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.