Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-29 AgendaSubject to change as finalized by the City Clerk. For a final official copy, contact the City Clerk's office at 356-5040. ~ AGENDA IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 29, 1997 - 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ITEM NO. I ITEM NO. 2 ITEM NO. 3 CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY/IN~JUrrloIEr~¥ REGARDING THE INITIATIVE PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE EXTENSION OF FIRST AVENUE ALONG HICKORY HILL PARK UNTIL THE YEAR 2000. Comment: On August 18 an Affidavit to Commence Initiative Proceedings on the above-mentioned matter was filed with the City Clerk. Petitions were filed on August 25 and certified as insufficient due to lack of required signatures (1,883 verified, 642 short of required 2,525) on August 27. Supplemental peti- tions are expected to be filed on August 28. A Certificate of Sufficiency, if enough signatures have been verified, or a Certificate of Insufficiency, if not enough could be verified, will be presented by the City Clerk prior to Council ac- tion on this matter. Action: ~~~~~_~ CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING INITIATIVE RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTENSION OF FIRST AVENUE UNTIL THE YEAR 2002. Comment: Upon receipt of a valid Certificate of Sufficiency, council may adopt the resolution. The Charter provides for Council consideration within 60 days of acceptance. Action: City Council Agenda August 28, 1997 page 2 ITEM NO. 4 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO PLACE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO ADOPT A CITIZEN INITIATIVE RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL IM- PROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 TO 2002 TO REMOVE THE FIRST AVENUE EXTENSION FROM FISCAL YEAR 1998, AND INCLUDE THE FIRST AVENUE EXTENSION IN FISCAL YEAR 2002. Comment: Once a Certificate of Sufficiency has been issued according to City Charter initiative provisions, Council must forward this matter to the voters if they fail to adopt the initiative within 60 days. Action: ~'/.z.~ / r~'~r,~<~ ITEM NO. 5 CONSIDER A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL M'~ I~ #2 page 1 ITEM NO. 2 CONSIDER A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY/INSUFFICIENCY REGARDING THE INITIATIVE PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE EXTENSION OF FIRST AVENUE ALONG HICKORY HILL PARK UNTIL THE YEAR 2000. Nov/ (Reads agenda item #2). And I assume you have supplemental petitions. Marian Karr/ We have a report for you. Nov/ Okay. May we have a motion? Kubby/ So moved. Baker/ Second. Nov/ Moved by Kubby, second by Baker. Discussion? Steve Atkins/ Members of the Council, before you proceed, if I could just take thirty seconds to remind you wc are on a very tight schedule today, pushed back the timing. Marian has a presentation. The schedule, again, as short as it is, because of the 5:00 deadline, based upon the decisions I expect you're going to have to make this afternoon. If you would, I would like to have Marian present her findings to you. Please let her complete the whole presentation, because it is very important that each element be fit, that it all fits together. Okay? Norton/ Before we go to that, I want to add, why does this one say "Year 2000"? This is an important issue to me, because of the timing, 2000 is one thing, and 2002 is rather different. Dilkes/ I think, as we come to the second and third resolutions on the agenda, that I can address that, the ballot question that I propose, and -- Norton/ Okay. Dilkes/ We'll get through that. Okay? Norton/ Thank you. Karr/ (Reads statement). Nov/ Marian, were there any people who withdrew signatures? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #2 page 2 Karr/ We received phone calls, but have not received written documentation or a request to do so. Kubby/ Well, it was an amazing feat of the people circulating the petition to get so many signatures that qualified and didn't qualify, in such a short time. A very impressive act on the part of the community. An impressive act on the part of the City Clerk's Office and other City staff to volunteer their time to check that. I really appreciate the extra energy that you've had to put out this week. Thornberry/ I want to bring up a point that I was asked before. If the rules are such and laid down, is this by ordinance, is this by State law, is this by City ordinance, or what is the required, I mean to get these 2,525 names circulated by a registered person, etc., etc., where does this, all these rules come from? Karr/ That's set forth in our Charter. Thornberry/ Can we just dismiss the Charter? Dilkes/ No, there are specific rules about how the Charter is amended. Thornberry/ Say, for example, they got 2,500, and they were short 25. That, and if we certified it anyway, that would be setting a precedent saying that it doesn't make any difference. There were enough signatures, but apparently there weren't enough signatures with qualified solicitors. Is that correct? Karr/ No. The signatures on the petitions themselves were qualified electors. The question is the cover affidavit accompanying the petitions, not the petitions themselves. Thomberry/ In other words, they were voting, or they were signing a petition not being circulated by someone who was authorized to circulate it? Karr/ That could be one interpretation, yes. Thomberry/ I'm looking -- Karr/ That's indeed the question. Dilkes/ We are not telling you, Dean, that we are changing the Charter to get them the number of votes. What we're telling you is that the Charter can be interpreted in a way and frankly, I think, should be interpreted in a way that leads to this result. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #2 page 3 Thornberry/ I just want to make sure that we're not setting a precedent that does not follow the law. Karr/ We've been consistent in reviewing the affidavits. This particular problem has not come up before. Consistently, the qualified elector had initiated the affidavit and had it properly signed. This is the first time. So as far as consistency, we were consistent in following all of the original submissions. The affidavits were in order. So this is, we've been consistent in doing that. As far as the inconsistency, the question becomes one of, again, I believe, the good faith of the petition signers, rather than the error on the part of the circulator. Nov/ We also know that some of the good faith petition signers were not given absolutely accurate information. We have been told by some of the signers that they were given information that this street was going right through the middle of Hickory Hill Park. And we know the person who handed them this petition probably believed it, also. It's hard to say how much information was accurate. So, I would err on the side of the person who signed it in good faith. Thornberry/ I don't want to error. Dilkes/ We're not, I think the point is not what these people might have been told, or were told. The point is that 48 people who are registered voters chose to sign this petition. They had, they didn't know that somebody who was asking them to sign it was not a registered voter. They would be disenfranchised, or their vote would not count if you inteqoreted this the other way. And that seems to me to not be consistent with the intent of the Charter. Thomberry/ They would have signed it, had the person been certified. NoW No. Thornberry/ Yes, they would've. Dilkes/ They would have signed regardless. I think they weren't thinking, when these people signed the petition, they were not thinking in their mind, "Oh, I wonder if that person asking me to sign was a registered voter?" Thornberry/ I know. Like I said, they would've signed it, whether the person was certified to circulate it. Nov/ Correct. Dilkes/ Correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #2 page 4 Thornberry/ It just leaves a little, kind of a bad taste in my mouth that we didn't follow the rules. Lehman/ Well, I think it's such a minor sort of thing. Thomberry/ It is. Lehman/ It doesn't really bother me. I think we should certify it. Thornberry/ Right. Well, I do too. But I'm just saying, I don't want to set a precedent that says okay, then it's all right to circulate it without being -- you know, then let's revise the ordinance. Norton/ The only precedent we're setting, Dean, is to remind the people who are circulating, the circulators as you say, ought to also be qualified. Thornberry/ Yeah. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we shouldn't. I'm just saying that, follow, you know, follow the rules. Norton/ Yeah. Thornberry/ We don't want to bend the rules to set a precedent for the next time an Initiative is circulated. You see what I mean? I don't want five-year-olds going out and circulating petitions if they're not registered voters. I'm just saying -- Nov/ I think we heard you. Kubby/ I agree with Dean. Norton/ We'll make it clearer next time. Lehman/ Let's vote. Nov/ All right. Any other discussion? Roll call - Karr/ It's a motion. Nov/ It's a motion. Okay. It's a motion. All in favor, please say aye- (ayes). Motion carried. All opposed, same sign. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 1 ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING INITIATIVE RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTENSION OF FIRST AVENUE UNTIL THE YEAR 2002. Nov/ (Reads agenda item #3). We can delay, but we've chosen not to do that, so let's have a motion. Kubby/ Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman/ Second. Nov/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Lehman. Discussion? You want to go ahead? Nov/ Dee? Thornberry/ Go ahead. Van/ The resolution appears different, or I read it different than the Citizen Initiative. And from day one, the Citizen Initiative was confusing to me. And I'll tell you why, well I'll just read it. The number one part of it is the Extension of First Avenue along Hickory Hill Park is prohibited in fiscal years 1997 through 1999, which means it could not happen until like June 30 of 1999, is that correct, the way that reads? That's the way I read it. Fiscal years 1997 through 1999. And 1999, the year 2000 fiscal year starts on July 1 of 1999, correct? Okay? So if that is inaccurate, then the second statement, to me, is an opposite. It says the 1997 Capital Improvements Program adopted by the Council, without public discussion, be amended so that the First Avenue Exte_nsion is removed from fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and is instead listed in the Program for fiscal year 2002, as it was in the Council's previous Programs. Well, now, that's just changing it again to a different year. Dilkes/ Let me, we've struggled with this this week, and let me tell you how I've resolved it, because, or how I propose that you resolve it. And you'll notice that the ballot question and the, the questions that are posed in the next two resolutions are essentially the same, with one change that I'll talk about. I agree, with all due respect to the petitioners, the petition is confusing. And I think that sometimes the more I looked at it, the more difficult it became to reconcile it. The title speaks of prohibiting the Extension until the year 2000, yet the body complains that the City Council previously had said that Extension wouldn't be considered until 2002. The therefore clause, as you pointed out, talks about prohibiting the Extension until 2000, but amending the CIP to include it in 2002. The ballot language that I propose, I think, provides the most expansive reading of the Initiative resolution. But, the effect, you need to know what the effect of that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 2 ballot language, whether you pass, I mean whether you adopt that resolution, or whether you send it to the voters and the voters adopt it, the effect is, let me back up for a minute. The Charter provides that a resolution passed by Initiative cannot be appealed or amended for a period of two years. So, if that, if you adopt it, or if the voters adopt it, that means that the City Council may not place the First Avenue Extension in the CIP in a year earlier than fiscal year 2002, until, and I'm assuming the voters would pass it in this case, until November 4, 1999, two years from the election, which is fiscal year 2000. Van/ Okay. Dilkes/ So, in other words, in the budget process in early 2000, the Council would be free to do what it chose to do. And I think that is, as much as I can determine, is consistent with the Initiative resolution. I have talked to Bennett Brown about the ballot language that's proposed. I believe after discussion, he was, he concurred with it, or it was, he was satisfied with it. He did ask that I add, and there's an amended resolution in front of you, "along Hickory Hill Park" after "First Avenue Extension." As I told Mr. Brown, I had initially not included "along Hickory Hill Park" because it seemed to me that that could be potentially limiting. "The First Avenue Extension along Hickory Hill Park." Not just the project, "the First Avenue Extension", but "the First Avenue Extension along Hickory Hill Park" is the only part we're talking about. And there's a question about what "along Hickory Hill Park" means, it doesn't abut, you know, that whole issue. I resolved that in favor of adding "along Hickory Hill Park" to the ballot question because this is an Initiative resolution, I mean a Citizen Initiative, and I can take only so much liberty, I mean I can't change their Initiative. It's their Initiative resolution that has to go to the voters. So, I did put back in "along Hickory Hill Park". Not in the resolution that appears before you for adoption, if you choose to adopt it, but in the ballot question. Nov/ So, is there a possible interpretation of the ballot question that if Hickory Hill Park remains as is, a First Avenue Extension could be moved, you know, it just wouldn't be along Hickory Hill Park, but it would still be a First Avenue Extension? Dilkes/ I think the best interpretation is, we're talking about the First Avenue Extension that everybody has been talking about. I don't think it's a big issue, but that was, when I was drafting the initial questions, that was the question posed in my mind. And that's why I don't see adding "along Hickory Hill Park" as problematic. Lehman/ Eleanor, I want to be very clear about this, because, to me, a decent deferral of this project and its consideration, and a hard look at the Comp Plan in that area, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 3 and a number of other issues that have been raised. Is it entirely desirable, now I want to be sure that that, can any planning be done before November of 1999? Dilkes/ You cannot schedule the project. This resolution says that the project cannot be done until -- it has to be put in the CIP as scheduled for 2002, and you can't change that until the year 2000. Norton/ Right. And I suppose that consideration could come up in November 1999 -- Dilkes/ I think that means -- Norton/ The planned work could be started the spring of 2000, if that turned out after due deliberation -- Dilkes/ I understand the question. Norton/ That would be possible, but how much planning could be done ahead of that? Dilkes/ I think it depends on whatever placement in the CIP typically means. If placement in the CIP in the year 2000 means that City staff never starts the planning process until the year 2000, then I think, I mean, you would interpret it in the way we have always meant the CIP to be interpreted. Kubby/ We typically have it one year for design and one year for construction. We typically have it in there -- Dilkes/ And I think the intent, I mean I think the intent is that it not be constructed -- Norton/ That the work not be done, yeah. Kubby/ But, is what you just said, that we wouldn't be able to have it in there for continuing design purposes in the CIP? Because we traditionally do have a year that would say First Avenue Extended and a pot of money for design, and the next fiscal year, within that same CIP would be for construction. Nov/ That is our typical process. Dilkes/ Well, the Citizen Initiative talks about putting it in the year 2002, and I fi'ankly don't know what they mean. Kubby/ But would you interpret it that we couldn't put it in for design until 2002, and then construction in 2003? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 4 Dilkes/ No, I would interpret it to mean -- I almost added the word "construction" to the ballot question, because I thought that would be another way to clarify the resolution, the Citizen Resolution. Kubby/ And even though I don't think we would do this, but between now and November, there can be no construction of First Avenue, I'm assuming. Dilkes/ Oh, no. Atkins/ I'd like to confirm. I just checked with Jeff, and the project is substantially designed, so the next phase is clearly plan specification, and the bidding, so I think you need to be very clear what you understand, that this is construction of-- unless you change the design. Baker/ That's my confusion right now, because you're saying, the figures are the year 2000, and the year 2002, but did you say that a future Council in the year 2000 could change, go back to the original plan, and if the plans are done, the work could be done in the year 2000, or 20017 Dilkes/ The Initiative is only binding on the Council for a period of two years. Norton/ All right. Van/ So they could start construction July 1 of 2000. Atkins/ The public should know that this doesn't guarantee that it won't be constructed before 2002. Dilkes/ No. And I think they recognize that. Norton/ Am I clear -- pardon me, Naomi, pardon me. Nov/ The limit is November 1999. Exactly two years from the election. Dilkes/ Before you can place it sooner than 2002. Atkins/ Your budget deliberations beginning January of the year 2000 would be at the time they would consider placement of that project. That's how I interpret what you just said. Is that correct? Dilkes/ Yes. Atkins/ Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 5 Norton/ Are the two resolutions precisely the same, that is, we're looking at Item #3 that is possibility for us to adopt right now, right? -- Dilkes/ Item #2, right, Item #3. Norton/ If we adopt Item #3, we don't even get to Item #4, is that correct? Dilkes/ That's right. Nov/ That's correct. Van/ Going back for clarification, please. When you added that statement about "along Hickory Hill", is it real clear that that doesn't include along Hickory Hill on the north side, which is part of the Captain Irish Parkway? Dilkes/ I think that's clear. Van/ Okay. I just wanted to be sure that that's out there. Lehman/ I think that the addition of that statement is not necessarily correct, in that Hickory Hill Park is not on either side of the Extension. Norton/ It never gets there. Lehman/ It is on the one side of the existing First Avenue. So, I think that the statement "the Extension along Hickory Hill Park" is misleading, due to the fact that there is no park on either side of the Extension. Dilkes/ I understand that whole issue, and that whole debate, about how close First Avenue to Hickory Hill, that whole thing. But, we are dealing with a Citizen Initiative, and that's how they've framed the question. And we can only, I can, in flaming the ballot question, I have to be true to their Citizen Initiative. I can't alter it, you know, any way I want. Or, you can't alter it any way you want. And so, I think that's the question that they have posed, and that's why I have included it. Because you're bound to send the question that they've posed, in substance, to the voters. Lehman/ I think it's a little misleading. Kubby/ What if we took -- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 6 Dilkes/ I don't disagree with you, necessarily, but that's really not the issue, in terms of framing the ballot question. Lehman/ Misleading is not the issue. Kubby/ What if we changed the word "along" to "affecting". Because then you don't have, if this ends up going to the ballot, then you don't have people who are against the question, saying well, the petitioners are misleading the public. Lehman/ Well, I think "affecting" would also, I think it's much more nebulous term than "along". Dilkes/ If we're going to include Hickory Hill, I think we should probably use the language that they -- Kubby/ Yeah, that they've chosen. Dilkes/ They've chosen. Lehman/ Wouldn't it be possible just to word it that we're talking about the alignment of First Avenue presently proposed? Because "along Hickory Hill Park" does not go along the Park, then we are talking about the present proposal. Kubby/ But the petitioners, not all, but much of the opposition of the First Avenue Extension has to do with how it will affect the Park. That's an important part of the Initiative, I believe, in the eyes of the petitioners. And so, having Hickory Hill in that language is important for their Initiative that they brought to us. Dilkes/ That's what I'm trying to distinguish, is the debate about the reality of the situation, and the fact that we are dealing with a Citizen Initiative. And it's their question to pose, not ours. And so, that's the balance I'm trying, I mean, I need to pose a ballot question that's clear, but it has to be, in substance, the ballot question that's been posed by the citizens. Lehman/ But doesn't it also have to be accurate? Nov/ No. Dilkes/ Not necessarily. Kubby/ Because that would be part of the (can't hear). Norton/ I'm beginning to feel like we're in California. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 7 Nov/ What's this got to do with California? Norton/ Well, they have all kinds of wording problems on their propositions, you know. Nov/ Oh, yes, they do. Kubby/ And that's just part of the consequence that happens when you have the form of democracy that our Charter allows, which is a wonderful thing. And that, and then you can talk about how you don't like those words, unless we adopt it, and then we avoid that whole issue. Baker/ I think it's more of a consequence of the time the group had to prepare the thing - Norton/ Oh yeah. Baker/ and get all of the wording down precisely, but it will, whatever happens, that language will be part of the debate that's going to happen in the next two months. Some people will say this is along, and therefore detrimental to, and others will say that it's not, that this configuration is not. Kubby/ Right. But really, that's not the crux of what I would hope would be the community discussion. The real discussion is, does, is the road Extension done in isolation of the whole of northeast Iowa City. Is the Park, does the Park Extension affect the Park or not, versus this word "along". To me, I'd rather talk about the intent -- Lehman/The road Extension -- Nov/ Folks,-- Kubby/ What I said is kind of irrelevant to the specific question. Nov/ Aren't we still on Item #3? Item #3 does not include ballot language. We're getting into a discussion of Item #4, and we really have to move along. Item #3 says we, the City Council, will change the Capital Improvements Program, and we will include First Avenue in fiscal year 2002 instead of fiscal year 1998. Do we want to change our Capital Improvements Plan? And, if not, do we want to put it on the ballot? But we're talking now about resolution #4. Council/ (All talking). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 8 Lehman/ If we vote "no" on number 3, it goes on the ballot, on the ballot to the people, is that correct? Kubby/ We are obligated to vote affirmative for item #4. Lehman/ I'm saying, is that correct? Nov/ That is correct. Lehman/ So, if we voted "no" on number 3, then it would go to a vote of the people. Nov/ Then we would vote on number 4. If we voted on number 3 in the affirmative, then we would not vote on number 4. Kubby/ So, now's really the time for some discussion about why we should do First Avenue now, or why we should do First Avenue later, or not to do it at all. Norton/ Well, I'm not sure whether we should do it later. Kubby/ And also, -- Nov/ That you preferred to have it on the ballot, and therefore you do not want to approve number 3. I mean, all these kinds of things are a valid discussion of this resolution, but the wording on the ballot is not. Kubby/ I have another timing question, just to make sure I'm very clear. The language in the "therefore" of the resolution for item #3 talks about the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 1998 through 2002. But each budget year, we have a Capital Improvements Program that just shifts the year one over, ratchets it over one year into the future. But, because our Charter says that the Council can't reverse the Initiative, or can't -- if we adopt this resolution, does that mean that we could reverse ourselves next year? Because it didn't have anything to do with the Charter? Dilkes/ I specifically did not, in the resolution that, the Citizen Resolution, they talk about the 1997 Capital Improvements Plan. I specifically left that date out, and talked about the multi-year Capital Improvements Plan, because I don't, I'm not just talking about amending the 1997 CIP. I'm talking about each multi-year CIP until that two years passes. Then you can do whatever you want. Kubby/ Okay, so in your mind, that language is clear about that two year hiatus on this project. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 9 Dilkes/ Yes. I think it's clear. Nov/ The language in the Charter -- Kubby/ Just so that's on the public record. Nov/ Says that. Dilkes/ If you came to me and said, oh, we're doing -- Norton/ I'm having a tough time deciding, because this, I want some delay, but I don't want to get locked into 2002. Now, you're telling me I'm locked ifI vote for the resolution, I'm locked until November -- the first I can start construction is the spring of 2000. Is that correct? Dilkes/ Practically, yes. Norton/ Basically, I can start construction, which would be two years later than what we presently have in mind, right? Nov/ The way to get this done earlier would be to put it on the ballot and just hope that it were defeated. Norton/ Voted down, yeah. Well, that's -- Nov/ That's the change. If we adopt the resolution proposed now, item #3, we are committed to two years, November of 1999 before we can do any changes. And if we have it approved by the voters on the ballot, we have the same restrictions. Kubby/ Well, I would speak in favor of this resolution, and will be voting for it, because I believe that our recent past CIPs had a better plan of action to go with Scott Boulevard first, going north to Highway 80, and then doing First Avenue Extended. And because of the, I know that any kind of democratic movement, you can't say I speak for the majority. I think that's very difficult, because only 26% of the voting public only voted for us. We can't say we speak for the majority. But, a lot of people have expressed interest in this issue. And even, I think, if I thought First Avenue Extended should be done, because of this outcry, if people want to participate in this particular decision, and have community discussion about it, I want us to slow down and have that community discussion about this road, and I believe it's a good idea to broaden this discussion to the whole northeast side of Iowa City. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 10 Baker/ That's why I'm going to vote no on it, so that the people will be able to vote, and give their input for the whole north side. Kubby/ You would agree with that kind of planning process for the whole northeast part of Iowa City. Baker/ I would like for the people in the whole north side to be able to say yes or no. I mean, they can vote in favor of this resolution, but I would like to give them the opportunity to do so, and that's why I will be voting no on this, to give them that opportunity. Kubby/ But, you did favor First Avenue Extended in this spring's construction. Baker/ I would like to see, and we should've gotten into this conversation earlier, I really believe, because I'd like to see the Scott Boulevard Extension moved up to, not to go to the Interstate, because I think that's going to be way, way, way, down, and very, very expensive, but to see that hooked into Captain Irish Parkway, to go from Highway 1, over to Scott Boulevard, use that for truck traffic, and the industrial traffic, and hook First Avenue into that for the vehicular traffic on the arterial, as a north-south arterial in the east part of town. I would like to see that done, basically, at the same time. Norton/ Well, then you should vote for this resolution, I think, then. Baker/ No, I'm going to vote against this, to give the people an opportunity of putting through Captain Irish Parkway to connect First Avenue and continue on with Captain Irish Parkway over to Scott Boulevard. Not stop. I think that they made a big mistake, two mistakes, but that's neither here nor there. The first mistake was not continuing First Avenue on like they originally intended when they built it. That was the original intent, or they would've had a cul-de-sac at the end. The second mistake was closing that Seven Sisters, but that's previous Councils on both of them. Kubby/ The reason I would disagree with your rationale for taking it to the voters is because we made this decision originally, as a group, and people following the outline on how to tell us that they don't like our decision, they have spoken, and we have certified that to be sufficient. It says reverse your decision. I'm ready to reverse it. Baker/ Some have, others have not. Nov/ Well, Karen -- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 11 Kubby/I'm saying the people, that a majority, well I said, I think I've been clear about -- Nov/ You've been clear all along that you didn't want this street to be built. So, in effect, you're not reversing your decision, you're reversing the decision of five other members of a previous City Council. Kubby/ Yeah, and I have an opportunity to do that. And people who have followed the outline on how to tell us that they want us to reverse it, I'm ready to do that at this point, and act in that manner. Lehman/ Well, I'm going to vote against this. Actually, Karen, I suppose I'm voting against it for the same reason you're voting in favor of it. I think that this is a question that needs to be answered by the entire community. We've had some discussions, and I've agreed with you, and I'm sure I speak for Council on this, I've been very impressed with the manner in which we've been approached by the people who have signed these petitions. I think they've been courteous, they've been polite, they've been kind. And I personally appreclate that. I've gotten a number of letters, I've had phone calls, which I think we all have. And I think they're to be commended for the manner in which they approached it. There've been some things that've been brought up that I think need to be cleared up. And, I guess, one of the toughest parts I've had on Council was Tuesday night when somebody stood up and said "why?" And I sit here and I can't answer, you have to wait. So, I guess I want to say why I think this project should proceed the way it has been. And, I think a lot of this was caused by some, I think, some misconceptions. First of all, this was taken off the CIP in exactly the same manner in which it was put back on, and I think Larry pointed this out Tuesday night. It was put on for the year 2000, and I think the thinking behind that was probably logical. And I think it's probably important to note that it was never, it was taken off the CIP by a 4 to 3 vote. And that was against the recommendations of the City Planning staff. It was placed back on the CIP for the year 2000, with the blessing of the Planning staff. Now, there've some inferences made that the staff does not approve of this street going through, and that simply is not the case. It was moved up from the year 2000 to next year because there are water lines that are going to be along the same route as this road is going. It is less expensive to put the road in at the same time the water liens are put in, than it is to put the water lines in and wait till the year 2000. So the Council didn't act, I think, out ofirresponsibly, it was an opportunity to save the people of Iowa City some funds on the building of the road and the water lines at the same time. It was never intended, I don't think, by anybody up here, to slip something in without discussion. It was on the CIP. It was moved up to save some money. There's also been some other misinformation I'm sure we're all aware of it. I've been called by people who signed a petition because they're sure we're going through Hickory Hill Park. We are not going through Hickory Hill This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 12 Park. I think most of you folks know that. The closest that we will come is more than a quarter of a mile away. Now, to some folks, that has a huge detrimental effect on the Park. To other folks, it has a very minor effect on the Park. But the fact is, we are not going through the Park. We are not cutting trees in the Park. It was said on Tuesday night we're going in a straight line. That is also not true. We're following the contours of the land, trying to be as sensitive as we can, environmentally, to how the road is built. Certainly, there's going to have to be some, putting the water lines through, they're going to have to take some trees down. It was also stated Tuesday night that truck traffic is going to be a real hazard on this road. Again, we've said several times that trucks will not be permitted on that road. Semi's at least, I'm sure local trucks will have to. Nov/ Moving trucks occasionally. Lehman/ Right. Nov/ But that's about it. This is not a commercial area with truck traffic. Lehman/ And I also think. I remember the first P/Z Commission I went to, back in the early '70s. We had a project for a neighborhood shopping center. And I voted in favor of it, and it was defeated, 4 to 3. And my neighbor said "why did you vote for that?" I mean, that was terrible. I said, would you rather have a neighborhood shopping center, or 300 apartments. Oh, we don't want the apartments. Today, the apartments are there. Now, there is the inference, somehow, that, and I believe this part is true. Putting a road through may speed up development. But, not putting a road through is not going to prevent development. I think that the road will, it will encourage plan development. It will encourage the sort of development that we can live with. That property's private property out there, and in my opinion, it will be developed. Now, it can be developed in an orderly fashion, where we, as the City, have something to say about how we protect our Park. Or, it can be done in a haphazard fashion. And, I don't think that development is going to wait until 2002. I think it will occur. We are not going to have nearly as much to say about how that development occurs. So, not putting the street through is not going to curtail development. It may slow it down, but it will occur. And if the street is never put through, we're going to have little or nothing to say about it. Kubby/ How is that? We always have a say in an arterial street. We dictate the aligning of arterial -- Lehman/ I'm saying we don't have the arterial street. If development occurs in that area, we're going to have a lot less to say about traffic circulation and whatever. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 13 Kubby/ We may have a secondary access problem without First Avenue-- Nov/ Hold on for a minute. If we build Captain Irish Parkway, and no one has said we should not build Captain Irish Parkway, that has never been part of this discussion. If we were to build it, we would not have any streets intersecting Captain Irish Parkway as arterial streets, because we've moved it from our plan. There is no way that we can say there can't be a connector street connecting to Captain Irish Parkway approved by us in the form of a plat, with no public heating, whatsoever, by constructing this at City expense, as an arterial street, we are ensuring the public input. We are not ignoring it. Van/ One of the things that bothered me, even in the petition, was the statement, "whereas the First Avenue Extension would change a residential street into a busy arterial artery". This has always been an arterial, from the time it went on the CIP plan, First Avenue was an arterial. When I moved one block away from First Avenue, 25 years ago, that was an arterial then. It still is an arterial. Lehman/ Well, Dee -- Van/ Did you finish? I'm sorry. Lehman/ No, but I'm not going to go through all this, because she has to get out of here. Norton/ Yeah, we've got to get moving here. Nov/Okay -- Lehman/ Okay, but there's one other point. Nov/ One other point. Lehman/ Yes, just to emphasize what Dee said. This street has been, we've done our planning on the east side. Construction has taken place. Traffic flow has taken place. Street design has taken place, with the idea that this will be an arterial street, serving the east side of the community. I think that's been there forever, well, not forever, but for twenty years. And I think that we're looking at a bigger issue than what is just a local issue. We're talking about something that affects the entire east part of Iowa City. One point, on an environmental standpoint, and I think that, I'm very proud of the fact that this community is environmentally sensitive. If that road does not go through, and you're traveling from ACT or NCS to the Towncrest area, or vice versa. Let's say that the average trip takes 15 minutes extra if you use Governor and Dodge Streets, which are already overloaded with traffic. If you have 4,000 cars a day, that's 1,000 hours a day that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 14 the driver of that car, if there's no passenger involved, 1,000 hours a day of sitting in a car of totally wasted time. And the other part of it is, that engine is running 1,000 hours a day. Now, we all know what burning gasoline does, as far as the environment and whatever is concerned. It seems to me this is an issue that affects really much more than just the neighborhood. And believe me, ifI lived on First Avenue, I'd be against this from the word go. I don't want any more traffic than I have to have, either. But, I think it is a bigger question, and I think that we have to address the bigger question. Baker/ Ernie, can I just, I appreciate those comments, because this is the sort of discussion we didn't have two months ago, and -- Nov/ We had this discussion for many years. Baker/ Right. But this Council didn't have this discussion a few months ago in this detail. And I'm sure in the next couple months, you're going to be repeating much of what you just said in various places, and going point by point again. You and I disagree about this. We consistently disagree. But I think there are very good reasons for both sides of the argument, and I look forward to talking about that in the next couple of months. Nov/ Can we be done? Baker/ Just a second, Naomi. The biggest difference is our interpretation of immediate, up-front costs, and long-term consequences, and the way things are designed that have an impact over the entire area. You and I disagree about that, and it's a discussion that we'll continue again. It will cost a little bit more if we don't to it this way now, but that's a tangible cost, and there are other costs that we can talk about later, too. I just hope that the public takes this and has one of those debates with itself and with people running for office, that is based upon fact as much as anything else. There are facts on both sides that need to be clear, good arguments, and some facts that are just not facts, and those need to be discounted. And we'll talk about that in the future. I support this Initiative. I'm comfortable with it going on the ballot. And, Karen and I were in the majority three years ago. We're in the minority now. Things happen. Nov/ Mr. Norton -- Norton/ Well, I originally supported the move to put First Avenue forward, move it up in the CIP. Most of those reasons have already been articulated. I wont go over them again in the interest of time. I since then, have decided, since July, that we ought to defer this for at least a year beyond what was now projected, because I think we need to take a serious look at the Comp Plan up there, including open This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 page 15 space, and a serious look at exactly how we want that eastern side of Hickory Hill and those easements to taper off into the rest of the scenery up there. In other words, I want the edges to be light. So, I think we need to do that thinking about the transition from the park, what corridor needs to be maintained. I think we need to consider what expansion of Hickory Hill might be necessary on that side, to compensate for some that might go for cemetery on the other side. I think we need to see what, possibly, can be done about the automobile and the pedestrian, and bicycle traffic conflict on FIRST AVENUE, which is inevitable. I don't know whether we can manage that. But, I also want to look at the feasibility of extending Scott north and connecting with east-west. But the time to take that, I think we certainly have (tape cuts off) (97-120 -- Side A) Van/ I've heard some rhetoric today, and there's a lot of information that came out that, yes, it could have come out earlier. I had a hard time not responding on Tuesday night when people were talking to us, and I was trying very diligently to listen and see what there was there that I hadn't seen or heard before perhaps. The conversation keeps coming back from some people about how northeast Iowa City is to develop, and how that neighborhood wants to look, and so forth. And, one of the things I can't stress large enough in where I am with this whole puzzle, is the impact that this truly has on all of east Iowa City. Everything east of the River. And the phone calls that I have gotten, and the comments that I have gotten from the Longfellow area, from clear down on Highway 6 area, people down by Mercer Park area, who are saying, you know, I've got all this traffic going through my neighborhood, and they're cutting through, trying to get to Dodge. And this is a real concern for me. And when I heard the statistics that our transportation planners put out that said that we would have less traffic west of First Avenue on Rochester, Muscatine, and Court Street, I start looking at this and I say, and where are my schools that I'm talking about. The front door of Regina is on Rochester, and the back door to City High is on Rochester. The front door of Hoover is on Court Street. The front door of, or another back door of City High is on Court Street. So, I look at these schools, and I'm thinking, oh my, if I can decrease the traffic that's going in front of those schools, this is making an impact on these schools, also. And I recognize that the school district was choosing to build their schools on arterial streets, and put the front doors on arterial streets. Now, that's just the way the community is expanding, and I have all the concerns that every parent has had before me and after me will have about the safety of their children, and getting them to school. But, I truly believe that this First Avenue Extension, to keep cars from cutting through all these neighborhoods where the kids are coming out their front door, and trying to get across the street, until they get to the crossing guard, that's where the cars are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 16 cutting through. That's what's going to impact our children. I'd rather say, give them a place to get onto the arterial. Control it with lights. Get our crossing guards, what it is that we need, to take care of our children. So, in this case, I will be asking the voters, all of Iowa City, to look at this and come out, and vote what you feel is important, and is important for everybody on the east side of the River, as far as I can see. Nov/ Okay. Roll call- Atkins/ Before you call the roll, just one point of clarification. Is there anything in your thinking that would prohibit us from continuing to plan and construct the water lines? Nov/ This, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't conflict with water lines. Norton/ Without the road, you mean. Atkins/ The water line can be constructed without the road. Kubby/ Well, what are the consequences of waiting until, until discussing this until we see what the ballot, 'cause it's not going to happen until this spring, correct? Or is there work -- Atkins/ We would not, we would probably not build that thing until the spring. That had been the plan with the road. Kubby/ Because I don't think we're prepared tonight to, well, I'm not prepared tonight to say what are the consequences to our water plan -- Norton/ The cost. Kubby/ Planning, if we still have the value of wanting the road and the water plan to be together. Atkins/ I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding, particularly publicly, if you were to choose to proceed with the water line, it can be done independent of a road decision. But you can make that decision later. Norton/ But you'd buy different easements altogether, I take it. Nov/ No, well, I thi~dc we're ready to go on the water lines. Atkins/ We're real close on that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #3 page 17 Kubby/ Are there other, we've taken two votes on First Avenue Extended, in terms of consultants. Are there any votes that we've already taken, and the majority has approved, that we need to be thinking about, depending on what happens here in a minute, or what happens in November? Atkins/ If you send this to referendum, what we would likely do is we would go back to those contracts, make sure that we can satisfy our obligations and the consultants' obligations to us, particularly with respect to postponing, if we wait to vote. Yes, that, I don't perceive that that would be a problem. Nov/ I want you to check, not just the consultants, but the bond issues as well. Atkins/ Oh yeah. Kubby/ Yeah, we'll have to go back and check a lot of that out. Atkins/ Yeah, I just think that's sort of pro forma that we would do that. Kubby/ Thank you. Audience/ Is it appropriate at all for citizens to be involved in this discussion? Nov/ This is not a citizens discussion. Kubby/ In reality, yes, but technically, no. It would be most appropriate, but that's the way our process reads. Thornberry/ She's gotta have -- Nov/ We have to get the ballot to the auditor in time, and that means before 5:00 today, so there's no public discussion today. We've done that Tuesday. Marian, excuse me, Eleanor, would you do roll call- (no; Kubby and Baker, yes). Okay, we had Kubby and Baker voting no -- Kubby/ No, the other way around. Nov/ Excuse me. We had a 2 to 5 vote, and the motion has failed. We have not approved the resolution. IfI speak slowly, I understand what I'm saying. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997 #4 page 1 ITEM NO. 4 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO PLACE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO ADOPT A CITIZEN INITIATIVE RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 TO 2002 TO REMOVE THE FIRST AVENUE EXTENSION FROM FISCAL YEAR 1998, AND INCLUDE THE FIRST AVENUE EXTENSION IN FISCAL YEAR 2002. Nov/ (Reads agenda item #4). Is there any discussion? Kubby/ Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman/ Second. Nov/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Lehman that we adopt this. Discussion? Kubby/ To the people. Nov/ Yes, it is an important issue, and it ought to be on the ballot for everyone's opinion to be heard. We understand there are at least 2,500 who want to change it, but we would hear from any others. Roll call- (yes). We have approved this resolution on a 7-0 vote. Kubby/ And one of the issues that was brought up at Tuesday night's meeting, and previous to that, too, has been that whole idea of broadening this whole question to the east side or the northeast side of Iowa City, and looking at in terms of our whole Comp Plan, which is being remade, really overhauled and updated. And I hope that we can talk about that at an informal meeting sometime, about how we can have the community discussion be more broadly focused. Thomberry/ I thank the two Councilors, Kubby and Larry, for allowing us to go to the people of Iowa City for a vote. Even though they didn't want it to. Kubby/ Democracy guy over here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of August 29, 1997. F082997