HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-20 TranscriptionJanuary 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 1
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session 6:15 PM
Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn
Staff: Atkins, Boelk, Dilkes, Dulak, Fosse, Franklin, Helling, Kart, O'Malley,
Tmeblood
TAPE: 04-09, SIDE TWO
REVIEW ZONING ITEMS
Lehman/OK.
Franklin/OK. Before I get started I'm going to give you all a goose---
Champion/Oh.
O'Donnell/Give us all a what?
Franklin/A goose.
Elliott/I beg yonr pardon.
Lehman/Oh, this is cool.
Champion/Thank you.
Elliott/Look at that.
Franklin/This is John Coyne and this is the artwork that is going to go on the street signs in
Goosetown. I thought you might enjoy that.
Champion/That's nice.
Lehman/Gorgeous.
Vanderhoef/Really neat.
Franklin/It says "Goosetown" here and then what is the other side say, in Czech?
Coin/It's "Goosetown" in Czech.
Franklin/OK.
Coin/Or "town of the geese."
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 2
Franklin/Town of the geese.
Champion/OK, John, how do you pronounce that?
Franklin/How do you pronounce that?
O'Dormell/Gookeymesta.
Coin/Gookeymesta.
(Laughter)
Lehman/Very, very---
Elliott/You do and you have to clean it up yourself.
(Laughte0
Franklin/OK.
Wilburn/For a good guesser.
a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 3 ON AN
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.26 ACRES OF PROPERTY
FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE (CB-5) TO PUBLIC/CENTRAL
BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE (P/CB-5) FOR THE EAST HALF OF BLOCK 102
EXCEPT THE 301 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET PROPERTY. (REZ03-00028)
Franklin/OK. First item is setting a public hearing for February 3rd on a rezoning of 1.26 acres
from CB-5 to PCB-5. This is the Court Street Transportation Center.
Lehman/OK.
Wilbum/OK.
b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 3 ON AN
ORDINANCE VACATING A 84-SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF THE RIGHT-
OF-WAY LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF 425 BELDON AVENUE. (VAC03-
00004)
Franklin/ Next item is setting a public hearing for February 3rd on a vacation of 185-square feet
of the right-of-way of Beldon.
Lehman/Right.
Champion/Beldon and Grove.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 3
Franklin/Beldon and Grove. I'm not sure actually if it's Grove or Beldon that we're vacating but
we'll have that all straightened out by next time.
Elliott/Karin, in one place it says 44 square feet, the other 184 square feet. Am I just not
reading?
Franklin/ No, you just need to read it more precisely. It's subject to the conveyance of 44---
Elliott/OK, thank you.
c. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 119.94 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
SINGLE-FAMILY, IDRS, AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MULTIFAMILY,
IDRM, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY--SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-5, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED SOUTH OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION AND EAST OF GILBERT
STREET. (REZ03-00020)
Franklin/Item c is the rezoning of the SandhilI Estates. What do you want to do?
Champion/We have to open a public heating when we get there.
Franklin/No, I mean, we're in work session now---
Champion/Oh.
Franklin/You don't have a signed conditional zoning agreement at this point in time. But I need
something from Council to let me know what you are intending to do so that we can get
the documents that can be then signed.
Lehman/Well, depending on the opinion of Council at the beginning of the public hearing, I am
going to ask if there's a consensus on Council to remove the portion of the CZA relative
to garages and in place of that put a restriction that prohibits the placement of houses any
closer than 25 foot with the street on lots ofless than 50 feet.
Franklin/OK. That will take a read---
Lehman/A lot that is less than 60 feet.
Vanderhoef/Yeah.
Franklin/OK. Well, that wasn't one of the versions I anticipated.
(Laughter)
Lehman/Oh, all right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate t~anscription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 4
Franklin/I have four versions but that was not one of them.
Champion/Tell us what the four versions are.
O'Donnell/In five minutes or less.
Franklin/Well, one of course is the original. The second has the garage provisions deleted.
Champion/Oh.
Franklin/The third loosens up the requirement on the porch so that it doesn't have to be six feet
in depth. It's only four feet, same standards. The fourth, sorry---
Lehman/Do you want a cough drop?
Franklin/No, it's gone.
Vanderhoef/I've got one if you want.
Franklin/You going to throw one at me?
Lehman/No, I'm going to bring it to you.
Franklin/I'I1 meet you halfway. The fourth one is no garage setback requirement if the garage
and house are set back a minimum of 35 feet. I mean, that one's---
O'Dormell/(can't hear)
Franklin/And that that was based on the setback in Coralville, but the standards would be in
place if you were at 20 feet and if you were set back 35 feet, they would not be in place.
Champion/I could support that. I can't support Ernie's. I like the original one actually. But I'm
willing to compromise on a few of those things. I think--when you think about ~vhat
we're asking them to do is we're giving them three options. Put the garage even with the
house. Put it six feet back and if you bring it six feet forward, you can tie it into the house
with a porch, and I'd be willing to go along with your four-foot porch. And the other
question ! was going to ask, Karin, relative to that is it says the porch is going to have a
roof, is that correct?
Franklin/Mm-hmm.
Champion/So, could it have like a slatted roof like you see on patios, just I mean, delie--teI1 me.
Franklin/Delineated.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 5
Champion/Delineated as a porch. I mean, would that be possible because, you know, you see a
lot of patios and things with kind of a slatted roof with a rise, I don't know some indirect
light or---
Franklin/ Yeah.
Champion/Would that qualify as a roof?.
Franklin/It wouldn't by our Zoning Code. A Zoning Code porch, by definition, has a roof. So---
Champion/ Isn't that a roof?.
Franklin/No.
Champion/No?
Franklin/Not if it has holes in it. Of course, it---
Champion/ I have holes in my---
Franklin/ Spaces. Spaces.
Champion/When my tree limb fell down, my house had, roof had holes in it.
(Laughter)
O'Donnell/It's not the same kind.
Champion/But I don't know how the Council feels about the original proposal and---
Franklin/ If it hinges on slats or not, I'm sure we can talk. But I don't think it does.
Karr/I need your mic on.
Champion/Oh, sorry.
Dilkes/The Mayor and---
Wilburn/I was going to say that this is a little awkward to be negotiating when we have a for-
real public hearing.
Lehman/Public hearing.
Dilkes/Well, I was just going to, the Mayor and I have talked about this, and the reason Karin
brings this up is that pursuant to State Code, any conditional zoning agreement has to be
signed by the close of the public hearing. So, if you have your public hearing tonight and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 6
there is no CZA signed tonight, yet you want some conditions imposed in connection
with this rezoning, you are going to have to continue the public hearing. I think that's
why Karin is---
Franklin/ Exactly.
Lehman/Well, as, yeah, and I think we talked this morning. We, if we make changes to the CZA
tonight it would be possible with the permission of the Council to have a special meeting
on Thursday at 1:00 o'clock where we could close the public hearing and have first
reading of the ordinance.
Champion/Good idea.
Vanderhoef/After the budget.
Elliott/Sounds good to me.
Champion/Where does everybody else stand on this issue?
O'Donnell/I'm going to support Ernie's proposal. I think ultimately it comes down to me that
we're becoming more and more involved in design, and I think it's, that design a matter
of personal taste, and I think the buyer should determine that. And so I'm going to
support what Ernie says.
Lehman/I think we should have this discussion at the public hearing rather than now.
Dilkes/Yeah, if you're plan is to continue it to Thursday, then you can have that discussion at
the public hearing.
O'Donnell/OK.
Vanderhoef/Because I have---
Franklin/It's just so that by the end of the public hearing tonight when you continue it that you
give all of us---
Lehman/We will all know by then.
Franklin/...direction.
Lehman/Right.
Franklin/OK.
d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 16.1 ACRES FROM
RESIDENTIAL FACTORY BUILT HOUSING (RFBIt) TO PLANNED
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 7
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY-12 (OPDH-12) AND AN OPDH PLAN
FOR PROPERTY ON HEINZ ROAD. (REZ03-00024) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Item d then is the rezoning of 16.1 acres. This is the Saddlebrook rezoning. This is
second consideration. Item e is the rezoning CH-1---
Wilburn/I'm sorry. Can I go back to the Saddlebrook rezoning?
Franklin/Yes.
Wilburn/We have all received correspondence about that and folks have had a concern. The
concerns that they have been raising I thought maybe someone might have brought it up
last time that it may not be a consideration that we could make with this rezoning but that
that's something that folks probably, their only recourse is to try and work something
with the---
Dilkes/Well, I think you need to identify which concerns you're talking about. I read that
correspondence and some of it addresses density issues; some of it addresses the
Homeowners' Association kind of fee issues, which I think---
Wilburn/It was all of that.
Dilkes/...is what we talked about last time and I don't think that's really a land-use issue.
Certainly density issues is a land-use issues that you can consider.
Wilbum/OK.
Elliott/That was my question, too. Not so much what we can't do, but xve are pretty much
constrained to both determining whether this meets the specific zoning ordinances and
requirements.
Dilkes/Well, on a rezoning, you need to, I mean you have discretion to determine whether the
rezoning is appropriate or not. Not unlimited discretion--those decisions have to be
reasonable, and sometimes there are specific Code provisions that constrain your
discretion. But in this particular case, what you need to focus on are the land-use issues.
You know, whether it's an appropriate use of the land in this particular area and density
is definitely a land-use issue, and I think that was being raised by some of these letters
that you received.
Franklin/Density and traffic were two of the things that were raised, which are appropriate
things for you to address. The fees, however, are not.
Elliott/Right. Right.
O'Donnell/But this--does the density and traffic meet all of our requirements?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 8
Franklin/Well, all of our requirements. It's a matter of judgment for you. There's a change here
that's being suggested from 66 units to 78 units. I mean, that figures that there may be
more traffic as a consequence of that. Is it too much? We have a determination that we've
looked at this whole area and looked at it in terms of when secondary access is going to
be required. It will not be required with the proposal that's before you because it has not
reached the threshold that we had already calculated.
Vanderhoef/Karin? At one of our previous work meetings or sometime---
Franklin/Uh-huh.
Vanderhoef/...the developer for this project assured us that the secondary access road was going
to be opened much sooner rather than later.
Champion/I remember that.
Vanderhoef/Is it possible with this particular rezoning that we could put the CZA in there and
require that secondary access come open or does our previous actions limit us from
forcing that to happen?
Franklin/I don't know what rationale you would use, Dee, because before we had the calculation
of a certain number of units and I don't remember exactly--I think it was 420.
Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm.
Franklin/And we're not there yet. Now, if there's some other reason that compels you to require
that secondary access beyond your secondary access policy, then you would need to
articulate that. I think the concern is that there's going to be more traffic at the Heinz
Road-Highway 6 intersection where people are experiencing some delay now. We've
done some evaluation there and I believe and I'i1 have to check with Jeff on this, but I
believe that it does not warrant a signal at this point in time. That's not to say that it's not
inconvenient for the people who are living there. That's---
Vanderhoef/Could we---
Franklin/ I don't want to say that you cannot put that in your Conditional Zoning Agreement;
however, I'm not sure what you would use for the rationale given that we've addressed
the issue previously.
Vanderhoef/OK. My rationale will be public safety and the fact that the budget right now, both
at the state level and at the local level, precludes us from putting in a traffic light at that
intersection at this point in time. And I don't know whether that's enough since there are
standards out there, but I see it rising as a huge concern and if we had the CZA in place to
get that street opened sooner, rather than later, because of the concerns and that we're not
going to be able to put the light in---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 9
Franklin/I guess it's a matter of what, if you're going to say that this rezoning for what is
proposed, the 78 units, cannot happen until the secondary access is provided--is that what
you're suggesting? That that would be beyond what we have required previously based
upon our Secondary Access Policy and the calculations that we do with that.
Vanderhoef/It would
Franklin/Now, I guess I would defer to Eleanor then as to---
Dilkes/I think---
Vanderhoef/The other thing would be the speed of the traffic when it gets to that point, that is
much higher than a typical City street.
Dilkes/In terms of whether you could impose an additional requirement in s Conditional Zoning
Agreement as part of this rezoning, you can't just focus, in my opinion, on the safety
issues in general. You need to focus on those safety issues as they relate to the increase in
density from 66 to 78 units. You know, I don't know if you can make your case for that
based on those 12 units. But you can't j ust--I think, particularly given our previous
calculations and our previous Conditional Zoning Agreement--unless there are changed
circumstances that mean that the change in density from 66 to 78 is going to require a
signalization or whatever. I think it's going to be a tough argument to make, but I--and I
don't know the facts well enough to know whether that's the case or not. It may be. I
think if that, if you're inclined to do something like that you're going to have to continue
the public heating.
Vanderhoef/Well, as chance---
Franklin/It would actually be. This public hearing's been closed so it would be---
Vanderhoef/Oh, they already did the public hearing.
Franklin/Oh. It's all a moot.
Vanderhoef/Unless we'd---
Franklin/You'd have to start over.
Dilkes/You'd have to start over.
Lehman/Denied it.
Vanderhoef/Unless we denied it and started over.
Dilkes/Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 10
Franklin/Mm-hmm.
Dilkes/You'd have to deny it and start all over.
Champion/A lot ofus---
Vanderhoef/And you don't think there's a good case for it?
Dilkes/No, I'm not willing to say that right here. I don't know the facts of the situation well
enough to tell you that you couldn't make a case for that. I'm just telling you I think you
would have to focus on the increase in density and not just--in potentially changed
circumstances till the, since the time the Council made its original decision and the
original CZA.
Champion/Besides the traffic issue, most of the issues of the neighborhood seem to be related to
their original agreement with the developer and what they anticipated was going to
happen and is not going to happen now. And although I have great sympathy for them
and understand their problems, I don't think it's a problem the City Council can get into.
We didn't--you know what I'm saying?
O'Donnell/That's not what this is about.
Wilburn/Yes.
Franklin/Do I know what you're saying? Yeah.
O'Donnell/Yeah.
Champion/That's good because I'm not sure I do.
(Laughter)
Franklin/OK?
Lehman/OK.
Franklin/Shall we move on?
e. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 26.98 ACRES FROM
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, CH-I~ TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY
(SAO/CH-1) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF MORMON TREK
BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. (REZ03-00027) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Item e is second consideration on the rezoning from CH-1 to SAO/CH-1. This is over
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 11
at Mormon Trek and Highway 1 where the car dealership is going up.
AGENDA ITEMS
15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BYLAWS OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Franklin/And then I would just call your attention to item 15, which is the Historic Preservation
Commission bylaws. I'm sure the Rules Committee will be delighted to hear that in fact
what you ruled on was the wrong set of bylaws, so you're going to need to get together
again. My apologies for that.
Lehman/This should be deferred tonight then?
Franklin/Yes. It should.
O'Donnell/I'm new. Connie should have known that.
Franklin/I guess she should have picked up on it, right. OK.
Champion/I blame Marian.
Franklin/And Marian blames me. So, OK.
Lehman/One thing we know is it couldn't be our fault.
(can't hear)
O'Donnell/I'll take full responsibility.
Vanderhoef/To March what?
Karr/No, no, to February 3rd.
Lehman/February 3rd.
Karr/Rules Committee will be meeting Thursday prior to your meeting. We'll get it on the next
agenda.
8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES,
TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4, "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES,
CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES"; AMENDING TITLE 14
ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY
UTILITIES," ARTICLE A, "GENERAL PROVISIONS," SECTION 14-3A-2,
"DEFINITIONS," AND SECTION 14-3A-4, "RATES AND CHARGES FOR CITY
UTILITIES"; AND AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 12
DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES,' ARTICLE G~
"STORM WATER COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," TO CREATE
A STORMWATER UTILITY AND ESTABLISH A STORMWATER UTILITY
FEE. (PASS & ADOPT)
Lehman/OK. Is February 3rd also the date we defer item number 8, which is the stormwater fee?
February 3rd?
Karr/If Council is so inclined to defer it, it'd be the next meeting.
Atkins/Ernie, I've got, yes, I have Rick here. He can give you sort of a real quick update
because you are being---
Champion/Good.
Lehman/Well, I guess that we need to know whether or not a deferral to the 3rd of February is
adequate time.
Fosse/We met with the Chamber last week. They showed us a preliminary proposal and they'll
be considering that at their board meeting on the 22nd.
Lehman/Right.
Fosse/So, I think a deferral of one meeting will be adequate.
Lehman/The 3rd, do you, that's a date we can live with?
Fosse/I believe so.
Lehman/All right.
O'Donnell/What one is that, Ernie?
Kart/Eight.
Lehman/Eight.
O'Donnell/All right. Defer to February 3rd?
Fosse/Mm-hmm.
Champion/Yeah.
Lehman/OK. Thank you.
Fosse/Mm-hmm.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 13
Lehman/Other agenda items?
14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES
AND CHARGES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES AND
PROGRAMS.
Atkins/One other item to bring to your attention, Terry' s in the audience if you have any
question about Parks and Recreation fees.
Champion/OK.
Atkins/He's here.
Karr/Item 147
Atkins/Yes, item 14, thank you.
Elliott/My question would be how does this compare with the fees from last year? I presume it's
an increase.
Trueblood/I can tell you there's 93 line items on here where fees are charged; 62 of them have
been increased. They've, they range from 2.4 to 20 percent. The average is about 9.4
percent.
Lehman/Well, you got that down pat.
Tmeblood/Yeah, we do this (can't hear)
Atkins/Every other year. We do not do it every year.
Trueblood/Well, a lot of our fees we do, we increase every other year. Now a number of them
this year after the first attempt, we went back to the drawing board and we actually are
proposing some increases for FY '05 that were increased in FY '04 as well. And I think
that you're going to find that we're going to have to do that more and more often as
prices increase.
Elliott/Is there anything in your mind just passing through that we need to know about this, that
there's any one that took a gigantic, unusual--you said one is 20 percent?
Tmeblood/Well---
Elliott/I presume that---
Trueblood/Twenty percent--when you're talking Recreation fees, 20 percent can be a little bit
deceptive. That was an increase from $5 to $6.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 14
Elliott/Fine.
Atkins/OK.
Trueblood/One thing that you may need to know about is we're going to have to really study our
low-income fee situation and perhaps take a stricter look at that. As to what our policy
should be. We had projected that it might, quote "cost" us about $5,000 in fees this year
or last year I should say, and in fact it was about $18,000.
Lehman/Whoo.
Bailey/Can you just give me the short version of what the low-income policy is now?
Trueblood/The low-income policy is partially on the honor system. It's modeled after the
school's free and reduced lunch program.
Champion/(can't hear) guidelines.
Trueblood/Yeah, those same federal guidelines. We have something, for example, that says if
you had a Title 19 card and you can show that then you automatically qualify. There are
some things in the system that may make people not qualify for that, but they're still low-
income. That's where we base it on the honor system. We have them fill out a fairly
simple form and just let them know that they're subject to being audited, which would
basically mean if we call them, they need to bring in their tax returns and show us that
that's their income. Of course, we don't have the time to do a lot of that.
Champion/Terry, what is the amount of the reduction in fees?
Trueblood/It's half.
Champion/Half?.
Trueblood/Yeah. It's half with, also with the possibility that it could be even lower, and in order
for that to happen, somebody would actually like have to meet with our Recreation
superintendent and explain to him why they can't afford half and why their child needs
this program so badly.
Elliott/And you say $18,000?
Trueblood/Right.
Elliott/How many people might that represent? About?
Trueblood/Bob, I apologize. I don't have the numbers.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 15
Elliott/My thinking and when you think about the size of the fees, that must represent an
extraordinary number of people.
Trueblood/A lot of those are swim lessons and a lot of them are our summer day camp program.
And so that, like summer day camp can represent a pretty high fee. So if there's a number
of those, which there are, quite a large percentage of our summer camp participants are
now low income, that that can represent over $100 per person.
Vanderhoef/As I recall, Terry, we had a discussion a number of years ago, something about that
the people who qualified for low-income and for a discount, we were finding that some
families were participating in maybe twice as many programs as someone else who didn't
qualify for the discount and so it was weighing the people who didn't get the discount,
their kids only got into one program or two programs for the year, whereas someone on
the reduced fee ~vould---
Trueblood/There are some unusual things happening, and that's why we have to take a look at it.
I wouldn't have even brought it up except you asked if there was maybe something that
you need to be alerted to, and that may be something.
Champion/Well, I certainly don't begrudge the discount to lo,v-income people, and I don't care
if they participate in one or 12 activities. I think it's important that people in low-income
have activities for their children that they can afford, and a lot of them are--both parents
are working m~d they don't have money for expensive daycare and some of the Park
activities do become kind of daycare for them. Are we getting out of line compared to
other neighboring communities with like swim fees and that kind of thing? That's my
concern.
Trueblood/With their swim fees? Actually, we were. And last year we addressed that.
Champion/OK.
Trueblood/For primarily for our swim passes.
Champion/Mm-hmm.
Trueblood/We actually reduced the price of swim passes last year and we're not proposing an
increase this year or next for the swim passes.
Champion/Is there a---
Trueblood/Our daily admission fees are right in line with the state average.
Champion/OK.
Atkins/Terry, do you want to take a minute, particularly for Bob and Regenia, to explain the 60-
40 policy that's been a long-standing---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 16
Trueblood/I'd rather not.
Atkins/But you have to.
Trueblood/OK.
(Laughter)
Trueblood/Quite a number of years ago, we started up a policy to give us some guideline, is
what we prefer to call it, is that to try to support 40 percent of the Recreation Division
operating budget with non-property tax revenues. Now, that's mostly fees and charges.
There's also some hotel-motel taxes into the operations but it's mostly fees and charges.
And that also, that's the operating budget less capital outlay. We don't put capital outlay
in it because that can vary so much from one year to the next. It might be $30,000 one
year and $90,000 another year and with that kind of going up and down, it kind of makes
that percentage hard to track. And everything was going along pretty well with that until
the last, you know, two, three, four years, maybe; it's become more and more difficult to
achieve that. We j ust--we worry about the fees being too high, you know, especially for
some programs. What we try to do for the most part is recover 100 percent of the costs,
direct costs, no administrative overhead, but direct costs of adult programs and 50 percent
of the cost of youth programs. Now that can vary program to program. For example, our
summer day camp direct costs is generally 100 percent self-supporting. But there are
other programs, particularly in the SPI program that are zero percent self-supporting. But,
so, we look at it in the overall division. This year you may have noticed that with our
proposal we're at 38 point some odd percent, so we're a little bit short of 40. And we
always hope when that happens is that throughout the course of the year, that we still try
to achieve that 40 percent if we can, either through some cost savings or possibly even
coming back with some increased fees.
Wilburn/Terry, just so you know, (can't hear) from the Council, too, related to the expense
related to the low-income discount. I personally would rather see some type of audit--I
know it would be an effort--happen first before we adjusted the fees that affect everybody
and to see what we learn from that, if indeed that's a good chunk of folks who do indeed
qualify for the benefits, then you know, because then we have a determination about what
are the pluses and minus benefits. Is there a social benefit that we gain by allowing that is
what I would rather we made an effort to audit first.
Trueblood/Our staff and commission both feel strongly that we ought to continue offering the
low-income and that that's part of our responsibility to do so.
Wilburn/Mm-hmm.
Trueblood/But we've begun to question whether or not everybody getting a low-income truly
qualifies for it. That's why we need to take a hard look at it. People that qualify for it, the
more they can do, the better. But we want it to be the people who do qualify.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 17
Wilburn/Thanks.
16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION NAMING TIlE WATERWORKS PARKLAND
"WATERWORKS PRAIRIE PARK".
$f(5). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WORK OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA SKATE PARK PROJECT.
Trueblood/There are two other agenda items that, just in case you have any questions, about the
renaming the water, not renaming--officially naming the Waterworks parkland as
Waterworks Prairie Park, and the other was just simply closing out on the skate park
project, which comes pretty late. But it's because we just received the final billing
recently, even though the project had been completed for quite a long time.
Lehman/Very good.
Trueblood/The only reason ! brought that up is so I don't have to stay for all the next meeting.
(Laughter)
Lehman/Good night.
9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE,
ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," TO CREATE A
UNIFORM PERMITTING PROCESS, TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE FARMERS MARKET, TO PROVIDE FOR THE NONCOMMERCIAL
PLACEMENT OF OBJECTS IN CITY PLAZA ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, TO
MODIFY THE PROVISION ON RESIDENTIAL PICKETING, TO CLARIFY
THE CURRENT PROVISIONS REGULATING MOBILE VENDORS AND
AMBULATORY VENDORS, TO CODIFY SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES AFFECTING SAID VENDORS, AND TO MAKE ADDITIONAL
NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Lehman/Regenia, I think you indicated some questions on item 9?
Bailey/Well, I just had some concerns about 9 because it deals with public and free speech
issues, and I thought that we might want to defer this to give citizens an opportunity. It's
a lengthy document and give citizens an opportunity to get through it and perhaps on
February 3rd also have an availability for some public comment? I think, I know it's not
required. But I think it would probably be a good idea with this kind of issue.
Lehman/Do we--go ahead. Sorry. Why is it, why are we doing this? I, usually, there's a simple
explanation.
Dilkes/Over the years we have, as we've been dealing with these permitting requirements that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 18
we have, we've encountered some issues that my staff has had about whether the
ordinances we have in place are in compliance with the First Amendment. And so it's, we
have basically done a rewrite to try and assure that. For the most part, in very large part,
the changes that we have made are more protective of First Amendment rights than less
so. One of the things that I could do that might be helpful is to give you a memo, which
kind of identifies a number of those things.
Bailey/Mm-hmm.
Dilkes/I think that would be helpful to the public as well. So I'm happy to do that, if you---
Bailey/ And I didn't have any particular concerns but---
Dilkes/Yeah.
Bailey/...on first reading, on the face of it, some of them can---
Dilkes/Sure.
Bailey/...(can't hear) one is very disconserting and I think we get ourselves, we would be ahead
of the game if we deferred it and allowed people to take a look at it and then probably
had a public comment session. And I think that there would be fewer questions in the
long run.
Dilkes/Yeah, you could--you, I mean, and ifI do that memo I think that will be helpful to people
to realize--and I'll give you an example. Right now our parade and public assembly
permitting process requires a permit for any size of parade or public assembly, consistent
with some of the case (can't hear) the First Amendment we've included a requirement
that doesn't kick in until you get to 25 people for a parade and 100 for park use. And so
that's an example of how it really is more protective of those First Amendment rights,
and I can give you that memo and you all can do whatever public comment you want to
do. It's fine.
Lehman/Why don't you just move to defer this to February 3rd, we'll get the memo, and then
we can discuss it at that meeting and if the public has comments, they can---
Bailey/ All right.
O'Donnell/I'm comfortable with that also.
Bailey/OK.
Elliott/Good.
Lehman/Other agenda items?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 19
O'Donnell/Apparently not.
17. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
Lehman/Relative to item 17, Marian, is this something where we just do at the end of the
meeting tonight?
Karr/It's on your agenda at the request of your organizational meeting.
Lehman/Right.
Karr/I believe Councilor Vanderhoef wanted that updated.
Lehman/So we'll just do this as a regular item with---
Karr/Just like your appointments.
Lehman/All right. Any other business?
Vanderhoef/Just in relation to that item, I've thought of something else. And certainly we can't
act on it tonight, but is there any interest on Council to reinstate the Legislative
Committee?
Champion/No.
Vanderhoef/We used to have one and it didn't work well the last four years. So we dissolved
that one.
Wilburn/Can you remind us the purpose of the Legislative Committee?
Karr/Maybe I'd just pul1 out those memos and put it in the next packet for you---
O'Donnell/All right.
Vanderhoef/(can't hear) look at it.
Atkins/Just, real quick. It had a recently common practice that the Council would take positions
on what's particularly coming out of the state.
Wilburn/Mm-hmm.
Atkins/And that Committee sort of organized that whole process.
Vanderhoef/And put information in the---
Champion/We might need it again now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Io~va City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 20
Vanderhoeff Well, if--I've got something coming in the packets this week just as an update that's
coming out from the Iowa League of Cities.
Kart/I believe the problem dealt more with open meetings.
Dilkes/My recollection of the Legislative Committee is that we had determined that the function
of that committee would make it a governmental body subject to the open meetings law.
Obviously, if there's one of you that's not the case. But if there's more than one of you, it
would be a subcommittee we'd have to post and keep minutes, etc., and I think it was---
Lehman/I think it---
Dilkes/...after that determination was made that there was a decision by the Council not to have
it.
Vanderhoef/There were three people on that committee and I didn't know whether two is a
possibility. I'd like that in the memo, what---
Dilkes/But even with two, you're still going to have an open meetings issue just like you do
with the Rules Committee.
Bailey/OK.
Lehman/It's (can't hear) Council Committee.
Dilkes/So, it's just a question of whether you want to create it because I think what the
determination was if that was a Committee that it was advising Council on policy. A
committee created by the Council and advising the Council on policy was subject to the
open meetings law.
Wilburn/So, whether we want to create and then allocate resources to have the minutes taken,
etc., etc.
Lehman/Right.
Elliott/Is there any restriction on how many people can be on a subcommittee?
Champion/One would be OK.
Dilkes/Three.
Lehman/That person can't talk to themselves though--it'd be a public meeting.
(Laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 21
Elliott/It cannot be composed of more than three?
Dilkes/No, because then you'd have a quorum on the Council.
Elliott/OK.
Wilburn/You don't want to talk to yourself.
Elliott/Sounds reasonable.
O'Dormell/Is everybody set---
Letunan/Except that I don't know if there's, is there interest in pursuing this? My sense is that
the reasons we had for eliminating that the last time are probably still valid, don't you
think, Steve?
O'Donnell/I agree.
Lehman/The way it is we can go to a Legislative breakfast, three of us, and discuss it with
legislators and talk issues and whatever with no problem whatsoever, because we're not
an official committee and we can do this--if it becomes an official committee, then it's a
public meeting and you have to take minutes and all that sort of thing. I think that's why
we stopped it in the first place.
Champion/And I think also if Steve thinks there's something we should be addressing as a
Council, he can bring that to our attention and we can ask the Mayor to write a formal
letter stating our views after discussing it.
Atkins/Dee currently sits on the Iowa League of Cities board, too.
Lehman/Yeah.
Chan~pion/So we have an inside track.
Vanderhoef/The Legislative Policy Committee I've sat on for a number of years and now I'm
sitting on the state board. There are things that I'd like to alert you of, whether we do
anything with them or not.
Champion/Oh, I think you should and then we can discuss it, whether we should do anything.
Vanderhoef/OK.
Champion/Because you've got the inside track; you're the committee.
Lehman/Committee of one.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 22
Elliott/A quick question.
Lehman/Yes.
15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BYLAWS OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Elliott/I think on the Historic Preservation item that we have tonight there is a question of ex
parte communication. Is that a problem? Is that a concern? Is it related just to that
commission or com~nittee?
Dilkes/It's in the bylaws revision.
Lehman/Yes.
Dilkes/I think so. Yeah.
Elliott/Is it something---
Champion/We're deferring that.
Dilkes/Well, that one--that committee---
Elliott/Does that relate to any other body?
Dilkes/Not necessarily.
Elliott/OK.
Dilkes/That commission serves in what we call a quasi judicial capacity. They make decisions.
They have people appear in front of them and they make decisions about what people can
and cannot do based on input they get from the person who wants to make changes to
their house, staff, and whoever, neighbors, whoever else. And in that capacity, people
should be aware of what evidence the Commission is considering when they make their
decision. And so it's not appropriate to have a lot of discussion outside the hearing.
Elliott/But there is not that concern for other committees and commissions and Council?
Dilkes/There is not that concern with nonjudicial type bodies, although even in the P and Z
minutes, the advice is that if there is an outside communication that they reflect that in
their minutes.
Elliott/That doesn't relate to us then.
Dilkes/We don't have such a rule.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.
January 20, 2004 Council Work Session Page 23
Elliott/Yes.
Vanderhoef/PCRB is one of the places where they're very careful about that and to report.
Lehman/OK guys.
Elliott/Done.
Lehman/We've got nine minutes.
Vanderhoef/OK.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session January 20, 2004.