkins/That's what you want to do?
Karr/We might also wish to host it rather than North Liberty, but I don't know. See, it's in their-
Lehman/Oh, I see what you mean.
Karr/You know, I don't know that we can just say we're going to come an hour earlier.
Lehman/Ball's in your court, Marian, you set it up. If it's OK with them, just tell them we want
This represents only a reasonably accurate txanscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 81
plenty of chocolate chip cookies.
(Laughter)
Karr/We'll put a memo out.
Atkins/All right, we'll get a memo out to you.
Champion/Or we can do it the next time we host it.
Atkins/Well, that's going to be later---
Lehman/No, I think we should do it.
Atkins/All right. We may host it, 3:00 o'clock, we develop an agenda, but it's intended to be a
meeting between this group---
Lehman/And that little Board.
Kanner/And we're asking them if they have anything for us---
Atkins/We'll get the message out. Of course.
Kanner/...not just us.
Atkins/Not just us.
Lehman/But I do think it's important; I really would like to see Mr. Plugge there.
Atkins/Don't forget--you also have a joint meeting with PCRB and Parks and Recreation we
have to get worked in as well.
Champion/(can't hear) the tip of (can't hear)
Atkins/I will make sure that happens.
Lehman/All right. We need to start scheduling those meetings.
Wilburn/You might want to inform the school district that if they have MECCA, whoever they
work with for their substance abuse program, they might want to have a conversation
before that meeting.
Pfab/Or DARE
Atkins/I'll give a heads up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 82
Champion/They will come with ideas.
Atkins/Yeah.
Lehman/But you say a joint meeting with PCRB. What was the other one?
Atkins/And the Parks and Recreation Commission to sign the master plan.
Lehman/Why don't we--would it be OK with Council for the next two work sessions to
schedule a meeting, for example, with PCRB at 6:00 o'clock that night?
Pfab/That's fine.
Lehman/And then the following that we'll have the Parks and Recreation Commission at the
same time so---
Pfab/That's fine with me---
Karr/Starting when?
Kanner/Six.
Lehman/Six on a work session night.
O'Donnell/Let's start at 5:30. By the time I get here--I don't think I can drive here in a half
hour.
Atkins/It should help it if First Avenue---
Pfab/If we had First Avenue in, you could.
Kanner/It'd help a lot if First Avenue was here.
(Laughter)
Kanner/What's the date you're talking about?
Atkins/Don't have them yet.
O'Donnell/I'll be here, yeah, but it might be five minutes late.
Atkins/OK.
Vanderhoef/Which date are we talking about?
(Several talk)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 83
Karr/I'm not sure that two weeks' notice is ample for all the Commissions.
Lehman/No.
Atkins/Twentieth.
Lehman/No, but at the first meeting of April for one and the second meeting of April for the
other.
Vanderhoef/I'm out of town.
Lehman/Well, where are you going? We may go and meet where you are.
Atkins/We'll get you some options.
Lehman/All right. We'll get there.
Atkins/That's all I got.
COUNCIL TIME
Lehman/I'm going to move this--all right, Council time.
O'Donnell/No, tomorrow night, save it.
Vanderhoef/No, this is a request that I received. People are complaining about the traffic at
Gilbert and Highway 6.
Lehman/Have been for a long time.
Vanderhoef/And I know previous Councils turned down a major overhaul and major plan, but
there was a request for right-hand turn lanes from each direction. So that would be like in
front of Pleasant Valley---
Lehman/Right. There is a right-hand turn there.
Champion/There is a right-hand turn, two left-hand turns lanes, and---
Vanderhoef/Yeah, well, there's two straight ahead and---
O'Donnell/Yeah, you're right.
Vanderhoef/And there really isn't any stacking space or anything.
Lehman/Well, you're talking major, major for the right-hand turn lane. You're taking about,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 84
talking about taking Pleasant Valley's parking lot.
Vanderhoef/And likewise the northbound on the right-hand.
Lehman/I mean, we got things, I mean---
Vanderhoef/I know, I know. I'm just putting this out that I've been getting requests for this.
Pfab/Let me ask you this. Was this before, in other words, was this because of train backup?
Lehman/No, no, this was just---
Vanderhoef/No, no, it's because the traffic---
Lehman/...everyday traffic.
Pfab/Because it looks like the trains are kind of history.
Vanderhoef/That comer is so congested and it gets so tight in the right-hand lane because of the
left-hand lane and so we get further up and they would like a designated right-hand turn.
Champion/Well, I guess, for that right now, I have a problem.
Lehman/It's major, major what we qualify that and decided to---
O'Donnell/Is that all you have?
Vanderhoef/Yes.
O'Donnell/I've had 17,000 calls since last Tuesday on First Avenue. Yes, I have cauliflower ear
now. And I hope we quit the (can't hear) at least for now.
(Laughter)
O'Donnell/I mean, just give me a break.
Kanner/That's 17,000 next year that---
O'Dounell/Don't take that literally.
Pfab/16,995.
O'Donnell/16,870.
Karmer/It looks like the skywalk is going to get a low priority from the CDBG for ftmding.
That's a third of their funding, so I think we need to talk about the whole issue of exit
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 85
from the parking ramp. Other possibilities or does Council want to continue with the
skywalk and fund the full $200,000? So, there's been some confusion about what's
possible. People have said this door was not part of the design; others have said it is, so I
think in some way we might have to bring some of the parties back together to talk about
other possibilities for that.
Lehman/Well, I guess, let me pose the question to Council. If Senior Center comes to the
Council with $50,000 in their pocket in private contributions and a pledge from the City
of Coralville--my understanding is they've been asked for $5,000, I believe that was the
number that Kelly Hayworth told us--and I also understand they're asking the County for
$25,000, and if they come to us with $80,000 in their pocket and ask us to build a
skywalk, are we going to build it?
O'Donnell/I'd have to---
Pfab/I would say if we don't get $100,000 somewhere as far as input, not Iowa City money, I
would not go ahead.
O'Donnell/You know, I would if we could keep one senior citizen out of the care center from
falling in the alley and breaking a hip, then we're---
Pfab/I think it's absolutely, positively needed and it has to be done right. I just--this crazy
number of $385,000 just blows me away. I don't know.
O'Donnell/You know, a lot of that is because the floors don't light up---
Lehman/ Well, that's, my question is if someone comes here with $80,000 or $100,000 in cash
money, are we going to pay the balance and build the skywalk?
Champion/I am.
O'Donnell/I am, too.
Wilburn/What was the expectation?
O'Donnell/$258,000.
Lehman/About $260,000.
Wilburn/One question (can't hear) with the Englert (can't hear---Publishing) Group, if they
won't come up with a part---
Lehman/Well, we have not asked this group for a nickel.
Champion/I don't think they're related.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 86
Pfab/What was your statement, Ross?
Wilbum/You asked---
Lehman/We told the Englert that they had to raise a half a million dollars.
Wilbum/Right. And did you tell the Senior Center group that they had to---
Lehman/ We didn't tell them they had to raise a penny. They offered to raise the money.
Wilburn/OK. That's all I needed to know.
Dilkes/Can I---
Lehman/ Yes.
Dilkes/I think this is sort of a big issue and if you're going to talk about it and--you probably
shouldn't be making decisions tonight about the skywalk and maybe need to just put it on
the agenda.
Lehman/You're right. My only reason for doing that was if the Council is interested in pursuing
that, then we wouldn't be worrying about some other entrance from the ramp. So I don't
know whether we are or not. All right. So, do you have---
Kanner/So are we going to talk about it from a grayer perspective than from the skywalk?
Lehman/I think we're going to have to do it as an agenda item at a work session though, I think
that's right.
Kanner/Right. Just wondering.
Atkins/I think you want to do it for the next time.
Lehman/All right. Did you have anything else.
Wilburn/Nope.
Kanner/No, that's it.
Lehman/Irvin?
Pfab/No.
Lehman/Connie?
Champion/Well, I just wanted to bring up the Northside Neighborhood Association, whether
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 87
that (can't hear). When do we get together with the (can't hear)?
Atkins/April.
Lehman/April.
Champion/April?
Lehman/Next month.
Vanderhoef/What was that, Connie? I didn't--discuss what?
Champion/The C, I can't remember those initials.
Vanderhoef/CDBG?
Pfab/Are you talking about the house that they wanted?
Champion/Yes.
Pfab/OK. I think that's something that ought to be---
Lehman/ We will deal with that.
Kanner/Make it a high priority?
Champion/And I have one more thing but I think I've forgotten it. It'll probably (can't hear).
Lehman/All right, I have only one thing. We all got a memo from Eleanor dealing with our
parliamentary procedure relative to abstentions. Are we interested in pursuing a
resolution that will make abstentions go if the majority except in the case of a tie when an
abstention becomes an affirmative vote?
O'Donnell/Emie, (can't hear)
Vanderhoef/I think that's a good policy.
Pfab/It's what?
O'Donnell/Forget the whole thing.
Lehman/Then I think, Eleanor, you should prepare a resolution and we'll take it up at the next
meeting.
Dilkes/That's what I'll do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.
March 6, 2000 Council Work Session Page 88
Lehman/OK.
Pfab/I don't think it deserves a whole of attention.
Lehman/I don't think it will.
O'Donnell/I think you're saying we have to get into it.
Pfab/Pardon?
Lehman/All right, thank you, guys. Tomorrow night at 7:00 o'clock.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 6, 2000.