Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-16 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM 2. PRESENTATION. Cub Scouts Karr: Mr. Mayor, we have representatives of Pack 210 from Regina here, and also Officer Gist and Gallo are here. Lehman: Well I know for sure that that's Gallo, and what's your name? Scout 1: Benjamin. Lehman: Benjamin. What's your last name, Benjamin? Okay, and your name? Scout 2: Ted. Lehman: Okay, and you guys are here to do what? Ted, can you tell us? Scout 2: About the dog show that we did at Blue & Gold Awards. Lehman: Okay, do you want to read that? Scout 2: Hi, I am from Cub Scout Pack 210, and we want to thank you for the dog show at our Blue & Gold Awards Dinner. We had 200 cub scouts and parents, and everybody designed this card to thank you very much for coming. We have a check to give to Officer Ronnie and Gallo. Thank you very much for keeping us safe. (applause; dog barking) Lehman: Gallo must see somebody he knows. If you notice he's a little noisy, but his tail's wagging. So what is this? This is the card that all you guys signed? Ronnie, we're sorry we applauded the dog. (dog barking) Okay, you have a check for Officer Ronnie. Okay. Did you have anything you wanted to add? Okay. (dog barking) Gallo, if you would quit interrupting. Well, thank you so much to the Cub Scouts. Gallo is a very important part of our police department, and Gallo it's hard to compliment you when you're interrupting. (dog barking) However, that's happened at a lot of council meetings, (laughter) and usually not with people with a lot of hair and four legs. (laughter) You know what, I'm going to tell folks what a great animal he is after he leaves (dog barking) and quits barking, but thanks for being here. (applause) Thank you, guys. Champion: Gallo's really excited. Lehman: I think there was a little competition there. O'Donnell: Emie, I didn't hear a word you said. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #2 Page 2 Lehman: That's okay, but I'm going to say a couple words about Gallo. Gallo has been with the department several years now. I don't remember exactly how long, but he was purchased with funds from the private sector and I believe, Steve, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the independent insurance agents... Atkins: Yes they did. Lehman: ...fund that dog. Gallo is reaching, within the next year or so, the end of his productive career as a police dog, and will have to be retired, and we're going to have to be replacing that dog, and I think that dog is a very important asset to the police department, and a real valuable asset to this community, and so as a Council we're going to have to address the replacement of this fella very, very soon because it takes, I think R.J. told me, four to six months to buy a dog, another approximately six months to train the dog, so that's something we have to be thinking about real quickly. I will make a couple of phone calls about that. Anyway... Champion: Maybe we can get one at the animal shelter. Lehman: I don't think dogs from the animal shelter might perhaps qualify. This represents onlya reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #7 Page 3 ITEM 7. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY 6 SIDEWALK EXTENSION PROJECT (STP-E-3715(624)~8V~52) PROJECT AND DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS. Lehman: Public hearing is open. Public heating is closed. This is a sidewalk that runs from Hawkins Drive to Newton Road, along Highway 6. It's an area that we've had calls for, since I've been on the Council, ten years about the safety involved there so this is a great project. Do we have a motion? Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilburn; seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #9 Page 4 ITEM 9. INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $18,150,000 SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS. Lehman: Public hearing is open. Champion: Maybe someone could explain that to the public? Steve? Lehman: Yes, go ahead, Steve. Atkins: In 1996 as part of our sewer upgrade program, we borrowed $18.1 million. At that time we borrowed at the interest rate, the going interest rate on the market in 1996. Under the IRS code, we are permitted to refinance, not unlike your own mortgage at home, one time, and our analysis indicates that the market, particularly for a revenue bond, is such that we can save some substantial monies by refunding it. This is not, this is a new borrowing, that you borrow the money to repay the old, does not change the debt schedule with respect to the life of the bond. Same principle applies to the general obligation bond, the next item at $17 million. We estimate, when we did an analysis just this afternoon, you will, if you approve this you authorize us to go to market at the time when it's, we will hope to get the absolute low point. That's never something you can guarantee. This $35 million will save us, and our debt service levy over the life of the bond, about a million dollars, and just a little less than a million dollars in our sewer revenue account, so...if you do approve it, it's about a $2 million debt savings. Champion: I just want to clarify that it isn't new money. Lehman: No. Atkins: It is not new...it's new money in the sense it's being borrowed today at a lower interest rate to repay old rate. Lehman: Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion? O'Donnell: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #10 Page 5 ITEM 10. INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $17,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS. Lehman: Public heating is open. And I think, Steve, the same rationale applies? Atkins: Same principle, right. In this case it's financed from our debt service levy, a property tax levy. Lehman: Right. Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion? Vanderhoefi Move the resolution. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 6 ITEM 11. 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). Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Champion: Are you going to move it as amended? Lehman: Well I think the appropriate thing is to move to approve this, and then we will amend it. Is that correct, if that's what we chose to do? So we have a motion by Vanderhoef... Elliott: Second. Lehman: ... seconded by Elliott to approve. Discussion? Bailey: We have some amendments in front of us, and I would like to propose these amendments, specifically this one-hour notification changed from 24-hours for the spontaneous events, and I think that we've clarified, to a certain degree, the requirements for insurance and indemnification, if a parade or public assembly is held entirely on the City Plaza and doesn't involve equipment, and I feel comfortable with these changes, and I would like to amend this ordinance to include these, what we have in our hands, I think as amended. Elliott: Second. Dilkes: You'll need to...I'm sorry, you'll need to include the ones from the March l0th memo too because what you've got on the floor is the one from the last meeting. Bailey: Right. So can I just say that includes March l0th amendments as well? Lehman: Right. Champion: I'll second those. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. # 11 Page 7 Lehman: So we have a motion to amend the...we have a motion to amend the motion. Discussion on the amendment? And this amendment is substantive enough that this would constitute first reading, is that not correct? Okay, discussion on the amendments? Spears: My name is Julie Spears. First I just wanted to thank you for working with members of the community on this issue over the past few days, and few weeks. We were really appreciative of the amendments that were added. There's at least one item that I'm seeing here in the amendments from today that...it says "ifa parade or public assembly is held entirely on City Plaza and consists solely of people without any equipment or objects? No insurance indemnification is necessary and I'm wondering if objects means signs? And is that really necessary. Dilkes: I don't think you're reading from the ordinance provision. Are you reading from the memo? Spears: I'm reading from the memo. Dilkes: No, the ordinance provision says "except if the public parade or assembly is held entirely on a public sidewalk or on City Plaza, and does not require any equipment, cables, objects, structures, or similar items to be placed on the sidewalk or City Plaza". There was specifically an intent to exclude signs. Spears: Okay, that makes sense. And just to bring up, there's a memo given to you today, signed by eight members of the community that I've been working with, most of whom are here tonight, requesting a meeting with the City Attorney, which we've talked to both the Mayor and the City Attorney about, and just wanted to call your attention to that request, and...because we think there still might be some things that are unclear in this ordinance that if clarified, would make it easier for the public to use. Vanderhoef: Are you talking specifically about your number 2, and reorganizing the chapter, or...I'm not clear what...concerning the proposed Title 10 changes... Spears: Yes. Vanderhoef: ...okay, your number 2, and you're talking about some reorganization of how the chapter should be aligned? Spears: Perhaps it pertains to exactly what you brought out last night, Dee, that there's a lot in this ordinance, and that perhaps what was there before seemed more clear than at least what we're reading yesterday. We've just This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. # 11 Page 8 been handed the ordinance, proposed ordinance, as it stands today, so we have not had yet a chance to review that, and we've been in communication of course with the Iowa Civil Liberties Union in Des Moines, and they're interested in reviewing it and hopefully a group of us reviewing it within the next few days, as soon as possible, with the City Attorney's office, making sure that everybody is comfortable with the requirements. Champion: Well this will still, this will be tonight just a first reading of this policy. Again, we'll be doing a first reading. There'll be two more readings before a third reading. Spears: Correct. Bailey: My concerns with the suggested division in this ordinance involve judgment and content. What is a parade? What is free speech? And if we divide things down and classify them in those ways, it will certainly require a city staff member to judge content, rather than anything else, as it stands now, and I'm not sure that's the route we want to take. For example, what is the Gay Pride Parade? Is that exercise of free speech, or is that a parade, and in this current amended ordinance, we have clear understanding of what that would entail to be able to march down the street without any judgment or concern about what the content of that procession of people marching down the street involves. So I feel much more comfortable with that, as opposed to dividing things into these categories because I think they're somewhat arbitrary. Spears: And we might feel comfortable, more comfortable, once we've had a chance to review it as well, but Eleanor did infer to us that it was up to the City Council to ask her to meet with the public in such a way, so...that's what we're asking for. Lehman: I would suggest that you do read the ordinance, and if you have those concerns, or more concerns...Connie is correct, if we amend the, pass the amendment, and the ordinance, it would constitute first consideration. Obviously there'll be two more votes, at which time other issues could be taken up, but I think, from my perspective, I'm more interested in the level of comfort that the attorney's office has, and I do absolutely concur with you, Regenia, when it comes to breaking these down because the City's concern with use of public right-of-ways is not relative to whether it's a parade, a demonstration, or whatever. It is use of public right-of-way. And I think it's somewhat unfair to ask those folks who are applying for the permit or the City staff, to determine whether it's a festival, a parade, or free speech. It doesn't make any difference from the enforcement standpoint. It's a use of City property, and I think that's an important distinction. But we certainly invite you to look it over. If you have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 9 concerns to...but I guess I'm, my biggest concern is our professional staff. If you're comfortable with what we have before us. Dilkes: Well I'm comfortable with what we have before us and I'm also more than willing to meet with Miss Spears and others if they want to do that, so that's up to you all. Lehman: Thank you. Hanson: Peter Hanson, 1203 Cambria Court. Regarding Regenia's reservation here on Chapter 1, Section 9, Part B, it all restates: persons engaging in parades or public assemblies conducted for the sole purpose of public issue speech, protected under the First Amendment, are not required to pay for any police protection provided by the City. So already in the ordinance as proposed, someone's going to have to make some distinctions as to whether we're talking about a free speech First Amendment issue or not, so I don't know that the categories proposed on the memorandum that was sent to you last night, requires anything more exceptional than what you already have here, but again, the statement that we, that the eight of us signed and sent to you, those particular categories are not in concrete by us. It's a suggestion, and there may be a better way to parse the various types of parades and demonstrations and so forth, but as one of you said last night, the Title 10 seems somewhat cumbersome and we're finding that too as we read through it, and distinctions between parades and demonstrations, and these different things, and we're wondering if there isn't a better way to kind of rearrange the pieces that come up with a document that's more useful and understandable, for you and to us, and so forth. But we do appreciate the sensitivity you've shown, and willingness to make changes and so forth, but again, seconding what Julie said, we would like to meet with some representative of the City Attorney's office. Dilkes: Yeah, Title 10 is cumbersome. It's been cumbersome, I mean, it's part of the reason why we've had issues with it over the years. In revising it, we had to make a decision whether we were going to scrap the whole thing, and start over, or we were going to work within its structure and we decided to work within its structure. I will not be receptive to breaking, to categorizing gatherings of people into demonstrations, parades, festivals, or f~ee speech events and festivals and parades, because frankly, many festivals involve free speech issues, and I think from the City's perspective, whether it's a hundred people walking down the street demonstrating, or a hundred people walking down the street parading, assuming there are no differences in terms of the equipment they carry and that kind of thing, it's really irrelevant, and so I don't, I won't be receptive to that kind of categorization, and if that's something that you think is important, you probably just need to address it to the City Council. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 10 Wilbum: ..it's the use of public right-of-way (can't hear) Lehman: Right. Dilkes: Yeah, the issues that the City needs to look at is numbers of people, types of equipment, involvement of vehicles, and those kind of things. I don't think... Hanson: You may have a good point; I won't disagree with you at this point because, again, we really haven't had enough time to digest the whole twenty page Title 10, or at least twenty pages of changes, so I mean that, we're not betting the farm on that particular issue but... Dilkes: And I have to say that it would be helpful in discussions with me to have someone who is versed in the First Amendment case law, preferably a lawyer, but at least someone who's read the cases. I have had communication with the ICLU and asked them, you know, for some time now for specific comments, and I have not received those so that, I think we can get farther if we have that kind of input. Hanson: And we too ask for some guidance and found them quite busy. They weren't able to give us much help so...but we would like to meet with you, so...thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Any other discussion of the amendment? Do we need a roll call on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment, indicate by... O'Donnell: Emie, you have another speaker. Lehman: I'm sorry. Caroline? Dieterle: I just want to say, this is Caroline Dieterle. I just want to say briefly that for the ordinary person who is thinking about trying to have some kind of demonstration or do the right thing, the insurance and indemnification provision needs to be given, you know, some attention. To a cursory examination or inquiry to a couple of insurance agents, revealed that it wasn't anything that you could just go in and buy off the shelf like your can of beans. It would take a while for the insurance company to decide what the risk was, and to assess, you know, how much it wanted you to pay, etc., and by the time this was all figured out, you know, the time to do whatever you were planning to do would probably have gone past. So in practical terms I would like to call your attention to the insurance and indemnification thing, and say that that's something else that needs a little bit more thought. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 11 Dilkes: Well, I can't help but remind you that the insurance and indemnification provision has been around for years. It is not new, and it has not been problematic, I think particularly with the exceptions you've now made for gatherings of people not using equipment on sidewalks and City Plaza. That's certainly helpful. I do understand from the Risk Manager that we got a call from our insurance company with somebody who had made an inquiry about insurance. That's somebody who did not file an application for a permit. Did not have a risk assessment done by the Risk Manager as to whether there was a risk, and whether insurance would even be required. So I'm not sure that that's a realistic take on the situation. Lehman: This is less restrictive than what we have now. Dilkes: Far more... Lehman: Right. Dieterle: I guess my only point is that anytime, it seems to me that no one exercising free speech should have to worry about insurance and indemnification, and if the sidewalk provision, you know, carries through and that takes care of it, then that's fine, but I just want to make the point that I don't think that those things ought to be part of free speech and you know, I know at the beginning of this discussion you were saying that it was time to clean up the ordinance and I quite agree that there probably are parts of it you didn't ever pay attention to, or that people didn't pay attention to, and there are ordinances and guidelines and stuff littering every organization that I can think of, that you know, nobody has had time to basically remove, and so just because it is in there before, you know, doesn't mean that we should now keep it, is I guess my feeling, if it isn't being used anyway. So, thank you. Bailey: Well, with the public assembly on the sidewalk... Dieterle: Right. It is there, but for other people it still is there too and so you know if it's not going to be used for other people, then I'm saying, examine... Bailey: I don't know what you mean by other people. Dieterle: Non First Amendment. Bailey: No, it's not required for a parade or public assembly that's held entirely on the public sidewalk or on the City Plaza without this equipment. Dieterle: Right, I understand that. Bailey: But that's not necessarily just free speech, right? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 12 Dieterle: No, that's true. That makes... Bailey: Am I reading this correctly? Okay. Dieterle: Well that's good, okay. So under what circumstances will they ask for indemnification and insurance? Champion: The Risk Manager would... Dilkes: We have the right to, with that change, the City has the right to assess the risk when there is, when you're on a sidewalk or you're in the Plaza, when there is equipment involved...cords and that kind of thing....to determine, and make that analysis about the risk, and require indemnification and insurance. Dieterle: Okay, well is it possible that the City could have some directory of places where one could seek insurance if you were going to have sound equipment? Champion: Do we require... Lehman: I would imagine that any insurance firm could direct someone who needs insurance, if that firm didn't carry it, they could tell you who would. We have lots of insurance agencies in this town. Dieterle: Yeah, I'm sum we do but if we have a Risk Manager for the City, I was thinking that perhaps there could be a shortcut. Lehman: Oh, I'm sure that person... Dilkes: Our hope is to when we get through this, is to do kind ora spread sheet which kind of directs people into where they, you know... Dieterle: That would be a good idea. Kind of a chart that you could easily follow. That would be an excellent idea. Dilkes: Yeah, so... Wilburu: I was just going to point out too that with some other groups I've been with in terms of using public right-of-way, we've had a very good response from the different departments. In our case it was Parks and Recreation where we filled out the application. We had to really just sketch out "this is what we're planning on doing" and in one case we received the instruction "if you're going to do this, then you do need to, you will need to have insurance. If you don't, then there's no problem; it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 13 can be waived." Then it was put back in our laps, what are we going to do, and we decided not to... Dilkes: Under the existing insurance provision, there's just a set amount of insurance required. I don't think it's been required in many cases. Um, just because I think we've had people who've been good to work with, but the ordinance provision currently requires that there be a specific assessment of the risk in each case, and a determination as to whether that insurance is required in a particular case. Champion: And I think that has to stay in there because there are things that people would get permits for that could do damage. But because I'm, I don't think it's been a problem in the past for smaller groups that want to do things on City property, it's because our Risk Manager looks at it that this is not a big enough risk for them to have insurance, but there are things that are a big risk and people do need to be insured, or the City needs to be safe from law suits pertaining to that particular activity. Isn't that correct? Isn't that the reason for it? Dilkes: I think with the exclusion of purely people gathering on sidewalks or the Plaza, I think we've gone about as far as we can go in terms of saying "okay, here's situations where there's, we can say just from the outset, that there's minimal risk" because you're on the sidewalk, you're on the Plaza. That's where people walk anyway as opposed to the streets. There's no cords and equipment and that kind of thing, and therefore there's really not much risk, which is the judgment the Risk Manager was making anyway on a case by case basis, which is why I was comfortable with doing that amendment, but I think it's difficult to go beyond that and start saying well if you have one table, you know, that will exclude that too, if you have a few cords. I mean, at some point we have to say other things we have to look at on a case by case basis. Elliott: I just wanted to express my appreciation to Eleanor for agreeing to meet with the people who do have very legitimate, very curious questions, and to remind all of us that Eleanor is walking that very fine line between protecting the rights and privileges of, that are constitutionally guaranteed, of individuals, and the rights and needs of the City, which is made up of all of us tax-payers. So it is a most difficult, and a very important task. de Prosse: Hi, my name is Carol de Prosse. I really wasn't going to say anything because I think this is moving along in a really satisfactory way, but now just given the recent discussion, I have a question I saw on page whatever, page three, the application form, Number 14, the insurance requirement may be waived if applicant demonstrates inability to obtain insurance or to pay the cost of insurance. Now I've taken out many permits and I know this insurance thing has been waived very readily so I recognize fully that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 14 it can be waived and is waived, and will no doubt continue to be waived, but I think that the way that it's worded is, doesn't make that clear, because I think that if the issue were pushed, an applicant could be made to show that he or she wasn't able to obtain insurance, or that he or she wasn't able to pay the cost of insurance, and as far as the latter point is concerned, I should think that if you're a group planning a meeting, you'd simply send your lowest income person down to fill out the permit, and you know, that would be, if the City wanted to push it, he or she could show that they were unable to pay for the insurance, but I just, so I guess my only thing is I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea at some point for some people, under certain situations, to require perhaps insurance. I guess I just think the wording just doesn't really make it clear that it can be, will be, or should be waived under certain circumstances. Lehman: Well it says maybe. de Prosse: Right, which means that it may not be as well. Dilkes: Right, it may not be because there may be something that somebody wants to do in the Plaza or on the sidewalk or in the street that is just so risky, that insurance, that we have to have some coverage. This language is directly responsive to case law, which has invalidated insurance requirements when there was no opportunity for waiver, and the court said that there should be some out if there was an inability to obtain insurance, like it wasn't an entity, but an individual who couldn't obtain the insurance, or an inability to pay. de Prosse: Okay, so if I understand what you just said regarding that last point in case law, that would not leave the person in charge of approving or disapproving the permit for an application. It would not allow that person to refuse the permit on the basis of the person checking....the person goes in to file an application for a permit and it says something about insurance being required, and I guess my question is, what does that say to the person who is filing the application for the permit? Can they write....I mean do they write on the form "cannot obtain", "unable to pay", or... Dilkes: Our plan is to revise our application forms once we get the ordinance in final form. de Prosse: Okay, so then if the person checks "cannot obtain" and "cannot pay for", or one or the other or both, then the person who would be responsible for granting the permit would not be able to refuse it on the basis of that. Dilkes: No, they could. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 15 de Prosse: Well, no, as long as they met other things saying that there wasn't going to be equipment, that kind of stuff. But then they would not have the legal right to refuse the permit, as long as all the other portions of the permit were proper. You were going to have... Dilkes: I'm not sure I'm following your hypothetical... de Prosse: I know, I'm sorry, I know it's complicated. You were going to have a free speech demonstration that started up at the Pentacrest. You were going to march down City sidewalks over to the Ped Mall, have another rally, and then march down City sidewalks up to College Green Park, and through all of that you were going to have no electrical amplification that was laid on the property, or set on the property or whatever the requirements are. So you come in to fill out your permit and you put down your name and your address, and where you think it's going to be, and what you're proposed locations are and all of these other things, and then you get to this provision that talks about the insurance. Dilkes: Well, but there's going to have to be an assessment. The assessment...they're not going to be told "you have to get insurance". There's going to have to be an analysis by the Risk Manager on that particular event as to whether we're going to require insurance, and then we would move to the next level. de Prosse: Okay well then that moves me. If you've got three days in which you have to file this permit, which I think is a reasonable requirement, the Risk Manager like gets right on this, and calls you up within...immediately, and says "I've determined you need to have insurance" and then what happens if you can't? Dilkes: What we have, our preliminary discussions with the Risk manager have been that we will have a kind of schedule as to different types of activities and where they might fall, depending on, you know, what the nature of the activity is, but there's still...the whole purpose is there's supposed to be an individualized assessment of the nature of the activity, and what the risk is as opposed to there just being a flat insurance requirement. de Prosse: I guess this only kind of points up, and this is an interesting discussion, and I like it and appreciate the answers, but this just points out to me why it would be really helpful to be able to sit down, a group of us who are concerned about this, and talk to you about some of this kind of stuff. Lehman: Thank you, Carol. Bailey: Eleanor, I have a... go ahead. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 16 Wilbum: The scenario that she just described though, they wouldn't need insurance. Lehman: Right. Dilkes: If they're in the street. I think she had... Bailey: No, she said march walking on City sidewalks. Carol, is that what you said? Dilkes: Oh, did you say? Well there is no insurance requirement if you're on the sidewalk or the Plaza. I thought the hypothetical was in the street. (several talking at once) There's no...if the hypothetical that Carol was giving us was on the street or in the Plaza, there's no insurance requirement. Bailey: On the sidewalk, correct? (laughter) Dilkes: Or, on the Plaza or on the sidewalk, I'm sorry. Yes, there is no insurance requirement. Lehman: Okay. Other discussion of the amendment? Champion: Well, I've gotten quite comfortable with this whole thing, and I never knew we had such an ordinance, but now I do. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying "aye". Opposed same sign. Now, discussion on the ordinance, and this will be the first reading of the ordinance as amended. Champion: Move first consideration. Lehman: We already...we have that, don't we? Kan': We have a motion by Vanderhoef, seconded by Elliott, to pass and adopt. Now if they'd like to withdraw the motion, or if they'd like to amend it for first consideration. Champion: They can amend it to first consideration. Vanderhoef.' Yes, I would offer the amendments. Lehman: You changed your motion to be first consideration of the amended ordinance, and you...now, discussion of the ordinance as amended for first consideration. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #11 Page 17 Bailey: I just want to thank the community and the citizens who have paid attention to this. I certainly understand that these are times when these civil liberties are important to be attentive to them, and I also want to thank Eleanor for talking to me every day for two weeks about this ordinance, so I feel really comfortable with this, but as we move forward and read it, you know, there are two more readings, and I think we should have further discussion of this nature to make sure that we're all comfortable and clear on how we understand this. So... Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #12 Page 18 ITEM 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & 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 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. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: Move second consideration. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Bailey. I'm sorry? Champion: Is it possible for us to collapse the reading of this and (can't hear), and have the other one on for three different readings, and... Lehman: Well, urn, that's possible. If the person who made the motion would like to expedite this, that would... Wilbum: Why don't you withdraw your motion and ... Champion: I'm tired of having it read. Lehman: Thank you, because I really .... Vanderhoef: I'll withdraw if you'd like to offer the... Bailey: Go ahead, Connie. Champion: I mean, it's done. Lehman: The motion and second have been withdrawn. Is there a motion now? Bailey: I move that the role requiting the ordinance must be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended; that the second consideration and vote be waived; and the ordinance be moved, voted on for final passage at this time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #12 Page 19 Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Vanderhoef to expedite. Discussion? Elliott: Mike and I have both expressed our thoughts and our concerns about this, but I think it's inevitable, and I certainly won't stand in the way of this. O'Donnell: And I won't either. I have problems with it. I feel it does put us at an unfair advantage with surrounding communities. I've said that before. However, this being through ICAAD and the Chamber, and approved, I will support it. Lehman: All in favor...pardon me. Roll call for expediting. Bailey: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time. Vanderhoef: Second. Letunan: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #13 Page 20 ITEM 13. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS," AND TITLE 10, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 9, ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION REGULATIONS," SECTION 2, ENTITLED "PROHIBITED ACTIONS IN PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS" TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE, POSSESSION, AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES IN A CITY PARK, ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR ON A CITY GROUND, EXCLUDING CITY BUILDINGS, PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move second consideration. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Bailey, and I think last night, there is an amendment that I would entertain at this point. Champion: Well didn't we agree that we would go back to the original...tell me, what we agreed to? Bailey: ...an amendment. Champion: Oh, it's going to be through an amendment? Lehman: Well, I think the amendment would be back to the original proposal from Eleanor which would apply... Bailey: No. Dilkes: No. Bailey: The person under 19 is a patron of an authorized entity, and so there is an exception to the 19-ordinance in City parks. Is that correct? Champion: Oh. Elliott: Is this not, with the amendment, would this not now be restricted to the park? Champion: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #13 Page 21 Dilkes: The under-19 exception is restricted to the park. The rest includes public rights-of-way, streets, etc., so there's still the potential for the Jazz Festival downtown, that kind of thing, but the under-19 exception is only for those things in the parks. Elliott: I expressed some concerns about that last night, and I didn't realize that so, that doesn't (can't hear) that much anymore. Lehman: Do we need an amendment? Dilkes: Yes. Lehman: Whoever would like to make that amendment? Champion: I move the amendment. Bailey: I move the amendment. Lehman: We have a motion by Vanderhoef, and seconded by Bailey, to offer amendment that does what? O'Donnell: Exactly. Wilburn: Adds a new subparagraph for...that says (tape ends)....authorized entity which has entered into agreement with the City for use of an authorized site in the City park pursuant to Section 4-5-3D of the City Code. Lehman: All right, we know what the amendment is. Let's do the amendment and then we'll...is there a discussion on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment? Opposed? The motion is carded 6 to 1, Lehman voting in the negative. Now, we will discuss the ordinance as amended. Goodner: Hello, my name is Susan Goodner, and I live at 4649 Running Deer Court NE. I'm a physician. I know many of you. Have practiced family medicine in this community from 1985 until our clinic was closed in 2003, and then in the fall of 2003, I became a staffphysician at the University Student Health Service, and immediately began to see the repercussions of underage alcohol consumption on our campus. I know that you've had a presentation by Dr. Peter Nathanson, informing you that the University of Iowa has a higher proportion of binge-drinking students than nearly any campus in the country. At student health we see some of these repercussions....the dropped classes, poor grades, the withdrawing of semesters, the tragedy of date rapes with or without enabling drugs, injuries due to violence when students are dnmk or are driving drunk. We know that the Iowa City downtown has been active in keeping a drinking culture alive. We are one of the only campuses in the country who allow This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #13 Page 22 19 years olds into our bars, pretending that we can have them there but not have them drink. We as a community have a responsibility to model a non-drinking culture to our young people, a culture in which everything is enjoyable, a culture in which everything enjoyable is not linked to alcohol. The proposal to allow controlled sales of alcohol in City Park nms counter to our responsibility as a community. I make these comments with very mixed feelings as my family considers Riverside Theatre to be a tree community treasure. My family pledges to immediately increase our contributions to the theatre this year, to help keep the culture of alcohol, which continues to hurt our young Iowa City kids, as well as our college kids, from growing (can't hear). This drinking culture, which has changed the downtown to an area to stay away from after dark, and perpetuates the culture of binge drinking that our college students are learning and then suffering from, from growing. We're going backwards, I fear, not lo,yards, in considering alcohol sales at public events. Please, Councilors, direct your attention forward instead, and pass a 21-only ordinance. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Khowassah: Good evening, I'm Mary Khowassah from 46 Kennedy Parkway. I'm also here asking you to not pass this ordinance. I have just a couple of quick points. My first point is, your discussion, decision, and vote need to be made within the context and framework of our entire community. Our community has a problem, a very serious problem, of high-risk drinking. We are not average in this regard. This ordinance increases accessibility and availability. My second point is that we are creating a potential problem where none currently exists. We are creating a potential problem in public places in day time and early evening, at a time when just a few yards away, youngsters are swimming, playing baseball, or riding the little train, and if having alcohol at Riverside Theatre does not in any way spill out to the other activities, then at the minimum, we are setting an example that in order for grownups to have fun, there must be alcohol. If we have learned anything in the past six or seven years of trying to address this high-risk drinking problem, it is how difficult it is to create change. With this vote we have an opportunity to prevent a potential problem, and not be faced in the future with trying to treat it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Maybe there won't be beer tents downtown this year, but it probably won't be long. Then families will steer clear of these daytime events, much as they now steer clear of our downtown area at night. Please think carefully of these issues before deciding your vote. Lehman: Thank you. Larew: Hi, I'm Mary Larew, 228 Woolf Avenue, and I've been a life-long Iowa City resident, and have practiced pediatrics for over twenty years. I just This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #13 Page 23 wanted to reiterate, I hadn't realized the others were going to say pretty much what I was going to. In any case, ! agree with Dr.'s Goodner and Khowassah. I have had patients that have been raped. That have died, because of underage drinking or binge drinking, and it's a real problem for those of us who cam for these kids. I think that we are taking a dramatic step in the wrong direction by increasing access to underage youth, and I feel that one of the wonderful things about Iowa City is the increasing number of activities and festivals that we have, that are available for families, and now we will have to be more cautious about that with our children and our youth. We will...again, we are giving a message that we adults are not able to have a good time without substances, and I feel that that's very wrong, so, I want you to think about that as well. Hanson: Hi, I'm Sarah Hanson, 711 Kimball Road. And I want to echo what the others have said in terms of potentially especially expanding access to the downtown area, although it appears that's not going to happen this year. I think it could happen in the future, and I'm actually here as a parent of two small kids in this community, and the fact that I truly appreciate having so many cultural events that are available in this community that don't revolve around alcohol and don't involve alcohol. I think that as a parent, I have a responsibility to teach my kids some valuable lessons, and right now the main lesson I'm trying to teach them is that they can't get a toy every time they go to Target, and I realize you can't help me with that (laughter), but I think that the other important lesson that I have to teach them is that there are amazing and wonderful things that can happen in this community that they don't have to revolve around alcohol, and I think expanding this potentially to allow access in the downtown area, where we already have abundant access, and to be frank, we've done a pretty poor job of monitoring that access is the thing that makes me most concerned, so I'd like you to really reconsider that. Thanks. Lehman: Thank you. Any other discussion? Council? Champion: Well, I am going to support this. I don't believe in underage drinking. I certainly don't believe in binge drinking, but I don't really feel that alcohol's the problem, but the abuse of it certainly is a problem. I think children can be taught that alcohol in moderation is not bad. My children have grown up with alcohol at weddings and funerals and Christmas and holiday dinners, and it's not been a problem. It is a problem, and the other thing that I really have to say is we do have a problem with binge drinking downtown. It is a small problem to the number of people who are down there on the weekends, and you keep...a lot of you have said going downtown is a fearful thing. I don't know when the last time was you were downtown, but I'm downtown a lot, and I can tell you that I see tons of families down there in the early evening, taking their kids to dinner and doing things, and it is not an awful place to be at all. I think maybe in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #13 Page 24 late nights, the people who are abusing alcohol can become a problem, but most of the people downtown in the restaurants and bars are not abusing alcohol. It is a very small number, and I'm against the abuse of it, but I'm not against alcohol, and I hate to see us have this notion that downtown's a terrible, sinful place to be. It's not. It's a wonderful place to be. There's just a few people downtown who shouldn't be there. Elliott: I don't think any of us take lightly any of the comments that have been said by the public. I think we're going to discuss that much more greatly in detail in August when we review the entire alcohol ordinance, and we will be discussing pros and cons. Just one minor point - I would hope, as I as listening, that perhaps having alcohol at the Shakespeare Theatre might be a prime example of how alcohol can be used without being abused, and so this could be a good example in the use of alcohol, without abusing it. I'll support this. Vanderhoef: I had thought the same thing, that responsible drinking is something that young people need to see. Wilbum: Whether at various levels of agreement or disagreement with that, but I think the thing that makes this okay for me is, and correct me if I'm wrong, several of you talked about consequences, and as a governmental body, with this ordinance and allowing this to occur at this specific place with certain restrictions, we have a greater ability to enforce a consequence should a problem arise. If there's a problem, by...this ordinance can be repealed, as opposed to...not because of their liquor license because they would have to have a liquor license, but an issue with some of the liquor license holders now is there's a series of fines and fees, and then regardless of what the Council does, they can appeal that to the state, and experience has shown in most cases, they get their liquor license back, or the penalty gets massaged and weaved around so that for many of us it doesn't appear to be a penalty. With this we, the Council, would repeal the ordinance and it would not be allowed, and that's the end of it right there. So, that's a part that makes this an okay thing to do. The Riverside Theatre, and any other non-profit entities that want to go through the steps that they would need to do to do this and also open themselves up for the police checks and those type of things, so hopefully it will not open up some problem or concerns that we have about alcohol, and I hope that those of you who showed up tonight, when we do review the 19-only ordinance this fall, I hope that your voice appears again. Lehman: Other discussion? This one little minority report. ! will not support this. There are the two issues that, or two factors that control the consumption of alcohol more than anything else is cost and convenience, and I do not support making alcohol more convenient. I just...certainly I understand that most communities allow alcohol in city parks and those sorts of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #13 Page 25 things. I don't think it's in the best interest of Iowa City, and I really cannot support it. Roll call. Karr: We have a motion on the floor for second, and we need to have it withdrawn or amended. Lehman: I'm sorry. Can we have a motion and a second? Karr: We have a motion and a second by Champion and Bailey for second consideration. Do both of you want to amend it to first consideration as amended? Champion: Oh, yes. Bailey: Oh, yes. Lehman: Oh, that's correct. This is first consideration because we amended it. Roll call on first consideration. Motion carries 6 to 1, Lehman voting in the negative. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #14 Page 26 ITEM 14. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TItE CITY CODE, TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", CHAPTER 5, "PARKING METER ZONES AND PARKING LOTS", SECTION 3, "PARKING IN METERED ZONES", TO INCLUDE MULTI- SPACE PARKING METERS OR PAY STATIONS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Elliott: I have a question. Is this...is this type of parking situation going to be more prevalent in the future? Lehman: Chauncey Swan... Atkins: Um, yes, Court Street is intended to be that way yes. Elliott: I don't know how others feel, but when I go to park in that and they ask me how long I'm going to stay, most of the time I have no idea, of course I don't have any idea about a lot of things. (laughter) Champion: Well I don't like it for that reason. I don't like it for that reason either, but this is here, and we need to have a way to force the... Atkins: This is, for simple terms, cleaning up a loop hole in our enforcement ordinance. Now if you wish to discuss policy of having the Chauncey Swan type with the staff, that's another issue. Elliott: It is much more cost-effective. Isn't that... Atkins: Oh, absolutely. Champion: But I think there are other ways that could be cost effective, so I'm interested in that discCssion because there are ways. Vanderhoef: I agree, Connie. Champion: Yeah, but I mean, this is here, and this is... Atkins: This was here. We really recommend you fix this one, and then if you wish to... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #14 Page 27 Champion: Yeah, but before we do anything with a new ramp, let's do have that discussion. Atkins: Well, we designed the ramp with the intent that it would be, yeah, we ought to do that pretty soon. I'll have to check with Joe and... Champion: Oh, that it would be that way. I mean, there are other ways for people to pay on their way out. Lehman: If you designed the ramp for ... Champion: No. Lehman: No, but I think you have to have a little place for the people to sit and collect the money. Champion: No, no, no. I mean, Dee...we've, I've been in many parking lots where they don't have attendants. Atkins: The credit card example is being reviewed right now. Yeah, we just haven't... Champion: And also... Atkins: We're talking to some vendors. We just haven't received information yet. What's that? Champion: There's also ones where you can just put the money in. Atkins: Yes. Elliott: I think I would appreciate it if it could be brought to us what alternatives there might be, and we can discuss it at that time. Champion: I envision people using that ramp that might live over there. Now how would they do that? How would they handle that? Atkins: Live over where? Champion: On that side of town. I mean, the apartment dwellers may be wanting to park their cars there for twenty-four hours. Atkins: They could probably get a permit. Champion: Oh. If there's one available. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #14 Page 28 Atkins: If there's one available, yes. Vanderhoef: That'll be the problem. Lehman: Other discussion on this issue? Roll call. Atkins: Is there interest in having some discussion about some of the other options? Do I see...heads nodding? Lehman: You could do a memo listing the pros and cons, and what's involved. Atkins: A summary. Yep, we'll do that. Lehman: I've been asked to take a short break. (TAPE OFF) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #15 Page 29 ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING TItE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTItORITY'S ANNUAL PLAN (FISCAL YEAR 2004) Lehman: Public heating is open. Public heating is moved. Karr: There's a revision in front of you that the Mayor has, and so do all of you in your packets. Lehman: Public heating is closed. Is there a motion? Champion: Moved. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #16 Page 30 ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATERWORKS (PRAIRIE) PARK BUTLER HOUSE/AMPITHEATER TRAILS PROJECT. Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Lehman: We have received four bids. Engineer's estimate was $168,000. Three bids. Low bid was from Metro Pavers for $122,348. Public Works and Engineering recommends the awarding of the contract to Metro Pavers. Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? We love these kind of bids. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #17 Page 31 ITEM 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A FEDERAL-AID PROJECT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE MEADOW STREET BRIDGE~ WHICH SPANS RALSTON CREEK. Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Vanderhoef: It ought to be pointed out that the federal-aid highway bridge replacement pays for 80% of this bridge. It's not a cheap thing to do, but they will do it, and this is good for us. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #18 Page 32 ITEM 18. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND DEVELOPER MGD, L.C. FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SYCAMORE MALL. Champion: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Elliott: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Elliott. Discussion? Vanderhoef: Maybe we should just comment that this is not a change in the contract. It's a change in the way the owners are organized with their private businesses. Lehman: That's correct. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #19 Page 33 ITEM 19. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLILSHING CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Wilbum. I think, are we required every ten years to review our charter? Atkins: Yes, by our Charter. Lehman: The ten years is up. This is a Commission that will be, will have nine members, I believe. Dilkes: At least. Atkins: At least, yes. Lehman: A minimum of nine, and this establishes the Commission, and I think also makes it possible for those folks who are interested to make application for the Commission, through the City Clerk's office, and I expect there to be a tremendous amount of interest in serving on this Commission. It's a very, very important Commission, and I think their work is important to the community, so... Elliott: When is it anticipated that the applications would start coming in, and when we would make a decision. Karr: You're going to be announcing it on your next item, 21. b. - applications will be taken until April 28th, and you'll be appointing May 4th, and it's on your agenda this evening. Champion: And then that's voted on at the next regular City Council election. Is that true? Lehman: No. Champion: No? Dilkes: No, the way it works is the Charter Commission has twelve months to make recommendations about how they think the Charter should be changed. They're binding recommendations. They...unless the Charter Commission reconnnends that the Council adopt the changes they propose by ordinance, they do go to the voters, without any say by the Council. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #19 Page 34 Elliott: And you said, how will...how the Charter should be changed. They can recommend that it not be changed. Dilkes: Right, sure. O'Donnell: Steve, you said they recommend nine or nine will be the minimum? Lehman: Minimal. Atkins: At least nine. O'Donnell: What traditionally have we had on the Committee? Atkins: To my knowledge nine; we've appointed nine. Karr: It's in the memo. O'Dormell: If we wanted to pick twelve, we could do that? Dilkes: At least nine; you can pick any number...odd number would be better. O'Donnell: Okay. Lehman: Okay? Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #21 Page 35 ITEM 21. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES Lehman: (reads vacancy list) It's a great opportunity to become involved. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoefi So moved. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Bailey to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #23 Page 36 ITEM 23. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION Bailey: Steve, I've been getting some calls about the (can't hear) site, and what the current situation with that EPA, MidAmerican (can't hear)... Kart: I'm sorry. Champion: I couldn't hear. Bailey: Super fund site. Atkins: Burlington area. Bailey: Yeah, the Burlington, Iowa, Illinois Manor, and I was wondering if we could get an update on that. Has anybody else... Lehman: Everything I've seen on that, and there's been a lot of information over the last couple of years, is that there is no danger to anyone on that. We had them in here, EPA folks from what was it? Kansas City? Two or three years ago in their little white suits, drilling and all that sort of thing, and the drilling at that time indicated no danger. We've had it done a couple times since, and every time the results have been the same. Bailey: Well I'm...well I think people are less concerned about what the danger level is. Is there some plan to clean up the site, or are we leaving it as it is, and those sons of things. Those are the questions at least that I've been heating. Wilbum: Didn't they just pump the tank down there? Atkins: That was on the apartment building site, yeah. There is a sign in the creek that says don't walk here. Dilkes: Andy Matthews of my office has given you updates on that, and I'm...he can certainly give you another one. Bailey: And I think remediation is the word that I keep hearing. Are there plans to clean it up, and where are, where is the EPA and where is Mid-American with that? Atkins: We can do that. Bailey: I think this came to light because of the bill in the house, or the senate, for the superfunds. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #23 Page 37 Lehman: You know, if I remember correctly, I think that report indicated that there is no danger to the site if the area is not disturbed, and I think the, at least as I recall, the intention was not to disturb the site. Atkins: Well, we intend to do the bridge project, and folks are going to be...how can you not disturb it if you're going to do that bridge project. I suspect there's some engineering they're planning to use that will accommodate those interests. I just don't know... Dilkes: There are a couple different aspects to the site. The bridge issue, the apartment, I mean there are different aspects, so Andy knows that stuff and I'll have him give you a memo. Wilburn: I think the bill that passed the senate was for notification to tenants about the nature of the sites, and that sort of thing. Bailey: Right, but I think it refocuses people's attention on the fact that we have one sitting in the middle of our community, even if it's been deemed safe or contained. I think it concerns people, and rightfully so. Wilburn: I just want to put a plug in for the Iowa City Community Theatre who is going to be doing Man of LaMancia, the last three weekends of April, and I will be performing in the pit orchestra on those nights for them, so... (laughter). Elliott: March into hell for a heavenly cause. (laughter) O'Donnell: There might be a crowd anyway. (laughter) Wilbum: I'll squeak if you show up. (laughter) Really good. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: Just to announce that we have a new brochure that came out, Stepping Off Campus, and it's for our renters who come into our community, and maybe don't know the City's expectations when they are not on the campus, or even to someone new to the community, so it's been done by our housing department, and I believe it was Sarah Walz that did this? Dilkes: The planning department, Marcia Klingaman and her intern Sarah Walz. Vanderhoef: Uh-huh, but I find it very informational, and I plan on keeping it handy just for myself, but I encourage anyone to stop at City Hall, or there are several locations with the landlord's group, and those folks who do the renting in our community, so if you're interested, pick one up and cruise through it to see what's there that maybe you hadn't been aware of. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #23 Page 38 O'Donnell: I wanted to briefly comment on the Shakespearean Theatre that we spoke of tonight. I think this is something that the community is ready for. It happens all around us. Coralville has Ragbrai and they set up a beer tent, and it has to be responsible, and I have the faith in the Shakespearean Theatre people that it will be done that way. They're going to need Dram Shop insurance. They...outdoor restroom facilities, and bottom line, it's still against the law for somebody to consume alcohol under 19, and that will be enfomed. Champion: Under 21. O'Donnell: Under 21, I'm sorry. I'm thinking ahead. And I also want to express my sympathies to Chief Winkelhake on the passing of his brother. Lehman: Thank you, Mike. Connie? Champion: I don't have anything. Lehman: Bob? Elliott: Just a couple quick ones. Mike, I agree with what you said. I would like for a group of people to do some meaningful lobbying of the legislature to allow cities to make meaningful fines when there are abuses that cause problems to people. So that's one thing. Secondly, I'll be sending to other Council members, a list of topics that I would like to have addressed at long-term discussion sessions, such as half day sessions, if we could do that, so you will be getting that from me and you can ignore them or pay attention to them, whichever you feel... Champion: What if they take less than a half day? Elliott: Then you have to stay there and gut it out. Lehman: Then we can do two of them. O'Donnell: I look forward to them, Robert. Lehman: A couple things. Council, I think, is pretty much aware of Alpha, expanding here in Iowa City, and they have plants actually throughout the world. The length of time it took them to build their initial plant in Iowa City, is the shortest time that they've experienced anywhere they've built anywhere in the world. We really set a benchmark in the construction business when they built that plant. I had the good fortune of going through United Natural Foods last week, which is the I think it's about a $9 million expansion of their facility, and I really heard almost the same This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #23 Page 39 thing from those folks. That project is well ahead of schedule, moving along very, very well. It's just amazing how quickly they've built, and it's such an enormous facility, so it was...it's nice to hear folks compliment our planning folks, and our housing inspection folks, and I think we should be proud of the way they work with new industries. I want to emphasize the Charter Committee, and we'll be making that appointment in a month, little over a month. That's a really important Committee so if you want to serve on that Committee, have an interest in city government, this is a very, very important committee. I expect there to be many, many people who will apply for that, and I certainly would encourage everyone to do that that's interested. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004. #24 Page 40 ITEM 24. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF Lehman: Steve? Atkins: Nothing, sir. Lehman: Eleanor? Marian? We have a motion to adjourn? Wilburn: Adjourn. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor? We are adjourned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 16, 2004.