HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-09 Transcription June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1
June 9, 2003 Council Budget Work Session 6:30 PM
Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn;
Staff: Atkins, Davidson, Dilkes, Fowler, Helling, Miklo, Kart,
TAPES: 03-46, SIDE TWO; 03-51, SIDE ONE
TAPE 03-46, SIDE TWO
UPDATE BUDGET REDUCTION PLAN
Atkins/Please forgive the voice on the back, a little under the weather.
Vanderhoef/Still?
Atkins/Still under the weather, but we're---
Vanderhoef/Jeepers.
Atkins/We're going to tough it out, tough it out.
Vanderhoef/We don't want this stuff.
Atkins/Lord knows I don't want it. Just a quick update. As you know, the Legislature has adjourned and
passed out the Iowa Values Fund, Grow Iowa, whatever they're going to call it. It's
currently on the governor's desk. We're trying to find out, because the governor had
signed the earlier appropriation bill which reduced the state aid, which all of the things
we've been going through. And I was talking to the folks and there is a possibility if he
were to veto a portion of the Values Fund, which in effect could be the Values Fund, it
could have an effect upon us. He could sign it and then we'd just keep pressing ahead as
with our reductions like we have had imposed upon us. But he could veto the use of the
federal money to finance the Values fund which in turn sends it back to the Legislature,
I'm assuming, and I, again, assume no fuss about just where those monies are going to be
placed. Also in the legislation is a payment, a direct payment to the reserves for the state
of about $45 million. He could also veto that because, remember, the govern has line item
veto authority and can pick throughout those bills. What I think this means to us is that
we'll be discussing parking in a few minutes. We are very close to the $1.8 million goal
if you were to adopt the parking proposals as we have them. We still have some work to
do. It is our plan that by the meeting of the 23rd, two weeks from tonight, we will prepare
a summary, but an amended budget, showing you the numbers, what all, what everything
means, and then would also give you an opportunity to have your options discussion. I
know a number of you have expressed some interest in not only options that the staff
prepared but those that you have some interest in. I don't feel we're being rush-rushed,
but we should hopefully wrap this up by the end of July. That's really about all I have for
you tonight. Again, we're close to our goal. Joe is here tonight and if I could indulge you,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2
he has to be somewhere else, if you have questions on the parking proposals, he's
prepared to do that now.
Champion/I'd like to talk about them again.
Atkins/Are we OK on the reduction plan so that we understand the 23rd we'll have a revised summary
budget for you and then, now remember, that's just a staff report. It doesn't obligate you
in any way.
Lehman/No, but it's also an opportunity for Council to discuss these other issues that we have put on
the back burner.
Atkins/Yes. Yes, you do.
Lehman/So it'll be more of a full-blown sort of discussion.
Atkins/Yes, it could be.
Lehman/All right. All right.
Vanderhoeff So you're going to put it on the agenda?
Atkins/I will put it on the agenda for the 23rd for sure. Hopefully by then we'll get a clean whisk of
whether the governor's going to sign it, because it will be almost three weeks since the
approval of that legislation and he only has 30 days to sign or not to sign. I honestly have
not heard much and there's certainly a variety of opinions about it all. Joe?
Champion/There seems to be a, I don't have any problem with raising those permits, (can't hear)
amount of money. I don't have any problem with that.
Lehman/I don't either except that the recommendation is for $5 a month and I honestly think it should
be $10.
Fowler/Right. I had $10 written win my notes and when I went back and went off the original memo I
did, saw the $10 afterwards, and you had talked about amending this on the floor, so
hopefully that you would amend that at that point.
Pfab/Also, I was thinking that there was a number arrived at while, on the part I missed. But I think you
ought to raise it the same proportion that you raised the parking s.
Lehman/We haven't gotten to those yet.
Vanderhoef/We haven't gotten to that.
Pfab/If you're going to go 25 percent and actually it appears that there's more backup for the permits
waiting to sign, so obviously people are--it doesn't take too much to figure out to do that,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3
so anyway---
Vanderhoef/But, Irvin, (can't hear, two people talking)---
Lehman/(Can't hear) (two people talking)---
Fowler/And we're not going to increase the parking ramp fees for these people parks. The proposal
didn't include an increase in the parking ramp fees, but the parking fees, so the rates
wouldn't be going up for the permit parkers. So, it wouldn't be the same percent increase.
Atkins/Ernie, ifI could interrupt, Joe, why don't you step--there are four components. Why don't you
walk them through what the four changes are? That may help you on your discussion.
Fowler/Well, we had~-I don't know where you want to start. Start with the parking tickets?
Lehman/OK. That's fine.
Fowler/OK.
Lehman/Go from $3 to $5.
Fowler/Raise the expired and overtime from $3 to $5.
Lehman/Is there any discussion relative to that?
Champion/Well---
Pfab/Is that enough?
Champion/No, I mean, I--because I'm not really sure we're going to have to make all these budget cuts,
I'm (can't hear) until the governor decides one way or the other. But I have to think--and
this--I just think about the parking situation downtown. And a lot of people who shopped
downtown, who don't like ramps because they're from smaller towns and the next
generation won't mind those ramps at all. But right now there are people who don't like
them. And I think by raising the parking from $3 to $5, right now, the $3 fine is minimal
and people don't even give it a thought about getting an overtime ticket. And I think it
could be damaging if we move to $5. I think we have to think about $4, which is still
some increase but it's pretty minor and it's still under that $5 ticket range. I think we're
concerned, ! mean, my concern is that we're going to discourage more people from
coming downtown. Some people park downtown no matter what, and that's not the
person I'm concerned about. But there are people who'd rather get the ticket than go to
the ramp. They refuse to go to the ramp. So I don't know how anybody else feels about.
Maybe I'm over---
Vanderhoef/OK, but I think of another component in there with that, Connie, and that is the turnover of
when people do come downtown to shop. Will it turn those over and make them available
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4
for more people---
Champion/No. No.
Vanderhoef/...if they're more concerned about getting the ticket and getting back---
Champion/Do you know why it won't, Dee?
Vanderhoef/Why?
Champion/It's because the s--people just go back and feed them. They don't move their cars anyway.
Lehman/If they feed them, they don't have to worry about getting a ticket.
Champion/Right. They don't have to worry about it. And I think it's disgusting but I think most of the
parking street on Dubuque Street are taken up by business owners who run out and feed
the or employees. They go out and feed theirs every hour.
Lehman/If you let Joe know about that during the day, we can probably put a little note on their
windshields.
Fowler/We can do that if you would like us to.
Champion/Well, we talked about it and decided to not to do it.
Fowler/To not do it.
Lehman/I think the way we left that was that we do not. We will enforce that upon a complaint basis.
Fowler/On a complaint basis.
Lehman/There's only (can't hear)
Fowler/There are some areas that (can't hear) a lot more, we do it on a complaint basis.
Lehman/Right.
O'Donnell/Are these people who are waiting for a pass to go to the parking ramp?
Champion/No.
Lehman/It wouldn't make any difference if they're employees or owners of businesses, they shouldn't
be parking in front of (can't hear)---
O'DonneI1/Oh, I understand.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5
Lehman/That's what Connie's talking about.
O'Donnell/Yeah, I understand that.
Fowler/Just a couple of examples that might give you some information on this. A lot of times we have
people who park their car and a parking enfomement attendant always asks them to,
informs them that they're going to get a ticket and asks them to move their car before
they issue the ticket, and we have situations where people say how much is the ticket and
they say $5, and they say, oh, ppfft, go ahead. You know, it's not worth it to move my
car. And then I got a letter from a student that works at the Mayflower complaining about
the lack of parking in the area of the Mayflower and the fact that our tickets are cheaper
than the University's forces them to then park in front of the Mayflower on the street
where it's marked "no parking any time" because it's cheaper to get a city ticket in a "no
parking any time" than a University expired. So, apparently he doesn't have his car
registered with the University either.
Lehman/I don't have a problem with the $5 ticket and the reason I don't is that's something anybody
can avoid. All they have to do is put money in the. Now, I do have a problem with
raising the rates on the s downtown.
O'Donnell/I do, too.
Lehman/Which we'll get to later. But the fine is something that--you park your car and you feed that,
you know how much time you have.
O'Donnell/My question was, Ernie, if--how many monthly contracts do we have now?
Lehman/Permits?
Fowler/I honestly don't know, Mike. I think it's about 700, but I'm not positive.
O'Donnell/There's 700 and we have a waiting list of--that's substantial---
Fowler/Yes.
O'Donnell/So, I'm wondering if we added to that, maybe went up to 750 or 780, if we could provide
more of an area for the businesspeople downtown.
Fowler/Well, one of the things that we did, if when the library came at us, forced to change parking on
Dubuque Street as we basically eliminated 50 permit parkers in the downtown because
we moved those permit parkers out of the Dubuque Street ramp over to Tower Place so
we couldn't sell any there and so we essentially have lowered the number of spaces
available to people downtown in the last year.
Lehman/But that's going to change when the other ramp is completed. There'll be another--my
suspicion is a bunch of those will be permit---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 6
Fowler/Correct. Mm-hmm.
Champion/And those ramps are full. It's amazing.
Pfab/I'm going to suggest something else. You just brought up piggyback is why don't we do like the
University does and go to a $15 parking ticket and then we'd maybe not have to range the
parking rates.
Champion/I don't think people will pay them.
Lehman/Well---
Pfab/I think they have ways of getting most people to pay them.
Lehman/Well, I don't think we want to make it so onerous that you make people so furious that they
plain will never come downtown again. I don't think $5 is a number that's unreasonable
and I think folks aren't going to like $5. They're going to be a little more inclined to keep
the fed. But $15 is enough that there's some people just plain never come back
downtown.
Fowler/Cedar Rapids is also considering the $5.
Vanderhoef/Uh-huh. That's what---
Lehman/I mean I think it's a reasonable number. Steven?
Kanner/Yeah, I think it's reasonable and I would want to concur with what Irvin was saying that we
might want to consider raising the ramp parking permits higher. I get what you're saying
that we're raising the, proposing raising the s a certain percentage, then we should raise
(can't hear) and I think that we need to encourage actually more people to take public
transit. One of the things that makes the city exciting is people walking and a walkable
city downtown. And I don't think like we should be adding more permits downtown.
Champion/Oh, I think that's wrong. People will not take the bus because of the $5 parking, Steven.
People who take the bus---
Kanner/No, no, the part Mike was talking about adding more month parking permits. Those people are
taking buses and people are complaining about congestion now, even though it's a small
amount. There's going to be even more people driving down. People are taking buses
now. Let's get more people on the buses and walking and riding. So I think I go along
with Irvin about $5 for the penalty for overtime parking, expired, and increase the
parking permit fees even higher than---
Lehman/ Well, are we OK with the $5?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription oft,he Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 7
Vanderhoeff Yes.
Lehman/Let's move on. What's this next issue?
Fowler/The next one would be raising the current $5 tickets, which are everything other than expired,
overtime, and handicapped---
Lehman/To $10.
Fowler/To $10.
Lehman/I don't have a problem with that either.
Pfab/Now, those are easy to avoid. You just don't park there.
Lehman/Right.
Pfab/I would say that the University's doing it across the board $15, if we're trying to keep an orderly
downtown, I think that that's where we should raise it. I think it's real simple to avoid.
Lehman/Is $10 acceptable?
Wilburn/Yes.
Lehman/What's your next one?
Fowler/The next one is the increasing parking permits $10 a month.
Lehman/I'd go--that's 20 percent and I would---
O'Donnell/That's plenty.
Lehman/But I don't think it's unreasonable.
Vanderhoef/I just have a question for Joe. Where's the break-even if you are an employee downtown
and you work a 40-hour week and you use that parking permit?
Fowler/We figure right now we're basing our estimates on a nine-hour day five days a week because we
figure your eight-hour day, your lunch, in early, out a little late. Currently, they're getting
approximately a 50 percent discount over the hourly rate that other people pay.
Vanderhoef/You're saying 50 or---
Fowler/ Fifty.
Kanner/Five-zero.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8
Lehman/This would still be 30---
Fowler/And this would still be---
Lehman/...or more.
Fowler/Right.
Pfab/I propose that we raise the parking ramp the same percent that we raise the meters.
Lehman/We haven't got to the meters yet.
Pfab/Well, if you going to raise the meters---
Vanderhoef/You're saying 25 percent instead of 20.
Pfab/And especially when they're backed up, waiting to get in.
Champion/I think you do a 20 percent now; I agree with that.
Lehman/I think $10.
Champion/Ten dollars, whatever it is, and then you look at it again next year. You don't raise them
much more than that.
Lehman/Well, I don't know that you'll have to look at them next year; we're going to have another
facility with and be able to accommodate more people who want permits.
O'Donnell/Increase in permits.
Lehman/In a year, year and a half. Is that---
O'Donnell/It's fine.
Wilburn/It's fine.
Lehman/What's your next one?
Fowler/The next one is the parking meters themselves, increasing the street meters to, in the downtown
and on North Clinton Street to 75 cents an hour.
Lehman/I think that's a mistake.
Champion/What are they at now?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9
Lehman/Sixty.
Fowler/Sixty.
Vanderhoef/Sixty.
Champion/So you're going to increase them how much?
Pfab/Twenty-five percent.
Fowler/Fifteen cents an hour.
Lehman/Fifteen cents an hour.
Champion/Don't you have to go around and re-key all those meters?
Fowler/Most of them are electronic and so we just--the company sends us out a new program that they
put in an electronic gun and you just walk up and---
Champion/ Oh, I see.
Lehman/Walk up and shoot the meter.
(Laughter)
Fowler/Yeah.
Champion/I'm not, I'm really a technology authority.
Vanderhoef/That's the (can't hear---choice?) before.
Lehman/Yes.
O'Dounell/I really don't. I would not like to see taking it up to 75 cents an hour.
Lehman/I don't think now is the time.
Pfab/Who we going to lay off then?
Champion/Yes. Lay off.
Wilbum/What's that?
Pfab/And who we going to lay off?. I mean, that's just the alternative. I mean, look at them.
Champion/You know, there are other things that are---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10
Pfab/No, no, I mean, it's, but it's still, if it doesn't come from there, I mean, you have to cut somebody
else or raise the (can't hear)
Lehman/No, Irvin, I guarantee you that, I don't guarantee you, my suspicion is that the $10 increase in
parking permits is going to go a long way to offset the revenue from the parking meters
going up.
Champion/And you're going to have higher fines---
Lehman/That's all--maybe you're recommending, or were recommending, $5 for a permit--if we
increase that to $10---
Fowler/ What we had originally talked about the $5 increase, by going to the $10 increase, that probably
raises the permits almost as much as our proposal for the streets, you know.
Pfab/It's trying to take 25 percent.
Champion/Well, I (can't hear) raise the parking meters.
Lehman/I don't think I would.
Kanner/What's the projected income from the raise to the parking meters, Joe?
Fowler/Approximately $30,000 would be just a conservative guess, I'm not---
Lehman/And the $5 on the permit is $33,000 or $36,000.
Atkins/It's more than that.
Fowler/Right, the $5 on the permit was going to be thirty---
Champion/So the $10 is $7,000.
O'Donnell/Till we picked up---
Fowler/ Right. You picked up about $35,000 with the increase in the permit.
Lehman/Right.
Pfab/Well, use your process a little at a time so then let's go to 70.
O'Donnell/I don't think we should raise them, Emiel Sixty is fine.
Pfab/Seventy-five.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 11
O'Donnell/We picked up by adding to the permits $5. I just think that's a negative for downtown to
increase the parking.
Atkins/Emie, can I interject a second?
Pfab/A parking space is not a---
Atkins/These all have to be voted on---
Lehman/ Right.
Atkins/(can't hear) We're just trying to get a feel for it, ! mean. Tomorrow night's when you decide.
Dilkes/No, but if, the more decisions we can make tonight, the more we can amend the ordinance; we
have to do it on the floor.
Atkins/OK, that's right.
Dilkes/So I think the things you've decided on tonight we should change in the ordinance.
Atkins/OK. Good point.
Lehman/OK, we're talking about the meters.
Champion/No.
O'Donnell/No.
Vanderhoef/I don't think so at this time.
Atkins/OK.
Lehman/All right. They stay the same. Joe?
Fowler/That's it.
Lehman/That was four things.
Fowler/That's it.
O'Donnell/Great (can't hear).
Lehman/Thank you.
O'Donnell/Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcriphon of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
Jtme 9, 2003 Cotmcil Work Session Page 12
Wilburn/Thanks, sir.
Lehman/OK. I think them are a significant number of budget items that we're going to want to discuss,
but it sounds to me like two weeks from tonight is the time we're probably going to get
into that, so let's go to the zoning items.
REVIEW PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
Atkins/While Jef?s walking up there, if them was anything that any of you sense needs a lot of
staff work, you know, as soon as you give me the head's up, the better off. So just think
about it.
Champion/Maybe on Council time if people have some ideas and want to throw out---
Atkins/OK. You know, if there's something you want me---
Wilbum/That's a good idea.
a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 24 ON AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6,
ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE G, ENTITLED "OFFICE AND RESEARCH
PARK ZONE (ORP)" AND ARTICLE 1, ENTITLED "PROVISIONAL USES,
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND TEMPORARY USES."
Davidson/Item a is setting a public hearing, so no picture. Amending the ORP zone to allow
utility substations. This is related to MidAmerican Energy wanting to expand their utility
substation adjacent to ACT's property in the ORP zone, but we're just setting the hearing
at the meeting.
b. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (PDH-5) PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA
NEIGHBORHOOD BY AMENDING THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD
CODE AND REGULATING PLAN. (REZ03-6)
Davidson/B is a public hearing.
Kanner/Jeff?.
Davidson/Yes, Steven?
Kanner/What's the reasoning that these haven't been allowed as a provisional or special
exception?
Davidson/Other than just an oversight, I'm not aware that there is a particular reason in the
ordinance that as proposed will have screening and those sorts of things to protect the
campus-like atmosphere that we're trying to establish in the ORP zones.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13
Kanner/Do these things put out any significant electric magnetic radiation?
Davidson/I wouldn't have any idea, Steven.
Kanner/Could you ask someone to see if---
Davidson/We can find out.
Kanner/If there is, then. Has there been any recorded accidents ofpeople---
Davidson/They're very heavily fenced and that sort of thing to keep people out of them, so I do
assume there is some danger involved with being near them and that's why they're so
heavily fenced. But we'll see if we can find out some more information. By the time you
hold the hearing?
Kanner/Yeah. Thank you.
Davidson/And that was electro magnetic radiation you asked about?
Kanner/Yeah.
Davidson/OK. We'll find out before the hearing.
Davidson/Item b then is a public heahng on modifying the Peninsula Neighborhood Code and
Regulating Plan. The proposals, we can just step through these real quickly, if you'd like,
is to allow cottage flats or duplexes--and this is basically an affordable housing type of
unit that is proposed, to allow for bay windows, to provide for changes in grade to make
it easier to provide access for persons with disabilities, and this was related to something
that has specifically come up in the field about how you determine that and how you
would incorporate a handicapped-accessible entrance onto a building. To allow home
occupations to occur on upper floors and this is something where the Peninsula folks are
just asking to be treated the same as all the provisions in the rest of the zoning code. And
then to remove the requirement for balconies for apartment buildings. And this is
something that has apparently come up specifically with the Greater Iowa City Housing
Fellowship building where, as an expense-saving measure, they would like to build their
building without balconies, and right now you have to have balconies, and that's why that
is proposed. I think, let's see, there, the red is where these affordable--the red is the area
where--are those duplexes, Bob, did you say, where duplexes would be allowed. You can
kind of see from the overall plan there. That's the full eventual build-out plan for the
Peninsula. So, any comments or questions about that? There will be a hearing tomorrow
night as on your agenda.
Kanner/Jeff, what I'm trying to get a handle on is, not this part that you just explained it in the
language, which seems to make sense, but changing or approving the final plat for Phase
2, which is doing away with some apartment buildings and replacing them with single-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14
family lots in one block, and also a 10-space parking lot. That seems to be a significant
change and so I'm trying to figure out what is the effect on the new urbanism feel of that?
Davidson/Well, there is clearly a concern there. We are trying to have a mix of dwelling unit
types and a mix of affordability levels in the development and it would appear that the
developer is trying to respond to some of the market things that are happening out there.
My impression is we still feel like we do have the mix of units and it's something with
the additions that come subsequent to this first one, that we need to make sure we
preserve, and I guess if, when those changes are proposed, Council needs to have a
discussion of whether or not you're comfortable that we still have the mix of affordability
that we're trying to achieve, like a traditional neighborhood development, and that's not
what's on the agenda tomorrow night, but eventually that will come up in a subsequent
platting.
Karmer/Well, I don't understand what you're saying--what's not on the agenda?
Davidson/Bob, do you want to clarify maybe the---
Karmer/The agenda is, isn't it---
Dilkes/No, the final plat for the next phase is not on the agenda.
Kanner/OK, I guess I was reading the memo that---
Dilkes/I think there was some minutes or---
Kanner/In the memo you were to P and Z were responding to I guess the future plat. So that's
not in there.
Miklo/Right. And just to get to your point, if I can find the spot, in the original plan these five
lots were to have an apartment building on it and the proposal is to replace those, that
apartment building with five single-family homes. But elsewhere in the plan there were
places where there were single-family--excuse me, got the wrong map here--there were
places where there were single-family homes that they're replacing with apartment
buildings. So there is an increase in apartments in some portions of the site and a
decrease in others. Overall, there would be fewer units in phase 2 than the original plan.
Terry Stamper has said that he hopes to make some of those up in future phases as the
plan evolves, but still it is--there is still quite a mix--there will be single-family, duplex,
townhouse, and apartments in both first and second phases that are under construction.
Kanner/.Thanks.
Pfab/Then, Bob. OK, did you just show a--I think you went over it real fast--I just wanted to
follow up. Where are they taking away the multifamily?
Miklo/This was to have a multifamily building next to it?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 15
Pfab/And that's going to be single-family?
Miklo/Right.
Pfab/And they're transferring the multifamily over to where?
Miklo/This block here has a new multifamily building on it, a four-unit building, and then this
block here has a mix of townhouses and---
Pfab/And that's the square?
Miklo/This is the Emma Harvart Square.
Pfab/I think that's an improvement. That's an (can't hear) that'd be my thought.
Lehman/OK. Thank you, Bob.
Champion/I'm going to ask a question about the balconies. I don't have any problems with it but
are we putting ourselves in a comer when other people come to ask about not building
balconies, but they are an expense, and do we make all those exceptions for the Peninsula
and not do it elsewhere in town?
Lehman/We don't require them any place else in town, do we?
Vanderhoef/Mm-nnn (negative).
Miklo/No.
Champion/Oh.
Lehman/This was only for this next one.
Miklo/This was something that they wrote into their code, that 50 percent of the units had to
have balconies and---
Champion/ OK. That's fine. I don't have any problem with that.
Vanderhoef/But I think Connie is on point there that those balconies, some of them being, well,
the upstairs pomh, shall we say, over the front porch and so forth, those are certainly
design factors that are important in the urbanism kind of styled houses, and so if that part,
the porch still has to stay there, just the balcony over the top would be the one that you're
asking for the exclusion.
Miklo/Well, the, in fact, the building that Greater Iowa City and the Housing Authority are
working on would be on this lot here. And it will have a double-decker porch. There'll be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16
an entry porch and then a porch above it, but individual units will not have separate
balconies. That's what's being removed from the Code requirement.
Vanderhoef/OK, but you said specifically it was Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship---
Miklo/That requested this. They requested Terry Stamper remove the requirement that they have
balconies.
Vanderhoef/Would it be more in tune to look at it as a special exception for public housing?
Champion/Is that public housing?
Miklo/It would be possible, but it would be---
Vanderhoef/Well, it's--they continue to own the land---
Champion/ Right.
Vanderhoef/...so that those houses continue to stay in---
Champion/ But it's not public housing. It's a private organization.
Vanderhoef/You're right. I shouldn't have said public, but it is where for low- and moderate-
income.
Miklo/That would make for quite a complex ordinance.
Lehman/Very complex. I don't think that's---
Miklo/We might be able to look at it.
Dilkes/Yeah, and I don't think typically, don't make land use decisions on that basis.
Lehman/No.
Miklo/Something that's reassuring is the other plans that we've seen that Terry Stamper's
planning on building do have balconies for the apartment units, so it may be just this one
building that ends up without balconies.
Champion/But we're only in phase 1.
Miklo/Right. And right.
Pfab/Is that the only request at this point that's based---
Miklo/Some of these other changes that Jeff spoke about would also apply to phase 1.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 17
Pfab/No, but I mean the---
Lehman/Balconies.
Pfab/...the removal of the, or the not (can't hear) requirement of balconies for the multifamily
housing there. Is that just, request is that just for phase 1 or is that for---
Miklo/That would apply throughout.
Pfab/That would apply---
Miklo/Potentially throughout. They would still be allowed to have balconies; they wouldn't be
required to provide balconies.
Pfab/Could you go back and on the map where those little red marks were--yeah, OK, so, that's
it. Now, phase 1 is where? Where it's going to be with no balconies?
Lehman/No, no, they can have balconies, Irvin, it just says they don't have to have them.
Pfab/Right. But so, I'm just saying here, is that the red one up there--is that the first request? Is
that where the---
Miklo/No, these are, the red areas represent where there are going to be duplexes, which will
have porches.
Pfab/OK, but where, OK, where is the lot, the first lot that would be the first multifamily unit
that's being built by Greater Iowa City Housing? Where does that sit? Do you know, is
that?
Miklo/That is here.
Pfab/OK, so the main--that's on the way down right on the comer as you turn to go down
towards the square--the main entrance. And where are the, can you tell me where the
other ones are, at the point, or are there?
Miklo/These red squares indicate where the Greater Iowa City Housing and the Housing
Authority will build duplex units.
Pfab/But those are duplexes and the balconies, that is not an issue on the duplexes.
Miklo/That's correct.
Pfab/It's just on the (can't hear). It's just the fact that it's going, as you drive in, no---
Lehman/ It's going to have a double-decker from porch, which will be one porch above the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 18
other.
Pfab/Are the other people, are the people above going to have access to that porch, the double-
decker?
Miklo/It's a common porch that anybody in the building can have access too.
Pfab/So, but in the, for the second floor, can they walk out on that porch?
Miklo/Yes.
Vanderhoef] Yes, mm-hmm.
Pfab/OK, no problem.
Lehman/Thank you again.
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 ItIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON TItE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH
DUBUQUE STREET SOUTH OF COURT STREET. (REZ03-2)
Davidson/Item c is also a public heating on a rezoning from CB-2 to PRM on South Dubuque
Street. This is a building that was constructed in the '80s and at that time, the only
dwelling units that were permitted in the CB-2 zone were for elderly housing. We now
have the PRM zone. This is something that has the CB-5 and the PRM were developed
out of the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan as kind of the vision for this
neighborhood at the time that this building was built, there was really a very undefined
vision for this neighborhood. We have now a much more clearly defined vision. And the
property owner has determined that PRM for the purposes of his marketing this building
would allow him a little more flexibility and that the units would not have to be for
elderly housing. They may be for elderly housing but they don't have to be for elderly
housing. We do feel that PRM is appropriate zoning for this area. The new zoning code
update that you'll be receiving later this year basically does away with the CEB-2 zone.
We consider it a little bit outdated for what the vision of the Central Business Support
zone should be. You've heard a little bit of that discussion with the proposal at the comer
of Market and Dubuque street. But we feel CB-5 and PRM are really the more
appropriate zones for the downtown support zone and for that reason we do support the
zoning change that is proposed here.
Kanner/Jeff?.
Davidson/Yes, Steven?
Kanner/A couple things on this. This will sort of make an island of that CB-2 to the south of it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 19
How do you feel about that?
Davidson/Those are commercial buildings and my understanding is that the property owner who
is proposing this zoning change did discuss with those property owners, the Willis
building is there. The Willises, you'd have to ask them their reasoning, but they were not
supportive of PRM zoning for their property. I mean it is a commercial building and
PRM is a residential zone, so that is why the zoning change is just proposed for the parcel
that you see there.
Kanner/And there was a statement about no traffic impact, but if this moves from, in the
memorandum to P and Z, if this moves to gradually less and less people over 55 live
there, don't have that requirement, are there statistics about possibly being having more
cars, younger people having more cars? It seems there would be a traffic impact there.
Davidson/I don't have any hard statistics for you, Steven, but when we developed the CB-5 and
the PRM zones, the notion them, the parking requirements are greatly reduced from, for
example, the RM-44 zone, which you see there, which as you know from going by there
on Burlington Street, has surface parking lots surrounding it, which in the '70s and '80s
was more division for that kind of living. PRM and CB-5 have very restricted parking
requirements, the notion being that the people who live in those buildings are not all
going to have cars or if they have cars will not be using them. Their cars will be stored
basically in those buildings. So, if the zoning change, Steven, was proposed from CB-2 to
RM-44, I would anticipate more traffic generated there. But the notion of CB-5 and PRM
is that we won't have as many cars associated with those buildings. The parking will be
screened and out of view. Now, I don't have any hard statistics. I mean, that's the notion
of how those zones are designed, but I don't have any hard data that will provide
evidence that that is in fact true.
(Two people talk)
Pfab/Go ahead. OK. There was talk about buying parking spaces in the new ramp. What is the
extent of that?
Davidson/Buying parking spaces by whom, Irvin?
Pfab/By the owners there, the requirements to provide spaces and one of the ways you can solve
that problem is by buying parking spaces in the ramp.
Davidson/You may be talking about the parking impact fee that's associated with the CB-5
zone?
Pfab/Well, this had the parking--buying parking spaces--and I never could figure that one out.
Davidson/Well, there is, you know, once again, the notion of these high-density zones and the
relaxed parking requirements are that in these areas, the City is a player in the provision
of parking, and that people who live in this area who do want to store their vehicles in the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20
central business district can buy parking permits. For example, we made parking permits
available for building that residential building that was constructed at the intersection of
Iowa and the Vogel house at the intersection of Iowa and Linn. And there are permits
made available in the Tower Place ramp for that. So, that is something that we do try to
accommodate when it's available, but there's not necessarily a priority associated with
that.
Pfab/Is there a requirement to do that?
Davidson/No.
Pfab/OK, so when you talk about buying a space, they're talking about just basically buying a
permit.
Davidson/Sure, and that would be between the individual and the City.
Pfab/OK, fine. And the wording, it puzzles though.
Davidson/Dee?
Vanderhoef/Two things. Will this become nonconforming in the PRM zone because it doesn't
have commercial on the first floor?
Davidson/Commercial's not required on the first, for the first floor in PRM. It is in CB-5.
Champion/CB-5.
Davidson/CB-5 it is, but not in PRM.
Vanderhoef/OK. That's fine. Then the second question is, is this the only market rate building
geared to non-students, shall we say? We've got two others---
Davidson/Do you know, Bob, is it the only one?
Vanderhoef/We've got three others downtown that I'm aware of that are for handicapped and/or
senior citizens, but they are for low- and moderate-income.
Miklo/I think this may be the only market rate elderly housing designated in---
Vanderhoef/OK.
Miklo/I'm not sure of that but I'm not aware of any others.
Vanderhoef/I'm not either and so, it makes me think about if we're trying to make mixed
neighborhoods and we're trying to promote the use of downtown, and we've got Tower
Place coming up with the two high-rises that are for probably are going to be marketed at
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21
a high enough price that they will not become student housing was the indication the
developer said on that.
Davidson/You meant Plaza Towers didn't you?
Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm, Plaza Towers, yes, thank you. So, for the vision for downtown and the
mix and so forth, I can understand the request but are we defeating our plan, our idea of
what we're doing down there?
Champion/That was a concern of mine, too, Dee. I think it's a very valid one. If we want mixed
aged groups within walking distance of our downtown or senior center, it bothers, if this
building starts to be taken over by students, which I mean I adore students, I don't want
this to sound negative, but it's within walking distance of the University and their classes
and that, it's an ideal place for students to live. If they start to infiltrate, will somebody
my age want to live there?
Vanderhoef/That's---
Champion/So I think what you're doing is eliminate part of the mixture of age groups that
would live within walking distance of downtown.
Vanderhoef/And this concems me.
Davidson/I guess just to clarify that and add a little--this would eliminate the requirement for
these units on the first floor to be used for elderly housing. However, they would still be a
market rate unit available to an elderly person to the degree that that elderly person
wanted to be there and there are---
Vanderhoef/But everything else---
Davidson/...for example, this is just anecdotal but the building, the new building at the comer of,
well, right at, near this, Gene Kroeger's building at the intersection of Linn and Court.
Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm.
Davidson/I know a person with a disability who rents one of the units and an elderly person---
Champion/Right.
Davidson/...who rents one of the units because they don't mind living around students and they
like being near downtown and they can afford a market rate unit. They don't need
something like Capitol House or Ecumenical Towers. So, you know, that's just anecdotal
but I guess the point I'm trying to make is those units are still available to those folks to
the degree that they want to live there.
Pfab/Right. I have a question. For how many, what's the capacity or the student part, the student
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22
occupancy, the number of people living in one bedroom?
Davidson/Do you happen to know that, Bob? That's getting into---
Miklo/I believe the building is a mixture of one- and two-bedroom.
Pfab/But I'm just saying of a two-bedroom unit, how many people can live there?
Miklo/I believe in the CB-5 or the CB-2 zone or the PRM zone, you can have two unrelated,
two persons as a family and up to three roomers. So, technically up to three, but I don't
think it's viable given that they're one- and two-bedroom apartments.
Pfab/So, really only two unrelated people in those two-bedrooms?
Miklo/I think that's hard to say how many people want to share a bedroom.
Kanner/No, but you're saying three people legally can live in a two-bedroom.
Lehman/Right.
Kanner/That's the maximum? What's the maximmn that can live in a two-bedroom?
Miklo/Unrelated?
Kanner/All unrelated.
Miklo/I wouldn't be able to answer that. I think that has something to do with the size of the
bedrooms, there's a building code issue in terms of the size of the bedroom. In terms of
zoning, you could have up to five unrelated people in an apartment in either of the CB-2
or the PRM zone.
Kanner/So it would be two to five people that could be in there.
Miklo/Right. For zoning. Again, I can't answer the building code issues that might be involved.
Pfab/Could you, would somebody come with that answer by tomorrow without too much--those
units, there are two-bedroom units in that building, that's all I want to know.
Miklo/We can check.
Davidson/How many people can legally live there? We'll see what we can find out there, Irvin.
Vanderhoef/Then the other piece of this is that, yes, we truly are, someone mentioned creating
an island for those two businesses there. And you're indicating that the CB-2 zone is
going to go away, so I guess that's another question in my mind then, how that will be
zoned if CB-2 goes away and we have at least at this point in time, business owners that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23
am not choosing to go to PRM.
Davidson/Yeah, the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan, and I realize it's been a while since
we adopted that, and then you know, we have been using it to the degree that
redevelopment projects are proposed in this area, it does have the Rock Island Square
area, which is, you know, you started to get into that area, and that's basically the older
buildings, you know, right basically a half-block away from those properties south of
there. And then the area around the old railroad station. So, yeah, there is commemial
zoning that is proposed for the redevelopment of that area that I don't think is
inconsistent with, you know, where that line would be drawn there. Steven?
Kanner/Some more other sides to the discussion of lose, possibly losing elderly housing. Under
CB-2, Clark could just say it's no longer elderly housing and remove people from the
bottom floor and call it commercial and apply for a tax abatement.
Davidson/Yes.
Kanner/Correct? And that's what a lot of what's been going on downtown in a number of
apartment buildings.
Davidson/Yeah, in CB-2 there's no requirement for residential on the first floor but it is allowed
for elderly housing.
Kanner/Elderly. And if you don't have elderly, the whole thing has to be elderly?
Davidson/For CB-2.
Kanner/Yeah, the whole---
Davidson/Just the first floor.
Kanner/Yeah, the whole first floor.
Davidson/Yeah, just the first floor, I'm sorry.
Kanner/And so, Clark is only allowing elderly for all floors in that building?
Davidsord I don't believe so. I thought it was just required for elderly on the first floor.
Kanner/No, but---
Miklo/The whole building is rented to elderly.
Kanner/But currently that's---
Miklo/They have a choice, the upper floors can rent to anyone.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24
Pfab/I had heard---
Kanner/So, I don't understand Clark's complaint. He could just allow other people in the upper
floors now of different ages---
Davidson/That's right.
Kanner/...if he wants. He doesn't need a rezoning to do that.
Davidson/No. This pertains to the first floor units.
Lehman/All we're talking about is the first floor, basically.
Davidson/Yeah, but remember what we're talking about is a zoning change---
Lehman/Right.
Davidson/...from CB-2 to PRM, so, and right now he has all the rights and privileges of the CB-
2 zone, which as Steven's pointed out, doesn't need to involve residential on the first
floor at all.
Lehman/Right.
Davidson/PRM is a residential zone. It is the highest density urban residential zone.
Pfab/So, more than likely, what my suspicion might be there is that would allow, you go from
CB-2 to PRM, you're probably going to allow additional occupants per unit.
Davidson/Not necessarily. What it allows him to do, it gives him more flexibility than he has
now in the leasing of those units and that he would not have the requirement for the first
floor units to be elderly housing.
Lehman/It makes the units available to anybody.
Davidson/Yes.
Lehman/OK.
Champion/All fight.
Pfab/All right.
Vanderhoef/Could we pull off another---
TAPE 03-51, SIDE ONE
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 25
Vanderhoeff ...then I would appreciate some comments from P and Z on any of the things,
changes that might occur, down there when CB-2 is eliminated. I'm trying to figure out
the flow with the commercial so when we've got the railroad track and that group of
commemial things there, how's the flow? What is it we're trying to do in this area over to
Gilbert Street?
Davidson/Well, I mean, and maybe we don't need to get into it now, you've said---
Vanderhoef/No.
Davidson/...that you'd like some discussion of it. But that is actually fairly well thought out in
the plan now, Dee, I think you would find.
Vanderhoef/That was before I went on Council and I---
Davidson/Yeah. And there's also, you know, in the development of that, there was some
acknowledgment that we have an existing commemial area with some vitality there now,
and let's enhance that. And I think that was part of the notion of the plan, meaning the
Rock Island Square area.
Lehman/OK.
Kanner/The preferred location originally for the parking ramp was further south, right?
Davidson/It was slightly further south to southeast.
Kanner/South of Prentiss?
Davidson/Yeah, it was south of Court. That was a Council decision to move that further north
into the more commercial area.
Lehman/When you use the word "preferred," that was never my preference.
Champion/Mine neither.
Lehman/I thought it was absolutely out of the (can't hear----world? wall?). But anyway. All
right.
Davidson/Anything else about this item? OK.
d. REZONING 6.91 ACRES FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO
SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY MEDIUM-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (OSA-8)
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1515 NORTH DUBUQUE ROAD. (REZ03-
0/SUB03-00002)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 26
Davidson/Item d is a rezoning from RS-8 to OSA-8 for the purposes of subdividing what is
currently, let's see if I can, OK, this is currently a single lot. OK. There's one residence
located here. And this rezoning would allow a lot to be split off right here and a residence
established in this vicinity. The rezoning to OSA-8, what's under consideration here is
the reduction of a buffer to allow a driveway to be constructed through here. I guess,
Bob, you put, yeah, the next, there you go, you can see it much better. Driveway to be
constructed through here. There's a protected slope in this vicinity which requires a 50-
foot buffer. To construct this retaining wall for the driveway would get into that 50 feet.
The engineering department has reviewed the plan. The engineering division has
reviewed the plan for doing this and does not feel that construction of the retaining wall
will negatively impact the protected slope. So, it is, you know, an appropriate way to do
this and not impact the protected slope, which is the purpose that we're ultimately trying
to get to. Just some more information here, the condition of the rezoning would allow,
well, or would establish this gray area as a conservation easement with basically the two
dwelling units then. And the subdivision for this would go on after the third reading of
the ordinance.
Kanner/Which is the conservation easement? The light gray?
Davidson/Yeah, this whole gray area in through here. OK, yeah, that one shows it very clearly
there. You can see lot 1 is located here, lot 2 here, and then the gray area is the
conservation easement. So most of the property remains in conservation easement.
Kanner/What is the additional expense to do a survey? They said they wanted to avoid doing a
survey. What, Bob, or Jeff, do you know approximately the neighborhood figure?
Hundreds, thousands?
Miklo/I imagine it to be several thousand. I couldn't tell you what the top end would be, but
staff felt that given that the area that would be surveyed is proposed to be a conservation
easement anyway, there really wasn't the need to go out and identify every tree and every
steep slope because it's being protected by the establishment of the conservation
easement.
Davidson/Any other questions about this?
Kanner/Well, I have some concern about the waiving of the storm water management, felt it
wasn't necessary. It seems that down the road we could have problems. I mean, that's
what we have--when we didn't have a storm management requirements, this one is what
you're saying, waive the--that's my reading of it--to waive the storm water management
requirement.
Miklo/Our public works staff looked at this and given that it's, there's one existing house,
there'll be a second house on a total of six acres, actually more than six acres, that the
additional storm water is insignificant. Especially given that if they chose to subdivide
this as a standard subdivision, there could be well over 20 houses on this site, so that's
the reason they felt this was, would not result in the---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 27
Davidson/The amount of improving a surface that's added by the additional houses considered
minimal.
Kauner/Well, there's a retaining walls going up and what happens if they do want to divide it
into 20?
Miklo/Then they'd have to come back before Planning and Zoning and the City Council to have
an amended sensitive areas development plan. They'd have to get permission to reduce
the conservation easement. So it would be, a considerable amount of review would be
required.
Pfab/One quick question. Finished?
Kanner/Yes.
Pfab/How long is the street?
Davidson/The driveway?
Pfab/How long is the driveway, I guess it is.
Davidson/Well, there's not a scale on this. It looks like it could easily be, what, 30 or 40 feet,
maybe.
Miklo/I would estimate it's going to be approximately 100 feet from Dubuque Street or at
Dubuque Road to the garage.
Pfab/Is there any problem with fire protection if there's a fire?
Miklo/The fire marshal during the review of this did not raise that concern.
Pfab/OK.
Lehman/OK.
e. REZONING 6.92 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT (ID-RS) TO LOW
DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-5) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF
CUMBERLAND LANE SOUTH OF SCOTT PARK. (REZ03-4/SUB03-3)
Davidson/OK, item e is a rezoning from ID-RS to RS-5. Wait a minute, Bob, I thought that was,
let's see, there--just not in order. This is west of Windsor Ridge, a 10-lot subdivision,
there you see it. That's Ralston Creek here. Ten lots, single-loaded street, the street's
down here. Some hydric soils that show up there, but pretty straightforward 10-lot
subdivision. It is stubbed here up against the Fairview Golf Course so that if the golf
course ever redevelops, the street could be extended through there. The applicant has
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 28
requested expedited consideration of this. Any questions?
Kanner/What does the sensitive areas site plan say that said that was forthcoming? Any
wetlands, any critical slopes?
Miklo/It just addresses the hydric soils.
Davidson/Yeah, Bob says it just addresses the hydric soils, which are in this area here. Is there
anything else, Bob, that's in there?
Miklo/I don't think so.
Davidson/OK. That's it.
Kanner/Did you find any wetlands or any slopes of significance?
Lehman/OK.
f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 6.1 ACRES FROM COUNTY RS, SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL, TO CI-1, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED WEST OF DANE ROAD, EAST OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD
EXTENDED. (REZ01-7) (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY
144 ACRES FROM COUNTY CH, C2, R1A, RS & A1 TO P, PUBLIC, CH-l,
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, CI-1, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, AND ID-RS,
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST
OF HIGHWAY 218, WEST OF THE IOWA CITY AIRPORT, AND BOTH
NORTH AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. (REZ03-3) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Davidson/Item lis second consideration of, actually, item land g, is the second consideration of
the rezonings in the Mormon Trek Boulevard Extension area.
Lehman/Yeah.
h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE COMBINING THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC
DISTRICT AND THE MOFFITT COTTAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT INTO ONE
HISTORIC DISTRICT NAMED THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT.
(REZ03-00004) (PASS AND ADOPT)
Davidson/Item h is pass and adopt of the combining the Longfellow and Moffitt Cottage
Historic Districts.
i. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE NORTHERNMOST 60 FEET OF
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 29
THE DEAD-END ALLEY ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF 405
SOUTH SUMMIT STREET. (VAC00-00001) (PASS AND ADOPT)
Davidson/Item i, Eleanor, feel free to jump in here, but this is a rezoning, excuse me, a vacation
that's been hanging around for quite some time that apparently appraisal has been
completed, and we're comfortable with what's being proposed by the two property
owners that---
Dilkes/Yeah, you've got a memo in front of you that you should take a look at before we go on.
Phyllis Tucker who had the appraisal is one of the lot owners, is offering appraised value.
The other couple are offering slightly less than appraised value, based on their argument
that their assessed value is lower and that they have RS-5 zoning as opposed to RNC-12
zoning. Staffthinks it's a reasonable proposal and is comfortable with what's being
offered. Probably you want to, tomorrow, since you haven't talked about this yet, and I
assume most of you haven't read this memo, unless you're all comfortable by the time
you get to i, you might want to move i after 8 and 9. Do 8 and 9 first, and then do i. Make
sure we get the dispositions done before we vacate.
Lehman/I read the memo that we got tonight and I mean apparently you're comfortable with the
offer.
Dilkes/Mm-hmm.
Lehman/So if the Council is comfortable---
Pfab/I'm comfortable.
Lehman/...then we'll just proceed in the order in which they appear on the agenda.
Pfab/No problem.
Dilkes/That's fine.
j. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF HOLLYWOOD
MANOR, PART 8. (SUB03-00012)
Davidson/OK. We'll go back then to, here we go, Hollywood Manor, part 8. This is final plats,
which is an agreement with the preliminary plats that you've approved already, 22-1ot,
single-family subdivision off Wetherby Drive.
Pfab/I have a simple question here. Were there any changes from the time it was originally
bought7
Davidson/No.
Pfab/And so it's just basically, a "redo-al" of an expired---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 30
Davidson/Yeah, the final plat is consistent with the preliminary of any you reviewed.
k. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF WINDSOR RIDGE,
PART 18A, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB03-00016)
Davidson/And then we have another final plat, Windsor Ridge, part 18A. This is a total of two
lots, as you can see here, and there would be eight duplex and townhouse units and then
an out-lot that would not be developed. Right, Bob?
Miklo/Yeah.
Kanner/How many housing units?
Davidson/Eight.
Pfab/In the out-lot, what is the---
Davidson/Is that a trail easement, Bob?
Miklo/Yes.
Davidson/Yeah, it's a trail easement.
Pfab/It's a trail? And it's, where's the ownership put in?
Davidson/I assume Allied A will be retained by the Homeowners Association.
Pfab/Is that what they do?
Davidson/Yeah, the only ones that the City own are in Windsor Ridge south of Court Street.
We've kind of reconsidered that since the decision was made to make those publicly
owned and these would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Pfab/So, they're only accessible---
Davidson/Open to the public though.
Pfab/Open to the public.
Davidson/Yes.
Pfab/But, maintenance is at the expense of the Homeowners Association.
Davidson/That's correct. That is it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 31
Lehman/Thank you.
O'Donnell/Thank you.
REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS
Lehman/OK, the next item are review agenda items.
Vanderhoef/There are a couple of letters.
Lehman/That probably is under Council time. Oh, you mean letters in the---
Karmer/Correspondence?
Lehman/Yes, OK.
Kanner/Dee, while you're looking, I'I1 give one.
Vanderhoef/Go ahead.
3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR
AMENDED. A. (3) APPROVAL OF COUNCIL ACTIONS, SUBJECT TO
CORRECTIONS, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY CLERK. (3) MAY 19
SPECIAL COUNCIL FORMAL OFFICIAL AND COMPLETE
Kanner/Under Consent Calendar a. (3) City Council Work session. Are we going to get, we
were supposed to get an update on the landfill from staff. Is that---
Atkins/Haven't finished it yet. There is one coming; we (can't hear)
Kanner/OK. And, Bob or Jeff, I did have a question regarding, I wanted to wait until now
regarding the Peninsula Neighborhood, the plat that's going to be proposed since it was
in the, our agenda packet. Just a clarifying question about selling row houses and
townhouses and condos for the whole block on number 36 and 37. What does that mean?
I didn't quite understand what the implications are of that as opposed to the previous
proposal?
Miklo/The previous proposal, each condo or each townhouse would be on its own narrow lot.
But there's a difficulty with how those are metered. It's much more expensive to do an
individual or where the meter is located, it's much more expensive. So their choice was
to do a condo or a condominium regime where the land under the townhouses would be
owned in common, but the person would own the dwelling unit themselves, and that's
pretty much standard for the other townhouses that we have in town.
Kanner/So, they'll have to form a condominium association for that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 32
Miklo/Right.
Kanner/Thank you.
Pfab/Are you talking a space in between these?
Miklo/No, they're built to the property lines so there's no space between the front and rear yard.
Pfab/Not zero-lot lines. Well, not common wall.
Miklo/Excuse me?
Pfab/Not a common wall.
Miklo/Yeah, there is a common wall between the buildings.
Pfab/OK.
3. g. CORRESPONDENCE. (8) DAVE MCLAUGHLIN (SCOTT MANOR
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION): MOWING AND SIDEWALK SNOW
REMOVAL.
Vanderhoeff (can't hear)
Lehman/Dee, there's a--and I think maybe one of the things that Dee is referring to--this letter
from McLaughlin relative to maintenance of eight-foot basic trails along arterial streets. I
have no problem with the mowing issue, but I, and I would like if you and staffwould
look at this---
Atkins/We've done that, Ernie, and---
Lehman/OK.
Atkins/...we're going to bring back to you a snow removal right-of-way maintenance policy
because we're getting requests now to expand our services and now's not the time to be
doing that.
Vanderhoef/We can't.
Lehman/No, No, I understand that. But it also seems somewhat unfair to ask property owner to
maintain an eight-foot sidewalk when everybody else has a four.
Atkins/And that's part of the debate. That's something we're preparing for.
Lehman/And it'll come back.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of Jtme 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 33
Kanner/Does the law say that you have to clear the whole sidewalk? I thought it just didn't say
the whole sidewalk.
Vanderhoef/Passable.
Dilkes/No, the law is silent with respect to that. It just says "sidewalks."
Kanner/So, they don't necessarily have to clear the whole thing, if they just clear four feet that
seems reasonable.
Atkins/Well---
Lehman/ Well, that may be---
Dilkes/Well, that's---
Atkins/That's the staff's debate.
Dilkes/That's the issue, I guess.
Atkins/We've got about half the staff figures one way and half the other and I'll have a
recommendation for you.
Dilkes/Currently, if the law says "sidewalks," we can enforce removal requirements on the
entire sidewalk.
Atkins/That's right.
Champion/But we don't.
Atkins/We don't.
Dilkes/I don't know.
Lehman/Oh, I think we have--but this is, staff's going to deal with that. OK, thank you.
Atkins/We are preparing it.
Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm.
Lehman/Any other agenda items?
CROSSING GUARDS
Vanderhoef/OK, and did I miss something on--we had several letters talking about removing
crossing guards or not paying the crossing guards and---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 34
Atkins/You know, I tried to figure out where that came from and I think I did. When the budget
thing got dropped on our lap, I asked a number of staff people, just look at the various
services you provide, and does this have a threshold of like $50,000 and above, cost for a
particular service, something you could identify. Well, the cost for crossing guards is
about $53,000 to $55,000 a year. So, it went on the list. Well, of course, we don't, this
stuffs passed all around, and people, I mean, I had more shocked outrage and appalled
letters and e-mails about it and I think, I talked to one woman and I said, where'd you
hear this? Well, I heard this from So and So. It's not on the table.
Vanderhoef/I request the mayor make an announcement of that---
Atkins/Make an announcement, OK.
Vanderhoef/...tomorrow night to put their minds at rest.
Atkins/Yes.
Champion/I'm sure that all the rumors have already recirculated by now.
Atkins/Yes, I---
Pfab/While we're still on that. Is that something that would ever be required by the school?
Atkins/No, the school can't require it. We've tried to talk the schools into doing it.
Pfab/But the, so, there's no legal way that that is a school responsibility.
Atkins/The school's position has been over the years, Irvin, is that they assume responsibility at
the school property line for the child.
Pfab/Well, I was just wondering what the---
Atkins/The camp has been through this how many times?
Davidson/Yeah, I would remind you that, I mean, school crossing guards are a traffic control
device---
Atkins/Yeah.
Davidson/...on a public street.
Lehman/But there is no legal responsibility to do it anyway.
Atkins/Nope.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 35
Lehman/That's something we choose to do.
Davidson/No. We are aware. One alternative type of control that we have for school crossings.
Karmer/Wait, and this is in the police department?
Atkins/Yes.
Davidson/Yeah, the evaluation for them is through traffic engineering, but the actual
implementation of it is through the police department.
Kanner/And you're saying that when the chief is looking at ways to meet that mandated cut---
Atkins/He made a list---
Kanner/...he's not going to implement that or---
Atkins/No.
Kanner/...is there any chance of that being implemented?
Atkins/Unless we hear differently from you, we did not propose elimination of school crossing
guards, no.
Lehman/Not going to happen.
Champion/You think we've had trouble over First Avenue, try to remove your crossing guards.
(Laughter)
Pfab/And that's still, there's no other mechanical way to do that.
Champion/Sure. We do it for Longfellow at the Court Street-Muscatine intersection. We have
all red with a walk sign for the students. So, that's another---
Pfab/Is that a possibility of something that we could consider?
Davidson/That's one of the things, Irvin, when we looked, when we get a call about a particular
situation, we get with the principal, the parent-teacher organization, if it's agreed we have
an issue at this location, then we do a traffic study, and we determine what level of
control. Obviously, when you have a signalized intersection, then that's one of the
alternatives you have available.
Pfab/Well, like on Court Street-q-
Davidson/You have no crossing guards, you have child crossing guards; I mean, if you want to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 36
go way to the other end of the perspective, build an overpass. I mean, these are all
alternatives that you have available.
Pfab/But like, for instance, First Avenue and Court. There was no lights there, no---
Davidson/Not correct. Now we have both. We have a crossing guard and a light.
Pfab/So, is it possible--and I'm not recommending it--I'm just saying, is there a way that that
can be done mechanically and still be as safe?
Davidson/I think it would be pemeived by the parents in the area that you are reducing the level
of control.
Atkins/Yes.
Lehman/I think we'd probably better go on.
3. g. (13) JCCOG TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PLANNER: INSTALLATION OF A NO
PARKING CORNER TO HERE SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOVER
STREET AND MUSCATINE AVENUE; INSTALLATION OF ALL-WAY STOP
CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF SCOTT BOULEVARD/FIRST
AVENUE AND SCOTT BOULEVARD/ROCHESTER AVENUE
Champion/I have a question also while you're here. Tell me why, why--is it just economics that
you would use stop signs, tour-way stop signs, at major intersections like Scott
Boulevard and---
Lehman/ Rochester?
Champion/Yeah, instead of stoplights, which seem much safer to me.
Davidson/No, it's not an economic argument at all, Connie. It's--we evaluate at both levels of
control, and right now with the level of traffic that's there, the all-way stop is the
appropriate level of control. But, it, you know, it's probably in a developing area like
that, it's probably realistic to consider it an interim measure.
Champion/OK.
Davidson/Eventually, you're going to have justification for a signal, and in fact, we're going to
update the study at the intersection of Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road this
year---
Champion/Mm-hmm.
Davidson/...because we're maybe starting to push that when a signal would be required.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 37
Champion/About the only mason I ask is that seeing as being we're starting to get more traffic
in those areas, especially the one you just talked about, is that people tend to run them
because they can see there's nobody there right now, and that's my concern with stop
signs at major roads.
Davidson/Mm-hmm. And that's actually taken into consideration in our study, Connie, if you
have a situation with an all-way stop where you don't have a high enough threshold of
traffic, that most of the time, there's always going to be somebody at least two cars at that
intersection and people do exactly what you say. But if you have like, for example, the
ones on Kirkwood Avenue actually work---
Champion/Pretty well.
Davidson/...fairly well because there's always a car them, people stopped at those all-way stops.
Champion/Right, that's right.
Davidson/Where you try and put them in neighborhoods for traffic control, that's where you get
people just going right through them.
Lehman/Right.
Champion/Right. OK, thanks.
Pfab/You need somebody else with (can't hear)
3. b. RECEIVE AND FILE MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
(RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY UPON
SEPARATE COUNCIL ACTION). (1) HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION: MAY 8
Kanner/I have a couple questions, one regarding minutes of 3 b. (1) Historic Preservation.
Davidson/May have to get back to you on this one, but tell me what question it is.
Karmer/Yeah, I hope you will. They mentioned allowing solar collectors and I assume when
they say "solar collectors," they mean different types. Photovoltaic and maybe hot water
systems. And I think that's a good idea to consider that and I was wondering what's
happening with that, if they're---
Davidson/And it's in the Historic Preservation Commission minutes?
Kanner/Historic Preservation. I think we need to allow that and I'm glad they're talking about
that.
Davidson/OK.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 38
3. g. CORRESPONDENCE. (4) AMY CORREIA (HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION) NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND
CAMPAIGN.
Kanner/And then in regards to the Housing and Community Development Commission, and
then we also have that in correspondence. They have endorsed the National Housing
Trust Fund proposal and I was wondering if you could--I don't know if you have the
information in your mind now--but I think we ought to talk about that in Council and see
if we want to endorse that.
Davidson/What was the name of that again, Steven?
Kanner/The National Housing Trust Fund. And it's listed under our correspondence, the
endorsement form. It's---
Lehman/ It's number, it's on page 6 of the agenda. It's g. (4).
Kanner/G. (4), yeah. And so, I wanted a little more information about is it just a resolution in
Congress or is there actual money being proposed and then to Council I think we should
consider endorsing it, if we get this information.
Pfab/I think there's some funds from some organization, I want to say Ginny Mae or something
like that, that the Congress has set aside and they just will go into that. It's kind of like
the brokers, real estate brokers trust fund interest and that goes in certain banks. Under
some organizations, or some agents named that, the Congress has basically allocated for
that. Is that correct?
Davidson/I'll have to ask Steve Nasby about that. I'll see if we can get an answer for you.
Lehman/Well, we'll have that for the (can't hear)
Pfab/That's why it's tempting there.
Davidson/And I'll check with Shelley on the photovoltaic cells.
Lehman/OK.
Champion/What's the next (can't hear)
(Can't hear).
Lehman/Almost made it.
Dilkes/Almost.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 39
Vanderhoef/The state and federal transit dollars, the additional $100,000 that came in---
O'Donnell/Ernie.
Vanderhoef/...to transit. Where exactly did it come from and how come we got it?
Davidson/Is this the additional funds that were split up between Cambus and Coralville?
Dilkes/I'm sorry--are we moving Council time to now?
Lehman/No.
Dilkes/Well, let's, if we're going to just ask Jeff or is that in here somewhere?
Lehman/Is it in the packet someplace?
Vanderhoef/Yeah, it has, it's in the budget.
Atkins/It's in the budget reduction proposal.
Vanderhoef/It's in the budget reduction proposals and I just was curious where that---
Dilkes/But we're on agenda, I'm sorry. But we're on agenda items. So if you want to move
Council time up, let's skip--let's do Council time.
Kanner/Dee, can I, are you going to wait until Council time?
Lehman/Yeah.
Vanderhoef/Yeah.
14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING $15,000 IN FUNDS TO UNITED
ACTION FOR YOUTH FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
TRAINING FOR AT-RISK YOUTH.
Kanner/Jeff. But I, there was, number 14, award of $15,000 to United Action for Youth. That
was a JCCOG evaluation.
Davidson/Right.
Kanner/Could I get a copies of the other applications to review?
Davidson/Sure, would you like just the summary memo? We did summarize the three proposals
and our recommendation. Do you want---
Kanner/OK. (Can't hear) didn't see them in our packet.
This represents only a reasonably accurate lxanscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 40
Pfab/I would like to see---
Davidson/Copies of the entire applications as well as our summary?
Kanner/I would personally. I think it's good for all the Council, they might want the summary.
But I don't know if anyone else wants the whole thing.
Pfab/I want the whole thing.
Karmer/I'd like the whole thing.
Davidson/Any other questions about that agenda item?
16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION INCREASING BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR
SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE IOW CITY HOUSING AND
INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
Kanner/And then number 16 for Council in regards to the building permit fees. I think I'm
generally agreeable with those except I have some concern with the fixed costs for the
first thousand dollars in value. If you're zero to $1,000, it's $42, and it just seems pretty
steep if it's going to be under $100. And I know there's fixed costs, if you--no matter
what, you come in with a permit application, there's going to be fixed costs. But maybe
we should eat some of those costs. Because if you come in with something like $50 or
$100, or even $500, it seems $42 is pretty steep and I was wondering if we can go at the
next level, it says $3.60 for each additional $100. Maybe if we can go at that level as an
amendment to this.
Champion/Like $3.60 for every---
Karmer/Yeah, they say at the $1,000 level, there's a certain amount and then between $1,000
and the next level, they say it's $3.60 for each additional $100 in value. And I would
propose that we do something similar for the whole under $1,000.
Lehman/Could we find out, Steve, by tomorrow what number of permits we actually issue under
$1,0007 My guess is it probably isn't an issue.
Atkins/I'll find that out.
Lehman/I can't imagine a building permit for a project that's 100 bucks. Nobody is that
conscientious. They're going to go do it without the permit.
Kanner/And maybe if it is only a few, then it's even easier to make it a lower amount.
Lehman/Or it is---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 41
Vanderhoef/It doesn't impact the budget.
Kanner/It won't impact the budget.
Champion/That's a very good point.
Atkins/I'll see what I can find out.
Champion/It is an unfair percentage amount.
Pfab/Yeah.
Lehman/But if it is, it could be (can't hear)
Champion/Sure.
Atkins/OK.
23. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY AND TItE 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.
24. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TItE
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.
25. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CLASSIFICATION /
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL / ADMINISTRATIVE
EMPLOYEES AND EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES FOR FY04.
Kanner/And then for tomorrow, Dale, when we vote on the contracts, the three contracts, if you
can, tell us any differences between the old contract and the new contract.
Helling/Yeah, basically, they're in the--the main differences are in the comments. There really
aren't very many changes in either of those agreements. Do you want language, I mean?
Kanner/Well, no, just if you, if that's it, then that's it. I---
Helling/Yeah, if you want me to summarize it, I'd be glad to.
Kanner/Just summarize if you could.
Helling/Sure.
This represents only a reasonably accurate txanscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 42
Kanner/There is one big difference, the temporary worker's definition.
Lehman/Right.
Kanner/And I think actually we might want to sometime have a discussion about that.
Vanderhoef/Well, I was going to ask, I think you're on the right line, ask for staff to give us just
a review or a summary of the impact that that makes in the various departments. I know
it's going to be a lot worse than what we would like it to be.
Atkins/It's not as simple as just the change of language that's going to be difficult for us.
Vanderhoef/Yeah. Each department is (can't hear)
Pfab/Could you break down just a little bit more, Steve?
Atkins/The language in the new contracts, Irvin, changes the (can't hear) definitions on how we
use temporary employees. And we've had the language how long, Dale? Forever?
Helling/At least since 1976.
Atkins/Since 1976. And we've, the organization become accustomed to using temporary, we use
extensive numbers of temporary employees.
Pfab/So you anticipate it's going to have some budgetary---
Atkins/It's going to have budget impact, yeah. Dale can give you the technical aspects of it, but
it will have budget impact.
Pfab/What about, is it, how's it going to affect the workers? Is it going to put their jobs at risk?
Helling/Well, it depends. Some temporary employees may reduce their hours to fewer than 10 a
week. So the impact there is that they work less and make less money. In other cases, if,
you know, we may see a need to convert some of the, take the temporary budget and join
some of those positions together and make them permanent positions, and pay the
benefits. It's just, it's going to affect every division differently.
Champion/The problem where it's really going to really become a problem is like summer
employment for the pools and Parks and Rec, don't you think? That's going to be a major
impact on something that's already strained.
Helling/Truly seasonal employment shouldn't be affected that much because we're going from
nine to seven months. But it's those areas where we had people working, you know, a
smaller number of hours throughout the year that I think it's going to have the greatest
impact.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 43
Lehman/Part-time is going to be the problem.
Atkins/Right.
Lehman/Where you really have the same people working the 15, 18 hours a week and that's all
they want to work or 20.
Helling/Those are temporary part-time.
Lehman/Those are going to be the ones that are going to be impacted, to go full-time or we
don't use them a lot.
Helling/Right.
Pfab/Is the biggest effect going to be on the budget or is it the positions themselves or is it when
you step back, it's not an unreasonable change?
Helling/I think it's all going to have to be balanced, Irvin. Part of it will be budgetary in terms of
having to pay maybe more for the same amount of service or the same amount of work.
But the other impact may be reduction in level of service in some areas.
Pfab/OK.
Helling/And that just has to be sorted through. And that will be over a period of about seven
months that we'll transition this.
Lehman/OK.
14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING $15~000 IN FUNDS TO UNITED
ACTION FOR YOUTH FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
TRAINING FOR AT-RISK YOUTH.
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.
26. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION 03-108 ALLOCATING
THE HUMAN SERVICES AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2004, BY 5%.
Wilburn/Just saying I'll have a conflict of interest with items 14, 15, and 26, due to CDBG.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 44
Lehman/OK.
Champion/You sure have a lot of conflicts.
Lehman/We're going to do a quick break before we do Council time at the request of one of our
Council members who shall remain anonymous.
Kanner/Can we get a lift?
Vanderhoef/Thank you, Ernie.
BREAK
Lehman/Are we ready?
COUNCIL TIME
Lehman/Council time. Anybody have anything for Council time?
Wilburn/I'd just like to mention that, just so the Council's aware when we get to discussing
some of those options, depending on where we all end up with, a couple of items that I
would be willing to consider taking a look at. One would be just kind of an evaluation
and look at the $100,000 for the deer kill. I mean that's $100,000 that jumps offthe page
at you, so that's something that I'd be willing to discuss, some options with that. The
second item, I think, taking a look at some of our what do you call, memberships, that we
have and perhaps dropping one. City manager's recommendations throughout EICOG, I
think. That's one I'd be willing to consider, that it was dropping, that the membership of
continuing involvement with, I think it was (can't hear). You know, I think we do have a
JCCOG, we do have the Iowa League of Cities, but just another thing to consider. So, just
so that you're aware, those are some things that I would be willing to take a look at.
Lehman/OK. I also think at the same time we were talking about some of the cost savings that
Steve was anticipating in going to meetings and whatever for staff folks and I think we at
that point we need to discuss a Council policy.
Wilburn/Yeah. I think it's important to maintain those external relationships.
Lehman/I do, too.
Wilburn/But given, you know, just taking a look at, perhaps dropping one for the time being.
O'Dounell/Along that same line, I do have a problem with the deer, Ross. I just, I'm reading in
the papers where people are hitting them with motorcycles and cars and getting hurt, so
that's a safety issue with me. I understand maybe delaying it, but---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 45
Wilburn/It does jump out at you.
O'Donnell/I would like to see if we couldn't add 50 to 100 parking permits downtown, maybe
15 in each of the ramps, 20 in each of the ramps. How much are the fees? Does anybody
know?
Lehman/Sixty bucks a month or something.
Champion/How much is the---
Lehman/Sixty a month, I think, or I don't recall exactly.
Dilkes/Ernie, I'm---
Lehman/ I think we can't go into this.
Dilkes/You know we had budget earlier on the agenda and now we're talking about budget
again under Council time. It just seems odd to me.
Lehman/OK.
O'Donnell/I thought somebody specifically said we had to make suggestions.
Champion/Yeah.
O'Donnell/But that's OK.
Champion/Of course, it does. We were just going to throw out ideas.
Kanner/Just to throw out ideas?
Dilkes/Well, normally, I think that's OK at Council time except you had a budget discussion
earlier in the agenda so it just strikes me as kind of odd.
Lehman/OK, let's save those for two weeks from tonight when we're going to have a general
budget discussion and including the (can't hear)
Dilkes/I think that's more appropriate.
O'Donnell/Well, I only have 26 more so it shouldn't take very long.
Kanner/I'll try to write up a memo with mine and put that in the packet.
Lehman/OK. One of the things, and Dale, I don't know, but we got a letter in the packet this
week from a couple who are trying to make some modifications to their property and
were having some difficulties because of historic preservation guidelines. I would like to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 46
see--and I don't know quite how we do this--but I guess I'd like to see how we compare
with other cities' guidelines. You know, if you can't see the difference, why pay the
difference? I don't, I mean, I think we need to protect historic districts. I don't think
there's any question about that. But if you can't tell if a window is vinyl clad from the
street, why would you refuse to allow it? I mean I think there's some things that we need
to take a little bit of--and I don't know how we do that--but if somehow we could kind of
have the Commission re-look at their standards.
Champion/That particular house you're talking about, Emie, they are going to appeal to the City
Council, and I think people always have that right to appeal to the City Council.
Lehman/I realize that but if we have regulations that are too stringent, and I talked to one of the
City staff folks who had a real difficult time in explaining to me that if you can't see the
difference, why would you require a different, but I'm (can't hear)
Dilkes/Let me just note that you have on your agenda a motion setting the heating on the appeal
on that case.
Lehman/OK.
Dilkes/You're really raising a different issue though than you will face in the appeal, and I'll
give you a memo on that. We've been through this before, that your standard of review is
very limited on appeal from Historic Preservation. You're really, you look at whether
they followed the guidelines that are in place, and if they did that, you know, I'm pretty
much OK. It's a different discussion about whether the guidelines should be as they are.
Lehman/Yeah. That's the issue that I'm concerned about and I understand that we have a very
narrow scope when we look at this particular issue, but I'm looking at the broader
picture. I think we need to do that.
Dilkes/Right. And on the appeal, you know, appeals may raise issues or make you aware of
things as you said that may make you want to look at those guidelines.
Lehman/Fine. OK.
Vanderhoef/What was the, there's a second one that was mentioned in our packet on, that had
been a permission for that porch and then how the windows---
Lehman/That's what we're talking about.
Champion/That's the one Ernie is talking about.
Pfab/No, no.
Dilkes/There's two. There's a--no, but one is a sided one, a vinyl siding issue, and the other one
is the one that you're talking about which is the windows on the porch.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 47
Vanderhoef/Right. Mm-hmm.
Champion/There's another problem that I think we need to, well, I can't remember, I really need
to read and discuss this with you later, but I got a call from a--I can't remember her name,
I didn't bring my notes with me--because they have somebody who's dying and they just
want a way to get the wheelchair down out of the house, and there's been objections from
the City because it doesn't meet ADA code, and it's just very temporary. So I mean I
think those are things, I don't know how much control we have over that. I have all the,
give somebody the name, and they can get back---
Pfab/I would like to ask on the appeal, is this a--are you saying it's a very limited right of the
person making the appeal or is the fight of the City very limited?
Dilkes/Your fight as the City Council is very limited. Your role is to determine whether the
Historic Preservation Commission followed the guidelines that they have and whether
they acted arbitrarily or capriciously. If they followed those guidelines and they made a
reasonable decision, then you don't have any choice but to affirm their decision.
Pfab/OK, but the other point is if the--is the, forcing a person that reasonably tries to get along,
does that indicate that there may be a problem with how tight the rules are?
Dilkes/It may to you, but that is a different issue.
Pfab/OK.
Dilkes/It may raise issues for you, as I just said to Ernie, that you may want to discuss separate
from those appeals.
Pfab/Because it would appear to me that ifa citizen is forced to appeal to get to a reasonable
place, then maybe we ought to take a look at it. That's all.
Miklo/Emie, just a general kind of comment about, you know, maybe loosening that up or
whatever, really isn't going to give the Historic Preservation Commission much to work
with.
Lehman/It might be good though to see how we compare with other communities. I mean, if
we're consistent with other communities, I think that would at least give us a frame of
reference.
Miklo/OK, are there specific areas that you have concern, or do you want just a whole---
Lehman/I don't want them to rewrite the---
Dilkes/I think that's going to be very tough unless we identify specific things so may, can I
suggest that we go through the appeals. Those may raise some factual issues for you, for
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 48
the guidelines, and then after we get through the appeals, we can look at those issues with
the guidelines.
Lehman/All right.
Miklo/Maybe put it on a work session agenda, you could specify the areas where you have
concerns. We could send that to the Commission.
Lehman/All right, that's fine. That's probably much better.
Champion/Mm-hmm.
Dilkes/Because as part of the appeal, you will be educated on the guidelines and the process.
Lehman/Right. Well, the last appeal we had, we had an appeal on the redwood siding, and the
person wanted to do cement siding. We were precluded from allowing them to use
cement siding because that was not within our purview. The Commission later changed
the standard and allowed the cement siding. We had to uphold their decision because they
had done it in a reasonable fashion.
Pfab/I have---
Lehman/Just, Irvin, we got a copy of a letter that was written to HUD from Steve Nasby in
response to a letter that you sent. Now did you discuss any of these things with the city
attorney or with Mr. Nasby before you sent your letter?
Pfab/No, I didn't, and the reason I didn't was my impression was that the way this would be
investigated was you make just a point and they are turned over to a neutral investigator.
I don't know, I might have been misinformed, and so the person starts out with a blank
slate and just works their way through. So that was the reason that I did it that way.
Lehman/Don't you think it would have been, don't you think they could have perhaps answered
some of your questions if you had gone through them in the first place?
Pfab/Well, I---
Lehman/ I mean, this was a fair, this involved stafftime in researching and answering questions
that they could have answered for you before you sent your letter.
Pfab/I think my feelings have been pretty well known and it's, there wasn't very many ways that
you can address this, if the majority is going to vote and limit the input of the minority on
the Council. And I don't---
Lehman/You know, Irvin, we go by majority, ifwe---
Pfab/I agree.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 49
Lehman/(Can't hear) if the Council feels that this is an appropriate way of handling it, which I
think we did, and obviously it was not illegal. It was appropriate. And I appreciate your
dissent and I appreciate your not agreeing with it, but I'm not so appreciative of the way
that you handled it.
Pfab/Well. OK.
Champion/I also find, I also find it a very insulting that you would insinuate that we were
misusing these funds or that Dee and I totally controlled the money that we were giving
to (can't hear) We were not controlling it. All of us control it. Not Dee and I. And the
Economic Committee does not control the disbursement of those funds. It's the whole
Council. You insinuated it that the whole Council was not involved in these things. I
thought it was insulting to our staff that you would insinuate that what we were
approving and what they were recommending allowing us to do was illegal. I thought it
was--you know, I don't know if somebody put you up to that and you didn't really look
into it before you sent it--but Irvin I thought it very insulting to the Council and to our
City staff who works very hard, and I think it's really too bad.
Pfab/OK. Can we go into more discussion on this?
Lehman/I don't know that there's any point in pursuing it.
Dilkes/I think you probably (can't hear) If you want, let me think, if you want to discuss it in the
(can't hear)
Lehman/I mean, I don't see,---
Pfab/OK.
Lehman/...to me, it's water over the dam, but I just think it wasn't appropriate to bring it up.
Any other Council time issues? OK. I'm sorry.
Champion/I just want to recommend to people that they try to get downtown to the concert as
Council people, that it's just really fun to be downtown in the evening, and all the
families and people milling around, much more, there's more people downtown Iowa
City in the evenings than there are in downtown Chicago.
(Laughter)
Champion/It's pretty incredible. It really is.
Pfab/And the most amazing thing is when you walk through the crowds, you find out how few
are people from Iowa City.
Champion/I see a lot of people from Iowa City.
This represents only a reasonably accurate Ixanscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of Jtme 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 50
Pfab/But I mean it's, the percentage of visitors, I think, is a lot greater than just the Iowa City
people, and that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of Iowa City people there, but it just--
you talk, where you're from.
Lehman/OK.
Vanderhoef/Just one comment for Dale. I appreciate his memo on measurements for the
effectiveness of the 19 Ordinance.
(Several talk)
Champion/(Can't hear) item on the agenda.
Lehman/That's where we are. That's the next item on the agenda. Is there anything else for
Council time?
O'Donnell/No.
MEASURING TItE EFFECTIVENESS OF UNDER 19 ORDINANCE
Lehman/OK, measuring the effectiveness--Dale, would you like to?
Helling/Yes.
Lehman/We got your memo and we also have Nate Green here and we're going to have a slight
discussion on the committee that is also going to be involved in measuring the
effectiveness of that ordinance.
Male voice/OK.
Helling/The memo pretty well outlines what we as staff, Eleanor and Andy and Sarah and Chief
Winkelhake and several of his officers and I, and Marian, all sort of put our heads
together to try to come up with ideas about what sorts of measures would come relatively
easy with the information that we probably have and can sort out and also the information
we can collect over the next year and beyond to try to keep, to get a handle on the effect
of the ordinance. And so you'll see we identified several areas where we think we can
distinguish between those over 19, 19 and over versus 18 and under and also to try to
break out some of these both past and future violations in terms of the timeframes,
namely 10:00 p.m., which is the time that's specified in the new ordinance. I think it's
important just to indicate to you that while we tried to focus on that and specifically on
the difference between over and under, or 19 and over and under 19, I think it's also
important to stress that we haven't lost sight of the fact that all these measures, what
we're trying to do is and what we have a commitment from the bar owners to do, is to
focus on prevention of underage drinking, namely, people under 21. So we will continue
to look at those statistics too in the aggregate. But we also want to try to separate the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 51
amount we can so that we can get a better idea of the over and under 19 based on what
you put in the immediate ordinance.
TAPE 03-51, SIDE TWO
Helling/...again they're not meant to, we're not statisticians, and this is not going to be a
scientific analysis, but I think that what we've identified are ways that we can get some
reasonable notion of how the ordinance is working.
Pfab/My question when I read through that was what is our decision, how are we going to arrive
at a decision, whether it's successful or not?
Lehman/I think that this---
Pfab/This is a (can't hear)
Helling/It's going to be somewhat subjective, Irvin, and I think, you know, with the best of, the
most scientific, you know you can hire a statistician to come in and put together a survey,
you're still going to make some sort of subjective decision or evaluation yourself of
whether it's working or not. We're just going to try to give new ways to lo.ok at, things to
look at and ways to come to those conclusions.
Pfab/One of the things that kind of floats through my mind as I'm thinking about this. I'm
thinking this in time of budget reduction or budget shortfalls, I can imagine that the
enforcement that will probably be speeded up with, there'll probably be more vigor in the
enforcement. I would anticipate that as a way to generate income as from the police and
wherever. So that is the part that really puzzles me. You may see a lot more and it might
skew what you have. And I'm not saying it's right or wrong. So that's what, my point is
is if you look at certain numbers, certain numbers, certain numbers.
Lehman/Well, Irvin, you might see a lot less too because we don't have as many police officers
to do the job.
Helling/Frankly, that's a concern the police department (can't hear)
Lehman/I think that's a bigger issue.
Helling/And so we focus on trying to get percentages of those numbers to compare from year to
year, not knowing whether there'll be a difference in the enforcement level because there
always is to some extent in any, you take a given period of time, two, three, four, six
months a year, whatever it might be. So we're trying to look at percentages to get a better
indicator and a better comparison from year to year. Emie's absolutely right with the
reduction in the number of police officers, I, we may have to rely more on grant money to
pay officers' overtime to do some of the enfomement, so it may depend on how much
grant money is available, what level we can accomplish there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 52
Lehman/One of the things that we talked about as a Council was a committee comprised of kind
of a broad section of the community that would perhaps kind of monitor the issues
relative to underage drinking, and I think, Dee, you and Steven Kanner met with Nate
Green and discussed this to some degree, and there have been some discussions since
then, and Nate is here tonight, and Nate, if you would like to step. We had discussion
with Nate, I think the consensus on the Council that it was probably not going to be a
Council committee.
Pfab/Yes.
Lehman/There is a recommendation for us here, you know. Nate's passing that around. This
recommendation is for a committee, an independent committee.
Champion/I think this independent committee (can't hear) will be more helpful to us than a lot
of statistics actually.
Lehman/I think this is a good idea
Champion/Mm-hmm, I do too.
Lehman/...and I am delighted that---
Wilburn/And I hadn't even read Dale's memo yet and I---
Dilkes/Can I, I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt here. The minutes from your last discussion of
this broke this down into two different topics. One was this potential committee.
Lehman/OK.
Dilkes/And that was to be separate from the measurement of the effectiveness of the under 19
ordinance, which is on the agenda tonight and which Dale's memo deals with.
Champion/Right.
Dilkes/So, ---
Wilbum/She's saying this is beyond the scope ofthe---
Dilkes/So, the committee--at least when we discussed it at staff, and I believe the minutes reflect
this, we identified there being two different issues. One was the measurement of
effectiveness and the under 19 ordinance, which you told staff to deal with and get back
to you on and that's what we've done here. But this whole committee issue was a
different issue and I guess I didn't realize that we were going to be talking about that
tonight and that was not the intent of the item that was put on the agenda.
Lehman/Well, I don't--well, let me just say this. I don't think it's the intent from my perspective
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 53
that this committee is going to be measuring the effectiveness of the ordinance any more
than to be an advisory capacity to the Council. Now, does that---
Dilkes/OK, I guess my point is that's the only thing we noticed. That's the only thing we have
on the agenda is the measurement of the effectiveness. Now, if we're going to be talking
about that in connection with this committee, I suppose that's OK. That was not how I
thought this was going to work.
Lehman/Well, I think that my recollection or at least my understanding was that there was some
indication or thought that this committee was going to make the, was going to evaluate
the effectiveness of the ordinance, and I think Council said absolutely not, that is not the
way it is going to---
Dilkes/Right. That's what I understood it.
Lehman/And I think that's accurate, but I also think that the committee could be a resource for
the Council in making a determination as to the effectiveness of the ordinance, which is
why we're talking about this. Is that a connection that makes the---
Dilkes/If that's what we're going to talk about is the measurement of the effectiveness of the
ordinance, then you're OK.
Champion/(Can't hear)
Lehman/OK.
Pfab/Eleanor? I believe what you were, suggestion that we not talk about the composition of the
committee, is that what you---
Dilkes/What we have noticed on the agenda tonight is the measurement of the effectiveness of
the under 19 ordinance. We can talk about that topic.
Lehman/And in that regard, the role that a conmfittee could play in that---
Dilkes/On that issue.
Lehman/...and if we can do that issue, then we can talk about the committee? Which is precisely
what we're doing. Do we make the cut?
Green/OK. I think (can't hear) a little bit here. OK, this committee that we're talking about the
Alcohol and Bar Committee that you guys have in front of you, how it could tie in to
measuring the effectiveness is, well, I mean, I haven't even read Dale's memo but I'm
sure that the statistics that the City compiles and the police department compiles, you
know, can probably be very effective in determining somewhat how effective the 19
ordinance is. You're really not going to know how to gauge the statistics unless you, I
guess, get input from the police department, from the students, from the bar owners,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 54
because I mean, what if there are more police stings because they have, you know, and
there's less staff and they want to still have the same presence. What if there are less
police officers on the streets because of the City's budget cuts? That's why I think you
need to have input from all the different constituencies that have been talked about in
previous conversations and I guess I'd just like to run down the proposal that I submitted
to everyone. It's going to be an informal committee and I think that was I guess part of
the, some of the sentiment that I got from a lot of the Councilors is that they wanted it to
be an informal committee so that, I mean, it wouldn't be anything binding as far as
recommendations from the committee but the committee could advise the Council and I
guess give them information on how the 19 ordinance is being enforced. And possibly in
recommendations to bar owners on how they can better enforce the 19 ordinance and I
mean possibly using some kind of signage. I mean, the idea of an informal committee is
that it can really do whatever the committee wants and that's what I wanted to see in the
committee and I think what a lot of the other Councilors wanted to see also is the
flexibility, and part of that flexibility idea is that, as you see in the proposal, a four-
member panel will choose the rest of the members on the committee, which the
committee could be as large as the four-member panel wanted it to be or as small as the
four-member panel wanted it to be. But I think the four members, I guess, give a good
cross-section already of the interests involved in the 19 Ordinance with a City Councilor
appointed by the Council, UI Student Body president, which would be myself, an Iowa
City bar owner and an Iowa City department representative. With that four-member panel
I'm confident anyway that that four-member panel could come together and meet and I
guess decide on appointees to the committee and I think we could get a good cross-
section, possibly with a, you know, like a landlord, a member of Stepping Up, and I'm
not going to say these are people that would be involved in the committee--that's up to
the discretion of the four-member panel. But I think it would be in the committee's best
interests to have good representation of a lot of people that would be affected by the
ordinance.
Champion/It sounds terrific.
Lehman/Nate, I absolutely agree, but I think that we're going to have to make our appointments
at the next meeting because of---
Wilburn/It's beyond the scope of what's on the agenda.
Lehman/It really is. I stretched it to the max and Eleanor is very gracious in not slapping me for
this, but I think--it did not, it's going to have to be on our agenda as an appointment and
we will make the appointment next. I do think it's very important.
Green/OK.
Champion/Does it have to be a formal appointment?
Green/It's in an informal---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 55
Dilkes/No, no,
Lehman/No, no.
Dilkes/I think you need to put it on the next agenda to talk about this committee, including
whether you're going to appoint---
Lehman/All right.
Dilkes/...or if it's going to be a committee separate from the City Council or all those issues.
O'Donnell/Why don't we do that, Ernie?
Pfab/I guess what the other question was, back to what we were addressing, so you feel that
when the committee is formed--we aren't talking about how to form it--that it's going to
be able to determine whether it's successful or not?
Green/No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's going to be an informal committee so if
the committee says, hey, you know, we think that the alcohol ordinance could be better
enforced by doing this, or maybe you should look at the fact that there's less police in the
streets, I mean, you're going to get a lot of information from a lot of different sources and
that's why I think the committee is going to be important.
Pfab/So, so---
Lehman/ Now, we're going to have to---
Dilkes/Now, again, these were, I think these were two different issues and I think they are two
different issues. The memo that you got tonight about what information staff is going to
gather so that Council in a year or whenever you decide to do it can make a decision
about whether the under 19 is effective, that's done. Do you want us to proceed with that,
those measurements?
Champion/Yes.
Lehman/OK.
Dilkes/So, now your committee which involves lots of other things like other ways, as I
understood it, other proposals that were made by bar owners and students, etc., to help
address the underage drinking problem, is a whole, is really kind of a different issue.
Lehman/What Eleanor is really saying is that we're not going to be able to discuss this.
Pfab/No, no, but that wasn't the question, it was whether to measure whether it was a success or
not.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
June 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 56
Champion/No.
Green/One of the many I guess things that this committee would do would be gauge what the
committee felt how effective the 19 ordinance would be. So that's how it could tie in to I
guess the discussion for tonight's agenda item.
Helling/Well, Nate, then I would suggest too that review the memo that we sent out. Certainly,
the earlier we can get any suggestions for other kinds of measures that would be
appropriate that we could include with this, the better, because we have to go back to the
police department, see if they can massage this data---
Green/That's why we wanted to get this committee I guess formed right away, especially I
mean, so we can meet a few times before the August 1st I guess start of the 19 ordinance
so that we can have things prepared and start measuring it right away and give you guys
recommendations as soon as possible.
Lehman/Can we give him a recommendation--Marian, can we--I would assume there would be
no problem in us having a designee from R.J. at the next meeting and the Council can
appoint a committee member at the next meeting?
Kart/Mm-hmm.
Lehman/And we can talk about the committee at the next meeting.
Green/Would it be tomorrow night's meeting?
Lehman/Can't do it tomorrow night because we can't make the agenda, we're too late for
tomorrow night.
Dilkes/The next--the 23rd, 24th.
Green/That's all right.
Lehman/All right. Two weeks from tonight.
Vanderhoef/Sorry about that.
Lehman/No, you guys, keep that.
Champion/We can get another copy for ourselves.
Lehman/But we need--I don't know how long a discussion this is going to be but I do think, I've
been very pleased with the discussions that we've had.
O'Donnell/Even though we're not supposed to have them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of June 9, 2003.
Jtme 9, 2003 Council Work Session Page 57
Lehman/No, no, we're supposed to have them. I'm not going to tell you what we talked about
because that's two weeks from now.
O'Donnell/Sounds good.
Champion/Terrific.
Vanderhoef/Thank you, Nate.
Lehman/Any ideas that Council folks have that will be on the agenda for the next work session.
All right. We are.
Vanderhoef/Job done.
Lehman/See you tomorrow.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of Jtme 9, 2003.