Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-20 Transcription#lb Page 1 lb. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION b. FREE LUNCH PROGRAM MONTH Lehman: Next item is a proclamation. (Reads proclamation). Voparil: Here to accept is David Schuldt, Chair of Free Lunch Program. Schuldt: As we accept this I'd like just to acknowledge gratitude to the City. Several Community Development Block Grant funds have gone into the building where the free lunch is housed at the Wesley Foundation. We had a birthday party on Sunday and Emie came and spoke to the group that was there to celebrate. It was a fine event. Over 30,000 meals are served to hungry people in this community by about 35 teams from churches, university groups, service groups, even one neighborhood group - Plum Grove - a little neighborhood group that comes in and serves. So we thank you very much for your continuing support. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: I just have to say I was at the meeting on Sunday and I told my son - I was supposed to meet him and I couldn't be there at the time I was supposed to and he said where are you going? And I said I'm going down to the free lunch program. My son said dad, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And you know I thought about it and he's exactly right. Because if we're going to cai1 this anything it should be the priceless lunch program. Schuldt: That's good. Lehman: I mean dedication of those folks is incredible. So we thank you. Schuldt: You bet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #2 Page 2 ITEM 2 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Lehman: Item 2 is consideration adoption of the consent calendar as presented or amended. Champion: Move adoption. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: A couple things I'd like to point out for the public mostly. In our minutes under 2b number 6 PCRB - Police Citizen Review Board. They had a couple of complaints which they fotmd they were un- sustained according to them. But they did make note in their comment section that there was a failure to provide for the safety and protection.., in regarding failure to provide for the safety and protection of an arrested person. While they didn't sustain that complaint they recommended that the topic be addressed in training if it is not already being done. And this is regarding people in handcuffs - arrestees that are in handcuffs and making sure that their well-being is taken care to the best of their ability. And we are going to be getting a response from the City Manager on that. So I appreciate that. That's going to be happening. And then in regarding correspondence - that's number e (7) from Gary Klein he noted that there are a few people that are concerned with the accessibility of the temporary location of the library - the new entranceway. I went there with a member of the Coalition for People with Disabilities and Susan was very receptive and I believe she's going to try to the best of her ability to find a solution to make it more accessible. Some of the door openers are hard to get to, thresholds are a little high for people. And they're going to see what they can do to accommodate them. People realize can't spend a lot of money because this is only going to be temporary location for a year and a half, but at the same time we all want to make it as accessible as possible. Susan is working hard - Susan Craig the director is working hard at doing that. Thank you. Lehman: Any other discussion? Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #3 Page 3 ITEM 3 PUBLIC DISCUSSION Lehman: Item 3 is public discussion. This is the time reserved on the agenda for the public to address the Council on items that do not otherwise appear. If you wish to address the Council please sign in, give your name and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Bob Elliott: Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover Street. This will be much less than five minutes. I'm sure you appreciate that. I wanted to one express my appreciation for the work you've already done on the budget. It's unbelievably tough work and you're going to make everybody in Iowa City unhappy at some time or another. But I'd like to ask you to also in the remainder of your work pay closer attention to adjectives like good and helpful and necessary and vital. I think you need to look at those things when you address various items on the budget. And I think that hopefully you can do what I think is a better job for the rest of the way. So good luck to you. Lehman: Thank you Bob. O'Donnell: Thanks Bob. Charlie Major: My name is Charlie Major and I live at 7 Blue Stem Court in southeast Iowa City. And I wanted to echo that I'm concerned about the budget address changes by the City Manager that have been published in the paper. I hope that you don't go that far and cut that many police and cut that many fire department personnel. I think we're one of the smaller departments in the country in both those areas and I think it's very dangerous. And it really wouldn't be worth it to me if we have problems down the line by making those cuts. And on my way over here I noticed two police cars were making a stop and I just am worried that that won't happen in the future and there will be a lot more police cars that are just one person in the police car making all the stops. I don't think that's the way to go. One more thing I wanted to touch on. I wish you'd change a little bit of your focus and upgrade the Human Rights Ordinance to better reflect how it's done in San Francisco so you don't have discrimination when the services are provided. I think that should be addressed in the future. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you Charlie. Kanner: Charlie? Charlie I didn't quite follow what you meant by that suggestion. Major: There's a human rights' ordinance. Ours is not as strong as San Francisco's. And I know in the past and I think it's still as far as I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #3 Page 4 know we've been awaiting a lawsuit to see if San Francisco's ordinance would be upheld and as far as I know they have made a decision or as far as I know. And I wish that if that is upheld that Iowa City would adopt that. That allows or pretty much codifies that we'll never discriminate against our pumhases or our services. If we have somebody selling something to the City now you can discriminate in how you provide that or you can discriminate in a lot of your job processes. Under the new San Francisco laws you wouldn't be able to do that. The City would be barred from buying that or purchasing that...or they just have to analyze all their purchases a little closer. I think we do that pretty much now, but I would just like to have it in written law. And I guess as far as I know that still hasn't been acted on by the court. That's kind of reviewing the San Francisco ordinance. Kanner: Can you send us a summary of that for our packet? Major: I will. Lehman: Charlie I suggest you send a summary to Heather. Dilkes: Heather is aware though. Major: She knows. Yeah we've gone...she's aware of this, but I'd be willing to... Lehman: So we all know that. Kanner: If you don't want to do the packet, just send to me. I'd appreciate that. Major: Sure. I'd be glad to. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Thanks. Karen Pease: My name is Karen Pease. First I'd like to offer up my heartfelt condolences for the untimely death of your budget at the merciless hands of the state. May it rest in peace. We are going to be dealing with a nuisance ordinance in which simple misdemeanors count. Lehman: I think that's on the agenda later. Pease: Will there be public discussion on it? Lehman: Yes you may speak at that time. Pease: Oh, never mind then. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #3 Page 5 Lehman: Thank you Karen. Michelle Locher: I'm Michelle Locher from Coralville. I would like to say that ifI knew you guys were this good looking I would have been here a lot earlier. Lehman: We get here about 6:30. Locher: My concern is I've been protesting Emma Goldman's for 8 weeks now straight every day. And my concern is is these young kids going in there. That's all I see is young kids. I've never seen any older couples. And you know you have here in Iowa City you have to be 21 to drink. You have to be 21 to smoke. I mean because at 18 you don't have the right. You're judgment is not that great. And so the state says you know we're going to have to protect our youth. So you know I'm an alcoholic and I've been sober for three years starting tomorrow. And I'm telling you there's people in there that have had abortions and they're depressed because abortion is a very devastating choice. You know you make it. It's always in the back of your mind. And we're letting 18...you know 18-year-olds can go in and Iowa City has no...you know it doesn't make sense that to drink alcohol or to smoke we're so concerned that they have to be 21 because they don't got great judgment. So why are we...you know we're not concerned about this our children, you know, because it's worse than alcohol. Because I'm an alcoholic and if I would had an abortion I would have committed suicide because when you're an alcoholic you get depressed and things like that. And I'm just concerned these 18-year- olds, 19-year-olds going in and having an abortion. You know. I bet the alcohol and tobacco companies would be great for them not to even have an age. If there wasn't a limit on, you know, the age - if the state didn't provide that age - they would sell it to anybody because it's money. And same with abortion - it's money. It's a billion dollar corporation, industry. 5,000 kids aborted every 8 hours. And I'm concerned that these kids that are going in there I swear to god every day it's just young kids going in and out, in and out. And they don't look too happy. And I'm just really concerned that we need to you know place a limit on you know you need to be 21. If you get pregnant too bad. You can't have an abortion until you're 21. Because abortion is a lot worse than alcohol and tobacco I'm right here to tell you. So I just hope you know and I'm going to protest it every single day, every single day I protest that place. Because I know, I know. I met a guy who his mother was going to have an abortion. The doctor said have an abortion. She said no way. She went out. She had the child. And guess what he's a priest now. You know, but an 18-year-old they don't know. You know. And these abortions now they don't even want parental consent. It's all about money and I'm This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #3 Page 6 concerned that these yotmg kids they have an abortion you can never fix that. You can never till the day you die you will always have that in the back of your mind. You know I killed something. I wonder what that baby would have looked like. You know are these kids old enough to make a decision like that? They're not old enough to drink and they're not old enough to smoke. So I just urge you guys to you know maybe take that into consideration. Lehman: You know I would suggest that you make those feelings known to your Congressman. This isn't something over which the City has any decision. Locher: Well it's like marijuana. Lehman: We have no jurisdiction over that either. Locher: I know, but Tom Harkin is like we can't have legal...we can't legalize marijuana because it's not healthy and too many people would experiment with it. And that's exactly what happened with abortion. Lehman: Well why don't you talk to your Congressman. I'm sure a lot of people care. Locher: Well you guys were going to have no-smoking in restaurants. Can't you do something saying wait a minute we have an ordinance here you're going to have to be 21 to go into that place. Lehman: No, I'm pretty sure we can't do that. Locher: You sure? Not with your good looks? Lehman: My good looks don't go very far. Alright. Thank you. Locher: Alright. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #4f Page 7 ITEM 4f PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. f. CONSIDERA RESOLUTION ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 218, WEST OF THE IOWA CITY AIRPORT, AND BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. (ANN03/00001, ANN01-00004) Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoefi Move to accept the new written resolution. Lehman: The resolution we're moving is to one that was passed out tonight is that correct? Vanderhoef: Yes. Lehman: It does not require an amendment. Vanderhoefi Okay. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: We have a motion by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Kanner: I had a question about land acquisition costs. We got a memo tonight. It says we're budgeting 1 million for the project for land acquisition. And IDOT is providing 1.8 million towards the construction contract costs for the project. What's the total project cost? Atkins: I can't tell you the cost. The estimate... Kanner: Estimate. Atkins: ...is approximately 8 million dollars. Kanner: 8 million. Atkins: Yeah that would be everything. Kanner: So we're getting approximately from the state and the feds 1.8 million? Atkins: I believe that's STP money that the...is that correct? Lehman: I think that's right. Atkins: That the JCCOG appropriated. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #4f Page 8 Kanner: And that includes road use tax too? Atkins: Part of our funding of our project... Kanner: The 1.8 million? Atkins: No, it does not. Kanner: That's an addition? Atkins: No, that's a decision you get to make right. Kanner: Okay. So and then we're using other funding - property tax funding. Atkins: Yes property tax support for debt as well as road use tax. That's correct. Kanner: Okay and then the FAA is reimbursing the City for part of the connection of Dane Road. Atkins: Right. Kanner: Okay. The reason I bring this up is because we're putting a substantial amount of money into this and I think now is not the time to do that. I think we can redirect some of that money that's planned for this into some of the budget cuts so we don't have to cut back on the firefighters or the Parks and Rec and some of the other things. Champion: What money Steve? We can't redirect that money into firefighters or policeman. Kanner: No, there's some road use tax that we can look and see if there's further use for that. Lehman: That won't go for fire or police. Kanner: No, but it can go for other things. Perhaps we can look at other things connected for roads, built for roads and we're going to use the (can't hear) as part of that as Steve has outlined for some engineering. And I would believe if we look further we could probably find some more. So it's a political decision on where we want to use that road use. And if we use that road use to perhaps cover other general use funds that would save us some of that...some of the other cuts. And so ! think before we continue with annexation and Mormon Trek extension and other road building projects that are like Camp Cardinal which aren't appropriate at this time we should look to see if we can use some of those funds to alleviate that million dollar deficient we're trying to cover. And again we have...some reports I've seen say that when we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #4f Page 9 build these kind of things the ta~ payback does not equal to what we put out. And so I don't think it's the best form of economic development. I think we can do better with our economic development by continuing to promote small businesses and other ways. So I think we should hold off on the annexation. I think it's a net loss for the City at this point. Vanderhoef: Well I'll respond to that at this point. The things that we're cutting from the budget right now are all general fund dollars so the road use tax piece is not available to use on the things that we have been cutting at this point. Kanner: No, Dee did you hear what I said that there are probably other areas that are connect...that we're using general funds for. Vanderhoefi We've moved all that stuff out into bonding. Kanner: You're saying there...Steve there's nothing left that might be able to use road use tax? Atkins: I don't know if I can answer that question Steven without really going into an analysis of the thing. If you ask a specific question I can. I mean road use tax is limited to those projects that are specifically for transportation improvements, right-of-way, I think you can even use them for storm water. Vanderhoef: You can use them for trails and... Atkins: Trails, yes. Vanderhoef: ...you can use them for sidewalks that kind of thing. So this project also has the... Atkins: You know we have a separate accounting. We have to account for our road use tax by a separate audit. Vanderhoefi Right. It's totally separate. So in fact this is one of the exercises I did prior to the first budget meeting was to go in there and see what we could possibly do and move things around and that was the one thing that I brought up last night that for PiN grants for real specific that we might be able to use a little road use tax and offer that to neighborhoods for those real specific projects that are allowed by the federal law. But then I want to also respond to your comment about economic development. In today's age when someone comes or wants to come to a community they aren't calling us up and talking to us about what's available and things about our City. They're going to the web site and they're looking specifically for land ready to go so that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #4f Page 10 they can come in and start building. This particular road is one of the best economic development projects that I think this City has put together for some time in that we are finally going to be opening up some new land that will give us something to offer when someone comes in. I think it's going to be very valuable land. I think it will develop out over a period of years. But as we look at the crossroads of the nation if you might say when we sit here at 1-80 and 380 and I just traveled that one this weekend. The Avenue of the Saints is getting closer and closer to being completed. And certainly we're going to have a lot of traffic up and down there and people want to be close to the interstate system. So we need land close to the interstate system. And I don't agree that this is a poor economic development project. Champion: I agree with you Dee and just for the public I'd like to just state that if we can correct our budget problems by not building a road I can tell you there would probably be a lot of roads not being built this year. Lehman: But the truth of the matter is building roads do solve our budget problems because that's where we get the tax base where we get the money to run the City. So I think...I agree with Dee also this is...if we can't get the tax base we're going to struggle with budgets forever. Other discussion? Pfab: Yeah Emie... Lehman: Yes. Pfab: Steve I'd like to ask you, you said...I'm looking for how -just in round numbers - how this is going to be paid for. You're saying we get 1.8 million now upfront for or is that... Atkins: I don't believe it's upfront. I believe it's payable over some period of time (can't hear). Pfab: Okay but of that 8 million in round numbers the state will come...now this is from not from road use tax. Atkins: Irvin I'm not going to be able to pull that from the recesses. I mean I'll go get my budget and bring it back here if you all would like to question me about it. Pfab: No I was just curious. And when we put out 8 million dollars how is that going to paid off?. Be bond there? Lehman: Right. Atkins: Be general obligation bonds, road use tax, state and/or federal grants. Those are your three primary sources. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #4f Page 11 Pfab: Okay. That's all. Atkins: Okay. Lehman: Okay. Vanderhoef: It's also the project that we have been working with our U.S. Senators and Representatives to get an earmark. You know we got an earmark for federal transportation dollars for the transportation center. And we are in touch with those folks to see if we can get an earmark... Lehman: On this one. Vanderhoef: ...for this particular project. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries 6-1, Kanner voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #4k Page 12 ITEM 4k PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. k. CONSIDERAN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE TO CB-5, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE, FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET (REZ02-00021) (PASS AND ADOPT) Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move adoption. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Pfab: I'd like to ask ifI believe one of the people here might be represented here. Lehman: Do you have a question for him? Pfab: Yes. Is there any update as how this is going? Lehman: We have passed it twice. Pfab: I know, I know. I just...that's not my point. Robert Downer: The discussions are still continuing. Documents are continuing to go through redrafts. I was out of town all day today. There was an updated draft of documents submitted this morning. I continue to believe that these negotiations are going to be fruitful, but nothing has been signed yet. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Thank you Robert. Pfab: Thanks for the update. Downer: Thank you. Lehman: Any other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #41 Page 13 ITEM 41 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY / SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY (RS-12/OSA) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-12/OSA) FOR 2.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MEADOW RIDGE LANE AND NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03-00009) (PASS AND ADOPT) Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move adoption. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Pfab: I still have quite a problem with the noise and I don't see any way that from the plan specs that I'm seeing that there's work done to protect the sound...the sound pollution coming from the highway for the people who will be living in those homes. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 6-1, Pfab voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #4s Page 14 ITEM 4s PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. s. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FINAL MANUFACTURED HOUSING SITE PLAN OF SADDLEBROOK ADDIDTION, PART 2, LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB03-00015) Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Pfab: I think this is one of those little things you cut off before they get to be a problem where it's easy to tell which streets you're on when you go to a neighborhood like that. I think it's a gmat addition to the plat. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #5(2) Page 15 ITEM 5 (2) A CIVIL PENALTY OF EITHER $1500.00 AGAINST OR A THIRTY (30) DAY SUSPENSION OF THE RETAIL CIGARETTE PERMIT OF THE AIRLINER, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2). (2) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ASSESSING Lehman: We need a motion to consider a resolution on the penalty for the Airliner. They have turned in their license, but we need a resolution accepting that. Do we have a motion to that effect? Vanderhoefi So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Vanderhoef: Just to say that they've turned in their... Dilkes: It's accepting their waiver. Lehman: Right. Dilkes: And acknowledging their civil penalty. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #6 Page 16 ITEM 6 A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1500.00 AND A THIRTY (30) DAY RETAIL CIGARETTE PERMIT SUSPENSION AGAINST A & J MINI MART, INC., PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2). Lehman: (Reads item). And I need a motion to continue...oh a public heating is open. I need a motion to... O'Donnell: Move to continue the public hearing. Lehman: Not a public hearing. The hearing is open and we have a motion to continue to June 10th. O'Donnell: You've just done that. Lehman: I know. A second. Champion: Yeah. Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second. All in favor. What? Kanner: This is number 6? Lehman: That's correct. Dilkes: We... Kanner: For A & J, why are we continuing? Lehman: They've asked us to. Dilkes: Andy Chappell just this evening gave me a signed waiver by them and the problem is is that they're not going to be making their payment until the 23rd. So we want to accept the waiver, but I want to continue it to the June 10th just in case we don't get that payment. Kanner: (Can't hear) be guilty in assets, but they don't want to pay for like another week or so. Dilkes: The gentleman needed to speak to his wife and frankly they didn't get proper notice anyway so we wouldn't be able to hold the hearing tonight anyway. Kanner: Okay. Pfab: So... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #6 Page 17 Lehman: All in favor of continuing the public heating. Opposed? We need a motion to defer the resolution to June l0th. O'Donnell: Move to defer to June l0th. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #7 Page 18 ITEM 7 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING TITLE 6, "PUBLIC HEALTH", CHAPTER 7, "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS" OF THE CITY CODE. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Christopher Squire: I am Christopher Squire. I'm a resident of Magawan Avenue, Iowa City. I think you know me. I am a member of the state Tobacco Commission, member of the Board of Directors of the Midwest Division of the American Cancer Society. And I have a very simple message. I ask you not to repeal this ordinance. My reasons are that the Iowa Supreme Court's order does not require the City to repeal this ordinance. Indeed the City of Ames has decided not to repeal the ordinance despite the advice of the City Attorney. Why should we not repeal it? We had a good ordinance. When adjustments have been made to the state laws concerning preemption so as to allow cities to protect the rights of their citizens we will be in a strong position to once again protect the health of our citizens if we leave this on the books. We do not want to start all over again at that time. So I ask you please do not repeal this ordinance. It will be a service to everyone. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Other discussion? Wilbum: I certainly appreciate the sentiment, but as you know the Supreme Court said we don't have the authority to regulate. I personally am not going to have an ordinance that I had passed on the books that says the Supreme Court says we can't. I think it would potentially be confusing for the public if there's an ordinance on the books that isn't enforceable and not being enacted. Not only for the Iowa City public, but for any potential business or individuals looking to move to town and operate a business look and see whether or not there's a caveat that says to be enacted when the state legislature lakes action giving...you know I've heard that a suggestion. But I'm not going to take action or fail to take action that's going to load up the Iowa City Code with ordinances contingent on future actions of another govemmental body. Lehman: You said that pretty well Ross. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #7 Page 19 Wilbum: Well I certainly... Lehman: Really well. Wilbum: I certainly appreciate the sentiment. I will work when we're through with our election stuff this fall to try and get the legislature to give us local control. But (can't hear). Lehman: And let me just say I really believe when the state passes the enabling legislation the ordinance will be available and I don't think we'll ever go through what we went through the first time. Champion: I don't think so either. Lehman: Irvin? Pfab: Yes. I was inclined to suggest or give a serious thought about suspending this. The more I thought about it it appears that it takes as much effort to revise a suspended law which is in question as it is to pass a new one. Lehman: I don't think we can even suspend it. Pfab: Right, but I'm just saying even if we could. So I think to keep our ordinances as clean and neat as we possibly can gosh knows we've got enough of little details that are kind of cluttering up what we are trying to do. So I would...I think that I'm going to vote to (can't hear) the resolution here. And at the same point if the state ever changes it I will do everything I can to get it back. Champion: I'm sure... Lehman: Other discussion? Dilkes: Can I just...just to clarify. I think what Irvin is referring to is first of all there is no mechanism to suspend an ordinance. What you would have to do I think is amend the ordinance to include a provision saying that it wasn't enforceable by virtue of the supreme court's decision. That would require three readings. If the legislature acts - and that's an if- you would then have to remove that provision from the ordinance which would require three readings and no doubt debate if there's going to be one. Wilbum: And that would be for clarity sake for anyone reading... Dilkes: It's a code of law. And it's I think Ross you put it very well it's not responsible to have mles that are not applicable in the Code. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #7 Page 20 Lehman: Okay. Roll call. The motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #9 Page 21 ITEM 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 00-3947, PROVIDING THAT GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED AND COLLECTED EACH YEAR ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE AMENDED SYCAMORE AND FIRST AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL AREA OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, STATE OF IOWA, BY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF IOWA, CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, BE PAID TO A SPECIAL FUND FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON LOANS, MONIES ADVANCED TO AND INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING BONDS ISSUED OR TO BE ISSUED, INCURRED BY SAID CITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE AMENDED SYCAMORE AND FIRST AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoefi O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Doimell. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I think it would be wise just to note from my perspective why the expansion of this district came about and why we'll be going forward with this. Our first district has been a success in my mind - that it has increased the value of the Sycamore property and also another property along First Avenue. What we had seen is an increase of traffic and need for infrastructure in the area due to this increase in traffic. We also have a potential new school being built on Mall Drive. We also have an expansion planned for Kirkwood Community College and its enrollment continues to grow which is only going to increase our traffic in the area. We will have some need for upgrading streets in that immediate area and probably some traffic signaling and it's important to expand the district so we can take in this infrastructure that needs to be upgraded. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries, 6-1, Kanner voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 22 ITEM 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, ENTITLED "UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "BUILDING AND HOUSING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED "HOUSING CODE," TO ADD REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES WHEREON TWO OR MORE SEPARATE OCCASIONS WITHIN A 12- MONTH PERIOD OF TIME THE ISSUANCE OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, MUNICIPAL INFRACTION, OR A WRITTEN NOTICE OF VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. (PASS AND A~o~rr) Lehman: (Reads item). (End of Tape 03-47, Beginning of Tape 03-50) O'Donnell: Move adoption. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Karen Pease: Thanks for giving me a chance to briefly discuss on this issue. Lehman: You'll need to give your name. Pease: My name is Karen Pease. Lehman: Thank you Karen. Pease: Yeah. Just to refresh anyone here who is not familiar with some of the details of this regulation. Simple misdemeanors count under section 8.5 which for example if a guest were to mess with a construction cone on the premises that would count. A disorderly house counts under section 8a(15). So if your child makes a mess of the house that could put you one step closer to getting you kicked out of your apartment which you know is an amazing thing. If this property owner lets weeds grow too high on two occasions that can lead towards them losing their permit. Some Council Members have of course been saying we won't actually enforce it that strictly. Apart from just, you know, trying to have us take the word on it that's not very accurate if you look at the wording of the resolution. There are four ways a property owner can get out of sanctions from the City. One requires advance knowledge of the event which generally is not available. One is eviction. And the other two at best will buy the renter three or four in all practicality - three or four violations. The sanctions are incredibly severe. The lightest of them is reduced term permit. And the other two basically prevent the property owner from operating at all. So the pressure to evict is obvious. There This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 23 are significant problems with this apart from the severity of course. There's no distinction here between public nuisance and private nuisance. Which means that if one person has a problem with their neighbor it's weighed exactly the same as if the whole block does which is a non-equitable situation. Worse by far, however, about this is the fact that the charges do not have to be true. For those who did not know that the wording is quite clear. Section 8a reads "issued criminal complaints" not convictions. You know that's directly circumventing the court system on imposing fines. I admire the hard work of Miss Dilkes. However I'm surprised to see that she didn't find this to be in violation of not only the spirit of...for example even Article 5 of the Constitution, but the letter of it as well. If you'd like I'd speak with you afterwards about this. The legal ramifications are obvious that ifa person or group doesn't like you, even if they don't live near you, they can get you kicked out of your home without any merit whatsoever by issuing false charges against you. If the argument against is assuming that those who register false complaints will be held personally accountable the reason that this ordinance is claimed to be needed is that there's not enough enforcement of complaints. So it would be contradictory to claim that they would be held accountable if they're registering false complaints, but that they're not being held accountable on true complaints. I'll skip over some of the case law on the subject. Lastly there's an equal protection issue. The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws - 14th Amendment. Strongest case for equal protection is as general rule are considered where there's...where the government is active with purposeless discrimination, not purposeful discrimination, especially when aimed at a broad class of people on an issue of importance to them. As of 2001 under half of all Hispanics and African Americans were homeowners as compared to two-thirds of society as a whole. Likewise the poor are disproportionately renters. So it's hard to claim that this is not a broad, distinct class of people. Likewise it's also hard to argue that eviction isn't an issue of major importance to tenants. And finally the third part of the strongest case is that would you try to argue that this resolution does not discriminate between the tenants and homeowners in enforcement which is clearly does. And please don't get me wrong I support nuisance ordinances in the general case because behind them lies the same reason for the entire criminal justice system. If someone is infringing on your rights, then something has to be done about that. However, it kind of defeats the purpose of the criminal justice system to bypass the criminal justice system. To quote Thomas Jefferson, 'Td rather be exposed to the inconveniences that tending to too much liberty than to those tending too small degree of it." I have just a couple things that I would recommend be changed. Change criminal complaints to convictions to be in concordance with due process. In addition to have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 24 due process be upheld take into account the innocence of the individual who is being required to suffer from the sanctions. Put a distinction in between penalties of private and public nuisance. And finally require equivalent penalties for homeowners to maintain compliance with Article 14. For example you could simply use fines as your leverage tool instead of eviction which should apply equally to both cases. I'd just like to add that I was very proud to see that an equitable solution was reached on the 21 agreement. I think that's a good sign of leadership and I hope we can do the same with this equally controversial issue. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: I didn't hear what your last... Pease: Last one was requiring roughly equivalent penalties for both homeowners and renters. For example you could use fines as your leveraging tool instead of eviction because fines can be applied equally to both tenants and homeowners - well you can't evict a homeowner. So if fines were the leverage to try and enfome nuisance then that could be applied equally. Kanner: And again for public/private you're talking about...you say private if there's one person complaining... Pease: Right private nuisance yeah when there's one or sometimes it can be a small group. Public nuisance is when the public as a whole in an area considers a certain property to be a nuisance which a number of nuisance laws in different cities do take that into account. So thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Mark Danielson: My name is Mark Danielson. I've appeared before the Council previously on behalf of the Iowa City Area Apartment Association. And I'm hem again tonight in that capacity. I'd like to start by saying that the Association agrees with the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force goal of improving peaceful inhabitation in Iowa City. I think everyone agrees with that and that's a laudable goal that we should move toward. To help further this goal representatives of the association did meet with Doug Boothroy and staff on two separate occasions and provided input which did help bring about several revisions to the proposed amendment. I believe everyone who participated in that process found that it was a helpful process. Having said that the association cannot yet support the amendment in its present form as it continues to target a landlord's rental permit for failure to control the behavior of the tenant. Given the budget crisis perhaps an increasing fine schedule as well previously discussed would not only This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 25 provide equity between homeowners and rental properties, but also provide an alternative to focus on something else than a rental permit and provide an additional revenue source to the City. A second concern with the amendment is in the definition of chronic code violations. The Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force had recommended to the City to identify and address properties that are subject to numerous complaints. Rental properties with chronic code violations. I submit to you that two violations in a 12 month period is not numerous nor chronic. I urge the Council to rethink the definition of chronic code violations so that this amendment does not require substantial valuable City Stafftime and expense to deal with those landlords who I believe were neither intended to be nor should be the subject of this ordinance. I don't believe that definition is getting at the heart of the nuisance property owners. One stated purpose of the amendment is to alleviate the negative impact that chronic code violators will have on City services by the numerous calls to the City departments. The calls to the City departments I would argue would probably increase substantially and not decrease under the proposed amendment. If an owner or the owner's designated agent reports a violation to enforcement that's a defense to the one or two strike roles in a 12 month period. This amendment is going to push the landlords to contact the police for what might be minor disturbances to protect their record with the City. The increased police time to respond to these calls should be evaluated in the face of the decreased police officers and staff during the current budget crisis. In light of nearly $1,800,000 in an anticipated budget shortfall in the next two years it does not appear fiscally responsible to pass this ordinance in its present form at this time. I don't believe that the cost of implementing this amendment had been thoroughly explored. The proposed amendment includes as we discussed before compliance meetings, submission, review, approval of code, compliance settlement agreements as well as property management action plans. Requiring Housing Inspection Staff to attend to these additional duties will only take away from their ability to inspect property. The Housing and Inspections Department has indicated that it needs additional staff to keep up with the existing inspections and implement this ordinance. Perhaps a careful review of the current inspection process and staff efficiencies may be necessary before adding to the workload of the existing department. The Council is looking further at increasing rental inspection fees by 42% to 66% for budget year 2004 just to get the Housing Inspections Services Department to a self-supportive level. The City increased rental inspection fees by over 40% this past year. At a minimum more time is needed to review the impact of the proposed ordinance on Police, City Attorney and Staff, Housing Staff to review the impact of the budget shortfall and to allow this Council time to determine the necessary cuts and the revenue that would be necessary for the Department of Housing Inspection Services to continue. I would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. //12 Page 26 propose that the ordinance be reviewed to see how it may be altered to focus on revenue generation through increasing fines rather than suspension or revocation of a rental permit. Thank you for your time. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that Council may have. Vanderhoef: Mark, has the Homeowners or Rental Association put together a proposal ever to bring to us of how to get to this point of the things that you're talking about now that they don't agree with on the present ordinance? Danielson: In responding to the recent budget cuts has been such a sudden shift or change that that issue we've not had an opportunity to formulate those issues. And we've not submitted, but would be happy to submit more specific information in that regard as well as continue to work and continue our dialogue as we have in the past with Mr. Boothroy and Staff to see if we cannot further clarify this ordinance to get it into a fashion that's workable based on the budget issues and based on the concems that we've heard tonight. Vanderhoefi Thank you. Anna Buss: Anna Buss, 830 Miller Avenue. I've been a property manager and landlord in Iowa City for a very long time and have come before a number of times on a number of issues. I know that you have been pretty well beaten up on this particular issue. But I'd like you to really consider a few things. This ordinance as everybody has stated will create a need for another City Inspector. And they are already discussing raising our inspection fees. And as Mark had said earlier we've already gotten hit with that this year. I have a real problem in these tight budget times as I'm sure many others do when the City is discussing that they're going to cut fire budget and police budget and they're going to increase the housing inspection department by adding another person to their payroll. I think that instead of maybe shortening the inspection times which they have discussed, maybe they should increase the inspection times - maybe add one year. Try it. Nothing is written in stone and they could see how that worked. That would allow them to spend a little more time on nuisance problems. Maybe what we could do is I don't feel that there are any landlords or managers in this town who really want to have problems at their properties. I know that sometimes there's been a problem with the notification process. While I am lucky enough to have a computer and on-line services and while I do constantly check. It's one of my new moming processes. And I can tell you that it's time consuming to get on the Internet and to go down through the police blotter and the arrest record and see if anything has happened at one of my properties. Luckily I have been lucky so far, but on a number of occasions I will tell you that I have called my friends who do not have Internet service, as hard as that is to believe in this day This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 27 and age, but there are senior citizens who do not have that available to them, nor do they want it. I have called them and said do you realize there's been a problem at your property. And they have not been notified. And some of the problems have been somewhat serious. The Police Department and the Inspection Department has access to who owns these properties already. Maybe there should be something put in place where we are notified of what happens. On a routine basis I try to send a letter to the City and I know a number of the other managers and owners do giving the police and fire department a list of their current properties that they're responsible for and that is there for them. They can put it on the computer and they'd have it right away and they could call us. Most of us have 24-hour answering machines or services. Also the concept that the owners and managers can afford another "modest" increase in fees where there has already been the increase this year in not only the housing inspection department, but also many of us have been hit with the higher property taxes as you're all aware. 20-35% increase in most of our insurance policies on our properties because of the economy and the 9/11 issue. And now we are having an increase in vacancy rate. And this is something that you need to consider. If we have an apartment or a house that is vacant that has to be factored into our budget as well as all of the above costs that I just mentioned. Our budgets are getting rather tight. These costs get passed onto the tenants. How much more are we as owners, managers and tenants expected to work into our already tight budgets. Lehman: You need to wind it up Ma'm Buss: Not a problem. This ordinance will displace people as has already been said. Now I'm going to tell you that we check references. What owner or manager is going to take someone who has been evicted? That's not going to happen. What will happen to that person? The other question that I have for you is, are the local magistrates going to stand behind a city deemed eviction? We are already having problems with other kinds of evictions. I don't know that this will stand up. These are some things that I think the City ought to really consider. This isn't something that I mean you already can up the police fines and let the Police Department fine the people instead of just going out and talking to them. If there's a call at that property, write a ticket and fine them. And that will not waste the Police Officer's time. And then notify the landlord. I thank you for your time. Lehman: Thank you Anna. Okay Charlie and then the Cotmcil is going to discuss this. Go ahead. Charlie Major: My name is Charlie Major and I'll be brief. I just think this goes too far. It's possible that if you follow the rules and are a reasonable tenant and rent something and the landlord follows the City's rules and rents it out This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 28 to you then the neighbors don't like you they can compliant you out of the neighborhood by discriminate against you. I just think it puts the police in a bad spot and I just think it negates a lot of the human rights ordinance. I don't think we need it. I think it goes too far. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you Charlie. Council discussion? Champion: Well I am going to support it. Maybe we'll look at it in a year to see what kind of problems we've had with it. I don't think a neighbor compliant is going to be...it's my understanding...I mean ifI call and complain about Irvin because I think he's too noisy over here there has to be some validity to it. I just can't call and have my neighbor evicted out of their apartment by just making a phone call. I mean the Police aren't stupid. So I think people have brought up some valid points about this ordinance that may be...could be changed in the future. But we've worked a long time on this. A lot of people have been involved. Most landlords and tenants are not going to be effected by it because most tenants and landlords are good tenants and good landlords. But I'm going to support it and I'm sure if there are problems with it we'll hear from all of you again. And then we might be willing to listen. (Can't hear). I can only speak for myself. Lehman: Other discussion. Pfab: I'm going to support it. It's...this isn't something that's going to affect a lot of people I do not believe. It's the people that had not followed the norms and the laws. Unfortunately sometimes the people causing the problems are making it not as comfortable for everyone. But if everyone followed the law we wouldn't need anymore ordinances. So I'm going to support it. I wish it wasn't.necessary, but watching and listening and being aware of what goes on I feel that there's not many other options. Kanner: First Connie in response to what you said we've been told and we probably all know that a lot of the nuisance ordinances are complaint based for enforcement. And there are violations all over the City, but we probably all know cases where people have talked to us about how neighbors didn't like them for some reason and they find something about them that maybe is close to violation or does violate. And I think it just leads us down that path to encouraging more of that. And I don't like that way to operate. I think there are better ways to operate. And I appreciate the remarks that Karen made. Others have made the same thing. Especially about the discriminatory nature of the ordinance. And perhaps it's not a violation of the Constitution of the 14th Amendment - that's beyond us right now- but I think that the fact that people that do rent do tend as she said to be a class of people, of blacks and Hispanlcs and low-income people much more so than white and middle- and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 29 upper-income people. That should give us some pause about how this is targeted at renters as opposed to home owners. And I like the idea of trying to bring in additional income through higher fines as opposed to this method. And perhaps still keeping the conversation requirement that's part of this amendment. And then finally we still don't know a source of income for this and I think before we pass this I think the people that are voting for this should identify the source of income that the additional inspector that's required is going to come from. I've been told by the City Manager that it will take another inspector. And we haven't identified a source of funds for that. I think for all those reasons we should vote it down and deal with some of these suggestions and concerns. Lehman: Well I'm going to support this as well. It is significantly less restrictive than the same regulations that HUD imposes on subsidized housing. So I don't think that the severity of the ordinance is that bad. Also to my understanding from visiting from Doug who presented it to us there are cities who have used this. No...my understanding - if I'm not correct Doug get up and talk, ifI am correct just stay where you are - my understanding is that your knowledge not one person has every been evicted under this. O'Donnell: That's what I understand. Unknown male: Sanctioned. Lehman: Or sanctioned. Alright so what I'm saying is I think it works. We have a very, very, very, very few folks that this effects. But we've got neighbors who deserve to be able to live like neighbors and raise their families in peaceful coexistence with their neighbors and that isn't happening in a very few spots and this certainly should help that. So I will support it. Champion: I don't think it's just raising families. I think it's other students and other people trying to study and get to sleep. Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? Roll call. Vanderhoef: Just one thing I'd like to clarify in here. The folks out here obviously weren't at the meeting last night when we talked about the new fines for housing inspection and some of the ideas we brought up may be changing how we do inspections and maybe lengthening them out a bit. And I just wanted to respond to you of that and we choose not to hire a new inspector last night and to go with the present staffthat we have. So that's one piece that we put in place last night with our budget discussions. For me this whole ordinance has been troublesome. Not very often do I waffle. This is one that I have in my own mind at least This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #12 Page 30 waffled. I have decided that I will support it tonight but pretty reluctantly and will be the first one then that who will come back and say let's change it. I would encourage the rental property association to bring us very specific in writing things that they think could be different. I'm sorry that they didn't do that up front when we were starting with first reading. Yes I've had conversations with them but to bring a proposal in writing would have been very helpful so we could have compared on the one hand or the other. But I still will look at them and I hope they will do that in the very near future. And we'll give it a try. And it's not perfect now. And I suspect it will have some fluidity to it in the near future. O'Donnell: Yeah I didn't understand that we decided not to fund a new inspector. We are going to continue to discuss it. I'm going to support this. In my mind this is asking nothing more than somebody to be accountable for their own actions. You can't move into a neighborhood and disturb the neighbors. They deserve...they're paying taxes, they deserve to be comfortable in their own home. Like Emie said these...something very similar to this is used around the state and around the Midwest. And there's never been one person sanctioned. This in my mind is a good ordinance. And time will tell, but if it does not work we will listen to it down the road. Lehman: Roll call. Motion can'ies 5-2, Kanner and Wilbum voting the negative. Voparil: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Dounell: So moved. Pfab: Second. Lehman: We have a motion to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #14 Page 31 ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION #4 BUILDING PROJECT. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Champion: I'm really glad we're going forward with the acquisition of the property because we will someday build that fire station. Lehman: I think that's critical to locate the property so folks know what to expect. O'Donnell: Absolutely. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #15 Page 32 ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OAKLAND CEMETERY DEEDED BODY MEMORIAL SITE. Lehman: (Reads item). Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Again we received four bids. Low bid - $52,241 - almost exactly the engineer's estimate. And we're recommending awarding to American Concrete for the low bid. And it's made by Wilburn and seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: This is going to be a nice way to remember people who give back to community after they die. And it also enhances the cemetery. It's a nice place to go and contemplate some of the bigger things in life. And I think a lot of people enjoy going there. This will be a nice addition to the cemetery. Champion: It is nice. Vanderhoef: And I would like to just comment that we...there is some conthbution to this contract from the University. Lehman: Right. Roll call. Motion carries This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #16 Page 33 ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING LOAN TERMS FOR THE RACK BBQ FROM IOWA CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND. Wilbum: Mr. Mayor I will have a conflict of interest with this one. It involves the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Lehman: Thank you Ross. (Reads item). Do we have a motion? Vanderhoefi Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: I have a couple questions here. These are block grant funds and I understand the committee's position is taking the place of the HCDC group that happens once a year. Is that correct? Vanderhoef: What? Champion: No. Pfab: In other words...alright when these funds are allocated it's the same funds that HCDC uses to allocate to various organizations. Lehman: The CDBG monies. That's correct. Pfab: Right. Okay. So what I'm...a couple questions here - is there a criteria for the difference between grants and loans? Lehman: Steve? Vanderhoef: Well part of... Lehman: I think that's our discretion. Nasby: That is correct. That is your discretion and in the application the applicants can ask for a grant or a loan. But as the ED committee goes through and evaluates those projects they look at what type of funding would best fit that project. And in this particular case the applicants show sufficient cash flow to pay back a loan. And that's what the state of Iowa did with its Targeted Small Business Assistance and I believe that's what the economic development committee was following. Pfab: Okay. This represents only a reasonably a6curate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #16 Page 34 Vanderhoef: This is a for-profit organization rather than a non-profit. Lehman: Well but that policy is for housing. Vanderhoef: It is for housing, but it's one of the things that I think about when I'm in the ED meeting and checking to see whether the payback as Steve mentioned that their business plan shows the possibility ofpayback. And in my mind then when you do this any time that we get a little interest back that goes for the next project. So it has some self- sustaining. Pfab: So what is the difference on how you determine whether it's going to be a loan or whether it's going to be a grant? Lehman: Well Irvin I think that is the ability to repay. Obviously if they have the financial ability to repay we would require a loan and not give them a grant. Pfab: Okay, but isn't the sense of these funds being allocated to the City to help those situations where some of these people are not in a position to payback. Lehman: I think you're right except in economic development situations. These people are finding themselves where they are in a position where they are unable to acquire funds on the market. In other words they can't get the money from the bank. They can't get it in conventional ways. This is an unconventional way. They have to meet special circumstances. And we're able to help people who might not otherwise be able to do this which is one of the reasons CDBG monies were made available. Pfab: Okay. So of the people that apply how many do not...how many have not qualified? Lehman: This is... Nasby: Have not qualified in what respect? Pfab: Right. In other words that had to walk away because they were not able to be helped. The decision not to help them was made. Nasby: I believe at this point we've only had one application that was not recommended for future action. Pfab: Can you state what that was? Nasby: I believe it was the Cut Above salon. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #16 Page 35 Lehman: Right. Nasby: And that was purely for an operational cost and the committee didn't feel that that was an appropriate use. Pfab: But what about Big Mamas? Lehman: They withdrew. Nasby: They withdrew their application. Pfab: Okay because...? Nasby: They found another location and didn't need our assistance. Pfab: Okay. Alright. So now of the number of people that we were able to help I can think of four. I can think of skateboard... Nasby: Which his loan did not go through because he did not secure the state funding that was necessary for this project. Pfab: Okay. I believe the Englert Theater. Nasby: That's correct. Pfab: And was that a grant or a loan? Lehman: That's a grant. Nasby: That one was going to be a grant that we would secure with the property in the event they didn't have the job creation. Pfab: I'm sorry? Nasby: It was a grant. And we will have a contract with them as we do with all of CDBG recipients, but they have to comply with the terms of the Community Development Block Grant regulations. So ifthey for instance didn't create the jobs that they were supposed to we would have a mechanism for repayment. Pfab: So how do you determine if it's a grant or a loan? Champion: If they can pay back. If they have the ability to pay back. Nasby: It is up to the committee to and the Council's discretion whether or not you wish to have a grant or a loan. Pfab: Is them a set of criteria that's available to someone that is thinking about applying for this? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #16 Page 36 Nasby: We have an application form and you have some financial assistance guidelines. And those guidelines leave it open as to the type of assistance that they may receive. Pfab: Are they much different that what the HCDC uses since this is HCDC money? Nasby: These are not HCDC funds. These are Community Development Block Grant funds. Pfab: But they're the same funds that HCDC decides what... Vanderhoef: No we decide. Nasby: They're... Vanderhoef: Council decides. Dilkes: There is no requirement that these funds go through HCDC. You could eliminate the HCDC process if you chose. Lehman: We could do it all right here. Champion: Right. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: Steve. Nasby: Yes Sir. Kanner: A couple questions for you. There was a while back you said that Staff should negotiate the terms. It was something that came that was controversial and I thought it was decided that you...the Staff would make...would negotiate it as they had done in the past. Nasby: We had... Kanner: Is it applicable to this? Nasby: No, we were - I'm sorry - we were specifically talking about the public facilities projects. I believe that the exchange was when Emma Goldman Clinic was asking for a declining balance loan. Kanner: No, this was before. This was like a year ago. Lehman: It was on a default or something wasn't it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #16 Page 37 Kanner: I forgot what it was. Lehman: I think it was Nasby: I believe that was in a loan repayment that neighborhood centers had asked for a modification of their loan terms. Lehman: Right. Nasby: I believe that may have been the discussion. Kanner: Perhaps and so we said that you made the... Lehman: Negotiated the terms. Kanner: Negotiated the terms. Nasby: That was your decision to make. Kanner: Well that was affirming what the previous policy was. Nasby: That's correct for assistance that we already had on the books and assigned agreement. Kanner: Okay so we don't have a policy in terms of you set...negotiating loans or grants? Nasby: That's... Lehman: That's what we're here for tonight. Kanner: Okay. I thought we might of...if was similar to that. Nasby: No. Yeah. Kanner: Let me ask you another question. What does it need to be amortized at 3%? Nasby: It's just like it would be a car loan or a home loan that the term is 3% interest or five years. So there would be monthly payments. Kanner: And so what are the monthly payments? Does it work out to $500...? Nasby: $448 and change Kanner: $448 a month. Nasby: $448 and change yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #16 Page 38 Kanner: Okay. Pfab: I have one other question. Also was there some of these funds that went into the development of the bypass or the construction that we just passed here for the Highway 17 Nasby: No. Champion: No. Nasby: No, CDBG funds are not a part of that project. Pfab: Okay. Kanner: And what's the going rate? Pfab: The reason I asked that is last year when we were talking about the funds for the Shelter House one of the...I asked about were the funds allocated and they said they were allocated, but not spent. And when I asked what they were allocated to it was for work done on that highway. Champion: Well maybe you can correct that here. Lehman: No I think you misunderstood. Nasby: I don't think that is the case at all. Lehman: Can't do it. Nasby: We have not done that nor do have we been asked to do it. Pfab: I need some clarification because that was...I remember... Champion: And that money wasn't...that money wasn't asked for...the emergency housing project was asked for a study. It was going to be a $25,000 study. Nasby: Well nevertheless... Dilkes: We are...I mean we are talking about things that nobody is tied...we're all over the place here. O'Donnell: Why don't we vote on this Emie? Kanner: Well what's the going rate for loans and approximately how much would they have to...if they could have gotten a loan from a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #16 Page 39 conventional financial institution what would it be approximately? Or what would their payments be7 Vanderhoef: Five and a quarter. Atkins: Seven. Nasby: No, they'd probably be closer to 7...between 7 and 7 and a half percent. Vanderhoef: For commercial that's right. Nasby: Yeah for a commercial loan especially with a start up. And in this particular case the business owners had been to a bank and weren't able to obtain private financing. Lehman: But my guess is that this loan would been very near 10% commercially. Nasby: Yeah. I don't know. Lehman: The state gave them a rate of 7 1 believe. Is that correct? Nasby: The state gave them... Lehman: Or 5. Nasby: ...3. They gave them 3. Lehman: We gave them same... Nasby: We gave them the same thing the state did. Lehman: That's right. Nasby: That's correct. And the state has a range between 0 and 7 percent depending on risk. Lehman: That's where I got it. Okay up to 7. Nasby: I believe that's what Donna told me was 0 to 7. Lehman: Okay thank you Steve. Nasby: Alright. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #17 Page 40 ITEM 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 124 E. WASHINGTON STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: I had a question. Would that be Steve? Atkins: Yes. Nasby: Yep. Atkins: Yep. It's all his. Kanner: Now it says it has to be a 15% improvement in value for this partial tax abatement to cut in. Nasby: In the assessed value that's correct. Kanner: In the assessed value. Now does this have to continue for the full length of the terms of this agreement that that has to be maintain at that 15% level or is it have to peak at 15% the first year and then could it go down and there still would be the tax abatement. Nasby: The abatement? The plan lays out that they have to meet 15% increase in the first year. It doesn't talk about subsequent years. Just going at our tax history I don't know that... Lehman: Well the only thing would be if... even if we have to maintain the abatement the base year would not change. Nasby: The base would not change and if the assessed value did go down Steven they wouldn't get the exemption on that full 15%. It would only be on the value that was added. So the only way actually we wouldn't not collect as much revenue as we doing because the exemption is only on the added value. If the added value were to go down to zero then we wouldn't be exempting anything. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. //17 Page 41 Kanner: But it could go down to 14 or 13 pement. Lehman: It's an interesting question though. Nasby: It could and then he would get the exemption on that point on that pementage. Kanner: And where did the 15% figure come from? Nasby: It canoe from the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan that was passed .by the Cotmcil in 1999. Kanner: Saying the minimum is 15%. Nasby: The minimum is 15%. That's correct. Kanner: (Can't hear) project. Nasby: Yep. Vanderhoef: This is actually fairly small, but we don't have any choice so this is a 10 year. The applicant has the choice of whether they take a 3 year, 100 percent or they take a 10 year declining percent. Atkins: It's a state law isn't it? Nasby: Those are the schedules that were laid out in state code that's correct. And it is the applicants' select. Vanderhoef: Yes it's state law. The schedule is in the packet there. So it's really relatively small. Wilburn: It also had the conversation that we're not at that point yet, but when the municipal SCMID goes through that this might be the type of project that could potentially qualify for that. Nasby: And if these two things to dovetail together and the SCMID does take offand you see a facade improvement program you might be seeing more of these requests because of the urban revitalization plan that's in place. Lehman: Other discussion? Vanderhoef: That might take some discussion then whether we're going to do any kind of abatement. Atkins: Correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. //17 Page 42 Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #20 Page 43 ITEM 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE POLICE LABOR RELATIONS ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Kanner: I had a couple questions for Dale. First off Dale was there anything new added and what prompted this.., which side prompted opening the negotiations again? Can't either side ask for opening the contract off the...? Helling: Well the Police usually wrote a letter back last July or August asking because the contract was expiring this June 30th. Kanner: Okay. Lehman: Well there was no... Vanderhoef: This was regular... Dilkes: It should be yearly. It's just the regular. Helling: Yes this is just the standard negotiations. Yeah this is not a... Karmer: Well maybe this was when it was in the contract it said it would expire. But the current one, this one, says it will go on year to year unless someone asks by a certain date to amend it. Helling: To amend. Right. Yes. I can't think in the 25 years I can't ever remember when the City had to initiate that. The union has always initiated. Kanner: What was (can't hear). Helling: There's a wage increase. There's an increase in the officer's co-pay in the health insurance premium for a family coverage. And there's a change regarding how overtime is assigned to give more weight to seniority. Other than that it's just the standard change in the dates and everything that's pretty much all there is in the new agreement - the changes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #20 Page 44 Kanner: And could you explain...I'I1 get you the page on here, but in our book it was page 223 about accumulated sick leave. Especially after reading about what happened in Ann Arbor with their fire department and their accumulated sick leave which was gigantic payouts which is almost breaking their budget. Helling: Right. Kanner: What's the limit placed on that? It said something in regards to not more than half and that can't be more than 1985. Helling: Right. We had a 50%... (End of Side 1, Tape 03-50, Beginning of Side 2) Helling: ...passed in 1985 that was negotiated out. And what happened at that time was it was frozen, it was calculated out and frozen for a specific dollar amount for all the people who were there at that time. People employed subsequent to that or after that did not have that benefit. And currently only people who were here in 1985 or before have any sick leave payout at all and that's only if they have enough sick leave now to come up to that amount and it's paid out on resignation or retirement. Needless to say there aren't that many people over there any more that will qualify for that. Kanner: (Can't hear) what is the payout for those who have been here since before 19857 What's the rate? Helling: It's calculated the same way, but it's capped at a dollar amount that was calculated back in 1985. So that benefit did not continue to accrue for anyone after that. Kanner: And so approximately...I don't know if you know the figure, but what's it capped at approximately? Helling: Well each individual has a different cap. It was calculated as if they were leaving on that date - that would have been the maximum amount that they could accrue under that benefit. For them that dollar amount is the cap and they couldn't accrue any more after that. Kanner: So there's nothing...like in Ann Arbor there were hundreds of thousands... Helling: No, no. Kanner: This might be hundreds of dollars? Thousands of dollars for the max? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #20 Page 45 Helling: It could be several thousand for some of the people who were there maybe for 10 years or so. I'm just throwing numbers out. But there are people who probably have $6,000 $7,000 maybe. Kanner: And I'm not sure what the procedure is now for people hired since '85. Helling: There is no payout for accumulated sick leave. In other words we didn't take the benefit away we just capped it at what they had earned up to that point and then discontinued the benefit after that. Kanner: Okay. Thank you. And then there is something about training in the contract. Is that...are you planning...is the City Manager's department planning to have that affected? I guess you probably can't because it's in the contract about your proposal for training for education options for city employees that you can (can't hear). Helling: Well I think...this article on training doesn't really talk about the resources that are put into it, it just talks about how it's assigned and so forth. So whatever level or resources are put in we can still follow the contract. Kanner: So when you're talking about budget cuts are you (can't hear) also Police training also? Atkins: Yes. Everybody. Yes. That's a resource... Kanner: Educational opportunities? Atkins: ...assignment the amount of money we'd make available. The labor contract is how it's distributed - who gets the choice. We still have...ifI recall from the agreement we still have the authority to assign. We can direct an officer to... Helling: Yes absolutely. Atkins: Yeah. That doesn't change any. An example is we've had a couple retirees - if I recall one of them was one of our crime scene investigators and that's a very specific body of knowledge that we train someone. We need to get someone and that's an expensive training program. But we will continue to do those things. Karmer: Just one or two more things. Maybe this is for Eleanor. It says here the provisions in the contract may be suspended if there's a declared public emergency by the City Council. And I was wondering what is the process for the declared public emergency? We have a let's say a red alert from the feds and someone shows a danger in Iowa or Iowa City what's the process for that happening? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #20 Page 46 Helling: I think under the contract you would have to have a public emergency such that you could justify suspending the certain provisions of the contract for instance on hours. We've negotiated shifts and that we could...you know you could double shift if you needed to. It would have to be specific. You'd have to be able to show that the emergency requires that. Dilkes: You'd have to show impossibility performance. That's a very standard contract term...worded differently in different contracts, but there often is a provision about, you know, you're not going to be penalized or you're going to be...there's an out if something makes it impossible for you to perform - the weather, the whatever. Helling: I don't think you can predefine what an emergency is I think you just when it happens you have to be able to justify. Kanner: There are some provisions in our (can't hear) charter where the Mayor can declare a state of emergency. Atkins: Yes. Kanner: Is that the vision we're talking about? Helling: Not necessarily, no. Kanner: So there can be sort of a lower level where the Council can decide? Dilkes: I don't think it's something that anybody has ever worked through. It's not a provision that's ever been used. I think... Lehman: You'll know it when you get to it. Dilkes: ...I mean I think it's something we'd have to address when we got to it. Kanner: It's something we've been told that there's different levels of alertness here in the country and we have acts that some of us feel are perhaps unconstitutional. And I think it's something that could be coming down the road in this country and something we have to be concerned about and worried about in all facets ofclty operation. So I bring it up in that context. Atkins: Usually what happens having only experienced this once in my career it's as Eleanor points out it's very, very high standard and a concern that we had in the previous community I served was the issue of a curfew. We were struck by tornadoes and there was no power. And that's when I recommended to the Mayor who convened the council who supported...we were sitting in the dark at the time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #20 Page 47 Dilkes: I mean it's going to be specific to the situation. One can imagine a situation which would require the passing of an ordinance (can't hear) simply meet and collapse all of them and pass it. But I think those are situations that obviously require a significant amount of thought, but can't be necessarily anticipated. Pfab: Go ahead. Atkins: What happens on those is that many of your federal and often state resources are dependent upon some kind of declaration. And our case in my previous life we needed the National Guard and the only way we could get that was have the declaration so we could contact the Governor who released the National Guard to help us with clean up. Kauner: Thank you. Pfab: I had one other question. I noticed I think it was today the Homeland Security raised the level to gold... Atkins: Yes they did. We were notified this afternoon. Pfab: ...or orange and so there's one more additional step. Atkins: That's red. Lehman: Right. Pfab: Okay what happens if it goes to red? Atkins: There are several things that we would do, that would kick in procedurally within the organization. Pfab: But it's not the same thing as the emergency you're talking about. Atkins: It is not. Lehman: No. Atkins: It's more precautionary than anything Irvin. Lehman: Okay? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #22 Page 48 ITEM 22. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. Lehman: Item 22 are Council appointments. SEATS Paratransit Advisory Committee last night Mike O'Donnell agreed to serve another term. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment we had no applications. Airport Zoning Commission no applications. Historic Preservation Commission no applications. Library Board of Trustees - Council decided on Linda Dellsperger, Thomas Dean and, Shaner Magalhaes. Thank you. And the Telecommunications Commission Brett Custillo. I would like a motion to approve those appointments. Vanderhoef: So moved. Pfab: So moved. Lehman: We have a motion, a second. All in favor? Opposed? The motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #24 Page 49 ITEM 24. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Lehman: Council information. Irvin? Pfab: Nothing. Lehman: Connie? Mike? O'Donnell: Nothing this evening. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoefi Not a thing. Lehman: Ross? Wilburn: Just on behalf of the free lunch program the Crisis Center thanks the community and Council members for coming out to our event this past weekend. Lehman: Steve. Kanner: I'd also like to thank the free lunch program as someone who's been on both sides making use of the lunch program and volunteering once or twice in the past to help out. I appreciate the program being there for our community. I wanted to make an announcement. There's a group forming to make Iowa City a civil liberty safe zone. It's called the Iowa City Bill of Rights Defense Committee. They're meeting Wednesday May 28th at 7:00 p.m. in the Iowa City Public Library number C. That's Wednesday May 28th at 7:00 p.m. at the Library. If you'd like more information about that you can call me or Julie Spears at 354-6589. Also want to make note of an article which was in the Press Citizen recently from the Associated Press about Arcadia, California which passed one of the strongest anti-patriot act resolutions ordinances recently. They joined more than 100 cities and one state which is according the Associated Press May 18th in the Press Citizen. This is I think a continuing issue and that's what the bill of rights defense committee is going to be looking at - these kind of issues especially the Patriot Act and which is getting set for further authorization...reauthorization. So hopefully people will get involved with the group being formed. I don't know if it's been announced yet, but we did make #12 in the AARP ratings of places for seniors to retire to and they noted that it had a high rating because of a sense of safety, education - University of Iowa, and health care availability. So we should make note of that. And then finally I want to thank Robert Henry who's the President of the International Association of Firefighters for his concerns about the number of firefighter staff that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #24 Page 50 are needed. This was a memo he sent to the City Manager and the Finance Director and cc'd a copy to us in regards to the discussions we've been having about staff cut. And I want to say I think for people to speak up in opposition to stated positions for what they believe is right. It's especially hard as an employee sending something to their employer. But it is a credit I think to our City Manager and to Iowa City that Lieutenant Henry and IAFS number local 610 felt free to engage in the debate on the proposed budget cuts. It makes for better policy decisions when the City Council and the Staff and can have this type of input. So I would encourage that union. I would encourage our other unions and other people with similar thoughts to feel free to please come forward whether you're an employee of the City or not and bring them to Staff, bring them to City Council. It helps us all make a better community. And I wanted to ask Steve if you're planning a response to some of the allegations that were made about us not following the National Fire Protection Association standard 1710. Atkins: Yes. Kanner: And I hope we'll be able to get a copy of that. Atkins: We'll deal with it and I have no trouble sharing my response with you. Kanner: Thank you. Lehman: Two things. First of all obviously anybody who has any interest in anything that we cut obviously isn't happy with it. So for someone to complain about a cut I think is...certainly I understand that, but there isn't a single cut that this Council has looked at nor any we will look at that someone's not going to object to including most of us from that perspective. Next Monday is a very I think it's a very wonderful holiday - it's Memorial Day. And Iowa City will be having Memorial Day services on three different locations - at Oakland Cemetery, at Memory Gardens and then at the West Overlook during the day. I plan on being at at least two of those. But I think that this year Memorial Day is particularly significant and I certainly would encourage any person who has the time and the inclination to attend one ofth0se services. The last couple of years there have been a significantly larger number of people attending them and I've also seen more and more young folks. But I think whether or not you're able to go Memorial Day is certainly a day to reflect and I think we have an awful lot to reflect about. So I wish everybody a very, very safe and happy holiday weekend and just remember what Memorial Day is all about. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003. #25a Page 51 ITEM 25a. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. a. City Attorney Lehman: Steve? Atkins: Yeah I have one item for you. And this is a little difficult because - and I say this respectfully to you and also to the public - during this budget debate that's been going on I hear with frequency police, fire, police, fire almost a drum beat. And I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for our police and fire personnel. But we have a lot of other employees whose jobs are just as important to the character and quality of life of this community and they're getting missed. It's just easy to come to the microphone and say you can't do this, you can't do that. Well over 450 of our employees are not police and fire personnel. And I believe that they want to contribute just as much to the character and quality. And I would just hope that we kind of keep that in mind that it's bigger than just those two departments. Thank you. Lehman: Well said. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of May 20, 2003.