Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-10 TranscriptionItem 2b Page 1 ITEM 2b. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS. b. Pride Month: June 2003 Lehman: Item 2 are Mayor's proclamations. We've had one addition. Right? Karr: Pardon me? Lehman: This is an addition. Karr: It's an addition and they're here. Lehman: (Reads proclamation). Kart: Here to accept the proclamation is Christopher Eland. Eland: I would just like to briefly thank Iowa City for its past support of gay, lesbian, transgender and our allies and all the support you've given us whether it's through the domestic partnerships or the whether it's the civil rights ordinance. We appreciate that in the past and that's why this year we can celebrate peace through pride. Once again thank you for your support. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Is there going to be a gay pride march this year? Eland: There is - the 21st of the month is our pride fest. Karmer: Is that at the College Park? Eland: College Park and there's a parade starting I believe 11:00 or 12:00. Kanner: Thank you. Eland: You're welcome. Any other questions? · ' n This represents only a reasonably accurate transcr~ptlo of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 3 Page 2 ITEM 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Lehman: Before we do this consent calendar there has...Dee Vanderhoef has a conflict with the next work session and Council meeting. So Dee if you'd like to tell us where we are and see what we'd like to do about it. Vanderhoefi Thank you. I really have just a conflict for the Council meeting on the 24th and I wondered if the Council would consider having both work meeting and Council meeting on Monday the 23ra in place of two nights in a row. Champion: I don't have any problems with it. Pfab: That's on...starting when? Lehman: Well I think it would be two weeks from yesterday. The only thing I think we need to remember is that that work session has budget issues on it. And I think that if we do this we're going to want to start that work session no later than 3:00 or 3:30. Kanner: That makes it pretty tough for me to start. I'm going to be gone during the weekend and I will be working during the day. It's really hard (can't hear) and not having Tuesday to do a final review. Possibly we could meet maybe one day of the week before might work. Lehman: I'm out of town all next week. Vanderhoef: That could work. Champion: No it would be two weeks from today. You'll be out of town next week. Vanderhoef: Oh, he'll be back the following week. Champion: Excuse me what time could you come? Kanner: Well there's two issues starting at 6:30 is (can't here) days - the normal time plus having both meetings on Monday and not having Tuesday at all to prepare. Champion: Well it wouldn't be the first time we've done it. Kanner: What's that? Champion: It wouldn't be the first time we've done it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 3 Page 3 Kanner: Done what - not prepare? Champion: No. O'Donnell: That too. Champion: Have both meetings in the same night. Kanner: But usually we do that on Tuesday if we're going to do that. I don't know if we've done it on Monday. It's a little difficult. If there are no...can we think about it? Lehman: No, because some issues on the consent calendar will have to have dates changed. Vanderhoef: The other alternative that I had thought about was if we were going to do expedited sometimes on Monday we have a special Council meeting before we start working (can't hear) anyway to get some of the second readings on things done for those issues that are being expedited. And the two things that I really don't want to miss on Tuesday night would be the public hearing on the (can't hear) vinyl siding and also the public hearing on the appropriateness for the enclosure of that court. I would like to hear that discussion and if those two items could be moved to the Monday night special Council meeting then I would go ahead and miss the second next Tuesday night. Lehman: Is that a problem? Dilkes: No we can move those. I mean when you set those hearing you can set them for... Vanderhoef: They're in the consent calendar right now. So if we set those for the special meeting on Monday night. There's a couple of other things that are first readings that I'll be there on the second and third readings on the other things. Dilkes: I believe we have sent letters out to those people appealing. What we'll just have to send new letters and tell them a different day. Lehman: Then we would have the work session at the regular time at 6:30? Dilkes: That we would have the heating on a different day. Lehman: I know that. But if we do what Dee is now suggesting we would have our special meeting at 6:30 on that Monday. Have the public heatings, the special meeting and then go into a work session and then have the regular meeting the next night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 3 Page 4 Karr: You could do it that way. You could start earlier if you wanted to. The important thing you start a formal at a regular time. Lehman: But we're talking about having two different nights now. If we have two public hearings (can't hear). Karr: And you expatiated that. Lehman: Right. Will that work for everybody? Alright. Pfab: I'm not sure I understand. Okay. First of all when you requested I thought I understood (can't hear). Champion: She can't be here on Tuesday. Pfab: So we'll have the meeting without her? Champion: Right. Pfab: Okay. Alright. O'Donnell: You've been gone too. Vanderhoef: I have a conflict. Pfab: Okay. Alright. (Can't hear). Karr: Tuesday meeting is okay. Lehman: I would entertain a motion for item 3 which will them require an amendment to... Karr: You're simply going to change 3e(2) and (3) to June 23ra. Champion: I move we adopt the consent calendar as adoption...as amended. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: We have a motion to adopt the consent calendar seconded by O'Donnell. Does that require an amendment on the part of the Council? Karr: I'm sorry you did amend it. It is amended. Champion: I said as amended. Kan:: Motion is as amended. Lehman: Discussion of the consent calendar as amended. Yes? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 3 Page 5 Kanner: A couple things. In our board (can't hear) minutes under the Library I wanted to note - this is number 3 - the 4-23 minutes - it was recorded that only one request by police to see the patron's record and it was denied because there was no follow-up with the warrant. So I think that's okay news. What is something that we won't know is under the Patriot Act whether there were requests made that at a lower level to access that information because the Library Director under the federal law isn't allowed to report that. And that's pretty scary that we don't know those kinds of things that are happening. So I wanted to point that out in the Library minutes. And then the other thing I wanted to make note of is in the resolutions number fwe are accepting $300 from the Peaceful Fool for cigarette violations and we are also accepting $1500 and a 30-day suspension for the third violation from A&J Mini Mart up at Ash Circle. Champion: Where's it at? Kanner: That's under resolutions f(3). So they are admitting their guilt essentially. And third violation is somewhat drastic. And hopefully they'll learn their lesson and get a little tougher in their oversight. Pfab: My question is what if there's a fourth? O'Donnell: That we... Pfab: ...took away their license. O'Donnell: It wouldn't be the first. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 6 ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. c. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SERVICE, TO PRM, PLANNED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET SOUTH OF COURT STREET. (REZ03-00012). Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. Joe Holland: Good evening. My name is Joe Holland. I'm an attorney here in Iowa City. I represent the applicant in this particular rezoning issue. For those of you who may not be familiar this property is located at the intersection of Court and Dubuque Street in Iowa City. The building was constructed in 1984 as an elderly housing complex. Built as a CB-2 zone. In fact all of the properties in the effected area on this block are multi-family housing in one nature or another. This is the only one which is elderly housing. There has been an evolution of demand and evolution of supply in the market of elderly housing over the years which has made it a less appropriate use for this particular property owned by the Clarks. And we'd like to have it rezoned, not just this property, but the entire block for a couple of reasons. One is that it increases flexibility in the type of housing that is available. We've requested a PRM zoning which is a more general multi-family density zoning and would allow multi-family throughout the structure. Currently in the CB-2 zone commercial use on the first floor is required except for elderly housing. The other thing that would happen as part of the zoning amendment is would bring all of the other properties on that block into conformance with the zoning ordinance. They currently are all non-conforming or grandparented in. All have multi-family residential housing on the first floor. So it has a benefit both to the other properties on the block and my client's particular property. We've endeavored to contact other property owners on the block and none of them have expressed any opposition. By in large they simply have expressed no opinion which.., obviously they're not here asking for this with us, but none of them have expressed any opposition either one-to-one discussions with them or after the notices that they've received. We did have a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission a few weeks ago and the commission voted 7-0 in favor of the application. I'm here tonight to answer any questions you might have and to ask you to give favorable consideration and approval to the first reading of the rezoning. Pfab: I have a question. At the present time because of the zoning and the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 hem5c Page 7 conditions under which it was built I have a question. Was the building to be totally elderly housing or was it just the first floor? Holland: CB-2 zone...the only was you can have a residential use on the first floor is for the condos and the elderly housing. Pfab: But the rest of the complex was never required to be elderly housing. Holland: No, that's correct if there had been a commercial use on the first floor the rest of the house could be generally multi .... Pfab: As it was. Was it ever? The reason I bring this up is people are saying we're going to lose a lot of elderly housing because of the fact the applicant requirement or the (can't hear) so forth will change. But my understanding or a question I guess was it ever 100% elderly housing or was it just the first floor? Holland: No it's always been 100%. Pfab: It always has been 100%? Is that correct? Holland: That's correct. P fab: Okay. Kanner: I thought I heard yesterday that it allows non-elderly on the upper floors. Lehman: In the upper floors. Kanner: You might have voluntarily allowed or just required it to be elderly, but under the law I think you're allowed to have non-elderly on the second floors and up. Holland: That's correct. If...but then not use the first floor for anything except the commercial use. You can't use the first floor for housing. Kanner: No, we were told...I thought we were told yesterday you could use the first floor for elderly and have the upper floors available for people not elderly. Holland: That's not my understanding. Wilbum: I think I remember heating that too. Lehman: No, that's what we did hear. That building is presently all elderly housing? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 8 Holland: That's correct. That's the first I've ever heard of that. This process started back in 1984. We actually went to the Board of Adjustment which had an interest, a little bit of an interest, in procedural history. There's a disagreement between Planning and Zoning, the City Attorney's office and Housing Inspection Services over what used to be made of the property. The Zoning Code Interpretation Panel said you had to have commercial on the first floor if you wanted to build a multi-family housing in this district. We appealed that to the Board of Adjustment which voted 2 to 1 in our favor saying no you don't have to have commercial on the first floor. However you have to have an absolute majority. And since two members of the Board of Adjustment either disqualified themselves or were not present we lost that battle. To this day and at the time it was clear, it seemed clear up until tonight that the entire building had to be elderly housing. That's the consistent interpretation that I've heard from the Planning Department since 1984. I apologize I wasn't here last night. I really hadn't expected any surprises, but that's completely inconsistent with every other thing that I've heard for almost 20 years. Wilburn: That's what it says on the Staff report (can't hear) elder apartment housing is allowed as provisional use and is the only residency that's allowed on the first level in a CB-2 zone. Holland: Well that's correct. It is the only residential use you can have on the first floor in a CB-2 zone. Wilbum: Okay. Dilkes: Jeff spoke to that last night. They want...I don't know. I haven't looked at it. We can certainly look at it before you vote because you're not voting tonight. Davidson: I did review it with Senior Planning Bob Miklo trying to be as knowledgeable as I could about the subject. My understanding of Bob's interpretation and Joe appears to have the opinion that there's been some discrepancy in that in the past was that the first floor was required to be elder housing. The above floors were not required to be elder housing if the first floor was elder housing. Lehman: And that's what we were told last night. O'Donnell: That's how I understood it. Davidson: Right. That was my understanding from the discussion with Bob Eleanor and looking through the zoning ordinance right now and maybe you can confirm that one way or another. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 9 Dilkes: Not right here. Davidson: Okay. Dilkes: I'll let you know. Davidson: Just so everyone's clear. My understating based on my discussions with Bob was that the CB-2 zone required any residential use of the first floor to be only for elder housing, but that the above floors could be a residential use whether or not the first floor was currently for elder housing. They were not required to be elder housing. Vanderhoef: Then please answer this - you or Joe either one - the intent to make this entire building rental if the zoning is changed or not intending to put any commercial on the first floor? Is that correct. Champion: Well it's not set up for that. Holland: No the intent is not to put any commercial on the first floor. The intent is to continue it as a residential use throughout the structure. Champion: It would take a lot of remodeling to turn that into commercial. Lehman: Is it market rate housing? Holland: By market I think there has been some kind of Section 8 housing in there. Lehman: But that's...okay. Holland: Although actually one of the problems is the rents right now are probably are below market rate and there still is roughly a 25% vacancy rate. Part of it has been there's been so much additional housing. There's...since 1984 Waldon Place has been built, Melrose Meadows, Sterling House. There are probably half a dozen others. And there's not...but there's more supply then there is demand as the current moment. Vanderhoef: How long standing has that 25% vacancy? Is it just the last year or...? Holland: No it's been consistent for a long time. It took a year...a year or more - 18 months - for the building to fill up initially. And then vacancy rates probably run anywhere from 15 to 30 percent pretty much the entire time. It ebbs and flows and one of the sort of unique and a little poignant things of elderly housing is student tenants come and go with the cycle of the academic year. With elderly housing it's all too often they're either deceased or they go to skilled nursing care. And so it's a completely different type of market. They don't come on the market This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 10 in cycles that other housing does and it makes it a much more problematic thing for rent. Vanderhoefi I understand that. I did make a comment last night because our other housing downtown that is for elderly or for persons with disabilities all are in special federal programs. So this was the only market rate shall we say senior housing downtown with the ability to walk in, access the amenities of downtown - the library, the Senior Center, etc - and it concerned me a little bit that that wasn't going to be available in the downtown area. Lehman: It will still be available. It just wouldn't be restricted to... Vanderhoefi Well...and I think that makes it even more problematic in doing it. So I question our near Southside policy that is talking about mixed housing and trying to have diverse populations in the downtown area. So... Holland: And we certainly recognize that as an issue. I think we also need to recognize with all the others in government programs this is a privately subsidized program right now. Kanner: I didn't hear you. Holland: It's in a privately subsidized program right now because the rents are not market rate. Rents are below market rate rents and there is still a vacancy factor. And I guess in part we'll have to rethink what use might be made of the property if the Planning Department has this new interpretation that they're going to hold to it. Because quite frankly it would have been I think courteous at least if they had told us of that interpretation. I've never seen that or heard that until you told me about it tonight. It's inconsistent with what I've heard ever since 1984. I guess we have to rethink what difference that may make, but I think another thing you have to look at is the comprehensive plan and the fact that you have other non-conforming properties on this block. We were encouraged by the City Staff to think of rezoning the entire block on that side of Dubuque Street. So this is something that wasn't...we didn't come in and drop this on the City step unannounced. I personally talked to Kadn Franklin. And I know my client talked to Karin and the Planning Department before we initiated this. So this is something that the Staff has been behind since the beginning. Champion: I do have... Lehman: You said that last too. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 11 Champion: I have the same concerns Dee (can't hear) diversity. But I also don't think we can expect property owners to subsidize rent like they have buildings that aren't being used. I think that's not fair. Holland: I think that's really the fundamental issue from our standpoint. Kanner: Joe what is the average rent and what is market rate? Or we could ask our Staff (can't hear). And what is your vacancy rates over the years? Holland: It's been consistently 15 to 25% with the average of 20%. Kanner: And what is the average rent? Holland: I don't know what it is. As of right now I'm not even sure Jim knows because the staff... Kanner: Well you're saying it's below market rate. I just want to confirm that. Lehman: We need to have the conversation at the microphone. Holland: Well we can certainly provide you that information before the next consideration. Lehman: Is there other public folks? Irvin? Pfab: My point brings up was the public and (can't hear) thinks this is a huge loss of senior housing because they look at it three floors of senior housing. (Can't hear) the law only (can't hear) senior housing on the first floor (can't hear). Champion: We need to get a legal opinion. Lehman: Alright. We'll get that. Dilkes: We'll check the zoning code. Obviously there's an issue here and we probably should just leave it at that until we get a good answer Lehman: Thank you Joe. Holland: Thanks. Kanner: Other people are welcome. Come on up. Richard Twohy: My name is Richard Twohy. I'm the resident manager at 400 South Dubuque. We call it Heritage Manor and so does the owner, but there's not either a sign saying that nor any sign saying 400 South Dubuque. But we live there and it's real. I'm...three others of our residents are here tonight. We...and I'd like to read a short note that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 12 was signed by 15 of our tenant...we have some kind of flu thing going through the building with the current weather. But these are people who signed their names to this statement and they're asking me that in the absence for consideration. This says (reads statement). And I understand Dee's point that there a~e...that those other housing, but there are other issues for people on public assistance or disability. But this is the only building anywhere near the area dedicated for seniors. (Continues reading the statement). Mayme Schmidt who almost came tonight, but she finally just...she's 98 years old. I'm just a pup. I'm not even 60 yet you know. Once the day I was born Mayme's kids were already grown. And she's been here at this place since it opened. And she showed up at the Zoning Commission after they'd had their vote. (Continues reading statement). We're concerned because the only notice that any of our residents got was that great big sign posted for 48 hours or whatever in front of the building that said the zoning matter pending. Three of our residents I'm sorry to say I didn't, but three of them went through the maze and figured out what it was about and they actually went to the Zoning Commission meeting on May 1st where this matter was presented. But they told me they didn't get a chance to speak and they didn't get a chance to hear what was going on because there was something with the microphones. It was in this room, but there was only one person they could hear what the person was saying. It was the women on the end. So they didn't even know what the issue or when to be...so they talked with Mr. Clark after the hearing and he was very thoughtful and forthcoming about it. He said that any of us who were there could stay there as long as wished. But then Gertrude said well if...unless we can't stand the noise with the cars so that is an issue. Our concern is that we don't even have to try (can't hear) students or elderly because there's room for all of us. And what we've been told is that 20% or maybe 25% of the current units are...have always been available to be rented outside of the elderly requirement. So if the place is 15% or 20% or 25% unleased it doesn't require any zoning issue change because they can already rent up to 25% of the (can't hear) to non-elderly. Lehman: We need to wind this up and let somebody else speak to this too. Twohy: Very well. To me it simply hasn't been marketed properly. I don't understand, nor do our neighbors why this is being subsidized by a private party because for a one-bedroom apartment it's $670 and plus we pay our air conditioning and all. And for two bedrooms it's $790. It don't have...feel to us like they're above the market. But it's no problem to rent it and fill the spaces without changing the zoning. And we're concerned for issues of diversity and because also like the ones who've lived in this building for a long time are good for the community and we'll all going to be part of that club very soon. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 13 Thank you. Can I ask you Maxine Simon? Lehman: Certainly. Karr: Do you wish to file that letter? Twohy: Yes. Lehman: Do we have a motion to accept correspondence? Wilbum: So moved. Lehman: Second? Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: All in favor? Motion carries. Maxine Simon: I'm Maxine Simon. I live at the nursing apartment at 400 South Dubuque and I hate anything to happen and change it because this is the only place that you can go you might say about because those two - the Capital House and the other Ecumenical Towers go by how much money you have and so on. So you get kind of limited with what you can do. I have not lived there quite a year and when I went there I hoped I would live there for years and years. And now I don't know what's going to happen. And the way they did this is what kind of irks me is we didn't really hear anything about it. I think we had a...if you live in a place that they'd let you know what's going on. Thank you. Lehmhn: Thank you. Karmer: Maxine would you move if there were more non-elderly people there? Simon: Would I move? Kanner: Yes. Simon: It would depend if they could keep the place quiet. Other than that if it got too noisy I possibly would move. We have a nice quiet place. You (can't hear). That means a lot. Thank you. Jean Tack: My name is Jean Tack. I (can't hear) 400 South Dubuque Street. Since you've already had my letter which was read by now. I won't repeat it. But just for a few seconds please think about how important our Senior Manor is. There is only one senior apartment building for us. The residents I know want to live downtown and be a part of the City. It is fun to see children, families and students which is fun. But This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 5c Page 14 it's also good to walk home and come home to a nice, quiet apartment again. It would be nice to keep it this way if it's possible. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you. Mark Pearson: I'll be brief. I'm the youngest resident there I think. I moved in to help Richard with his (can't hear). Since living there I've noticed... Lehman: Would you give your name please. Pearson: Oh, my name is Mark Pearson. Lehman: Thank you Mark. Pearson: Since living there I've noticed a lot of our residents go to St. Pat's to mass. And we have several forms of housing near downtown for seniors, but we're the only one that's five feet away from Pat's. We have a woman who's 98-years-old who goes over there for mass every day. And if she had to live even one and a half blocks away I don't think she'd be able to make it. (Can't hear) some people seriously need. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to this? Public hearing is closed. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 8 Page 15 ITEM 8. CONVEYANCE OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF A TWENTY- FOOT WIDE BY SIXTY FEET LONG VACATED PORTION OF THE ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 405 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET AND 338 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET TO PHYLLIS TUCKER. Lehman: (Reads item). Public heating is open. Karr: (Can't hear) new resolutions for 8 and 9. Dilkes: They're attached to the memo that Mitch Behr at my office sent you regarding offers. Champion: No, we didn't get that. (Can't hear). Lehman: Was that dated the 9th or the 10th? Karr: It's dated yesterday - the 9th. Lehman: The 9th. Kart: We just got it and yeah. Lehman: And this is Phyllis Tucker is offering $3900 for that parcel and it has (can't hear) communicated that in a letter (can't hear) acceptable offer. Dilkes: That was the appraised value. Pfab: Well we're still...does anybody wish to speak to this? Champion: I move to vacate... Lehman: We (can't hear) the public heating forward. Now we need a resolution authorizing the conveyance. Pfab: I move. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 10 Page 16 ITEM 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4, "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES" OF THE CITY CODE TO INCREASE THE FINE FOR PARKING TICKETS, INCREASE MONTHLY PARKING PERMIT FEES, INCREASE CERTAIN PARKING METER FEES TO $.75 PER HOUR AND CHANGING THE PARKING TICKET ESCALATION. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: (Reads item). Do we have a motion? Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Pfab. Discussion? I think for the public knowledge the overtime parking fine will go from $3 to $5. The illegal parking fine will go from $5 to $10. the monthly parking permit will be increased by $10 a month which will still put those permits at probably about 35% discount over (can't hear) rates and maybe even 40%. Vanderhoef: 40. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 11 Page 17 ITEM 11. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING TITLE 6, "PUBLIC HEALTH", CHAPTER 7, "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS" OF THE CITY CODE. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoefi Move second consideration. O'Dormell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Dilkes: Staff is requesting expedited action on this one. Lehman: Well let's see if we can get that. Vanderhoef: Okay. I'll withdraw the (can't hear) motion. And I move the rule requiring that ordinances must be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it was to be finally passed be suspended, that the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time. Champion: Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to expedite consideration. Do we have discussion? Kanner: Is there any specific reason Eleanor besides just wanting to hurry things along? Dilkes: Well to get it off the books given the Supreme Court has ruled that it's contrary to state code. Lehman: Illegal. Roll call. Motion carries (6-1, Karmer voting the negative). Vanderhoef: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time. O' Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. The motion carries. (End of Side 1, Tape 03-52, Beginning of Side 2) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 14 Page 18 ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING $15,000 IN FUNDS TO UNITED ACTION FOR YOUTH FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT TRAINING FOR AT-RISK YOUTH. Wilbum: I have a conflict of interest with item number 14. It involves the grant fund (can't hear) allocation and I'm employed by an agency (can't hear) came from that source and I cannot participate in this discussion. Lehman: Thank you. (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? O'Donnell: This is $15 which was... Champion: $15,000. O'Donnell: $15,000 which...$15 wouldn't be much of a deal - $15,000 which was taken away from the Mayor's Youth program and they decided not to (can't hear). And I thought that their coming back with a new proposal made a great deal of sense. They're working in a collaborative effort with the...with Parks and Rec and I would have liked to have been the one we supported. I really have a problem with going in and cutting the American Youth program system out. I think it's really a hard blow to take when money is so tight. Pfab: I have a question. Is this...since this is CDBG funds if not we received the proposal I think I have it here in the packet. I'~qe haven't a chance to look at them or compare them. But should there not be a public hearing on this? Vanderhoef: It isn't required. Pfab: Well just because of the fact that it's at least CDBG funds and once it's mixed with general revenue funds I understand it all becomes (can't hear) CDBG funds. To (can't hear) CDBG funds I believe that a public heating is required. I propose that we defer this until the next meeting and if it's a good decision then it will be a decision then. If it's not then the public will have a chance to make their statements. So I'm going to move that this be deferred until June 24th - I believe that's the date. Is that right? The 24th. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 14 Page 19 Vanderhoef: June 23rd if you're going to do that based on my request. Pfab: (Can't hear) going to be a formal meeting on the 24th? Karr: 23rd and 24th both. Kanner: So far we have two items on the 23~d. Kart: You have more than that because of the expedited actions. Kanner: Okay and some other things. But to make it easier for Dee I think it makes sense to do to do it the 23rd. Pfab: Okay. That's fine. Lehman: We have a motion to defer to the 23rd. Is there a second. Kanner: I'll second it. Lehman: We have a motion and a second for deferral. Discussion? Kanner: I too was going to ask for a deferral, perhaps a slightly different reasons. I do think that it is a good idea to have a public heating on this. But I thought looking through this briefly I though all three applications look to have merit, but all things being equal I would like to hear the preference and Mayor's Youth Employments because it's not that you necessarily took money away from them. This was not allocated to them. But they have received this money in the past and I think they deserve the weighted consideration. I would like to see how the JCCOGS staff rated these - what was the criteria. So I have not seen that. And that was also I think requested by the director of Mayor's Youth Employment program. So to give us a chance to look over these at greater in-depth and to get some of those rating criteria. I have not also seen the guarantee that went out either. I don't know if that was passed out to us. I don't recall seeing that. I would like to see that. O'Donnell: I would too. Kanner: So I would ask that we defer this until the 23ra. Champion: I'm not willing to defer it. I think we've spent a time thinking about this. I don't think we took the money away from...I like your term Steven that we just didn't allocate them as much money as they had been allocated in the past. We've already been through the reasons that our Council decided to do that. The RFP was open to Mayor's Youth Employment and other (can't hear) organization that wanted to apply for the money. And I think all three applications were very This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 14 Page 20 good. I totally agree. They were all exceptional. Much better than I thought we could get for $15,000 which is not really a lot of money. But I think all of the applications are very good. I think...I do like the one that the Staff has chosen. There's a lot of combined funds going into that and a lot of opportunity for youth to learn what we thought was really nifty in our community at that point. So I am going to support the staff report. And I don't want to defer this. I think that this has created a lot of controversy among certain groups. And I think it's just rubbing salt in their wounds. O'Donnell: If you give $30,000 one year and $15,000 the following year you can term that however you want - it's a cut. You're not allocating the same amount you did the year before you're basically cutting it in half. I also don't favor delaying this because I don't think there's support for it. I'm simply voicing that I...this would have been my choice. Lehman: Well I too do not favor delaying it. We made a real issue out of the fact that this was going to be allocated and in prior to the first of July. And I know there's another meeting before now and the first of July. But we asked...there were three organizations that made proposals. All three were invited to (can't hear). Those proposals were evaluated. The recommendation is the one that we're looking at and I think it is in the best interest of everyone to proceed with it. Kanner: Emie, just a response to you Mike. I think we (can't hear) the requirement for four of the six people to pass it. And if you, Irvin and I decide after looking at it again that we don't want it, it would not pass. So we could have support for something different. We could talk about it and reach a different compromise if that's the route we want to go. But I think we need some more time to get some more information and to look at it. O'Donnell: And Steven I think there's been ample time. I think we can delay this. I actually support all three of the ideas that we had. I thought they were all great. My preference would have been Mayor's Youth. JCCOG has evaluated and chosen the United Action for Youth which is a great program. I don't see any reason to delay it. And I'll support their recommendation. My preference would have been the Mayor's Youth program. Lehman: Is there other discussion on...? Pfab: I'll just state my position as to that because it's HUD funds it should be subject to a public hearing. rd Lehman: Alright. All in favor of the motion defer to the 23 indicate by saying aye. Opposed same sign. I believe that I heard five ayes...four? I'm This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 14 Page 21 sorry four to two. Kanner: Ross was whispering back there. Lehman: I didn't hear him whisper so I misspoke. It fails two to four with Kanner and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Now we are discussing the proposal as it has been presented. Vanderhoef: Okay. I just wanted to say this proposal was my favorite out of the three. And all three had things to offer. But as Connie and I looked at the gap in training for youth this was the one that seemed to hit what I was envisioning when the RFP went out in that it hits through several steps. It gives them practicum. It gives them job coaches. It also then offers them a paid internship after they have done their practicum. And they are working for becoming mentors for the next group because they're doing this in small groups of five. They're going to be serving 25 students from the program plus the WEA Act which federal program, another federal program that has added additional money - about $9200 - and add it into the $15,000. So another chance (can't hear) to qualify under the (can't hear) program of WEA will be served in here. They're engaging good will. They're looking at using work piece with the locally owned, developed programs that ACT has put together and many of our local industries are choosing to use this in their screening for applicants for jobs. And I think it's a wonderful offer. It's not a cheap thing to take this work group examination and then do the screening to see where they fit in the continuum of work in all of five developmental areas for learning. So I'm real excited about this particular program. And I will be supporting it. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 4-2, Kanner and Pfab voting the negative. Kart: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: There's been a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 15 Page 22 ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FROM IOWA CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACT AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SUBMIT ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Lehman: (Reads item). Wilburn: I have a conflict of interest with this. It involved community development funds and I work for an organization that receives such funding. I cannot participate in discussio/ts or (can't hear). Champion: Move the resolution. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Vanderhoef: This was a program that was brought to ED department committee and Ernie and I discussed it and requested more information and they were very willing to bring us additional information on the similar classes that they are doing in Sioux City and in Des Moines. These classes will be taught in Spanish or are Spanish population so it will be serving folks, new entrepreneurs or for people who are already in a business and wish more support and possibly expansion. They are going to be creating new jobs in this whole program and I think it's historic for our Spanish speaking community. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries, 5-1, Pfab voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 16 Page 23 ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION INCREASING BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Kanner: We got a memorandum and there are significant amounts of permits that are under $1060. And I had a question. What was the previous amount charged? Lehman: It says $35. Kanner: $35. Lehman: That's what it says in there in the (can't hear). Atkins: Tim is here to answer any questions. Hermes: Yes previous for the amount right now is $35 for a minimum fee. Kanner: What's the lowest amount that you've seen for evaluation for a building permit? Hennes: There's actually some that have no fee, just a change of certificate of occupancy to a different use. So actually no fee is a minimum fee I believe $50 for that. But for a building permit fee we see them anywhere from $100 on up to (can't hear) at the minimum. Kanner: So they still pay that $35. Hennes: That is correct. The minimum fee is just...it covers basic administrative costs of issuing the permit. A lot o£the same procedures go in to issuing a permit for $100 that goes into issuing a permit for a million dollars. Some of the basic administrative fees. Atkins: You still have to do an inspection. Hennes: You still have to do inspections also. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 16 Page 24 Kanner: Okay. Thank you. I don't know if anyone else has questions for you. Lehman: Well you see the memo we got tonight. And I guess some of these could be rather insignificant from a cost standpoint I see somewhat complicated if we're talking about right-of-way, fire escape, fences. I mean I can see where this can be...in fact I suspect that you have some permits that are of almost (can't hear) give you a lot more problems than some of the ones that are very expensive. Hennes: That's a very good point. Some of the permits that are not issued that often require a little more research on Staff to make sure that they are in compliant with all of the regulations. There are areas of the code that were not in that often. Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? Kanner: Yeah I was going to add that we amended to $3.60 per $100, but I would amend it...I would like to move an amendment to keep it at $35 for now for the first $1,000 evaluation. Pfab: I support that. Kanner: And then go to the one that was written in the ordinance. Lehman: We have a motion to amend it by changing...well actually amending to increase from $35 to $42. We have a second from Pfab. Is there any discussion? Champion: I think the idea is very valid and I can understand why you think that's a good idea. But a lot of these things that don't cost money aren't in way of economic hardship for people. I like your idea but I'm not sure I can support it. (Can't hear) for a minute. I think it's a good idea. Kanner: I think we have to make it...not make it harder for small projects even though we might be eating some of the cost perhaps if we're not at 100% of funding it with $35. I don't know if we'd be at 100% with $42. But I think for these small projects we want to make this accessible and affordable as much as possible. So right now I think $35 keeping it there seems reasonable. Champion: In that everything under $1,000. Kanner: In valuation yeah for a building permit would be the proposal. Pfab: I think also it would encourage compliance. By keeping increasing it, it won't work very well (can't hear). When they find out well they'll find out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 16 Page 25 Lehman: I doubt that $7 is going to have any impact on that. Pfab: Well (can't hear). Lehman: On the other hand it might. Other discussion of the amendment? All in favor of the amendment to eliminate the increase for the base fee fxom $35 to $42 indicate by saying aye. Opposed same sign. I have been defeated...did anyone else vote against the amendment? The amendment passes 6 to 1, Lehman voting in the negative. Now we are discussing the resolution as amended. Roll call. Motion carries. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Pfab: So moved. Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 17 Page 26 ITEM 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION INCREASING BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Pfab: I wasn't hem when this was discussed last time. Now is this going to cover the additional inspection? Wilburn: No. Champion: No. Pfab: I think that's a big... I believe that that division should be self- supporting. And I think it would solve a lot of the problems. I believe that whatever it takes to fund that should be (can't hear). Atkins: The resolution you have in front of you makes the division as it is currently constituted self-supporting. Pfab: But I mean... Atkins: If you add an additional inspector then the rates would go higher. That's correct. Pfab: Is that built in? Atkins: No, it is not. Champion: No. I think what we're hoping Irvin is that the inspectors and inspection services will find ways to economize their time. I think we've asked them to look at certain things. Pfab: Okay. Is this something we could take another look at and at that point they may require an additional fee increase? Champion: You can only be (can't hear). Pfab: Right. But I mean from... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 17 Page 27 Lehman: I'm hopeful...we had a discussion on this issue. And I'm hopeful that an additional inspector is made. There may be a possibility of the economy within the department that might cover the cost. Efficient fees may not require a new inspection. Pfab: Okay. Also I am under the impression that there will probably be less chance to renew fees if there's a violation will not be negotiated but (can't hear). Lehman: I don't think that's part of this. Champion: No, that's not part of the deal. Pfab: But I mean as a possibility of being able to (can't hear) other expenses. Champion: No. Lehman: Well that's another issue. Kanner: So you're saying that (can't hear) is adding this inspector or not adding? Pfab: Well I've heard the comment that... Vanderhoef: From whom? Pfab: Well from the (can't hear) that they desperately need another inspector. And if we...if the other nuisance ordinance is going to create some additional by adding (can't hear) all the time I believe that it probably would be better to plan on adding the inspector and taking care of it to get it over with. Champion: Irvin I bet there's not a department in the City that wouldn't tell you they that they needed another person. Atkins: I think just so we understand that this issue will have to come back to you some time in the future. The division's position had been that the new nuisance abatement ordinance as well as the expansion of the number of units that an additional housing inspector was necessary. We proposed to you to use CDBG funds. You chose not to do that. An alternate proposal was to increase these fees even further than this represents. You chose not to do that. That's okay. We understand your position that you're sending us back saying we want you to look at other options. And that does not preclude us from some time making a recommendation back to you for a housing inspector. Champion: Of course. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 17 Page 28 Atkins: That's what I understood the issue to be. You okay with that? Okay. Dilkes: Just in response to one of the things Irvin just so there's no confusion we are talking and there's been no talk about changing our kind of practices with the (can't hear). Champion: No, absolutely not. Pfab: Well I was thinking that was probably going into the nuisance ordinance. Lehman: We're not talking about the nuisance ordinance. Pfab: Well because of the need for the... Champion: We're not commandos. Lehman: Okay. Is there further discussion? Atkins: One item I would like to point out I think it's important. It is not...our intent is compliance. It's not punishment. (Can't hear). We're not out there to make money off of this. We're there to seek compliance. Pfab: Back to the point I was making here. I think (can't hear) should pay their own way if (can't hear). I can't see the rest of the City. Lehman: Well we may get an opportunity to discuss that again. Okay. Roll call. Motion carries, 6-1, Pfab voting the negative. Kart: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoefi So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 18 Page 29 ITEM 18. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT. Lehman: (Reads item). We received seven bids. Engineer's estimate was $4,621,000. The low bid was Metro Pavers of Iowa City - $2,945,692.62. Recommendation is to award to contract to Metro Pavers. O'Donnell: So moved. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I wish we could be doing the whole thing this year. Lehman: Well the other thing that's interesting is how close the bids were - remarkably. 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 June 10, 2003 Item 19 Page 30 ITEM 19. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I'm presuming we don't have enough Staffto do this in-house and independent contractor... Fosse: That's correct. This is just for the survey component of the construction work. And we do not have the means to accomplish that in-house. We originally were working with Earth Tech to provide the construction, inspection and the administration as well. And that was the $273,000 contract. We reconfigured. We're moving some people around to do that in-house. That's going to save us about $208,000 for the inspection and administration portion of it. It's going to leave us a little overextended throughout a portion of the summer, but I think it's a risk worth taking for those savings. Vanderhoef: Gee thanks. That was a piece that I didn't know about Rick. Lehman: Do you want to help us with the rest of the budget? Fosse: That's all I can do. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. The motion carries 6-1, Kanner voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 20 Page 31 ITEM 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT. Lehman: (Reads item). The Engineer's estimate was $548,300 and the base bid was two bids. Cedar Valley Asphalt with the low bid at $481,046.62. And the recommendation is to award the contract to Cedar Valley Asphalt. Vanderhoefi Move to accept the base bid. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Okay we have a motion and a second to accept the base bid. Does that eliminate the City from using the alternate as well. Dilkes: The comment says we're not recommending it. Lehman: Okay fine. Champion: Can I ask why because it was such a good bid and why was it in here? Fosse: That is for a portion of the peninsula trail that's currently gravel. And what we've decided is it's premature to put asphalt on that. It's going to get redone by construction before we get a lot of good pedestrian use out of it. Champion: Good. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. The motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 21 Page 32 ITEM 21. CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBER BEV SMITH FROM THE POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD DUE TO HER MISSING THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT BY- LAWS. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoefi Discussion? Kanner: When was she appointed. Karr: I believe it was 2001. Kanner: You haven't had any correspondence from her? Karr: No. Numerous phone calls and letters have gone unanswered. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 22 Page 33 ITEM 22. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BY-LAWS OF THE POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD TO CLARIFY THE ABSENCE POLICY. Lehman: (Reads item). Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Champion: All it basically said was to include special meetings. The way it read before only regular meetings were counted as missed. They are like us they need to move around and it's a special meeting and it couldn't be a regular meeting. That's all they're going to clarify that. Is that correct? Well good. Not very well, but I got it out somehow. Lehman: We understand. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 23 Page 34 ITEM 23. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE IOWA CITY LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 183, AFL-CIO, TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004. Lehman: (Reads item). Wilbum: Move to adopt the resolution. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Pfab. Discussion. Kanner: One of the major changes in this contract is the new definition of temporary employee moving it to you're temporary if you work less than 10 hours a week as opposed to 20 hours and less than seven months or less than seven months as opposed to nine months. And as we heard yesterday this can have a profound effect on our budget, but I think it's good and bad news. Certainly it can have that effect. But I think it's good to move mom people into the bargaining unit. I think it makes for a stronger workforce. It gives more people an opportunity for benefits. I think at this time there's a lot of hard time workers who work a number of different part-time jobs and they don't get benefits often times at those part-time jobs. And I think we need to move more people into stable positions where there are possibly some benefits. I hope that thought this doesn't mean that we move towards more privatization. And I think it's a term that we see throughout the country and I know there are times like we just with the previous motion have moved in that direction. But when we pass this I hope that's not a direct move. I hope that we hire that people that are working there - the old temporary that are now permanent and keep them as permanent and not move towards contracting out. Just as a bit of an aside, but I think there is a connection. We have a number of people in our information technology that are contracted out as independent contractors. Down the road I'd like to have a discussion about that. I think that's not a way we want to go. So with that said I'll be voting for this. And I want to ask Dale are there any other provisions in the contract that are essentially different from previous? Helling: No, not really. It is a one year agreement. Often, most often we do two year agreements, but just because of the (can't hear) situation with the terms and so forth one year is all we could get. There is one other issue (can't hear) holiday credit, but (can't hear) on holiday. The one thing that I didn't mention in the comment and probably should have is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 23 Page 35 that this is a product of recommendations of a fact-finder. So this is sort of a compromise agreement between Iowa City and the union. We were going into impasse. Fact finding is one step short of arbitration. Kanner: So the decision of the fact finder is not binding. Helling: Correct. Champion: No. Helling: Fact finding is often regarding as the back door to arbitration and it's difficult to get it arbitrated to overturn a fact finder's recommendation. Once you get to a fact finder's recommendation if it's reasonable and a reasonable compromise our feeling that often times it's better to go with that (can't hear). In this case we certainly felt that way. Kanner: The main issue was the (can't hear) definition of temporary worker. Helling: Wages was an issue. Insurance co-payment, insurance premium was an issue. In fact everything that was included was an issue. But there were a lot of issues that were introduced that we agreed on and came off the table prior to the (can't hear). Champion: When you go to fact finding are you hoping the things you disagreed upon would (can't hear). Helling: Right. Yeah the party's testify which are the issues the fact finders make recommendations on. Kanner: Do they base it on what other comparable employees are making in similar cities? Is that how they base their decision? Helling: Yes. Similarly situated employees in other general municipalities for cities. So they compare us to other cities. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 24 Page 36 ITEM 24. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE IOWA CITY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, IAFF, AFL-CIO LOCAL #610, TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004. Lehman: (Reads item). Pfab: Move the resolution. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Kanner: Anything unique here? Helling: No, not really. Again there is also an increase here in the insurance co-pay. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 25 Page 37 ITEM 25. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CLASSIFICATION / COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL / ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES AND EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES FOR FY04. Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: I'm going to offer an amendment to this that those making $50,000 to under $70,000 get lA the rate of the raise of(can't hear). And those getting $70,000 plus get no raises this year - those earning that amount. Lehman: Is there a second? Amendment dies for lack of second. Is there other discussion? 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 June 10, 2003 Item 26 Page 38 ITEM 26. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CLASSIFICATION / COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL / ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES AND EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES FOR FY04. Lehman: (Reads item). Wilburn: I have a conflict of interest with this item. I work for an organization that receives Aid to Agency funds. I cannot participate in this discussion. Vanderhoefi Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion. Champion: I will vote for this, but I hope that you know the understanding that if we get any of our money back, any possible money back from the state, federal government that this will be one of the first things I (can't hear). Atkins: I think if there is any hope I don't think there's much. But if there is any hope one of the things I will ask you is that you will have to put together some priorities for it in deciding on, you know, what programs you in fact would reinstitute. Champion: This is a pretty small amount of money. Atkins: And we're doing it now to get these agencies on notice. Champion: I know. I know. Kanner: I'm going to vote against it. I think there are other areas like the airport that should take a hit as opposed to this item and actually the next item too. I think the next item is great for economic development. Especially Aid to Agencies I think we find other areas and I'll be proposing some of those in our (can't hear) for budget discussions. Lehman: Other discussion? Pfab: Okay. Help me out here. What are we saying in (can't hear). We're using the allocation... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 26 Page 39 Champion: From the state...from the general fund money only by 5%. Lehman: By 5%. Pfab: But we say we're repealing it. Champion: No. We're taking the resolution for funds for human services that we voted on and reducing the general fund amount by 5%. O'Donnell: But you know he is right. We repeal the resolution. Dilkes: We're repealing the old one and substituting in the new one at 5%. Champion: Right. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 4-2, Pfab and Kanner voting the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 27 Page 40 ITEM 27. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION 03- 109 ALLOCATING THE COMMUNITY EVENTS AND PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2004, BY 10% FOR ALL EVENTS BUT JUST JAZZ. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move resolution. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I think it should be noted that the reason Just Jazz is not being included in this 10% reduction is that they had already contacted all of the (can't hear). Champion: (Can't hear) that we have a program on the chopping block for the next year. Lehman: Other discussion? 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 June 10, 2003 Item 31 Page 41 ITEM 31. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Lehman: City Council information. Irvin. Pfab: Nothing tonight. Lehman: Mike? O'Donnell: I just have one quick thing. One word to the ICARE pancake breakfast Sunday morning cold, wet - two words - wet and cold. But one good point. I looked over at one time and I saw the legendary Dean Norton flipping pancakes and his skills have not progressed. Pfab: That's because he had a raincoat on. O'Donnell: That' s right. Lehman: Okay. Dee? Vanderhoef: I'll just add on to what you said. A ntunber of people could not show up and I can understand why. So I hope they will consider making their contribution to ICARE because this is their major fundraiser for the year. It would be nice to recoup what they didn't get on Sunday. Wilburn: A lot of fundraisers. I just want to thank on behalf of Table to Table KCJJ radio for doing their radio spots. They raised money for them this past weekend and the Crisis Center. I don't know how much because I was out of town (can't hear). Vanderhoef: I think you'll be surprised Lehman: Steven? Kanner: A few things. I read in our National League of Cities newsletter that we get I think weekly that legal immigrants are now eligible for food stamps. Beginning in October 2003 all children are eligible regardless of how long in the U.S. and adults must be here for five years. And one of the things that they urged us in the newsletter was to try to get the word out and I was wondering if there were any ways that we could work on that perhaps - water bill or I don't know flyers to different things. Them are some contact numbers here. Lehman: Do we have any regulations on the City in terms of helping low- income people requiring citizenship? Atkins: Indirectly, but we do work with immigration (can't hear) routinely... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 31 Page 42 Lehman: But help with the water bill or whatever or reduced rates for park recreation at a certain income base is it not? Atkins: Yes. I think it is or if it is it is 99 cents. Lehman: Okay. Atkins: I don't know how to answer that Steven. I can certainly ask. Champion: I think most people (can't hear) in your water bill (can't hear). Atkins: It's just getting information to them. Wilbum: So the City was a co-sponsor with (can't hear). Pfab: I guess (can't hear) possible for the City to promote communities. The low-income people who are working. The income tax (can't hear). Atkins: (Can't hear). I'm not sure how we organizationally sort of penetrate that. That's another issue, but I do know that the library has done some things. Pfab: I know. I've seen in bigger cities and different places... Atkins: Urban central cities (can't hear) and some of my colleagues I'm aware of. Pfab: If we're doing the other (can't hear). Kanner: Yeah I've read that a lot of people aren't claiming that. I wanted to wish my friend Bob who's recovering in the hospital well and hope for continued recovery. A couple organizations are having meetings. I wanted to draw attention to Car Co-op - Iowa City Car Co-op - which I happen to be a member of is applying for non-profit status. It's a group of people coming together and sharing the use of a car. It's meeting next Monday June 16th at 5:30 p.m. at Tai Flavors on Burlington and Gilbert and looking for new members. If you'd like some more information about that call 358-9194 for more info on that. Another group involved in mobile issues is called FAIR - F-A-I-R. They're working on local political issues things like economic development and transportation. They're meeting next Thursday June 19th. For information on that call 338-0880 for time and location on that. And then I would like to finally note, make some corrections on what I fell are "half truths" that I've been hearing from MidAmerican. We...I think we all got in the mail we got some information from MidAmerican. They're having speakers go out and talk about municipal electricity efforts. And I don't think they're telling quite the whole story. For instance they're talking about rates... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 31 Page 43 (End of Tape #03-52, Beginning of Tape #03-53, Side 2) Kanner: ...careful claims of comparing it to other municipal electric companies and the study is not going to be comparing possible savings to other municipal electric companies. When we get the results back it will state flat out if we're going to save money or not save money according to our projections. Of course they could be wrong. But it doesn't have much to do with comparing it to other municipals in their study. MidAmerican is starting to pick up the pace and their opposition is expected. It's what's happened in every other city that has tried to start a municipal. There's tremendous mount of money put out as expected by the incumbent. And I think we have to look with a wary eye about what they're saying. A lot of things they're talking about also is look at the water plant as an example of a municipal operation. And I think a lot of people should know that my reading of history is that when it was privately owned it was in pretty bad shape. And there was not much done to keep it in shape. And the City took over and brought it up to federal regulations and we put in a new water plant. And I think we're doing a good job with that. And the rates would not be as high if the private entity had funded things that were necessary when they owned it at an earlier time. So I think that's a bogeyman that's being used by MidAmerica and people should be aware of that. And there are a number of other things. So I'm looking forward again to the release of the study by Latham. And I'm expecting that would be projected savings. Pfab: Steve you just said...I think the City Staff has repeated myself and others certainly are to be commended. They (can't hear) coming along the road while we were getting the new power...or the new water plant, but I think if you look back 5 or 10 years we're going to find out this was a (can't hear) opportune time because of the new regulations and new pressures (can't hear). So I think if you look back 5 or 10 years from now and you look back I think (can't hear) fortunate thing for the citizens of Iowa City. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: I just thought I would report back to you. I was in Fort Smith, Virginia and Fort Smith and Norfolk hosted the transportation and infrastructure steering committee for the National League of Cities a week ago. That whole (can't hear) is a huge port seven different ports within that area. And I learned a lot about port. But one of the things that really stepped out for me is the burden on the City to move that trade once it's come off the ships and how that freight is connected to you and I and what happens. We expect the goods that come into our imports. And one...each of these cities and the ports are having to fund change the transportation out of there - the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 31 Page 44 infrastructure so that the roads and the rail and all of those things are having to be funded by that city. So they're looking at a national policy for a trust fund that will support imports and freight for all of the citizens of the U.S. Another thing that came to mind in our study on airports and security and growth of airports brought up the new that there are what they call noise map around airports. And since we are in the process of annexing land near our airport and are looking towards development of that Staff could look into what the (can't hear) in the way of noise maps for our airport and whether we should look in our zoning number one. And number two notification - a number of cities that spoke up at this meeting have said they already had ordinances on the books about noise and notification of property owners that there will be airplanes circulating - that this is in the traffic pattern and there could be noise and the noise could change as different aircrafts are put in. And our other issue this year is high speed rail. When we're talking about that and we're only talking about the rail in the pedestrian inner city areas. And (can't hear) don't have the traffic stop on the high speed rail and he (can't hear) funding for our rails in the Midwest to move our goods and commodities. That's it. Lehman: We're not going to hold our breath for funding for rail. Vanderhoefi You got that right. Lehman: Steve I got a call today from (can't hear) are cities apparently making a bid for this gambling money that the state is going to be collecting? I mean I was asked if I'm going to call to Governor and ask him to give the City our share of that 100 million dollars. Atkins: You want the short version that if 100 million dollars fell out of the sky into the state coiffeurs what do you think they're going to do? Lehman: I don't think we're going to get any. Atkins: I don't think we're going to get a nickel. Lehman: Okay. That was my... Atkins: I can't comprehend... I mean all goofiness that's gone on now with respect to the federal govemment gave the state 180 million dollars. Lehman: Right. We didn't get any of that. Atkins: We didn't get any of that either. So I wouldn't hope like that. Lehman: Well I guess my...I don't really think I'm going to walk - Governor Vilsack apparently has a walk around the state and I'm not going to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 31 Page 45 mn him down. But is the League of Cities going to try to pursue this? Atkins: I have not heard a word from them. Lehman: I haven't heard anything, but... Atkins: I would be very surprised and I would suspect that those communities that have gambling venues they're going to raise their hand and say wait a minute Iowa City you've not been in the equation here. Lehman: I hadn't planned on (can't hear). Atkins: That's all. Vanderhoef: The only thing that I have been on the City (can't hear) that's coming up from the League lobbyists is that there might be certain things in the bills that would be (can't hear) that you might individually want to look at ask if the Governor could do something on the line item veto. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003 Item 32 Page 46 ITEM 32. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. Lehman: Steve? Pfab: Okay. (Can't hear). Lehman: The state won their law suit in taxing different gambling venues different rates and the settlement is 100 million dollars. Pfab: (Can't hear). Lehman: They have to pay taxes which will bring about 100 million dollars. Kanner: You're saying that was not included in the budget? Atkins: I (can't hear) my impression is there was a reserve position (can't hear) sue you but a bond for something such as that, but there was a reserve position. Folks I have to tell you I haven't spent a lot of time studying the gambling laws. Lehman: I haven't either Atkins: Okay. Pfab: I don't think that the 100 million dollars coming in... Atkins: If it is, it's sound money on the part it came from the state and was distributed and I can think of any number of road blocks before we'd ever been considered. Karmer: Although (can't hear) the Maskaqui casino (can't hear). Lehman: Not on your life. Steve do you have anything? Atkins: Nothing. Lehman: Eleanor? Dilkes: I just wanted to make a quick point that I forgot to make when we were talking about the housing inspections and it drifted into the discussion about enforcement and penalties and that kind of thing. And just to emphasize this point that our enforcement is not directed to be punitive. We don't...our fines for housing violations are not even...are lower than that authorized by state code. So I just wanted to remind you of that. Champion: Good point. O'Donnell: Good. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of June 10, 2003