Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-08 Transcription 1 September 8, 2003 Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilbum Staff: Atkins, Boothroy, Dilkes, Fowler, Franklin, Helling, Karr, Kopping, McCafferty, Trueblood TAPES: 03-66, BOTH SIDES; 03-67, BOTH SIDES TAPE 03-66, SIDE ONE Kart/Mr. Mayor? Lehman/Yes? Karr/Before we start, I'd like to add to the Consent Calendar tomorrow evening a Class C Liquor License for a new restaurant at 217 Iowa Avenue. And it's pronounced, I believe, Takami. T-A-K-A-N-K~A-M-I. It was timely in; there was just a delay through the review process, and we'd like to recommend that it be added late. Lehman/OK. Does that meet with the approval of Council? Vanderhoef/Sure. It's fine. Lehman/Fine. Karr/Right. Thank you. Lehman/OK. Franklin/OK. Lehman/Moving on. REVIEW ZONING S a. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 8.7 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT (ID-RS) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY-LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (OSA-5) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FOSTER ROAD. (REZ03- 00017/SUB03-00019) Franklin/OK. The first is a public hearing on an ordinance rezoning approximately 8.7 acres from ID-RS to OSA-5. This is for a subdivision on Foster Road, just north This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 2 of the Peninsula Neighborhood. It is for a 16-lot subdivision. The rezoning is for the density of five dwelling units per acre. What is proposed is approximately two dwelling units per acre, and that's due to the topography and the trees on the site that are being preserved. This is a Sensitive Areas Overlay because of the variation that's been requested in terms of the woodlands' requirements. They have--you're allowed under RS-5 to remove 50 percent of the trees. In this case they're moving, removing 68 percent of the trees, and so they have to plant trees to make up for that; 102 trees will be required, and they will be planted roughly in the area, these low--along lots 11, 12, 13, and over in here, 14, 15, and 16. And then, oops, sorry. Lehman/My computer does that, too. Franklin/Well, I don't have the mouse on and it's very delicate. Anyway, on the north boundary of the subdivision also, you will have to, they will have to plant some trees. Neighborhood open space is being handled through a combination of dedication and fees in lieu off That is because of the roughness of the topography. There's requirements within the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance that it has to be less than a certain grade, less than 15 percent, and so when you count the number of square feet that meet that parameter, you still have some left over, and so there will be fees in lieu of the remainder, which is approximately 6,548 square feet. It is ready to go when you are. Vanderhoef/Karin? Franklin/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/Is there any other parkland in there if we have money in lieu of, how can we use it in that area? Franklin/We can use it for improvements to parkland also and this area connects with the Peninsula Park. This portion of out-lot A which will be dedicated to the City--but only a portion of it will count for the Neighborhood Open Space requirements-- connects to open space that will be part of the whole Peninsula Park as you proceed to the southwest, you get into the Peninsula Park that is along the river. Vanderhoef/So, it would be like for a trail? Franklin/Yes. Vanderhoef/OK. Franklin/Yes. Yeah. O'Donnell/Karin, how many trees did you say are going to be removed? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 3 Franklin/I don't know the exact number of trees that are going to be removed, but they have to replace 102. O'Donnell/Replace 1027 Franklin/Yeah. Or it'd have to be 102 planted. Pfab/What is the ratio (can't hear). You don't know what the ratio is, do you? Franklin/It's what's in the Code. I don't have the Code before me. But this complies with the Code. Kanner/In regards to this at the last meeting, it was in the minutes, I'd asked about what percentage of new trees tend to survive. There's national figures on these kind of things, and we were supposed to get a memo, but the memo didn't ad&ess that issue. And I was wondering if you could get that figure from Julie. Franklin/It would be from Terry Robinson, I believe, the City forester. Atkins/Julie does the inspections, however. Terry could probably (can't hear) background--- Franklin/This is about survival of trees. Atkins/Oh, survivability. Oh. Pfab/Is there any guarantee that they don't make it, that they be replaced? Do they have a survival time? In other words--- Franklin/There is a requirement that they be planted. According to the memo from Julie, that requirement will be evaluated; that is, the compliance with it will be evaluated before the certificates of occupancies are granted; however, we do not have the staff to go back and check those trees periodically. If there is a noticeable deficiency, usually what happens is that we have somebody complain about it or somebody observes it in the field when they are out for some other reason, and then we can require them to replace those trees. But we don't have people that are devoted to go out and check to see if the trees are alive. Pfab/How--or once the development is signed off, who do you go to? Franklin/If there is an observation that there has been a lack of survival, it would go back through Housing Inspection Services. Pfab/But, who do you, who pays to replace them? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. Franklin/It would be either the developer or the homeowners at the time. Pfab/OK, so the homeowners or the homeowners' association would pick up the liability? Franklin/Sure. That would be the chain of succession. Champion/Well, I think--I'm sorry, Karin. I think the thing you have to remember is people are paying a lot of money to plant those trees, and I think they probably intend to take care of them. They're very expensive. Pfab/Well, I'm not saying, but what if they don't make it? I mean, there was a growth that was doing fine, and is there a bond like if there's--- Franklin/No. O'Donnell/I don't think it's necessary. It's to the development's advantage to have healthy trees, and I'm sure they keep an eye on them. We haven't had a problem with that, have we? Franklin/Not that I'm aware of. Doug, do you? Boothroy/No. Kanner/Well, I don't know--have we, do we know how, what the survival rate of trees are? Have we seen what developments, their trees are doing in regards to this? Franklin/It hasn't been identified as a community problem that I know of to date. Lehman/Which would indicate that the survival rate is at least acceptable to the public or we would have heard about it. Franklin/I think you can conclude that. Kanner/Well, not necessarily. I mean, the whole Sensitive Areas Ordinance is one that there's some people that obviously support it, some didn't. It's something that's relatively new and the preservation of trees is not something that there's a general awareness. And I think at a minimum we need, perhaps, to get more word out about this ordinance and responsibility for the trees. I don't know if--is it marked on their fees that the homeowner will be responsible for an approximate number of years for these trees and that the City, if someone complains, the City may come after them to plant the new tree? Franklin/Conditional zoning agreements are recorded. Those recorded agreements then, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 5 presumably, would show up on their abstract, but does a homeowner read their abstract and all of the documents that go with it? Probably not. Kanner/No, but does it have in regards to the trees, the replanted trees? Certainly, I would expect it would have the zone that's buffered off. Franklin/No. Kanner/Maybe that needs to be put in there also because that's part of the agreement. Franklin/Is that the Council's wish--- Lehman/Is there any interest in--- Franklin/ ...that we pursue this further? Lehman/I have no interest. I believe the fact that they're planted probably takes care of most of the problem. Obviously, there will be some trees that aren't going to live, but if it gets to be a significant problem, there's obviously a way to remedy the problem. So I'm not interested. Kanner/Well, how is there a way--- Lehman/Are there four people who are? Pfab/I'd be interested in just the information, if nothing else. What is, I would like to understand after you put the tree in, is there, does the people where you buy the tree, do they have a guarantee that it'll be there a year from then alive? Franklin/Every nursery gives you a one-year guarantee on what is planted, if they have a nursery planted. Pfab/Are they required to be planted by a nursery? Franklin/No. Pfab/See, so--- Franklin/ But I imagine 102 trees that probably Chuck Meardon is not going to plant those himself. Pfab/I think it's an obligation of City Council to be aware that those trees have a fate. Whatever the historical survivability rate is that, if we knocked out big trees to put in little trees, we at least hope the little trees have a shot at growing up. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. O'Donnell/Emie, I don't think there's four people who want to--- Franklin/ What's the Council's pleasure? O'Donnell/...pursue this. Dilkes/There has been a judgment made in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance itself that this is an appropriate way to address the issue. Lehman/OK. b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 5.69 ACRES FROM LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO LOW-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-12) LOCATED AT 1715 MORMON TREK BOULEVARD. (REZ03-00018) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/OK, b is second consideration on rezoning from RS-5 to RM-12 of 1715 Mormon Trek Boulevard. This is for All Nations Baptist Church. c. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE GREEN PART 19. (SUB03-00029) Franklin/ c is the final plat of Village Green Part 19, and you've been requested by the applicants to defer this indefinitely. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/Short list. Franklin/Yep. Lehman/Karin, you did so well. O'Donnell/Are you through? Franklin/I'm done. AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/OK. Agenda Items. Atkins/Ernie, I've got several staff people here tonight. Linda and Jay for the Senior Center, if you have questions. Doug is here for Housing Authority questions, and Joe is here to walk you through, if you feel necessary, the Court Street This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 7 Transportation Center bids. So, whatever your pleasure. Lehman/OK. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND TItE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURT STREET TRANSPORTATION CENTER PROJECT. Vanderhoef/I'd like to hear on the Court Street, now that we've been awarded the additional money. I take it--did we get alternative bids? Lehman/We haven't been awarded the money yet. Atkins/Joe will walk you through it, Dee. We do not officially have the money in hand. Vanderhoef/No. Atkins/When the check arrives, then it's, it looks very favorable. Vanderhoef/Well, when the check arrives, I think it behooves us to send a thank-you note to our two senators, Harkin and--- Atkins/Yes. Champion/Is it in the mail? Atkins/It is not in the mail. Lehman/No. Atkins/(can't hear) postage. Lehman/Joe, go ahead. O'Donnell/I think that is very favorable. Fowler/We received three bids for this project. The engineers estimated its cost was $7,061,320. The low bid was from Knutson Construction for the base bid, which is the bottom level, which includes the daycare, the Greyhound bus, some parking, and then two levels of parking above that. Their low bid was $5,974,000. We currently have in hand $6.85 million to build this project, so our base bid is more than covered in that. What we're going to recommend would be to award the base bid and then we took alternate bids for a fourth, fifth, and a sixth floor. All the way across the bids, the Knutson was the low bidder. And to add three This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. more floors to this would cost us an additional $2,719,000. So if we receive the additional federal funding of $2 million, we would have enough money to go ahead and complete six floors on this project. The money right now is, it's been earmarked in the Senate. It will now go to a conference committee, which, of the Senate and the House. And the final outcome of that, we won't know until probably later this fall. Champion/But, we'll know in plenty of time to start that second, those extra levels? Fowler/We got in our bids, we had a six-month lock on the price for the alternative. So with the money we have on hand, we can build a minimum of one additional floor, so we would have a minimum of four floors. If we receive the additional funding, we'd be able to build the fifth and sixth floor, and we have six months to commit that. Pfab/And the base structure is sufficient (can't hear)? Fowler/Yes. Pfab/That's automatic that we--- Fowler/ Right, we--- Pfab/...whether we build them or not. Fowler/We went back and--well, whether we would build it now or build it sometime in the future, we went back and did a redesign and put in footings big enough to carry the extra weight. Kanner/Joe, originally this, I thought we applied for money under Livable Community Grant. But my understanding is this is a different program now. What, could you explain what program the feds are giving this money under? Fowler/The Livable Communities went away, basically, as a program. It's part of the TEA 21 authorization of money. They basically earmark money for projects. There's not a specific program, you know, for like Livable Communities. But Livable Communities was the criteria that we used when we first applied and that's the criteria that we've kind of followed through with the whole project. Karmer/And what is--what program is this coming out of now, the federal money? Fowler/The TEA 21 money. Karmer/TEA 21. And what specifically? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 9 Fowler/That's just the authorization for federal funding for transit operations, capital improvements. It's just kind of a general pot of money that they can earmark in whichever way they'd like to. Vanderhoef/A lot of new-starts get paid out of that money. Kanner/So there's no specific name for the program? Fowler/No. Atkins/Joe, the administrator is the Federal Transit Administration, however. Right? Fowler/Yes. Atkins/OK. Lehman/Any further questions on the Court Street project? Vanderhoeff I'm done with it. Lehman/OK. We have other folks here. Are there questions relative to any of these other agenda s? 7. THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AMENDED SECTION 8 ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN. 6. THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AMENDED PUBLIC HOUSING ADMISSIONS AND CONTINUED OCCUPANCY PLAN (ACOP). Pfab/I'm just looking at something here that has puzzled me before, and I was hoping to get a chance to check farther. Here, look at the Housing Authority Amendment of Section 8, there's a question that I had. I don't think there's any--- Lehman/OK. Doug? Doug's here. Pfab/OK. Vanderhoef/Which one is that? Atkins/Seven. Pfab/Eight, seven, on the--- Wilburn/(Can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 10 Boothroy/Oh, the Interim Reexam Policies? Pfab/Right. Boothroy/It's on both 6 and 7. Pfab/I'm looking at 7 right now. I believe it's, I was thinking there was a second one, but I just, maybe this one just jumped out at me right now. But, I'm attempting to understand what it is they're actually saying? Boothroy/What we're doing? Pfab/Yeah. In other words, HUD says if the person starts, if the recipient of the grant, I guess it is, makes more money, if their income goes up, then X happens. Right? Boothroy/You can adjust the half-payment or the level of assistance. Pfab/Right. And if it goes down? Boothroy/The same thing. You can adjust it depending on if the income goes up, the assistance goes down; if the income goes down, the assistance goes up. Pfab/Well, what has changed from--what is this change actually doing? I was trying to figure that out. Boothroy/Well, to summarize everything that's in here, the policy change that we're making, I believe, rewards clients for succeeding in getting jobs and maintaining those jobs. What we find happening is that if every time somebody gets a pay increase and it can be very modest, or gets a job, and they find that there's a high probability that they may quit that job, and therefore maintain the level of assistance that they've gotten before. So what this does is reward people for keeping their job. We're not constantly, you know, adjusting their rent upwards every time they make an improvement in their self-sufficiency. So, when they get better, if they perform and get more money, we're not calling them up and saying, well, now for doing better, you're going to have to pay more rent. And sometimes the rent offsets the pay increase, and so what's the motivation? HUD does not require, except on an annual basis for us to do exams, and so we're certainly consistent with HUD regulations. In fact, when HUD did our review, they strongly recommended that we stop the past practice that we've had, which was innumerable interim reexams. Not only bad, but it runs everybody ragged to constantly, you know, adjust income as people change jobs and so forth. Pfab/So, I'm trying--this is for my clarification. Is it--so you're saying now it's an annual event. It will become an annual event. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 11 Boothroy/Well, it has to be an annual event. Pfab/Right. Boothroy/It's, that's not changing. The way we were doing it was every time it occurred, they--what will happen with this change is that the client will still be required to report changes, but there won't be what we call an exam and a changing of the-- what we call the half-payment standard. With the exception of here--it says that if that total family income exceeds the 80 percent, then at that point, because that's such a huge increase, we would do a reexam. But the likelihood of that happening very often is quite low. Pfab/OK. So, then, but the contrast is to, if the income of the family went down, say, lost a job or something like that, how--- Boothroy/We are required to adjust when reported. So, if the, if it's on the converse side, if they lose a job and they report that to us, which is their obligation, we are required to make that adjustment immediately. Pfab/OK, so that--- Boothroy/So that doesn't change. All we're doing is trying to take out that negative reinforcement that was happening, because we were constantly lowering their assistance every time they got better in terms of what they were doing in the workplace. Pfab/OK. Boothroy/So we think this helps this whole idea of self-sufficiency. Pfab/I just, I looked at it and I thought I understood it once or twice--- Boothroy/Yeah. Pfab/...and I went back and so I said, well--- Boothroy/Yeah, I think this is a positive. Cedar Rapids and Dubuque have the same policy and they've found that it's been a positive for their programs and I think it will work well for us. Wilburn/I imagine that it will give folks a little cushion so that they can--- Boothroy/Exactly. And so they are earning money, they're spending it in the community--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 12 Wilburn/And possibly working towards home ownership then so--- Boothroy/Exactly. Champion/Doug, is the self-sufficiency program and community service a new addition? Is that new? Boothroy/No, our FSS program has been around for--gee, I don't remember now how long, maybe three years, maybe four. And I think we gave a report to Council a couple of years ago; Mary Copper came. We're doing a lot of really neat things in FSS, and maybe we should come sometime and talk to you about some of the things that we're doing with Goodwill and other, with the Ross Grant and so forth. Champion/And is that, Ross, you had a thing in our packet about Jobs Out of Poverty. Is that part of that program? Wilburn/Part of the Ross Grant or---? Champion/No, part of the program, the self-sufficiency program. Boothroy/No, we don't have that as part of the--no, it's not part of our local program, if that's what you' re asking? Champion/OK. Boothroy/OK. Kanner/Doug. A couple questions on that. This Community Service self-sufficiency requirement, is that waived for certain people with disabilities? Boothroy/Yes, I believe it is. I don't remember exactly what, how, what the requirement is, but my recollection and tomorrow night, Steve Rackis will be here to answer this question. But it's my recollection in reading the regs that disabilities are waived under this self-sufficiency issue. And that includes, I think, elderly as well as individuals with disabilities, I think, are waived from this particular requirement. Kanner/So, basically anyone with a certified disability that's in public housing can waive. Boothroy/Mm-hmm. Yes. That's my understanding. As well as the elderly, I believe. Kanner/And--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 13 Boothroy/But he can clarify that tomorrow night, but I'm pretty sure that that's the case. Kanner/Is child care available for these folks when they have the, when they do the community service for the self-sufficiency Program? Boothroy/We don't provide any child care. So, I'm not, I don't have any answer for that. I mean I'm not aware of what is available in that particular area. Vanderhoef/There was something in here that someone could do baby-sitting for someone else .... Boothroy/Sure. Vanderhoef/...as part of their community service while that someone else was either getting retraining or--- Boothroy/Yeah, you could volunteer to, or do, and that could count toward it. Self- sufficiency has been in and out of the regulations over the past few years. It's in right now and required for public housing. This is a requirement; this is mandated, as it says in the comment. It's not optional. It was mandated a few years back, but then HUD pulled it, and now they've brought it back again. You know, I don't know how long it's going to be with us. From a staffing point of view, it's extremely intensive because we have to monitor all those hours and it's very labor-intensive, and I think that's why in the past it's not always been supported by HUD. Kanner/So this is from the Bush administration? Boothroy/I don't know who it's from. Karmer/Well, it came from the feds, right? Boothroy/Yeah. Kanner/And just recently was--- Boothroy/It was reenacted, yes. Kanner/Yeah, it seems like--I'm not too crazy about this thing. It just seems it buys into their whole concept of, you know, people have it too easy in public housing and we got to make them work, which I don't think is the case, that they're not working hard. Maybe Dee answered this next question in regards to this memo from Christine Pigsley from ISCD. Boothroy/I don't think I've seen it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 14 Kanner/Well, she says--- Boothroy/Well, I know I haven't seen it. Kanner/This is included in number 6 with correspondence. "It has come to my attention that you are considering including work support such as child care, transportation, work-related clothing to your income calculations for low-income Iowa City residents in subsidized housing. I say bravo to you for recognizing that it takes a lot more than a job offer to keep a family off welfare." So I don't understand how that relates to these provisions. Boothroy/I'd have to read the whole memo. I mean, I can't~-- Kanner/Dee, did you read this? Vanderhoef/Yeah, I read it. I think what she was referring to--or the way I read that was- -that she was saying instead of doing the recalculation all the time, that this was the possibility to get a little additional dollars to pay for child care and clothing to stay in the workforce, that just because you got the job didn't mean that all at once you were going to have money to buy clothes to go to work in and--- Boothroy/Yeah, if she's supporting the change, your explanation makes sense. Vanderhoef/Yeah. That's the way I read it. Ka~mer/OK, I'll try to call you tomorrow because I still don't quite follow it in the--- Boothroy/Yeah, or either that or get a hold of Steven because I know that he's, I think, had conversations, possibly even talked to her as well, but I'm not sure. Any other questions about Housing Authority? Wilburn/I just wanted to thank staff, congratulate them for coming up with the--- Boothroy/Right. OK, I'll pass that on. Wilburn/Yeah. Thanks. Lehman/Thank you, Doug. Other agenda s? 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-309 AND ADOPTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE COMPOSITION OF A SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND ESTABLISHING THE MEMBERSItIP, TERMS, DUTIES, POWERS AND AUTItORITY OF This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 15 SAID COMMISSION. 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPORVING BY-LAWS OF THE SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION O'Donnell/Just a quick question for Jay. We're decreasing the size of the Senior Center Commission to seven? Honohan/I'm sorry? I didn't hear you. Vanderhoef/Come on up. I've got a question, too. O'Donnell/We're decreasing the size of the Senior Center Commission to seven. Honohan/That's correct. O'Donnell/And six Council appointments? Honohan/That's correct. O'Donnell/And then one appointment of that will be at-large? Honohan/And that will be appointed by the Commission members. O'Donnell/And that seventh member? Honohan/That's the seventh member. O'Donnell/That's the seventh member. So the County will not be appointing anybody? Honohan/That is correct. Champion/Did you say though that the seventh person you would hope would be from a rural part of, or outside of--- Honohan/Outside the City's limits. The idea there was, I guess, you'd call it an incentive, in a sense, to promote participation by other communities. And also to get input from somebody outside the City limits. Vanderhoel7 Well, I was interested in putting Johnson County in there versus just someone outside the City. Because my understanding is we have people from a number of places outside of the County that use our Senior Center regularly, and by saying Johnson County, we would be excluding any of those folks. Honohan/We never considered anybody outside of Johnson County. You are correct, that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 16 we do have people that participate that have purchased memberships that don't live in Johnson County. Our intent was just to limit it to Johnson County. Vanderhoef/But without discussion about the others? Honohan/I don't recall that we actually discussed anybody outside the County. Vanderhoef/It just seems like if Johnson County were taken out of there and we just said outside of the City limits--- Honohan/I certainly couldn't quarrel with that. Champion/But their point is that would be somebody from Johnson County, isn't it? Honohan/No, our intent was to have somebody--- Vanderhoef/No, a member of the Senior Center. Champion/Right. (can't hear) Vanderhoef/Well, but what I'm saying is there are people from outside of Johnson County who have memberships and--- Champion/ Well, I understand that, but I think that's fine--but I think the Commission ought to be made up of people who only live in Johnson County. O'Donnell/I agree. Pfab/I have a, I'm a little uncomfortable with what, with the way this is going because it looks to me like if there's another member going to be appointed, shouldn't the City Council be appointing that person? Champion/I'm not going to argue about that. Lehman/Well, if we're appointing six out of the seven, I don't have a problem with them choosing one of their own. Pfab/Because is it an obligation of the City to do the funding for that or is it like the library--they go off and do their own thing, so to speak? Lehman/If we appoint six, we obviously have an overwhelming majority of that Commission appointed by the City. We might not necessarily know the folks that the Commission does know who are located outside of the City who might be very beneficial to that Commission. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 17 Pfab/But is there any reason why they couldn't present themselves to the City Council? With the recommendation of the thing? I think it's a big shift in the power structure there. Champion/It's a minor shift. Pfab/Well, maybe, maybe not. But we've lost, you've lost three, you took away three, and added one. So basically the City is losing three out of it. Champion/No. We did appoint three. Lehman/Did. Champion/The County appointed three. Lehman/We had two-thirds of the Commission before; we will now have six-sevenths, which is greater control than we had before. Champion/Yeah. There were three that we did not appoint. Pfab/But the other three brought money with them. Champion/Not anymore. Pfab/But not anymore. But does this Commission member represent money from another source of revenue? Champion/No, they represent ideas and input to the Commission. They don't represent money. Pfab/Well, OK, so you're just looking for ideas and whatnot, you have a population there, you also have a very well-qualified staff for ideas and whatnot. I think it's, I'm not against it, but when I get a kind of a queasy feeling, I just don't like it. Kanner/Then, let me, I don't know if this piggybacks on what you're saying, Irvin, but I don't like the direction of coming inward in Iowa City. I think even though the County has dropped back on their funding, I think our goal over the next, in the long-term should be to be more inclusive, to have a Countywide Senior Center system, and we should be inviting more people on the Commission, and I think we ought to be inviting, certainly, the County to appoint one to three members, and we ought to be inviting other members in the Johnson County area to be on the Commission. I think it's appropriate that the City as the major funder and owner of the building to have the majority of members, but I think this is moving in the wrong direction and I'll offer an amendment tomorrow to add two or three members from Johnson County, appointed by Johnson County. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 18 Lehman/Any other questions for Jay? O'Dormell/I'm comfortable with it. Lehman/Thank you, sir. Honohan/Thank you. Kanner/Pardon me, what were the amendments that you recommended? Lehman/Well, they're in the packet. Champion/One was just that there--- Kart/There's a handout. Champion/...(can't hear) notification of meetings, always written notification of meetings. Lehman/Right. Champion/What's the other one? Kanner/So this is in this here? Karr/What you had this evening reflects the amendments as recommended by the Rules Committee. Kanner/So that would be 4.3 notice and agenda? Karr/That's correct. The unexpired terms. Kauner/What would that be? Dilkes/2.6. You have the Rules Committee minutes, I think, in this agenda packet as well. Champion/Yes, they're in the packet. Dilkes/And they talk specifically about the amendments made by the Rules Committee. Kanner/Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that--- Karr/2.5, 2.6, and 4.3. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 19 Kanner/So those were from Ernie and Connie? Kart/Yes. Dilkes/There were some additional comments made by the Rules Committee that aren't reflected in the amendments, and those are set forth in the minutes. Vanderhoef/Were they not for the bylaws? Your recommendations? Dilkes/Yeah, but they affect the resolution as well. For instance, one of the comments was that the at-large appointment should be limited to a non-Iowa City resident and need not be a qualified elector, i.e., registered to vote. Lehman/Right. O'Donnell/Good. Dilkes/But it's sufficient that they're a resident of Johnson County. Vanderhoef/OK, and--- Dilkes/So those would require amendments to the resolution as well. Vanderhoef/Because I kind of like those recommendations, so put them in the, in both bylaws or resolutions? Karr/No, it affects number 13, the resolution creating it or establishing it and does not affect the bylaws, number 14. Vanderhoef/So, what is different than, tonight about, what the (can't hear) Kan'/Of what you have before you this evening is an amendment to the resolution stating the Rules Committee did recommend changes and what is attached, reflect those changes. What you received in the packet was the bylaws as presented by the Senior Center Commission for the 2.5, 2.6, and 4.3 sections. Champion/Those reflect the changes--4.3, 2.5, and 2.6--you can circle those and then put in their packet, in the packet those three changes are not reflected. This is revised. Vanderhoef/Well, what you handed out was bylaws, not resolution though. Champion/Well, but it was the bylaws that we're--- Lehman/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 20 Dilkes/The changes recommended by the Rules Committee were very procedural and for the most part dropped them in line with the bylaws of other Commissions. In addition to that, the Rules Committee recommended, made certain recommendations, which are in the minutes. One was that age not be a specific requirement for appointment. I think that had been a discussion at some of the Senior Center Commission meetings, and two, was that the at-large appointment by the Commission should be limited to a non-Iowa City resident and need not be a qualified elector, or in other words, a registered voter, it would be sufficient that they were a resident of Johnson County or not a resident of Iowa City. Pfab/What was the, can you restate the requirements as far as voter? Lehman/They don't have to be a registered voter. Champion/They don't have to be registered. Pfab/Does it say qualified, person qualified to vote? Champion/No. Dilkes/The current resolution does, yes. Kanner/Meaning that you have to be qualified in Io~va City? Champion/No. Kart/No. Dilkes/"Qualified" means registered to vote as opposed to "eligible," which simply means you're a resident and you can vote if you register. Kanner/So, we don't require any of our Commissions to be registered voters. Dilkes/No, we do not, which is why the recommendation was made, that it not say "qualified." Kanner/Are you going to offer an amendment tomorrow for this? Lehman/This is, this reflects--- Karr/No. Dilkes/Not that one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 21 Karr/That is the bylaws--- Lehman/Right. Kart/...and that affects only the bylaws. The recommendation on that particular subject affects the resolution creating it, number 13, not 14. So, you will need to amend it to change that. Pfab/OK. Kanner/So, will the Rules Committee offer that amendment tomorrow? Champion/Yes. And also, my understanding is you don't have to be eligible to vote either. Isn't that correct? I mean, you could be a foreigner who's not a U.S. citizen. Dilkes/Usually--a lot of our bylaws say "eligible." Champion/Oh, OK. Dilkes/Yeah. Lehman/OK. Wilburn/OK. Lehman/And you'll make the amendment for that? Champion/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/For these? Lehman/OK? Vanderhoef/And you're going to put the age one in there? Champion/Mm-hmm. VanderhoelY Good. Dilkes/Age is not currently mentioned in any of the documents in front of you. I think that was a response to a discussion in the Senior Center minutes. Vanderhoef/Well, that's what I was trying to find was the age thing and I don't--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 22 Dilkes/No, it's not in there. Lehman/We're not putting age in it. Kanner/So we don't have to do anything about it? Lehman/Right. Age is--we won't do anything about it. O'Donnell/OK. Lehman/OK? O'Donnell/That's it. Kanner/I had a couple of things. In the Board and Commission minutes, the--- Lehman/Well, let's finish--you're doing Council Time now? Karmer/No, agenda. Lehman/Oh, OK. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS b (1) ANIMAL CARE AND ADOPTION CENTER ADVISORY BOARD: JUNE 5 Kanner/Board and Commission minutes (b)l. Animal Shelter. Was Tom Gill, appointee of Coralville, removed from the board for not showing up at meetings? There was a request (can't hear) Karr/A letter was going to be sent, Steven, is what the minutes indicated. A letter would be sent to Coralville asking them for a replacement. Kanner/OK. And--- O'Donnell/I don't think he can really be removed. He's another City's appointee; they're the only ones that can--- Lehman/ I think the letter went to the City of Coralville. Karr/Correct. Kanner/For not attending. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 23 b (3) IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: JULY 8 Kanner/And then in the Historic Preservation minutes, (b) 3 from July 8th, they ask whether it's better to make a motion in a positive or a negative sense. Was there any response to that question? Does that make it to your office, do you recall? Dilkes/Shelley's in the audience. She can probably answer that. It hasn't made it to me personally. McCafferty/I spoke with--- Dilkes/Someone in my office. McCafferty/I spoke with Mitch Behr regarding this issue and forwarded the information to the Historic Preservation Commission. It is likely that perhaps it has not been reflected in these two minutes. I'm not sure if it's in the August, but it was resolved. We were told that it was best to make the motion in the positive. If you do not agree, if you plan to word it in the negative to state that your intention is to vote in the negative. So, your motion does not have to reflect your intent of voting. Kanner/Thanks. And if that's not in the minutes, can I get a copy of that memo? McCafferty/Certainly. It was a memo that I put, it comes back to me now, to the Historic Preservation Commission in one of their packets. Kanner/And then I had another question. A big discussion--it was interesting to read about vinyl siding issue as always, and whether you're going to amend the bylaws to go a certain way or not so that non-historic buildings, or you might be calling them something beyond non-historic, are allowed to put vinyl siding on. Has that been resolved yet from the Commission? McCafferty/This issue has been resolved. At this time, what I would recommend is that on September 22nd, we do have scheduled with you a discussion regarding all the changes that the Historic Preservation Commission as well as those questions that you had at a previous meeting. So, perhaps it might be best if we get to that issue at our next work session. Kanner/I think we were planning to meet with the Airport, the recommendation is to meet on Monday, and I don't know i£we'd be able to meet with two Commissions. Lehman/Well, Airport Commission requested a half hour, so my suspicion is depending on the rest of it, we can handle that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 24 McCafferty/Mm-hmm. Kanner/OK. It seems like there's going to be a lot in your book when I was reading. McCafferty/Well, potentially, we'll see how it pans out, try to keep it focused. Kanner/Can you, when you give it to us, can you highlight in some way the changes as opposed to just giving us the new proposed bylaws? McCafferty/Certainly, I will--- Kanner/Just let us know what has been changed; I find it hard when we get things like number 14 or to not see what's been added or changed, either by bolding or underlining it. McCafferty/No, certainly, I will probably forward to you in addition to a memo a portion at least of the new regulations, the guidelines. I guess, keep in mind that at this time, this has not even gone to Planning and Zoning. We are looking sort of for general comments from you and not looking at sort of specific language issues, more policy issues. Champion/But that's a good point. Lehman/He's got a, yes. Champion/Very good point. McCafferty/That's the way it's all presented right--formatted. Lehman/You will indicate the changes? McCafferty/Yes. Lehman/I would think that's our interest is how we are changing, what it is and what you're proposing. McCafferty/Yes, the current way it's set up, everything. Lehman/Good. Champion/All right. 3. d (5) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTItORIZING TIrIE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLG) GRANT TO OBTAIN This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 25 FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING A NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION FOR THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT. Vanderhoef/OK, while you're there--- McCafferty/Yes. Vanderhoe£/...may I ask you, we are to approve on the Consent Calendar a resolution for you to apply for a certified government grant--- McCa££erty/Yes. Vanderhoe£/...to do another stage or something of the central business district. McCaf£erty/Correct. Vanderhoe£/I read through what the grant said, and it seems to me perhaps the grant is being done before there's at least initial meeting with property owners downtown, just in that I've not received any correspondence from anybody that says they're interested in having it a historic district. And my reading in the state magazine and so forth, the towns that have done it, that has come to the City Councils because the business people brought it up, and my experience with some o£our other historic things that we have done in the City have been brought to us by the citizens. McCafferty/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoe£/And so $10,000 total package, at least on this rounded-o£f, and then get people involved with it a~ter you're already into this rather than be£ore. Because I'm just not clear how much interest in downtown in doing this. McCa££erty/What I guess I would like to explain and specify somewhat is that there is a distinct difference between what the Commission is proposing in terms o£a national registered district versus a local district. As you're aware, in 2001 a survey was done. There was a recommendation made there. The national registered district, what that provides, are financial incentives to downtown owners as well as potentially some marketing potential. In terms o£ any sort of regulation restriction or legislative action, zoning, etc., that has nothing to do with this national registered district. Vanderhoe£/Mm-hrnm. McCaf£erty/Essentially, what could happen if this downtown district is put into place. That doesn't necessarily guarantee there'll be a local district or that there'll be a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 26 legislation involved that will follow that. That will have to come essentially from the owners downtown. That national registered district--let me back up--if you consider historic preservation, the approach to it as being sort of the carrot-and- the-stick approach. Really, what the national registered district is that offers the carrot. There's nothing in terms of the regulation, the guidelines, etc., involved with that unless there's a project that involves federal money. Certainly, it is your prerogative to say that perhaps we should wait on this for another year and to get some more discussion downtown. But one thing that the national register process will do is initiate that discussion or at least bring that discussion to the table. Generally, when we do a national registered district, there will be at least with the local, with a Neighborhood, there will be at least four meetings which would involve property owners and business owners so that they would have the input. We could get more information from them, but I think primarily what I would want to make clear on this is that this does not--any regulations does not, they do not come with this particular type of district. I don't--- Kanner/Yeah, this grant also struck me as something as I probably am leaning towards but I'm going to ask that it be removed from the Consent Calendar so that perhaps there can be a little more discussion tomorrow, and if you or someone else from the Commission could be here, I would appreciate it. That would be up to you. McCafferty/Certainly. This is timely in the sense that right now Marlys Svensen is in town and she's the one who put together the 2001 survey. She has extensive experience doing these types of districts. She could perhaps better answer some of these questions in terms of the specifics of the national register. She agreed to be available if you would be interested in that type of discussion. Pfab/I'd be interested for her to come. Kanner/If she could be here tomorrow night? McCafferty/Mm-hmm. Kanner/Great. And to remove it from the Consent Calendar doesn't mean that--- McCafferty/Right. I understand that. TAPE 03-66, SIDE TWO Lehman/Thank you, ghelley. 3 (d)l CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH TItE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE IOWA CLEAN AIR ATTAINMENT PROGRAM (ICAAP) FOR TItE ARTERIAL STREET This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 27 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECTION PROJECT. Kanner/Another item that I'm going to ask to remove from the Consent Calendar and vote on separately is (d) l, applying for the cleaner grant for traffic signals. Again, I think I tend to lean towards this but just want to see if there's any public response. It seems that it, oftentimes we make traffic go faster and so-called smoother, it attracts more cars, and in the long run you end up with actually more congestion and more possibly fouled air. And so, that's (d)l I would ask to be removed. Lehman/OK. Pfab/Which one is--- Lehman/(d) 1. Kanner/(d) 1. It's the application--- Pfab/Oh, OK, I was thinking you were saying something--- Kanner/In Consent Calendar. Pfab/No, I would look at that a little different from where you're coming from but I think it's a good discussion (can't hear) ITEM 3. (e) 7 CORRESPONDENCE. STEVE O'DONNELL: WATER BILL Kanner/It'll be good tomorrow. And then two correspondence items. One is Steve O'Donnell, number 7, (e)7, and, Steve, I wonder if you could explain what the story is on that. I was only able to look at it briefly and it seemed a little confusing as to--- Atkins/I'm a little confused by it also. OK. Champion/But, it seems pretty clear to me that he's saying in the letter that the pre-last month he was billed at the old meter reading. Atkins/Mm-hmm. Champion/And I don't know if that's true or not, but I--- Atkins/Well, he chose not to pay those bills, and that's why we credited it against the payment. Champion/Oh, but you credited it before the meter read? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 28 Atkins/No, the higher meter read. Champion/Yeah, that's what I mean. Atkins/Yeah. Kanner/But you say--- Atkins/It's to his advantage. Kanner/No, no, he got less money back--- Lehman/Right. Kanner/...(can't hear) the read--- O'Donnell/That's due to number of years, I think. Champion/No. No, he's saying that the last three months that he didn't pay--- Lehman/Were overcharged. Champion/...that he was charged at the high meter rate--- Atkins/OK. Champion/...and he should have been charged at the new meter rate. Kanner/It was deducted from the refund and so it was deducted more. He's saying he should have gotten more money back. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Champion/And he's right. Lehman/He's right about that. Kanner/If that's the case, we have to look into that. And then he threw in something else about still considering the other 17 years. I don't know if that, I didn't quite follow that either. Dilkes/That's an ordinance. Atkins/That's an ordinance. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 29 Dilkes/The five-year, going back five years is an ordinance, I mean, you would have to, in order to change that, you'd have to amend the ordinance. Atkins/Well, we're using these industry standards. You know, we're paying at the top rate. Normally, what we would do with a customer is, in fact, set it up for the next five or six months to see what their actual usage was, then settle the thing. My understanding is Mr. O'Donnell wanted to settle it, like, right now. Champion/He's moving. Atkins/Yeah. Champion/That's the reason. Lehman/But his point, I think, was the last three months we had charged him at the rate from the defective meter, which conceivably could have been significantly higher than the actual fees. Well, if the actual fees had been deducted from his refund check, it would have less money. I think we just need to check the numbers. Atkins/Well, we checked it--- Lehman/ That would be a reasonable small amount. Atkins/Well, then there's another little problem is that I checked today what his usage was for September and it was 400. So, he's using--- Vanderhoef/And he was charged for 3. Atkins/And we're charging him only for 3. So, that's part of it, yeah. Kanner/At the new low rate? The dollar figure was $400? Atkins/No, 400 was his usage, Steve, the volume of water he used. Vanderhoef/Cubic feet. Atkins/We've been billing him for 300. Kanner/We're off all those years. O'Donnell/Our ordinance says we can only go back five years. Lehman/Five years. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 30 Atkins/Yes, it does. Now, he's entitled to file a claim, which is administered by a risk manager. He's entitled to do that. But then it's incumbent upon him to lay out the groundwork for what the claim is. And then Kevin has the authority to settle these claims, and it's fairly common practice. Not so much with water but in other matters. Vanderhoeff So he can do that and irregardless of taking any other action or not. Atkins/Regardless, he's entitled to do that. Vanderhoef/OK. Lehman/OK. Champion/There's (can't hear) to claim. Dilkes/But we would have, as we do all claims, we would have to evaluate that claim and determine whether he had any likelihood of success if he pursued that claim. We wouldn't j ust--- Atkins/It's not automatic. It's a completely different type of review that we go through, but he is entitled to do that. Champion/And does he know that? Dilkes/I have no idea. Atkins/I don't know. We can certainly--- Lehman/Do we wish to--- Atkins/We're taking care of it tomorrow (can't hear) Lehman/Shall we continue to handle this administratively? Pfab/No, OK, I think it was the consent or the feeling of the Council that he should be reimbursed because of the City's error because it was a bad meter. O'Donnell/That's what this is all about. Pfab/Right. But it did, the bad meter was there for a lot longer than five years. O'Donnell/For 17 years, that's what we're talking about. Pfab/So, I was under the impression that we had agreed that we would go back 17 years. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 31 Lehman/I don't think we can go back 17 years without some sort of ordinance change because that's, we are precluded from going back more than five years. Atkins/Right. That's correct. Kanner/Well, no, we as a Council, we could say that we'd like to make a payment to him--- Lehman/Not without changing the ordinance, I don't think. He can--- Kanner/But why do we have to change the ordinance? We can--- Lehman/But the ordinance says you can't go more than five years. Wilburn/We have to follow our own roles. Lehman/We have to follow our own roles. Champion/But he can file a claim for those years. Lehman/Right. And that can be set, handled administratively. Kanner/For previous to the five years? Lehman/Yeah. Atkins/Yes. Lehman/There is a mechanism he can do that. Champion/And he needs to be told that though. Kanner/This for business for paying out, the way I heard it--I have not read it--but it seems to me that a customer, a consumer cannot make a claim on us for more than five years. Or we don't have liability for more than five years, but does that actually preclude us from making a payment if we wanted to? Lehman/Eleanor? Dilkes/If he files a claim and there is an argument that legally he could recover more than those last five years, then I think that the administration or the Council, if the Council wanted to get involved in the settlement of that claim, could choose to pay him more. But absent that, no. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 32 Lehman/Without him filing a claim, we can't break our own rules. Atkins/That's correct. Dilkes/That would be my opinion. Lehman/OK. O'Donnell/OK. Lehman/So for the time being, we'll continue to handle this administratively. Atkins/(can't hear) he will be (can't hear) Pfab/OK, so I guess from a point of competition, so he from, what I'm hearing you're saying, he would have reasonable expectations to get reimbursed for the charges going back 17 years? Atkins/I don't think you can say that to him. Champion/You can't say that. But he needs to file a claim. Atkins/Well. Pfab/OK, but I think it was the consensus here of the Council that--- Champion/It was. Pfab/...that he be treated fairly. O'Dounell/If it's wrong, we should correct it--- Champion/ Right. O'Donnell/...but we have to determine--- Pfab/And do what would have to be done to make it right. Kanner/And I would like, if not actually saying do you want to pursue this, then perhaps send him a copy of this correspondence we just had tonight, or a summary of it, so he knows that it's up to him to take the next move. Atkins/Well, he'll be informed by telephone for sure, Steven, at the very least. We'll make sure. And then we can certainly--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 33 Kanner/You'll do that? Atkins/I'll do that tomorrow. Kanner/Good. Thank you. Lehman/OK. ITEM 3. (e) 6 CORRESPONDENCE. ROD SULLIVAN: 2004 IOWA CAUCUSES Kanner/Then the last correspondence issue is number 6 by Rod Sullivan, chair of the Democratic party. We were informed that, legally, we don't have an obligation to provide the library as Rod Sullivan was requesting for the Democratic caucuses. But the question is, is that something we would like to provide beyond what is legal and/or are there other options? And I'm not quite sure what the answer is for that. Champion/Well, the problem is that it would go after library hours, but what about, I mean, the Rec Center; it seems to me a logical place. Dilkes/Well, I really urge you to read my letter to him that is behind his letter to us because what his letter omits is all the space that we have agreed to provide him on Caucus Day. Champion/Right. Dilkes/Which includes three big rooms, including the assembly hall in the Rec Center, three big rooms in the Senior Center, space at Mercer Park, space at the Transit Building. The library is in a precinct in which he already has space. And, frankly, the decision whether to open up the library or not would be one that would reside with the library. Champion/So, it isn't that space hasn't really been provided him. Karmer/Is he implying that there's not enough space in the Rec Center or the Senior Center? Champion/There'd be more than there is in the library. Dilkes/I have told Mr. Sullivan that we would be happy to work with him in trying to provide additional space in those buildings that we are opening up and he has not been receptive to that. Lehman/So, this isn't a matter of space not being available. OK. Then I guess I concur with our position. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 34 Pfab/I guess I don't remember exactly what was in the letter. Is he saying that the location where the space is or is not as convenient or what? O'Donnell/It's a block away. Lehman/It's a block away from the Rec Center; I see no point in going further. Any other agenda items? Wilburn/No. ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR DELUXE BAKERY FROM IOWA CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND AND AUTHORIZING TIlE CITY MANAGER TO ACT AS TIlE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SUBMIT ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION TO TIlE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF IlOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Pfab/Wait, there is. Under agenda items--I'm not sure where it is--but anyway, that is the terms for the project, the bakery. Now, I think the project is a great project. I only have a question and with this for my clarification. I remember the trouble we had about charging commemial people for block grants or CDBG money. Now, ! can't remember what that (can't hear) was way back then; it was 1 percent or this or this and time; and I see this is a 3 percent for five years. I think that that's quite a bit lower than what we were agreeing even secured property over other years. Lehman/I think we gave a 3 pement loan to the barbecue place. The last one, it was also 3 percent. Pfab/But what--but even, OK, even about that, what about building construction? Lehman/We've not made any other allocations from that fund. Vanderhoef/This is CBDG. This is not--- Lehman/This is economic development. We have not made a--- Pfab/I, my only concern, I am not opposed to the (can't hear), but I think it flies in the face of some very strong discussion we had back about a year ago when it came time for CDBG funds in to helping, I think it was, private developers, and I'm thinking (can't hear) might have been the first one. Vanderhoef/No, that was housing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 35 Lehman/Those are housing issues. Pfab/Right. Vanderhoef/And housing issues, not--- Pfab/And what did we, how did we determine what those interest rates were going to be? One was for nonprofits and one was for profits, which this is a profit enterprise. Vanderhoef/And 2 points below market rate is what I recall. Am I right? Atkins/Something like that. Pfab/I would like some information before I vote on that tomorrow. Vanderhoef/Well, this doesn't have any--there's no, you're talking about apples and oranges on this. Pfab/It comes from the same money. Champion/No. Lehman/Well, one's economic--- Pfab/CBDG money. Kanner/It is slightly related in that for profits, and I can also see that it's different in that one is going to a for-profit operation that is going to eventually assist low- to moderate-income people. This CDBG economic development is, in theory, going directly to benefit low- and moderate-income person or the opportunity for a job for low- or moderate-income person. So there is that slight difference, but still them is a connection and I can see that maybe you would want to have some recommendation, similar; I'm not so sure, though. Pfab/OK. I'm not either. I couldn't remember when I looked at it here and it said 3 percent here, and I was thinking that I just don't remember. But I do want that information before I vote on it. Otherwise I'd have trouble--- Atkins/What is this information I'm supposed to get for you? Kanner/Well, about our--what the--- Champion/The interest rates for profit-seeking (can't hear). Kanner/Recipients of HOME funds. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 36 Lehman/These ~vere brought, the discussion--- Wilburn/I've got to excuse myself from this discussion that involves CDBG and HOME funds because I have a conflict of interest. Dilkes/Steve, Steve Nasby will recognize what he's talking about. Lehman/The numbers that we had prior were for--- Atkins/For HOME money. Lehman/...housing projects--- Atkins/I recall that. Lehman/...and economic development projects. Vanderhoef/And these were the ones when HCDC brought us the recommendations this past year. Atkins/OK. Vanderhoef/And everybody asked for a grant and we said not (can't hear). Atkins/It's coming back, yeah. Pfab/But weren't they both CDBG funds, the ones that we were just talking about? Kanner/Well, they were HOME funds, which is mixed in with the CDBG. Pfab/Well, but if they're mixed in they take the--- Vanderhoef/They're two different pots of money and you can't use HOME funds to start a business. Pfab/OK, I need some more clarification on that. Lehman/OK. Any other agenda items? COUNCIL TIME O'Donnell/I've got one thing. We've all read in the paper about the traffic control. I would really like to see this put to rest. I think we, you know, I understand we've been through the budgetary process, and I know how short money is. But I think This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 37 that we need to look at this as a community event, an area-wide event, and something that we all take part in and it's not (can't hear), and I'd like to see this put to rest. Champion/! agree, Mike. It's bringing a tremendous amount of ill feelings in the community. Pfab/I guess the case would be how much more are we going to appropriate to the police department? Lehman/Can we--- Dilkes/I think you need to schedule it for a work session. Lehman/All right--we have to schedule it--this is not appropriate for this meeting? Champion/Maybe it will be resolved before then. Lehman/All right. Then would you like to see us discuss it at the next work session--- Pfab/I would. Lehman/...if it isn't resolved prior to that? All right. O'Donnell/Yup. Lehman/Make that a work session item. Kanner/If they would all take planes, then we can have the Airport Commission. (Laughter) Champion/Great idea. O'Donnell/It's more pollution though. Champion/Oh, that's great. Lehman/OK. Any other thing for Council Time? Kanner/Did Kahn leave? Atkins/Yes, just did. Kanner/Maybe I could relate it to you. In regard to the Development Code update--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 38 Atkins/Yup. Kanner/...that we got a memo from. A couple things. One, in looking at the annual Board and Commission report. Part of the mission of the Board of Adjustment is to make recommendations regarding amendments to the zoning chapter, and I think it would be appropriate--if they're up to it--to perhaps take a look at some of these proposals, mn it through another body, another perspective, and make perhaps better use of our Commission. Atkins/Doug has been actively involved in it with the staff, haven't you, with the Code review stuff?. Boothroy/Mm-hmm. Atkins/I don't see anything wrong with running it by another Commission. I'll check it out with Karin. Dilkes/Well, I think it's going to be a time issue. So we probably need to have some discussion about that. Atkins/Yeah, actually, the timing issue is the big thing because P and Z is anxious to get at it, I know that. Kanner/Well, perhaps concurrently. Is this not something that perhaps they have to, they don't have to go through the hierarchy but they can look at it concurrently and if they had some thoughts on it. Atkins/OK. Champion/I just have one thing I want to bring up, and I keep meaning to bring it up. The stoplight at Iowa Avenue and Gilbert. Iowa and Gilbert, coming out of the new parking facility. If somebody's going to make a left-hand tum, there may be only one car that gets through that intersection on a green light. Lehman/No turn lane. Champion/There's no tum lane, and cars get backed up into the parking ram, and all they need to do is extend that green light a little bit longer. Atkins/Iowa and Gilbert traffic signal. Lehman/Or cut the curb off. Atkins/The turning. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 39 Champion/If somebody's going to make a left-hand turn, depending on where they're parked, will back up traffic at the (can't hear) Atkins/Oh, let them turn into the ramp, they back up? Champion/No. Here, I'm coming out of the ramp. Lehman/You're heading towards Gilbert. Atkins/Do you make that noise when you're coming out of the ramp? (Laughter) Champion/I make a right-hand turn, and I'm going to go home, and I (can't hear) Atkins/In the ramp, you make a right-hand turn? Got you. Champion/Now, if there should be cars ahead of me, or even one car ahead of me, and that car is going to make a left-hand tum,--- Vanderhoef/On Gilbert. Champion/...I might not get through the intersection until the next green light. Kanner/Onto Gilbert? You're making a left turn onto Gilbert? Vanderhoef/Yeah. The (can't hear) to get out, there's no right-hand mm. Dilkes/She's going east on Iowa and there's cars turning north on Gilbert. Lehman/There is only two lanes that go through that intersection. Champion/And if cars are coming west on Iowa Avenue, you will not get through that light. Atkins/OK. Champion/And then only one car gets through and people are coming out of the ramp because it's 5:00 o'clock or 4:30, then traffic's backed up into the ramp. Atkins/I'll find out for you. Champion/It's a minor thing. I mean, it's not minor because in only, you only need another minute, another minute on that green light. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 40 Lehman/Well, no, no, that, yeah, no, but if you add a turn lane, you wouldn't have to worry about it anyway. Champion/We don't have a turn lane. Lehman/Cut that curb back. Vanderhoef/Cut that curb back. Atkins/We'll do our best to fix it. Just to see you describe it again though. (Laughter) Lehman/We are going to take--is there anything else for Council Time? Pfab/I have one comment or one question. Is there any more explanation of what happened in the death of that pedestrian? Kanner/At Burlington and Lirm. Wilburn/The paper said it was still under investigation. Champion/Still under investigation. Pfab/OK. Wilbum/Yeah. Lehman/All right. We're going to take a short break before we go to the dogs. (BREAK) JC DOGPAC Lehman/We have information in our packet. A proposal? Atkins/I think there's a representative from DogPAC. Lehman/All right. Let's get this (can't hear) up here. Atkins/There you go. Male voice/Actually the people that showed up tonight just wanted to make sure that you realize that you realize they're going to bring through 20 or 35 dogs (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 41 (Laughter) Champion/Do they all have plastic bags with them? Male voice/Oh, yeah. (Laughter) O'Donnell/I think you'd give that great big one anything he wants. (Laughter) Lehman/Could we move to the lobby and do this? I would--- Champion/Yeah, come on, let's go. Lehman/I would--- Champion/Maybe they should walk them through here. Lehman/I don't know that we can do that. Vanderhoef/Look at that big guy. Male voice/Sure, what the heck. Lehman/Oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. (Several people talking) Champion/No, here, come around this way. Walk around this. Lehman/You know, we, people have said this Council is going to the dogs, but the dogs are coming to this Council. Female/That's right. Atkins/Wow. (Several people talk) Male/He's only 100 pounds and he's still a puppy. Female/Oh, that's my favorite doggie. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 42 (Several people talk) Lehman/We will be unable to record all of the dogs' names because they're all--- Female/ In attendance, yeah. Lehman/Right. O'Donnell/Boy, that's a giant. Champion/The dogs are well behaved. Lehman/They're cool. Shields/All right? Is that the end of the parade? Lehman/OK. Shields/All fight. O'Donnell/I think we'd better find Irvin. Champion/Ah, that's too bad. Lehman/Irvin will be back, I assume. Go ahead. Shields/Do you want me to just go ahead and start? Lehman/Yes, please. Shields/So, I've never addressed you all before, so I'm not sure--- Lehman/We're easy. Shields/Well, that's what I've heard. I'm not sure what the protocol here, but I'm Beth Shields. I'm a spokesperson for the Johnson County Dog Park Action Committee. I don't know if you need my address and such as that. I live in 417 Samoa Drive in Iowa City. And I just wanted to address a few points in the letter that you all received a copy of our proposal in your packet agendas. So I just wanted to, you know, highlight a few points about who we are, why we're here, what we're asking for, and then answer any questions that you have. First, I want to .just say that the creation of DogPAC, which stands for Dog Park Action Committee, is really an outgrowth of two events that sort of coincided or awareness of whatever you want to call them. The first one was a growing awareness of some sort of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 43 recreation area for dogs in Iowa City, and the second one was again a growing awareness of the need for an alternative to Hickory Hill Park as that area. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the fact that Hickory Hill Park is right now used as an recreation area despite the fact that the leash law is in effect there. And our group kind of came together to try to figure out an alternative recreation park to Hickory Hill Park. So, that's sort of how we came about. We started meeting last November and since then we have met at least once a month; many of us have met more often on an infrequent basis, but we've had formal group meetings every month, and one of the things that we want to talk to the Council about tonight is the fact that this dog park group is different than the group that have come in front of you before in the fact that I think that we are showing a much higher level of commitment to this dog park becoming a reality. We, like I said, have been meeting on a monthly basis since November. Since that time, we've elected a board of directors; we've incorporated; and we've applied for and I guess are about to receive 501-C-3 status. So we're really quite serious about this. We set up a bank account. We have funding already coming in, and we're continue that part of our work. Several members of our group spent the winter researching recreation areas and dog parks nationwide. The proposal that you have in front of you is an outgrowth of that work that we did. Another testament to our efforts is that we have about 100 people who are active members of our Listserv group. We have a group on the Yahoo! Listserv. We have about 100 people who are part of that group and who receive our e-mails and respond and attend and participate in varying forms in the work that we've done so far. One of the things that we have in place also that I want the Council to be aware of is we have teams of people who are going to work in different areas, who have different areas of expertise. We have people who, you know, most importantly, I think at this point, are ready and start the grant writing, once we can get a piece of land designated as dog park, they're research. They've already actually done quite a bit of research on grants that are available to help establish this. But they're do the writing and to do the work to get those grants so that we can keep the costs to the City minimal to establish an recreation area in town. And the final thing that we've done, and this is partly our biggest, I think, thing that we've done so far in showing our commitment is the amount of public awareness things that we've done. We've, you know, got bumper stickers and many of you have seen our "Bark for a park" bumper stickers around. We've established a website in our Yahoo! group. We have an online petition fight now that citizens are signing. I can print that off if any of you want a copy of it for tonight. We've had a table at the Farmers' Market this summer where citizens can get more information about the dog park. We are scheduled to be at "Paws in the Park" to get the word out there. And then finally, like I'm sure all of you know, we had our very first annual Iowa City Dog Paddle last Tuesday night. And that was just a roaring success. I was really, really pleased with the attendance and the turnout and the, just like tonight, the canine citizens represented their species very well as did the humans without any incidents at all. So, you know, the point of this is just that we're a real, a serious group. We want and we're put in the work that it takes to make an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 44 recreation area in Iowa City a reality. So, why are we here tonight, you know, we've got this proposal and we're, you know, ready-to-go group, but we need, at this point, we're asking for the assistance of the City. And what we want is the assistance of the City in locating a piece of land to put this park on. As you can see from our proposal, we developed the proposal based on the assumption that there was a 40-acre site of land available to us, and somewhere it became apparent that this parcel of land may not be available to us. And one of the things we would like is for the City to work with us to decide whether or not that piece of land is going to be available. We think it's a really ideal piece of land for a dog park for a variety of masons which we've laid out in our proposal, but I'd be go over with them, if you'd like. If, in fact, that piece of land is going to be not available for us to develop into a dog park, then we need the assistance of City staff to help us to locate an appropriate site for a dog park. We realize that money is a major issue, and so we've been trying to look at land that the City already owns, and so the thing we definitely would be asking for tonight is the assistance of the City staff to help us make the land available, and from there then we can develop, if need be, a new proposal, based on that parcel of land. Or if it tums out that we can have the 40-acre site, then we can begin again our grant writing in earnest and try to get the funding available for this park. Lehman/The 40 acres you're referring to is out at the landfill? Shields/It's just west of the landfill at the southern tip of Kansas Avenue, right after Kansas Avenue is vacated. Mm-hmm. Lehman/Steve, do we have any indications from staff relative to that pamel? Atkins/Rick had some concerns about it. He hasn't taken me through the details yet. I think there was some strong interest initially in the part of the DogPAC folks that that site would be available to them. And, you know, unfortunately, Rick does have some concerns about it. I have not worked those through, and I think that's what Beth is suggesting; we need to work those through. We also--you know, if you're interested in doing this--we can shop for some other parcels. I don't think we're going to find anything near that big that isn't (can't hear) Wilburn/What's the minimum acreage that you all would be looking at? Of other dog parks that you've researched, is this 40 an average or---? Shields/Forty acres would be a large area. And one of the things that I wanted to say with regard to that is what we're proposing with the 40 acres is an recreation area, which is slightly different than a dog park. An recreation area is really a multi-use area. It's essentially a park where dogs can be off-leash. It can have multiple uses. In the plan that we had developed for the 40 acres would, for example, establish half of that back into natural prairie land with trails going through it, things like that. So that's for the 40 acres. The other thing about 40 acres and you all have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 45 received a letter to this effect. Some dog citizens here in the City is that a larger dog park or a recreation area with trails going through it will encourage more activity, more exercise. All too much you find the smaller dog park with people walking; they congregate; their dogs all congregate within a small area and nobody really gets the benefits of the exercise and the health benefits that can come from a larger area. If we can't have a larger site, (can't hear) at the minimum that I think that we would need would be 5 acres. Wilburn/And what's the other areas that you've looked at--how are they handled? I saw how you addressed some of the behaviors--but in terms of, has abandonment of dogs been an issue at some of the larger ones? And is there shelter or staffto control those at the end of the day to observe them? Shields/I've actually never--I've not read--and I was one of the people who's done a lot of research (can't hear), a lot of time. I've not read of any instances of abandonment. I'm sure they have happened, but I've never read of one and Misha might be able to speak to that. Generally, people that take their dogs to a park are people who are going to take their dogs home from the park as well. Lehman/They care about their pups or they wouldn't be there. Shields/That's right. Lehman/So, what you're really asking from us, ifI understand you correctly, is some direction from Council as far as staff looking into possible locations for a dog park? Shields/Yeah. Lehman/Or similar facility. Shields/Yeah. Lehman/I'd personally have no problem with it seeing if we have a location; given the present financial situation of the City, if it's City property that we can lease for a dollar a year or something, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. But on the other hand, I would probably be--it would be extremely difficult, I think, to come up with funding for that park, other than designating the property and allowing its use as a park. Shields/Mm-hmm. Lehman/What's the Council--- Champion/Three years ago I would not have supported you at all, but I think this group This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 46 is really unusual. I think you've done a lot of work and you're not putting it really on our hands to develop this dog park, and I think I give you credit for that, and I think we should help you find land. Shields/Thank you. O'Donnell/For me that'd be earlier. Vanderhoef/I'd like to know a little bit more about, if you had the large piece and you were talking about trails and that kind of activity--would you have the whole area off-leash or would they be on-leash in the natural areas? Shields/No, it would be an off-leash area. Vanderhoef/It would be all off-leash. Shields/That's the point, and actually prairie, especially, things that (can't hear .... point???) well to dog traffic. What you find with dogs in dog parks, especially where they have a large area to go in, they don't actually end up making like one trail, like humans take the easiest way up; dogs take the most interesting way to them. So you're not going to have one area just get trampled a lot. They'd be able to spread out. And what we've understood, and again, we've had people talk with some prairie land experts and we have some master gardeners in our group, that they really feel that a prairie land would be compatible with the dog park and that they would go well together. Vanderhoef/OK. Have you presented to Parks and Recreation this proposal? Shields/Terry, have we given you a copy of our proposal? Trueblood/No. Shields/No? We can do that tonight. Terry has met with us on more than one occasion and worked and has talked about this possibility, and we have been in communication as soon as we developed our proposal. But we haven't done a formal presentation to them. Vanderhoef/I recognize that in past years a dog park has not reached a sufficient number of votes, shall we say, on Parks and Recreation to move out from other projects. So, here again, on the money issue, that sits out there as a concern for me. Shields/Mm-hmm. Terry, do you want to speak to that at all? Trueblood/No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 47 O'Donnell/Well, I think Ernie has suggested that we're looking for (can't hear) City- owned property--- Lehman/Well, I don't have a, I do; personally, not have a problem with staff addressing the location or finding property that might be suitable for a dog park. But I would not want that to be misinterpreted as financial support from the City at this point. Wilburrff I would think what Dee is probably getting at, too, is that if it looks like in the development of the park, not just designation of an area would involve use of funds. Traditionally, what we've done is look at the recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission in terms of their overall spending priorities. Tmeblood/Right. For those who don't know what Dee's referring to, it's Parks and Recreation Commission, and this has gone through their prioritization process with other capital improvement projects and in the past has not ranked as a real high priority. But then I, you know, I would add, in the past they haven't had a group such as this coming forward saying we would really like to spearhead this and raise money for it and so forth. It may make a difference. Wilburn/(Can't hear) I want to agree. That is a strong step in that direction, I'd think. Shields/And there's really quite an amazing amount of funding available out there, and it also depends on how you set up the area. For example, by setting apart some of this land as prairie, that makes a lot of grant money available to us. By making it an eco-friendly park, by trying to do certain things, to use recycled materials and things, again more money becomes available grant-wise. So we've been looking at things like that to try to keep the amount of funding that we would ask for from the City to a minimum. Lehman/OK. Vanderhoef/One of the things that I did notice in your proposal, Parks and Recreation has a foundation that you can earmark dollars for. So, if this took a bit of time rather than having separate accounts, you may want to talk with Terry about the foundation and whether that's an appropriate place for contributions to go. Shields/OK. Lehman/OK. I think we have--go ahead. P£ab/! have an idea here. Maybe being a little bit more creative and I'm not saying that this is where it has to go, but I've been on a number of grant-issuing positions and what (can't hear) happening. The City said we will put X amount of dollars, matching it 10 to 1 or something like that, because what it does, it gives some credibility to the group and it probably, it's, I'm thinking maybe $5,000 or This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 48 something like that. I seem to think it's not a lot, but what it could do for not only the dog owners but for a quality of life that we're working on. I think we're sitting on something here that may have a lot more value and especially if you go to prairie areas that I'm thinking, is the water park--does that have anything to do with it? Is that something that could work at least on a temporary basis for some? Champion/I (can't hear) temporary. It's a lot of work. Vanderhoef/No. Lehman/Yeah, but I would assume that if the City finds property that we presently own and makes that available, that would represent a tremendous contribution on the part of the City when it comes to getting a grant. Shields/It's absolutely requisite for us. Pfab/But does that--- Lehman/Yeah. I mean, for example, if we were to lease you 40 acres at a dollar a year, that is--consider the value of that--that's incredible when it comes to applying for a grant. I don't think it's cash so much as it is value. Pfab/I agree, but would you put that in a long-term lease under some conditions so--- Lehman/ So, we need to find the ground first. Right now, all they're asking for is to have our staff look at the possibilities of finding property. And I think the question now is are we going to instruct the staff to see if there is property presently owned or what is the inventory? Is there a possibility? Pfab/And I guess I would also say to not be restrictive, to be enterprising and look around what, really, really, look out of the box a little bit also. Lehman/Steven? Kanner/I think we would probably all agree we'll want staff to look into this, but one of my concerns is what we've heard over and over is we don't have the money to do upkeep in potential parks. And you're talking possibly leasing (can't hear). I think what it's going to come down to is that we're going to have maintain the park (can't hear). That's going to cost money. ! would add that we instruct, that we be very clear that we instruct staff to look from 5 acres to 40 acres, because I can see a 5-acre park be more manageable as far as maintenance; 40 acres, the way it was described in the proposal, is very nice, but it's going to take a heck of a lot of upkeep. So we look at all sizes and possibilities when we ask staffto look at this. O'Donnell/But they're talking about a substantial portion of this being prairie grass and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 49 prairie--and that really requires very little maintenance. Lehman/But all of that is relative to what we find. O'Donnell/Absolutely, it should be the ground first. Lehman/Steve, can we see what we can find? Atkins/We'll put it together for you. Bring it back to you. Lehman/All right. Misha Goodman/I was just going to mention that across the country, these groups are doing a lot of the maintenance in the parks. So it is manageable without using a lot of funds. Atkins/I want to follow up on just what Misha said. As you know, when it comes to capital financing, we're generally in pretty good position. We just simply cannot afford the operations. That's the thing that's the back-breaker. And so, if you do write an agreement and provide someone the piece of property, I think you need to, they need to understand, and Council needs to understand it's with some pretty serious commitment because you're going to be asking them to put in fencing and making some pretty heavy-duty investments, if we're going to do this thing right. Champion/If we lease the land to them, then it's their responsibility to maintain it. Atkins/But, that's my point, Connie, is that we need to make sure we walk with an understanding that our first charge is to get a site; secondly, is put together the project, the program; and what you choose to invest as a City. But the real bottom line is who cleans it up, keeps it tidy? I think you talked about memberships and there's a way for them to raise monies. And I think it can be done. And a little digression--Terry got it because we called it doggie recreation; you know, we've never been in the doggie recreation--I don't know. Did you ever take a course in doggie recreation when you got your---? Trueblood/No comment. Atkins/No comment. Goodman/So, that's the other thing to remember is that just because it's called a dog park doesn't necessarily mean that Parks and Recreation should be the under--the only division involved. Certainly, our division should be involved in this--- Atkins/There's--Misha, you will be involved because you simply have to be. So--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 50 Goodman/But the one thing that Beth did not mention that happened out at the Amanas twice in the last month is the fly-ball tournaments that were taking place, which many of you are probably are not aware of. But if they, it's a sport for dogs, and there were over 300 individuals out there renting those facilities, which this park would provide if it were big enough. You asked some of the reasons for a larger area. Those are some of the reasons. Kanner/How many privately run, privately owned places are there, Beth, in this country? Yeah, 40 acres, that are not run by the City or the County or some other government entity. Shields/I know of one dog park in Iowa that's privately owned, and it's actually owned by a person. In general, the parks are part of the Parks and Recreation department. Because again, it's a park for people, not just for dogs, right? So--- Atkins/Our first job is to inventory some land for you. Shields/Yeah. Atkins/So you have something to choose from. Shields/Absolutely. Atkins/OK. We'll do that right away. Lehman/OK. Shields/Thank you. Lehman/Thank you very much. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD EVALUATION Lehman/OK, the next item is the PCRB evaluation. I think we talked at the last meeting, we are required by our PCRB Ordinance to evaluate the PCRB once every two years, and this is our time, and I think--- Atkins/John's here. Lehman/Neighbor, would you like to, front and center? John Stratton is here from the PCRB. Do we have any questions, comments, and I guess, from my perspective, I really, how would Council like to proceed with this? Pfab/I would let them make their presentation and we go from there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 51 O'Donnell/I agree. I don't have any questions for them. Vanderhoef/Neither do I. O'Donnell/Wait for the meeting. Pfab/I have some, I have a couple questions, but I'd rather hear what John has to say. Lehman/John, do you have comments, or do you just want to take questions? Stratton/Well, I did not prepare a presentation. Lehman/You don't need to. (Laughter) Stratton/I understood that it would be primarily question and answer. You'd ask the questions and hopefully I'd have the answers. But I would like to, I guess, make a few very brief comments. I've been on the PCRB for five years and I would like to say that I've worked with some very good people, very committed people, both as members of the board and from the police department. The police department has been very cooperative with us. We have not had a tremendously large number of complaints. Actually, we've had a small number of complaints, which I think is a very positive thing. But I think the board does serve a couple of important functions. It's kind of a lightning rod in that people who get very frustrated and who feel that they cannot go through the other avenue of complaints about police behavior; that is, through the board itself, they have an avenue to express their concerns. And even if their position is not upheld, they still have the opportunity to feel they had their day in court between someone, in front of someone who would listen. And we certainly try to give that impression. We do listen. We do pay attention. We do try and investigate carefully. The other thing that I think the board does--it's kind of a canary in the mine thing--in that when the complaints are few in number, that suggests that things are going along pretty well. When they start to increase--and they do fluctuate over time--that suggests there may be something to be concerned with. Last year we had only five complaints. This year already we have ten. I'm not suggesting that things have changed radically, but if that number continues to increase, well, then maybe we want to look back and say, is there anything going on that's different? Anything we need to be concerned about or not? And it's important to look. We may not find anything--- TAPE 03-67, SIDE ONE Stratton/...but we lose a fair amount of activities so board meetings generally run a couple hours, but then the report writing does--for those involved and everyone is involved--take a fair amount of time and effort. And it takes dedicated people. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 52 We've had some personnel changes in this last year. We haven't been quite as stable as we have been through the first half-dozen years. And part of that is due, I think, to the time commitments and the effort commitments. We're not a group that is, that draws heavily on resources. We are now utilizing City staff to deal with our secretarial and other concerns. The only other expense we have is our attorney, which is I think is necessary and independent source of legal opinion. Other than that, well, we've had the option, I guess, to take trips and so on; we haven't done that. We haven't done that. We haven't even spent money on coffee, (Laughter) Stratton/...we're a pretty cheap operation and I think a good one. Lehman/OK. Champion/John, I appreciate the fact that you haven't gone to Russia on us. (Laughter) Stratton/We haven't even gone to Ames. Lehman/But Coralville has been there twice. (Laughter) Champion/But are we giving you enough freedom to deal with things because of the budget cuts and do you feel like you have enough going--do we give you enough for you to do your job? Stratton/Oh, at this point, yes. Champion/OK. Stratton/I don't think that we've felt strained. The City staff has been there when we've needed them and they've done the job we asked them to do very efficiently and capably, and so we have no complaints there. And then our attomey is available on a, I guess, it's a per-hour basis, and she attends our meetings and helps keep us on the straight and narrow. But we only really draw heavily on her time when we have very complex cases. And many of our cases are not complex. Most of our cases are not complex in terms of the legal issues. Champion/Yeah, we had quite, well, not quite (can't hear) discussion, but some discussion about requirement of a policeman, peace officer on the PCRB. Do you feel that's important? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 53 Stratton/I think that's helpful. I don't think we would want one who was closely tied temporally to the current department. Champion/Right. Stratton/I think there should be detachment for objectivity's purposes. But the officers that we've had are ex-officers. They've always been ex-officers, which I think they should be, have always been very helpful to us, both in providing insights and in suggesting directions to examine issues from Paul HoerS, one of the original board members was really an outstanding member and contributed a lot of leadership. So, yes, I do think it's useful. Kanner/John, I, too, appreciate the job that you're doing and the mission and thanks for your efforts there. And I think you're very correct in saying that it acts as a lightning rod. We find that a lot of complaints--but you have not seen a lot of complaints--and one of my concerns though is that in the, in some part of the college community, the younger folks, I've heard complaints about police interaction. And we had--in the minutes there's remarks from John Watson regarding that issue among a couple other things. And I was wondering how do you feel that you can change things perhaps? How could we address some of those concerns so that we can deal with some of these issues in maybe a more positive fashion than we're dealing with them? Stratton/One of the impressions I've gathered looking at complaints over the years is that a fairly high proportion of them reflect what I would call a concern with civility. And a lot of complaints arise out of the complainant feeling that they are being treated either brusquely or that their particular point of view is not being given adequate weight, and that the officer is not really concerned with them. And part of that is inherent in police work. You're not going to generally be overly friendly with an individual that you are placing under arrest on the one hand. On the other hand, you can be more than just brusque. You can be civil. You can be polite. And I think that some officers feel that in order to keep control and to keep the, shall-we-say, the crowd back, they have to operate quickly and very, very formally. And so they may be perceived as being brusque. And maybe they are being brusque. But they see that kind of as part of their job, and it's necessary to do the job. I would suggest that some training in how to deal with people, some officers have a knack for it; I mean, they have very little trouble. They can walk into a bar and they don't arouse hostility. Others walk in and their presence does evoke hostility. I'm not quite sure what the difference is but there clearly is a difference. I'm not sure how you would train people to be the officer who could walk in and be regarded as a non-threat, as someone that is not your enemy but is just a man doing his job. But I do think that a lot of the complaints we get grow out of situations where you get negative interaction going between the officer and the person who's being charged. The officers obviously are at an advantage; it's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 54 the person who's being charged perceives that, and perhaps sees that advantage as being unfair or being used unfairly. Training is the only thing that comes to my mind. There may be other alternatives, and this is the thing that we talk about in the board and I think we will explore it perhaps. Vanderhoef/How much conversation have you had with the officers that come to the board meeting about this issue? Stratton/Only one officer comes to our board meetings. There is a representative from the department who sits during the public part of the session and is there to answer questions and I guess to carry information back to the deparm~ent about our concerns. Individual officers who are the subject of complaints have an opportunity, if we do come up with a negative statement about them, to attend a name-clearing heating. Only one officer has availed himself of that opportunity in the history of the board. And as I understand it, the police union discourages officers from participating in the name-cleating hearing. Two years ago, John Watson and I attended in-service training and spoke to the department about the board and answered questions, and one of the points that was made by the officers was that our particular view of their behavior was not nearly as important as the chief's, and--- (Laughter) Stratton/...and if the chief, their boss, thought they were doing all right, then they felt--or some of them felt--no need to be too concerned about what we felt. And that's-- there's a certain amount of troth in that. The chief is their boss, and we have very little power. When the ordinance was written, basically, it was included that the board have no disciplinary power, and we do support a lot of the findings of the department and cheerfully so in most instances. But on occasion, we may have questions, concerns which we generally express in comments to the Council. But the ordinance was not written to make it easy for the review board to find for the complainants, given the requirement for us to defer to the expertise of the chief and the City manager, and that's--that may not have been a bad idea because it keeps, essentially, from developing a runaway review board on the one hand. On the other hand, in issues where there are considerable gray, there's only one answer to come up with, and so, we don't operate complete--like the Supreme Court. We have a lot of constraints on our decisions. Lehman/But your comments, I think, have been good. Stratton/Well, we feel that the Council and the City Manager's office do take those comments seriously and do pay--we do not feel that what our efforts are being blown off. We do think that you look at them carefully. And we've had feedback at times from the department suggesting that they have taken our comments very much to heart. And we appreciate that; we think that's important. If no one feels This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 55 what we're doing or saying is important, then clearly it has very little impact. The high ratio of sustaining the department, I think, reflects both the department's behavior, the fact that they generally are doing what they are supposed to do, as they are supposed to do. But it also does reflect the rules under which we operate to a much lesser degree. Lehman/OK. I think, Irvin, you said you had a couple questions? Pfab/I have--one is, a couple conunents, really. The other time in a meeting not too long ago, I came to the defense of having an officer on the, an ex-officer on the board, and the importance of it. And this was brought home to me in two incidents. One was the more serious one. We're fortunate that we're not in the potential situation of one of our neighbor cities, and I trust that our Police Citizen Review Board is one of the reasons that these things aren't happening, so I'm very pleased with that. The other one was I was having coffee over at the Hy Vee on First Avenue over there the other day and a chance acquaintance of mine came up to me and said he had a question for you. And I said, well, what is it? He said, I've got this problem. He said, I had a speeding ticket in a distant part of Iowa, and he said, I contested it. And I said, why, you were going to get, about a foregone conclusion, you were going to get, you're going to pay the fine? Well, he said, the problem was, he said, the officer that wrote the ticket wasn't the officer that came to testify in court against me. And he's 100, 200 miles from home, and he said, how the heck can I prove that it isn't him? Well, it's been a long time and my police experience came from a combat zone in Korea as a military policeman and also here as Campus Security, but because of that, those things that have happened, you take it, a particular interest in what the police do. The police work is an unusual type of work because a lot of things are expected of you; it's a thin blue line, so people stick together; and that's for self-defense. But anyway, so, it was amazing the things that I was able to help him with that I would have never thought of it. But this is the fact that I was aware of how these things worked. So, he's off and he's hoping he's going, how he's going to get it settled. O'Donnell/Ernie, maybe we should--- Lehman/Yeah, go ahead. O'Donnell/...kind of reserve our comments for our meeting. We've got a good a presentation. Lehman/Well, I think this is the--- O'Donnell/At our joint meeting we're going to have with PCRB. Lehman/We are not scheduled to have a joint meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 56 O'Donnell/I thought we were scheduled. Lehman/I think this will take--unless we find issues that we need to address further, this will be the review as we're speaking right now. O'Donnell/OK. Lehman/So. If there are questions--- Pfab/And the only thing is I've sat in on a number of the meetings, not too recently, but I was very pleased at the way the meetings are held and I am a very strong supporter of it. And it always leaves me somewhat puzzled that it's some people on the police staff are a little concerned about these people. But ! wish that didn't happen, but that's the way it is. Stratton/I might point out that while I've had comments about the board as a board, I've never heard comments about individuals on the board as individuals. Pfab/No. Stratton/Negative feeling towards the board and the department is because the board exists--- Lehman/I think that's natural. Stratton/...and for what it stands for, rather than because I've, of what the board, this particular board has done or because of who is on this particular board. Lehman/OK. Stratton/And indeed a number of officers have said that. Lehman/Steven? Kanner/John, two things. One to follow up on what I asked about before, but also an aside on what you said about maybe a worry about a runaway board, if, for instance, you got more powers, to my knowledge, I've never heard of runaway citizen review boards over police, that if they got more powers that they somehow were able to usurp even greater power. So, have you heard of any police citizens review board in cities going wild? Stratton/I haven't heard of it going wild, but I've often heard of concern about that. Cincinnati, for example, was having a lot of problems and there was concern. I don't think that the possibility was truly there. But I do think that the fear or concern is there, and that's what drives the rules and regulations. That and under This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 57 extreme conditions, maybe something could get a little extreme, but I think it's very unlikely. Very unlikely, yeah. Kanner/I would agree. But to follow up on what I was saying before about the student- police interaction, you addressed some of the things that we might do from the police side, what about from the student side? Now, certainly we have police that go and talk with students, but what about, for instance, here's brain-storming idea, your board going into a bar at night and holding a hearing there of some sort. I know we've restricted your ability to create forums, but I think you got to go out where the action is and hear people there. And as we talked about, you could act as a lightning rod and talk through some of these things that people are complaining about. Stratton/I think we could have forums, but I don't think we could have a hearing because the regulations requiring, because of personnel and so on, these issues to be dealt with in private. In our meetings, these are closed discussions when we get to the complaints where we're talking about specific people in specific situations. But some kind of public forum might, I say might, because it's awfully hard to get people out for some of these things unless they can see very direct payoff. One of the, I think, problems with students in bars--I've been reading the Press-Citizen interviews with students and so on--if a student's determined they're going to drink. There was an interview with a young woman who was getting her third ticket, her third PAULA. I'm not sure that there's much you can say to her to make that ticket palatable or the situation palatable, but I do think that some kind of presentations, some--perhaps more officers going into bars and not writing tickets on occasion, just walking through and so on, might have some payoff. But, given the situation, I think it's going to be very difficult to make major changes beyond trying to get, as I say, the individuals involved to behave civilly towards one another. When officers want to process things very quickly, and people want explanations inunediately you've got frustration. When people, because they are frustrated with not getting answers to their questions--and sometimes if you're inebriated you get frustrated pretty easily--this may lead to the officer perhaps being quite as careful in putting on the handcuffs because they're resisting and they' re mouthing off and he's going to get it done quickly. If both the officer and the subject become aware of this kind of interaction and the consequences, I think you can reduce unhappiness. But I'm not sure how you make them aware of--I ' don't know that, you know, a 70-year-old man going into a bar and trying to rap with students about police interactions--- (Laughter) Stratton/...is going to get their attention. I'm not trying to be facetious. I'm just giving you a reality here. Somebody in their 30s or 40s maybe, but our board is made up of people who are mature in their judgment and their years. And I really don't-- and I may be wrong here but I don't think the student body looks to us as role This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 58 models. Kanner/Well, I would say part of the problem is they don't even know you're there. Stratton/Well, that could be, but--- Kanner/And it is something that we might consider that we might want to put, try to get a younger person on the police commission--- Champion/Not bad idea. Kanner/...review board next time we consider that. Stratton/That would be fine. Lehman/You know, John, this board was set up as a result of a very unfortunate situation in the community, and I think there was a very genuine concern on the part of the Council that we might be setting something up that would come back to bite us, and I think there was very--we had probably the greatest level of scrutiny of the people who applied for that board of any board, probably in the history of the City. And I also think that that scrutiny to a lesser degree perhaps persists today, because it is--I think it's very important from Council's perspective that tkis be a very fair, very impartial totally removed from the City and from the police department. I would thank you and the folks who have worked on that commission. I think that has not been an easy task. It certainly is a lightning rod. It is an opportunity for folks who feel that, for whatever reason, they haven't been treated properly to deal with civilians, not with police officers or with City employees. There's no question in my mind as I look back over the years, the commission has certainly indicated to the public the caliber of police department that we really have in this town, based on the number of complaints and the number of sustained complaints. I also sensed in some of the comments, a certain level of frustration with certain things. But I also appreciated those comments. So, I really, I mean, I applaud the efforts of that, of your board. I think you folks have done an admirable job, a lot more work than probably most of us ever envisioned. But you've taken the job very, very seriously and I think done a very professional job. I think there's only one other PCRB in the state, is that correct? Dubuque, I think has one? Stratton/To my knowledge of it, this is the only one, but there may have been--- Lehman/Oh, maybe, we may be the only one. We're the only ones on a lot of things, but- Stratton/Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 59 Lehman/...I, from my perspective, from my review of your work, I think you've done a tremendous job and put in a tremendous amount of effort. Are there other comments from Council people relative to the performance of the board? Pfab/Yeah, I think as I sit here and listen to the back and forth here, of course, I'm extremely pleased at the work that the board is doing. But possibly as an outreach or maybe PR for the board itself, making appearance at student functions or student governmental functions, just as a, being on the agenda, just as a, you're telling--- Stratton/The board is do that. We have videotape and will travel, and we've done this year a couple of service club presentations. They're always looking for a program and we have one. And so we're certainly go where we're invited. I don't think we're able to thrust ourselves, but we are more than go where we are invited. Pfab/I don't think there would be any restraint on our part about if attending a student function or a student governmental function. Lehman/I don't know, but basically we're reviewing what they've been doing in the past. Pfab/Right, but I mean as--he brought up something, John brought up something really surprised me in a sense, was the tight interaction that he and some of the students have, which was a very good discussion about what was going on and their frustrations and whatnot. So, and I think that as a lightning rod, as the term is used, is it's a place for--it gives students a chance to vent and rather than wait until they're a little bit inebriated and they still have the spending to do. (can't hear) Lehman/I'm sorry--are there other comments for John? Champion/A quick one. I think, first of all, whenever you have a policeman arresting somebody, it's an adversarial relationship--- Stratton/That's right. Champion/...immediately. It's not like helping get the rabbit out of the tree or whatever. But you made a comment that really kind of bothered me. You made a comment that the police thought that as long as they please Winkelhake that that was who they had to please. And that bothers me, because I don't think they really work for the police chief; I think they work for the public, and I don't know how--we can't change that. But that's a statement that I am bothered by a little bit. So I'm going to bring up the old adage that we've talked about before is why do we take off of the police cars "To protect and serve"? Because I think maybe they need to be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 60 reminded that they work for the public. And I don't have any problems with the police department; don't misunderstand me--I think we have a incredible police department but I wonder if we're getting away from that. I mean, their job is to protect and serve. Their job is not working for the police chief. Stratton/Let me qualify this in that they were contrasting their concern with the board's opinion, not the public's. But as a representative of the public, I guess I could--- Champion/You are the public. Stratton/...but they basically are saying you don't have authority and that is correct. You're right. There probably is a need to, again, emphasize the importance of keeping the public, responding to the public's needs, legitimate needs--- Champion/Right. Stratton/...for service. I know Chief Winkelhake has emphasized--he's said this and I know he's emphasizing--the importance of civility in interactions. And I've seen reprimand, at least one reprimand for making gratuitous comments. So, I know there's concern with that and while we have an excellent department, no department is perfect. There are good people who sometimes have lapses and sometimes there are people who aren't perhaps quite as sensitive or well trained or concerned as you would like them to be. Again, to reiterate, this is a very strong department. It's a very good department but clearly you do get problems short of paradise. I'm going to conclude. I know you, Emie's sitting there, it's time to get out. Lehman/No, no, I don't want to--- Vanderhoef/Well, I want to make a comment. Lehman/...yeah, and certainly we, Dee has a comment, and go ahead. Vanderhoeff Ernie and I were the only two here left on the Council that were here when the board was formed. I was very skeptical and that lasted for several years. I've become much more comfortable with the board and their recommendations. I agree with your perception of civility in that I have had citizens come and talk to me. I think Connie's right on when she talks about they're to serve the public versus haste and how you presented it. And I can understand it from the officer's side. So it's something that we all have to be aware of and continue to move on. But I thank you for your work. I think you do belong here now and I couldn't have said that six years ago. Stratton/Thank you. I was not one of the original members of the board. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 61 Vanderhoef/No. Stratton/And I was the first replacement. But I think the Council did do an excellent job in selecting those first people and they've carried through four, five; John Watson is the last original person, leaving after six years. And they set a nice example, built a good foundation for the rest of us to follow and to build on. And so, thank you for your support in the past and now and thank you again. Pfab/(can't hear) I think also you had mentioned that sometimes people make bad choices when, in the heat of whatever's going on. But I also think you have another function, which I think you do very well, and that is to take a hard look at possible changes in procedures and training. And I think that's one of your really biggest--as time goes on you all of a sudden you realize something isn't working. There's something, so then you go back to try to find where the source is. Stratton/That was written into the ordinance that we should review policy and when you see a major problem, you look to see if it's individual or broad (can't hear). A policy can be remedied by policy. So we are aware of that; we try to do that and we appreciate having the opportunity to be able to do it. Lehman/Thank you very much. Vanderhoef/Thank you. Lehman/Now, Eleanor, according to the ordinance, we need to review the PCRB every two years. Can this discussion tonight serve as that review? Is the Council satisfied with the--- O'Donnell/Yes. Vanderhoef/Absolutely. Lehman/Then we have met our statutorial duty. Thank you. VEHICLE STORAGE OPTIONS Lehman/The next issue is vehicle storage options and before we start on this, Doug, would you like to give us a quick overview of where we are? Boothroy/Perhaps (can't hear) Vanderhoef/We're at the Council table. (Laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 62 Lehman/I did. Go ahead. Boothroy/This is not a ruse on the first discussion, but to put this in context, I guess, I don't remember quite when we started but this did start as a series of neighborhood complaints about people concerned about maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. And we had a number of interactions with the property owner in dealing with the problem that was being complained about. Staff recommended an ordinance change that would clearly spell out what the law was in this particular situation so that when we dealt with the matter, it wouldn't be ambiguous--geez, it's getting late--there wouldn't be any ambiguity and it would be easy to enfome. The issue here is, as I said, protecting the residential character of a neighborhood. And these properties, and this property is zoned RS-5, and in an RS-5 zoning classification, it's the most prohibitive zoning classification within the City. We do not permit within the required parking for single-family uses with the exception that one parking space can be located there if it's directly behind or serving a parking space that's outside of the front yard. We don't allow more than 50 percent of the front yard to be paved. We don't allow accessory structures in the front yard. We don't-~except for fences. We have a number of restrictions on what is allowed in the front yard. And I think that one of the perceptions, of course, is that when you drive down First Avenue and people see the vehicles where they're presently located, and this is not where they started, they see that as the front yard. Between the building and the street is the front yard, and yet all we do is regulate the first 20 feet. In the rear yard all we regulate is the last 20 feet, or the 20 feet from the rear property line. And we regulate the size of the structure; we regulate the percent of area that the structure can occupy in the rear yard, and we also prohibit parking areas in the rear yard. So, in cases where, you know, what doesn't make this particularly unique, where in cases where you have setbacks that exceed the 20 foot, and that's the case here, and we have a lot of those kinds of situations because prior to 1983, the setback in Iowa City was 30 feet in this particular zone and some cases, setbacks were greater than that. When you have people that have their homes set back more than 20 feet from the street, then there is a lot of grayness as to what you can do. Certainly, the restrictions on putting parking in the area between the building and the street, if it's beyond 20 feet, don't apply. And that's what we're having on First Avenue. When I looked at it from an enforcement point of view, I look at this body of law and it really clearly is designed to restrict the very thing that's happening on First Avenue, but yet because of the circumstances of the property in question, it's not being applied. It seemed to me that the best thing to do is to clear up this issue by specifically coming to the Council with regulations that close up this loophole or this ability to do what's happening on First Avenue. It is a community-wide issue that applies to large lots that are in properties that are set back more than 20 feet. We've had difficulty, obviously, dealing with this. We've come up with a number of different suggestions. The last suggestion that was adopted by the Council was flawed because of the registration requirement which at the time we didn't know we wouldn't be able to get that information. I think the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 63 most straightforward thing to do is to--is not to be as restrictive like the City of Dubuque, which only allows one vehicle to be stored and it has to be behind and in the rear yard, but to allow some reasonable number and I came up with the number of six as a recommendation, based on looking at ordinances throughout communities around the country. But, you know, obviously some communities don't regulate it. We're not regulating it beyond 20 feet. Other communities like, as I said, Dubuque, they only allow one vehicle and it has to be in the rear yard and it has to be on a pace base and I think it has to be screened. So there's all kinds of latitude in terms of how you want to address this issue of protecting the residential character of neighborhoods. Excessive storage of vehicles in a situation like First Avenue where you might argue, and it might be argued in court because we don't think the law is very clear, the property owner may say, well, there is really no limitation. I can have 30 or 40 vehicles in my rear yard because it will support that number of vehicles. I might be in court saying, well, that's not really a legitimate accessory use because it's not, it doesn't meet our definition, I believe. And I think that therein lies some of the problem of enforcing because the judge is going to look at it and it may not be as clearly stated and it may be a matter of interpretation and it may not work in our, for my benefit in terms of enforcing the law, and we may lose. And this sends mixed directions to the neighborhood. We start, we fail, we start, we fail, we start, we fail--and that's part of how we got started on this process where to come up with something very clear that allows us efficiency in use of staff but at the same time, sending a very specific message so the people know exactly what the law is, what you can and can't do, and then that would apply to this person on First Avenue as well. So, what I guess, we're at this point, we're waiting, I'm waiting to find out what your pleasure is, whether this is going to go forward, whether it's going to wait till sometime in the future or whether it's going to just be dropped, and we wait until the next problem occurs or just--- Champion/Are you talking about just the front yard or the whole yard? Boothroy/Connie, the yard as far as--well, we only regulate the required yards, whether it's from yard or rear yard. The way the ordinance is written is that, and I think there is the presumption that people will develop their lots to meet the minimum requirements, so if the land is 20 foot, then they're going to set their house at 20 feet. And so when we constructed the ordinance, and I was involved in constructing the ordinance in 1983, the standards are basically based on that 20 foot. We're assuming that everybody's going to go to the minimum. And we, of course, have properties that, you know, on Summit Street, for example, they have more that 20-foot setbacks, and so unless you have restrictive covenants in some of these neighborhoods, like Walnut Ridge, for example, you're not likely to have a problem there because of those restrictive covenants. But in other parts of the community, you may not have those controls, and they may later pose a problem. But I think what I'm trying to say in essence is that we have constructed zones in this community to protect residential neighborhoods, to character the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 64 neighborhoods, specifically to deal with some of these issues, and in this case, this particular property owner in dealing with whether or not to come into compliance, the parameters have been, the weaknesses of those regulations have been pointed out in terms of the way we've constructed the language and what we have chosen to regulate. We should be regulating, in my opinion, we should be regulating between the building and the curb because that's what is viewed as the streetscape and what is the public area of that property. We don't have regulations that deal with that entire area. The rear yard is a different matter. Some communities allow more latitude in the rear yard because it is not as visible and it's not part of the streetscape. But if we were to choose to, you know, to cite the individual for having a parking area, which is not prohibited as an accessory use, I think that the ordinance is not as tightly constructed that I don't, I didn't have the confidence that we could win on that without maybe going back and amending it and clearly stating what is allowed and what is not allowed. And then, of course, trying to figure out what that number is creates all kinds of debate, and that's where we've been, you know, kind of bogged down in what should or shouldn't be done. So, it's back in your court at this point. Lehman/Well, I think--- Vanderhoef/With the Code review, are you talking about changing the numbers, the 20 feet? Boothroy/In the development of the Code review, it is going to be proposed that the area between the front of the building and the curb be regulated as we presently regulate a front yard. So no matter how far that building's set back, it's going to be treated as we presently treat the required front yard. Vanderhoef/So it would be in the definition of a front yard. Is that area between the sidewalk and the building structure? Boothroy/Right. What's being proposed is a what I'm going to call a front yard. They're going to call it a "setback area." So that, there was some other confusion about comer lots as to what is the front, what is the side, and so they're going to get rid of the terminology "front" and just refer to "setback," and in that setback area it's all going to be uniform. Because on a comer lot sometimes the end of your house is also a front, but people see that either the back of their house or the end of their house and so they get confused when they go to do something because they don't know that they've got two fronts, and we're trying to make that more lay language, if you will, and get away from some of the terminology that we have. But, yes, the answer is yes, that's going to be dealt with. I think that we're proposing it under the nuisance ordinance and we'd have to look at that. But when you adopt a new set of regulations, typically the way zoning ordinances are set up is that you grandfather in existing uses and therein lies the problem, because some of these are nuisance-like in their impact. And there is a, it's a gray area between This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 65 zoning and nuisance anyway historically. But some zoning ordinances will, in regulating vehicle storage, have put in there "a violation of the vehicle storage constitutes a nuisance," and I don't know if legally--and that's something we'd have to look at it to see whether that really works or doesn't work when you go to law; in other words, if it's listed in the zoning ordinance and then if you violate the zoning ordinance it becomes a nuisance, I don't know how effective that is and it's something to look at. But we are going to be getting at it prospectively anyway with the new ordinance because we will be taking care of everything between the building and the curb, and I think that's the right thing to do. Vanderhoef/But you're saying that in this particular instance, it will be grandfathered as is? Boothroy/It could be. I don't know the answer to that. I certainly would suggest that we try to not do that, but you know, this is something there's always a recommendation to P and Z and it will come to you as a recommendation and we'll have more discussion on it. We may not agree on this, but I think that's a problem that needs to be dealt with. Vanderhoef/If it's possible to bring it to us without the grandfathering, I'll sit back and wait that long. Boothroy/It'll be probably next spring or I think before that comes to you, but that's about the time limit I think we're working on. O'Donnell/I think that's (can't hear) Lehman/Before we get into any discussion, is there interest on the part of the Council in pursuing at this point in time a regulation that will prohibit storing cars in what we perceive to be a front yard? Champion/OK, maybe I should--I need to address this because I was the fourth vote one way and the fourth vote the other way--is I'm not going to support an ordinance that specifically addresses this property. I can see why you want the ordinance and I think it's a good one, but I would have to insist that anybody in town right now, not the property, but the person who owns the property at this minute, be grandfathercd in. And then you have huger protection. I think it's a good idea, but I think a lot of times ordinances are made to address very specific people and I think that's not good. But I could support this ordinance on any new properties or any new purchases or whatever. O'Donnell/I'll support this ordinance either way. I just, you know, if preserving the character and integrity of a neighborhood, I just think it's inappropriate to turn a front or back yard into a parking area. We talked about screening, and the only screening I've ever seen is around these big poles with lights on them and it's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 66 called a parking lot. I just really think it does have an effect on property values. I don't see how it cannot. You know, part of living in good neighborhood is being a good neighbor, and that applies everywhere in the City. Lehman/Well, the question is for us, and I don't really want to belabor this, but there's no point in having staff drat~ an ordinance if there is not support on the part of the Council to pursue that ordinance. I mean, are there four folks on the Council, and it's going to take four to pass any sort of ordinance that will prohibit storing cars in the front yard. Are there four people who would be pursue that at this point? Pfab/I have a question or a comment. Lehman/Well, first of all, are you pursue that? Pfab/No. Lehman/All right. We do not have four votes. O'Donnell/Well, I don't think you've seen any hands. Lehman/I have seen--- TAPE 03-67, SIDE TWO Boothroy/You're not willing to pursue it at this time, but I did hear comments about with the new Development Code, so I guess--- Lehman/As far as the new Development Code, I have a feeling we're willing to look at it at that point. Champion/Yes. Pfab/Providing--- O'Dormell/When will that be? Lehman/In the spring. O'Donnell/Absolutely. Pfab/Providing that it's as previous changes have been made--- Lehman/Well, we'll see that when it comes, but we do have--- Boothroy/I can't anticipate what the wording is going to be or nobody can. I wouldn't--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8~ 2003. 67 Pfab/It would be extremely difficult for me to be supportive if it didn't grandfather things in as other ordinances--- Lehman/But we are interested in looking at the ordinance. I believe I see four--- Kanner/Well, actually, I am not that interested. I won't be here but it seems that we're going down a bad path and that we're getting into individual rights too much and we're taking away those individual rights. Mike, I, let me ask you, Doug. I don't see property value going down. Anyway, we have some targeted areas that we set aside for (can't hear) money, but even in those areas, I haven't heard that property value is going down. I don't know what the problem is that you're talking about, Doug. Boothroy/Well, the problem is that people have called and complained about the issue, and I think that generally speaking, Steven, when we were constructing the ordinance in 1983, there's no question that we were not thinking of allowing residential zones to have unlimited storage of vehicles in parking lots. Specifically, we state in the zoning ordinance that you are not to have any required parking in the front yard of a single family zone, except for one. And so there isn't a lot of distinction between a storage lot and a parking lot, and I would point to that particular effort on our part back 20-some years ago. So, if you change the policy, so be it. All I'm saying is that this particular incident has opened up a dialogue about a weakness or an oversight in the construction of the language of that zoning ordinance that allows things to happen beyond the 20 feet. Right now, this particular property owner is back beyond the 20 feet. If he was only 20 feet back from the street, those cars probably would not be in the front yard. Kanner/Two things. I mean, do you see people rushing in to suddenly, that have space beyond 20 feet that are suddenly parking lots of cars that are licensed and in working order? And--- Boothroy/We deal with vehicle parking all the time. I don't, you know--- Kanner/Do you see problems that we have to go to the 40 feet and just in general beyond this individual issue? Boothroy/Well, I think that'll come up when we talk about the new Code. I think the plarming department should--- Lehman/Well--- Kanner/(can't hear) the question we were addressing specifically--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 68 Boothroy/Well, but I think there has--- Lehman/There are four people who are willing to address that at the time the Code comes back and that's the time that we will address those issues again. At this time--- Boothroy/OK. Lehman/...there is not sufficient interest for you to draft an ordinance that will prohibit the parking of cars. Boothroy/That's fine with me. I've got other things. Vanderhoef/And I want to be sure that you address them in the same manner for the backyards. This is a perfect example because the topography of that backyard is equally visible to a lot of neighbors because the hill is so high in behind them and look down on top of all of that. Boothroy/This issue will be passed on to the Planning and Zoning Commission and--- Lehman/We will address it when it comes back to us. Vanderhoef/Address it in the new Code. Pfab/I would have one final comment and that is if there are complaints that property values are being diminished, I would like to see some proof of it, which I don't think is going to be possible. Boothroy/Irvin, I never said that they complain about property values--- Pfab/No, no, I didn't--- Boothroy/...they complained about the activity. Pfab/...! didn't say you--- Boothroy/OK. Pfab/No, no, I didn't say you did. But I'm saying if people are complaining that it's hurting their property values, that's all well and good. Boothroy/Prospectively, I think they are. Pfab/I'd like to see some proof. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 69 Lehman/Well, this is not, we're wasting our time. Boothroy/Right. Lehman/We'll talk about it next spring when it comes back to us. Dilkes/And just so you're clear, you don't have absolute discretion over whether you say this is grandfathered or not. I mean, I think what Doug was saying is this is-- there's a legal issue--- Lehman/Right. Dilkes/...that distinction between zoning and nuisance and what gets grandfathered and what doesn't, and that may not be your decision to make. Lehman/No, but that will, right; but that still, the whole issue will be addressed when the Code .... Boothroy/Yeah, because we'll have legal review of the zoning Code and--- Lehman/Right. Dilkes/Yeah. O'Donnell/That's good. Lehman/Thank you, Doug. Pfab/Thank you, Doug. SCHEDULE FOR REMAINDER OF 2003 Lehman/OK. We have from our beloved City Clerk a proposed scheduled for November- December. Is this basically acceptable to the Council? Kanner/No. Lehman/These are the nights that Council meetings would routinely have occurred. And I hear one no. Wilburn/Yes. Lehman/Well, I think we can decide whether or not we're going to need a second meeting in December and that may be a decision that we might want to talk about later, depending on what the agenda is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 70 Champion/We usually just have one. Lehman/Routinely, we have. Kart/Well, something else that you might want to just note is that in November there was, I know someone mentioned how nice it would be not to have a packet before Thanksgiving. This schedule would mean that the Thanksgiving week you would have a packet in anticipation of your meeting December 1st and 2nd. I just want to clarify that. It's just the way, Thanksgiving's very late this year. Lehman/Well, we could go to December--- Kan'/Ninth is the National League of Cities. Lehman/So we can't. Karr/You'll have one Council Member at least going to be gone. You could go to the 16th and have one meeting. You could skip any meeting and you could have a combined work session and formal. For instance, you could have a work session and formal on December 15th or on December--I don't know due to your travel arrangements. You could do the 8th or the 9th. Vanderhoef/Is it Wednesday? Meetings start Wednesday. Karr/OK. That would be the 10th. So you could meet the 8th and 9th in December? Vanderhoef/I didn't bring my calendar; I'm sorry. Karr/Because that could make a difference--- Lehman/Well, let's look at the November. We do have, the way this is set up--- Vanderhoef/The way it's set up, I can do this schedule. Karr/Yes, the question was dropping down to one meeting. But let's start with November. Lehman/Yeah, one of the things, because the November schedule leaves Labor--or pardon me--- Karr/Veterans--- Lehman/ ...Veterans Day, which is the 1 lth. Now that would be, if we don't meet on the 4th, we probably would be scheduled for the 1 lth, and that is not a good day to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 71 meet, being a holiday. O'Donnell/What's the election? Lehman/The election is on the 4th. O'Donnell/I don't want to meet then. Lehman/And in this packet the--- Vanderhoef/It's OK with me. Lehman/...recommendation is a 5:30 meeting. Hopefully, we' d be out by 7:00 or 7:30. O'Dormell/(can't hear) I wouldn't bet that. Champion/Do a combination on the 3rd. Do a combination on the 3rd. (Laughter) Kanner/No, well, people are going to be working anyhow. I would rather do a combination on the 10th if we're going to do one. Champion/On the 3rd. Kanner/No, no. Karr/I think Steven is switching to the second and the fourth potentially and meet November 10th and 1 lth and do a combination on Monday and leave offVeterans Days. Champion/Oh, I see. Kanner/Because people are going to be working on campaigns the night before and I just think we should steer clear of that. Champion/Be flexible. Karr/We do need to nail it down, folks. I've got staff--- Lehman/All right, we need to decide what we're going to do. I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not running it. Vanderhoef/The schedule that's here is fine with me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 72 Champion/Mike and I don't care about it. Wilburn/I'm fine with your--- Lehman/Are you fine with what we got? Pfab/Which is what, the 10th? Kan'/No, the 3rd and 4th. Vanderhoef/What's printed in your--- Pfab/I don't have a copy of it. Lelunan/Here, Irvin, that's it. Pfab/OK, I just--- O'Donnell/Emie, does that have the 4th on it? Lehman/Yes. O'Donnell/I'm fine with that, but you have to guarantee we're out of here by 7:00. Lehman/I can't get--you guys are the ones that guarantee that. Pfab/I'd rather not have it on the 4th. Wilburn/I was going to walk out if we're not done by 7:30. Lehman/I think it, we can do--we can determine how late we're going to be here, I'm telling you. Kanner/Ernie, it shouldn't be on Election Day. Champion/It shouldn't be on Election Day. Kanner/There's a lot of people that are--- Champion/Oh, I am OK, but you know what, we wouldn't have wanted it if we were running for office, we would not have wanted a meeting on Election Day. And we canceled a meeting because of that. O'Donnell/I'm talking about rabbits and trees. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 73 Champion/Snowball, the rabbit, died this winter (can't hear) Lehman/All right, we're not through with the rabbits yet, but I sense that there is enough unhappiness with the 4th that we probably won't do the 4th. Karr/Should we do a combination the 10th, to avoid Veterans Day the 1 lth? Lehman/Do you want to do the 10th? That would be an early; that would a Monday afternoon work session, followed by a regular meeting. Female voice/Who wants that? Good. Lehman/Shall we go to November 10th? Pfab/Are we going to put a date, a time on that now or not? Lehman/Well,--- Karr/No, not. Lehman/Probably we won't--- Pfab/OK, all right, OK, that's fine. Kan'/OK, so then--- Champion/ Leave your afternoon free. Lehman/We would then go to the 20--what date? Kart/You want to go to the 26th, I'm sorry. Wrong list. Lehman/24th and 25th, are those? Karr/24th, no, that would, yeah 24th and 25th then? O'Dormell/Good. Lehman/Yep. So the 10th, the 24th and 25th of November and then go to--- O'Donnell/But that's Thanksgiving. Karr/No. Lehman/That's all right. It's Monday and Tuesday. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 74 Karr/It's Thanksgiving; it's a Monday and Tuesday so you wouldn't have a packet then Thanksgiving. Lehman/Right. O'Donnell/That's fine. Lehman/And then the next meeting would then be on December 8th and 9th? Kart/Well, if that--- O'Donnell/Pearl Harbor Day. Lehman/Would that work? Vanderhoef/That's what I'm not positive; I don't know. Lehman/We don't know yet. We've done November. Kanner/So let's say December 8th and 9th. Lehman/We don't know if that's going to work. She doesn't know. Kanner/Oh, that doesn't work? Lehman/We don't know if it works. Vanderhoef/The reservation is in your office. Lehman/Can we get it tomorrow night? Karr/OK. O'Donnell/Tomorrow night. Lehman/Is that all right? Karr/Yes. Lehman/Tomorrow night we will firm up either December--- O'Donnell/Are you OK with that? Lehman/I can't imagine it being the 1 st. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 75 Karr/You could also do a combined the 8th, if you want to. Champion/I'm behind (can't hear) Karr/I mean, that's another possibility that week. Lehman/All right. We need to start being (can't hear) because we could do a combination on this. Kart/Is the majority desiring right now one meeting in December? Is that a goal? Or not? Because that would make a difference. Pfab/Well, I would say, let's schedule one; we can (can't hear) Champion/What, what, what? Lehman/Do most of us feel that one meeting in December would be enough? Karr/Is that a goal? Lehman/Unless we have an extraordinary amount of work. Vanderhoef/Let's look at the work schedule before we start heading into budget. So, if we can clear up all of our work meeting items, prior to--- Karr/We'll take a vote. O'Donnell/(can't hear) Champion/All right, I'm sorry, what? Lehman/All right. Karr/And then one final thing. Lehman/Yes. Karr/The starting time of your meeting on the 22nd. There was some interest to start it earlier than 6:30. You've got the Airport coming in. You've got Historic Preservation. Is there interest that we do it at 5:30? Lehman/Yes. Champion/That's fine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 76 Kanner/It's hard for me. Pfab/That's on what--Tuesday? Lehman/The next work session. O'Donnell/(can't hear) Pfab/Oh, I'm, that's on Monday? O'Donnell/Yeah. Pfab/I would have no problem with that. O'Donnell/(can't hear) Champion/It's informal. Pfab/I have no problem. Champion/What time can you be here, Steven? Kanner/Well, I mean, I can get there ifI absolutely have to, but it just makes it a lot harder. I usually work till about 5:00 or so. Champion/That's a half hour. I work until 5:00. I'm three minutes away. Lehman/I work until 5:00, too. O'Donnell/OK. How about 6:00 o'clock. Lehman/Well, judging from the amount of work that we really need to do with the Airport Commission and this other one and because we're going to have folks that are going to be here for the evening, I think we can handle the inconvenience for a half hour. Pfab/I want to make a proposal that we compromise. How about 5:45? Champion/No. Too confusing. O'Dormell/Should get the--- Kanner/I was going to say 6:00 o'clock. That would make it a lot easier for me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003. 77 Champion/You can do it, Steven. You're tough. Kanner/Not as tough as you, Connie. (Laughter) O'Donnell/Who is? Lehman/We're going to have a tough confrontation at 5:30 and we'll see how many get here. Oh, Steven, I'm sorry. Before we broke, you said you had a couple of things and I totally forgot. Kanner/I'll do it tomorrow. Lehman/OK. Thank you. O'Donnell/Good night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 8, 2003.