HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-02 Transcription
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 1
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session 6:30 pm
Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lelunan, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn
Staff: Atkins, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Helling, Knoche, Matthews, O'Neil
P&Z Commission: Brooks
TAPES: 04-48, SIDE 2; 04-50, SIDE I and SIDE 2
ADDITION TO CONSENT CALENDAR
Karr/ Okay, do you want to start with the additions, Mr. Mayor?
Lelunan/ Yes, if you would please.
Karr/ Okay, we have two establislunents here who would like to be added late to the
agenda. I don't care who goes first, whichever. Sports Column...
Sawyer! My name's Brett Sawyer. I'm looking to buy the Sports Column and would like
to be added to the agenda tomorrow night for liquor license.
Lelunan/ Okay. Boy, that was tough. (laughter) You don't even look nervous.
Sawyer/ I'm not. (laughter) Thank you.
Lehmani Any objections? All right, you're on the agenda. Who's next?
Karr/ Mr. Mayor, everything is in order on that one.
Lehmani I figured it was or you wouldn't let them get up. (laughter)
Karr/ No, sir, that's not the case. They can come to any CounciJ meeting at any time and
ask pennission.
Lelunanl Yes, but they would take your advice. (laughter) All right, who else?
Maynes/ I'm Marty Maynes. Trying to purchase the Union Bar and request to be on the
agenda for tomorrow night.
Lehmani For a liquor license, right?
Maynes/ For liquor license, correct.
Wilburn! Are you in order?
This represents only a reasonabJy accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. -- --,- --..-" ..~--,--
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 2
Lehman! Are you in order?
Karr! No, sir, they have an appointment tomorrow with the Jolmson County Attorney's
Office.
Champion! So if they're in order, you can be on the agenda.
Lehman! Well, my assumption is that as long as everything goes well tomorrow...
Karr! Contingent upon approval rrom the County Attorney?
Lehman! Right, right. Okay.
Maynes! Thank you.
Lehman! Thank you.
Karr! Do you wish to go to the special fonnal now?
(Adjourn to special fonnal; reconvened work session)
Lehman! Yes. Planning and Zoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Franklin! Okay, we've got a lot tonight.
Elliott! You sound tired already.
Franklin! I am, just thinking about it makes me tired.
Vanderhoef! Not even five minutes, huh?
5.a. AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP TO
CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL
COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (25+ DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMA TEL Y 1.34 ACRES OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF S. GILBERT STREET
SOUTH OF RALSTON CREEK
5.b. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.34 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520-522
S. GILBERT STREET. (REZ04-00012
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 3
Franklin! No, it will be longer than five minutes tonight. Because you've got a number of
public hearings. A and B, I thought we would put together for discussion,
because they are related. The first is an amendment to the Comprehensive P1an,
from general commercial to high-density residential of 1.34 acres on the east side
of South Gilbert Street; and then B is the rezoning of that same property from CC-
2 to RM-44. Because the Comprehensive Plan now shows that this property is
general commercial as to land use, and the request is to go to high-density
residential. The Comprehensive Plan does need an amendment. The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended amendment of the Plan and the rezoning
of the property to RM-44 by a vote of 4 to 2. Freerks and Hansen voted "no", and
Anciaux was absent. The staff continues to recommend denial. Bob Brooks is
here representing the Planning and Zoning Commission. He is going to give the
rationale of the Commission, and then I'm going to give the position of the staff,
and the overhead doesn't show a thing. (laughter) The overhead shows the
location ofthe property.
Brooks! Okay, as Karin mentioned, we reviewed this at our June 3rd and June 17'h
meetings, and the vote again was 4 in favor, 2 against, and I member absent.
During the discussion and the presentations, both by staff and the owner, we
considered a variety of issues and probably paramount, I think, in most of the
Commission's minds were some issues relating to access. Those of you. . .picture
the intersection of Prentiss and Bowery. It's an off-set intersection, very
congested. Gilbert Street carries about 20,000 vehicles a day, and that
intersection, because ofthe off-set, is very complicated. We were given
indication that the City is working to establish possibly a turn lane on Gilbert
Street, which would help alleviate some of the congestion at that intersection.
But, it would also, in our minds, add to the difficulty of getting access to this site,
which is this area that's shaded here. The turn lane would require an access point
somewhere back in here where the creek crosses, to get into the site, so there was
considerable concern and discussion about the access to the site. Also, this is a
dead-end alley, which we felt was problematic in terms of deliveries; and in
general we felt that the best and highest use for the land was something less
intense than the commercial zoning that it currently is. There was considerable
discussion about the corridor of Gilbert Street, and the fact that the
Comprehensive Plan did show it as being predominantly commercial along that
corridor, but because of some of these issues that I've mentioned, the congestion,
difficulty getting access into the site, and also some general concerns, although
the City Engineer had reviewed it and felt that it was workable. There is a change
of, I think, about six feet ÍÌom along Gilbert Street back to the alley, and this
created difficulties and problems in getting access in there. The dead-end alley,
congestion at this intersection, the turn lane, we just felt that expanding the RM-
44, which is already in this area, down through here into this zone, wasn't really
going to change things that drastically. Those are pretty much the basic concerns
of the Commission. We talked a lot about whether we should amend, or change
the Comprehensive Plan. I think the Commission in general felt that the
Comprehensive Plan was a rather broad brush look at land uses and how they
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
- -- --.-.--- --.- ----------_.--..- ---...-..------......--.--".-
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 4
might best work, and that when we're dealing with a specific site like this that
minor adjustments could be made in that Comprehensive Plan, and that's why we
voted then to move ahead and make that first change in the Comprehensive Plan,
and then approve the amendment.
Bailey! So, I read those minutes, and I thought about the access and congestion from the
RM-44 perspective ofresidential, I mean, which would also promote a fair
amount of congestion and access issues, especially with that dead-end alley.
What was the take on that in P&Z?
Brooks! Urn, yeah, any development in there, because of the congestion on Gilbert Street
and that intersection, is going to be somewhat problematic, but we felt that a
residential usage, vehicle usage, going to a residential development, would be less
than would be in a commercial development, where all day long you would have
people coming in and out. In residential we felt would be fewer vehicles per day,
and per unit, than we might see in the commercial, and by combining the two, if it
was commercial on the first level and residential above, you've just kind of
compounded that extra traffic. We felt from an alley-access point, the residential
was less of a concern. We were concerned commercially, from a delivery vehicle
access and while semis aren't necessarily something that comes to every business,
a larger delivery truck would have to either back back out onto Bowery, or the
applicants would have to make accommodations within their plan for a
turnaround, or using the access back out onto Gilbert, which then becomes a
potential access way for all the other apartments and dwellings in there too. So
we just felt that there were a lot of problems with the size of the site, the
congestion in the area, the access to the site, that made us feel that trying to force
commercial into that area, just didn't seem to fit and work.
Lehman! Thank you. Are you going to be here tomorrow night as well?
Brooks! I can be.
Lehman! Well, that's up to Council, but we do have the public hearing tomorrow night.
Urn, and it might be, I realize there's a disagreement here, but it might be well
tomorrow night at the public hearing, for Karin, you'll be here, to give sort of a
thumb-nail sketch of this, and if you would like to give sort of a thumb-nail, and
then we'll kind of proceed, so at least those folks that are here are watching, can
get, you know, where we're starting from.
Franklin! Well, my pitch is going to be a little bit different, obviously, different position.
First of all, coming at it just from a land-use and policy perspective, and I'll get to
the particulars of the site after that, but the first question really to answer is
whether the land use in this area is more appropriately commercial or high-density
residential. That's the question before you. It has been shown, as this little blue
piece indicates, and this is the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use map, and
it's been shown that way since 1978. That the intention on Gilbert Street is that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
-- - - . .--,._-~_.. -,.-...--....-.----
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 5
this area be commercial, and then this light green is to be a mixed-use type of
development. Commercial on the ground floor, residential above. That
immediately brings to mind the question of why Ralston Creek Village
Apartments are there. In the previous zoning ordinance, prior to 1983, in any
zoning category, the more intense zoning categories incorporated all the less-
intense zoning categories. So, for instance, in a commercial zone, you could have
residential, all the way down to single-family residential. In 1983, the major
change in the zoning ordinance was to change the concept such that it was no
longer a pyramidal, or what was called a Euclidean kind of zoning ordinance, but
was distinctive as to residential, commercial, industrial. Obviously we've moved
somewhat away rrom that too in having more mixed-use now. But, it has for a
number of years, been designated as a commercial corridor, and the staff is
continuing to support this as a commercial corridor for land use for a number of
reasons. This is an entry to the downtown, and as the near-south side develops as
we have envisioned it in the Near-Southside Redevelopment Plan, the commercial
development from downtown was to come south of Burlington Street, then
proceed along Gilbert Street. We built in incentives, in terms oftax exemptions,
to encourage that commercial development to happen; and that the way for
downtown to expand was to come south. Then the high-density residential
development was to take place to the west of the commercial on Gilbert Street.
Commercial opportunities are important for Iowa City if our Economic
Development Policy is going to succeed. The policy says that we're going to
encourage commercial and industrial development. So when we look at areas and
possibly changing them rrom commercial to something else, we need to do that
cautiously, with that particular policy in mind. So that gets you to the notion of
"well, is this a good commercial space or not?" It was designated as a
commercial corridor because of its location; because it's not an arterial; and
because it's close to downtown, and there have been successful businesses along
this corridor for many years. The argument has been made that the market is not
there for commercial, that the argument is for residential. Well, residential is a
strong market when you are within a mile of the University ofIowa. It always
will be a strong market. There will always be that demand for residential in our
downtown, and around our downtown. Using the logic of the market as the
determinant of the City's Land Use Policy, if you buy that, that that's how you
should make your Land Use decisions, then you would rezone the downtown to
allow residential on the ground floor, and that has been put forward by individuals
over time. To date we have not made those kinds of changes. Ifwe were to make
those changes, it would change remarkably the character of downtown. It would
become a housing enclave, and it would be a stndent housing, let's be frank about
it. And, that's not saying that student housing is bad or there's anything wrong
with students at all. We're talking about land uses and what's the most
appropriate land use, and that was not the vision that people had when the
downtown strategy was adopted, or when the Near Southside Redevelopment
Plan was adopted, and those plans, we the Councils and the people who were
involved at this time, decided a vibrant commercial downtown was essential to
Iowa City. That, as I said, the downtown should be extended to the south of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 6
Burlington; that commercial development should be encouraged along Gilbert
Street; and that the high-density residential development should take place in the
residential area, south of Court Street, and west of the commercial properties on
Gilbert Street. Granted, this property is not in downtown proper, but it's very
close, and there does not seem to be a compelling, or even a good reason, to
change the Land Use Policy here, now. Besides the market arguments, the
Commission's been told that the particular site has some characteristics, as Bob
has mentioned, that make it inherently unadvisable to put commercial there, that it
really precludes that commercial development, and grade was one of them. The
slope of access to the property has been raised as something that would be a
deterrent to commercial development here. This is a photograph of the Culligan
business, which is just south of Ralston Creek. As we looked at potential access
points to this area, looking at the entire extent from the creek to Bowery,
accepting that the Mansion would continue to have their access point, but
attempting to consolidate any other points. And still provide a through-fare for
the alley. This is the point at which we have concluded would make a reasonable
access point because it's far enough away from the intersection. You can see that
that grade is not exceedingly steep. Rick did a calculation, and I think what he
calculated, was that it would be a 3% grade and that is considering the Gilbert
Street project and the acquisition of six feet ofright-of-way, for the Gilbert Street
project. So this is the general area we're talking about where that access point
would come out. Ijust want to show you here where that would be. Well, yeah,
here we go. It's about right here, and so we're talking about having the alley
coming east of the property, and then having an egress point there, or an access
point there. The Gilbert Street/Bowery Street intersection project, which is one of
the traffic safety grants that we're working on now, we're applying for, would
have a left-turn lane. The extent of which would go to the creek. Ifwe were to
have an access point there, we would want to have that left turn lane be able to
accommodate that turn also. But that would address some of those issues that
have been raised, and this was discussed at Planning and Zoning, about getting in
and out of that area. Vehicular access would be ITom this alley at Bowery, and as
it continues north and then west to the point on Gilbert Street, south of the bridge.
There's another kind of access that really wasn't discussed very much at the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and I think needs to be kept into consideration,
particularly because we're looking at commercial development near the
downtown and that's pedestrian access. This is an area in which there is a lot of
residential development, immediately east of here. We're talking about having
considerable residential development in the PRM area, in the near southside. So
we have the RM-44 over here, the PRM which is a comparable high-density to
just the west of the commercial on Gilbert Street, that there will be pedestrians
who will access this property, as well as vehicular access. Parking is an issue.
Parking is always an issue. Parking will be challenging, but it is determined by
the land use, and if you put commercial there with apartments above, and you try
to put apartments above with four bedrooms, it's going to require and demand
more parking than if you put apartments above with two bedrooms. That doesn't
mean that it cannot be done. The staff feels that the challenges of developing this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 7
ground for commercial are probably no more onerous than are the challenges of
developing it for residential. If there are variations in the code that would be
necessary in order to develop it as commercial, if you decide that commercial in
fact is the appropriate land use here, there may be variations that we may need to
talk about that have to do with setback. This is zoned CC-2 now which has a
twenty foot setback. Maybe we need to look at something that would vary that
setback to get the kind of development that we want, that would have the
buildings closer to the street, the parking behind, but yet have that commercial
space on Gilbert Street. That's the end of my comments.
Lehman! Okay.
Champion! Karin, was the staff against development ofthis land with commercial below,
or apartments above?
Franklin! No.
Champion! Okay.
Franklin! Not at all. In fact, we were working through a CB-5 proposal with the Clark's
and then the issue of parking and the cars in the area came up, and CB-5 has a
very different parking requirement than CC-2. It doesn't require parking for
commercial. Because CB-5 is primarily in the southside parking facility district.
Well, it didn't make sense really to have that come across Gilbert Street because
if you had development here that was to use a ramp that was over where we're
building now, or on the federal lot, it's kind of a ruse to say that, you know, it's
going to service this area over here, so then what happened at the Commission
was to look at CB-5 with a CC-2 parking requirement. Well, that then, combined
with trying to do the apartments that Mr. Clark wanted to do, and the parking
demand that would be generated by that, was just not going to work on this site.
But, obviously my position is you can do some commercial with residential above
on this site. Maybe not exactly what they had in mind. Okay, item C, or do we
have more questions?
Elliott! I guess that I share Regenia's concern about density. I don't have any problem
with the Commission's recommendation, but I do have some concerns about
density in general, and I presume the feeling by the developer is they need that
many rooms or apartments to make it go, is that correct?
Franklin! I think you'll need to ask him tomorrow night, or unless you want discussion
tonight.
Lehman! Well, the hearing is tomorrow night.
Elliott! And the other, my other thought was to me this poses a larger question of the
Comprehensive Plan. I agree with Mr. Brooks who said his thought about the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
--
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 8
Comprehensive Plan is the same as mine. The Comprehensive Plan to me is it's a
plan; it's painted with a broad brush, and I think it's unfortunate that we have
something called a Comp Plan that has to be amended to do this. The Comp Plan
should be a guideline. Now whether, maybe all people, maybe most people don't
agree with that, but I would certainly liked to see the Comp Plan changed so that
it is a guide rather than a set of regulations and laws.
Franklin! It is a guide, but there is case law, and Eleanor, do jump in here whenever I
start going beyond my bounds. There is case law that your zoning ordinance
needs to follow your Comprehensive Plan, if you have a Comprehensive Plan.
And we do have one, and the guidance that the Plan is giving, especially in this
area where it's quite distinct in terms of where these lines are, and I'm sure that's
because of the intense land uses that are there now, but it's quite distinct and has
been for some time as to what should be happening there. And what I'm saying
to you is that as you think about this, just think about it very carefully as to what
kind of land use you want there. That should be your first thought process, not
exactly the Clark's proposal or the RM-44 zoning, but is the best land use there
for the community commercial, residential, or a mix?
Dilkes/ Let me just add, this is.. .clearly the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, and there's a
lot oftimes when reading the text ofthe Comprehensive Plan, that you could
imagine any number of scenarios that might be consistent with that guide. But
this is a situation where the actual Land Use Map has a commercial designation,
and we're talking about going to the other, you know, the other end of that, or
residential designation, along an arterial, and given that the law requires that our
zoning be consistent with our Comp Plan, it doesn't make any sense not to change
the Comp Plan, if you think the land use along this corridor should be residential.
Elliott/ I understand the legalities. Ijust think it's unfortunate that it's that way, because
to me, I would look at it as a guide. A guide that must be flexible, and change
from generation to generation, almost from year to year, as needs, interests,
opportunities change, and to me a plan that is so set and so strict that you have
to.. .I'mjust very uneasy with that.
Franklin! But wouldn't in time, it wouldn't mean much because you had deviated so
much fÌom it? I mean, not, you know?
Elliott! That's why I think I would like to see something that flows as time flows. Ijust,
in this whole area, I like just greater flexibility, and I've said that before, and
that's enough time spent on that, but that's my feelings though. (laughter)
Champion! .. .just have to vote on it. (laughter)
O'Donnelll You know, I agree with our Commission's assessment, as far as delivery
trucks going in and out, and on an alley, I think that is a problem.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 9
Lehman! I suggest that we leave this conversation for tomorrow night at the hearing. The
public needs to hear why Council is going to either approve or not approve, but I
think some ofthe comments tonight....
O'Donnell/ Well, I thought I owed it to you, Ernie, to tell you where I was coming ITom.
Lehman! You never have before, Mike, I don't why you would now. (laughter)
Vanderhoef/ I would certainly invite Council to take another look at what is and isn't on
this corridor, and what services are available for the high-density that is building
on both sides of Gilbert Street, and I'm thinking that to stop the commercial and
then restart it further south is certainly not conducive to helping the commercial
that's even further south, as they go under the bridge and down to those areas.
So, I certainly am looking at that, and I'm looking at density for the residential,
and I too would look at some ofthe possibilities in the residential above
commercial in either allowing some differences in building height just because of
how the topography works there, so that there would be the possibility of there
being more parking on site. I think there's some flexibility that could happen
there that could make traffic flow through there without totally congesting the
alley, that it would almost work like a circle for a delivery person to get in and get
out of the site, and I really don't want to cut off an access from Gilbert Street in
this particular property because I think we need some safety kinds of things to get
people back and forth across there.
Wilburn! Karin, tomorrow night can you comment on the description of the requirement
for parking if it were to be rezoned to the higher-density residential. Give me a
picture, a flavor, on what's required, and where you anticipate any spill-over
would go, where would that, if! remember right there's parking on Van Buren,
correct?
Vanderhoef/ If you can get it. (laughter)
Wilburn! So tomorrow night could you kind of walk through the...
Franklin! I'll try, and the only reason I hesitate is there's a lot of speculation, and you
know, until you design some buildings with different uses in mind and how you
would actually place the parking, I can roughly give you an idea, yeah. I mean, I
certainly can talk about the relative parking requirements.
Wilburn! That would be more of the focus for me. I understand about any speculation,
but...
Franklin! Okay.
O'Donnell/ I would like to know also how many vacancies we have in commercial areas
on the bottom floor, in like a two-block vicinity of that area. Well, it's my belief
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. -
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 10
that to have a viable commercial business, you have to have a great deal of
pedestrian traffic, and I don't think we get it in this particular area. Well, 1...
Franklin! Just in tenus of that piece ofinfonuation, I can't promise you that I'll have it
tomorrow night. You want in the two blocks...
O'Donnell! Within a two block area. I've seen many vacancies on the first floor.
Elliott! The apartment building behind...a block west of Gilbert on Court, has had first
floor vacancies forever.
O'Donnell! At Dubuque and College.
Elliott! Yeah, it just, I noticed it just sits there.
Franklin! Well as I said, there's always a market for housing, and it depends on what you
want your area to be. What you want your city to be.
O'Donnell! Exactly.
Champion! Karin, one more question about that.
Franklin! Uh-huh.
Champion! If we would allow the Comprehensive Plan to be changed for the rezoning,
that alley would be gone, that road from Gilbert to the alley?
Franklin! Not necessarily. Urn, with a residential development, there could also be an
opportunity for access to Gilbert Street, at the point that I stated.
Champion! Yes, right. Okay.
Franklin! Yeah, I was more addressing the question of you couldn't get access to
commercial. You can, and you can get it to residential too.
O'Donnell! However, we should save all of this for tomorrow night. (laughter)
Lehman! I gave up.
S.C. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING - HIGH DENSITY SINGLE F AMIL Y
RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-12, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING -
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-8, FOR
LOT 77 OF WALDEN WOOD PART 6, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN
TERMINUS OF JENSEN STREET. (REZ04-00006)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
--
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 11
Franklin! Okay, shall we move on? The next is a public hearing and first consideration
on a rezoning of2.2 acres from OPDH-12 to OPDH-8, for Lot 77, Walden Wood
Part 6. This is at the northern tenTIinus of Jensen Street, on the west side, west of
MOnTIon Trek Boulevard. It is to construct ten single-family zero lot lines. On
the site, as we've worked with the developer on this, the cul-de-sac on the end of
Jensen, which is the next item, would be requested to be vacated. This is what is
currently, I don't have enough room here, what is currently platted is that cul-de-
sac, and we would vacate that in favor of this other design that extends Jensen
Street farther and brings the bulb out closer to the pond, and this was to get the
street as far north as we could get it, get the access as far north as we could get it,
so the buildings could be pushed as far away from this existing development, as
possible. There is a trail connection that will be provided here along the high-
power gas line easement that would cross the creek and then connect with the
Willow Creek Trail on the north side ofthe pond and creek. We're currently
working on moving a small pedestrian bridge that would make this connection,
and we have been able. . . the property owner to the north has been cooperative in
tenTIS of putting that bridge across also. Neighbors in the area on Jensen Street, as
you would see from the documents in the packet, do have concerns about this
development, and would prefer that it was developed for single-family or fewer
units.
Lehman! Karin, this is actually a downzoning, isn't it?
Franklin! It is. It's a little peculiar in that there was an OPDH-12 plan on this, a planned
development 12 on this, but there was no actual plan, and I can't tell you how that
happened.
Lehman! Doesn't the...ifthis is rezoned...
Franklin! Yes, it decreases the density of what could be.
Lehman! .. .reduces the number of units that could be built.
Franklin! Yeah, but understand, people have had an open space there for years, and now
it's going to be buildings.
Vanderhoef! Karin?
Lehman! It's just more restrictive.
Franklin! Than OPDH-12, yes.
Lehman! Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 12
Vanderhoef/ Urn, can you just take the pointer and show me the outline of where the back
of the building is on Lots 9 and 10, as compared to the back yards of where the
other people are?
Franklin! Okay, here's the back of the building, here, right here.
Vanderhoef/ Uh-huh.
Franklin! And this is the back yard...
Vanderhoef/ And is that the gas easement trail back there?
Franklin! No, no, the trail comes down Jensen and then goes like this, across, and hooks
up with Willow Creek.
Vanderhoef/ The gas easement is that on the east.
Franklin! Gas easements over here, so this is the closest point, it looks like, on Lot 10, to
this property line right here.
Vanderhoef/ Which is about how many feet?
Franklin! I don't know.
Vanderhoef/ It looks like it's sandwiched there.
Franklin! I can't tell. This is a planting screen that would be put in on this property,
obviously. I'll find out what that measurement is exactly.
Vanderhoef/ Okay, and then that area of the curve of number 10, is that part ofthat lot, or
is that an open space?
Franklin! This? Lot 10 is this...
Vanderhoef/ The whole thing?
Franklin! Yeah. Right there.
Vanderhoef/ But we know the placement ofthe building has to be further so it's like an
open space sort of.
Franklin! Yeah, and you could never have anything else there. Well, I mean, you could
have, I suppose, a shed.
Vanderhoef/ No, they enter, yeah, up there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 13
Lehman! That's kind oflike their front yard, isn't it?
Franklin! Here?
Vanderhoef! That's a side yard.
Franklin! It's a side yard, yeah, but it's open.
Vanderhoef! You're right. And it said something about two spaces open to be dedicated
and one of them is, yeah, that one I can see.
Franklin! Right in here, and right over here. It's just a little triangle. It goes from this lot
line here, and over here, it's this space right in here.
Vanderhoef! So some of the trees stay there?
Franklin! These are going to be new trees planted, and no, these existing trees right here
that are kind of feathered, those go.
Vanderhoef! All of them?
Franklin! Well, it looks that way, because they've got a new one that they're planting
right here, and yeah, once you put in the cul-de-sac bulb here, now there may
be.. ..now these down here would stay because the property line is right here.
Vanderhoef! Okay.
Franklin! But this bunch right in here would go. Okay, anything else on that one? And
this is the unit that will be placed there, and .....
S.d. VACATING THE NORTHERN CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
JENSEN STREET (V AC04-00002).
Franklin! Item D is the vacation ofthe cul-de-sac, as I said.
S.e. REZONING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (OPDH-20) PRELIMINARY OPDH PLAN
FOR OAKNOLL LOCATED NORTH OF BENTON STREET AND EAST OF
GEORGE STREET. (REZ04-0001S)
Franklin! Item E is a rezoning for Oaknoll. This was approved, and what we've done
here we just put the two plans right next to each other, what was previously
approved, and this is the footprint of the number of units, the forty-three units that
were previously approved were Benton Street here, George Street is here, and this
is the outline ofthe new part. This is their revision, and you'll notice that this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
- -- --- ...-..--......-. __._._.·.,,_·-.·...-m.··..._
August 2, 2004 Council Wark SessÎon Page 14
piece right here is taken out. That was to be a swimming pool, and in fact that's
going to be put underneath the building over here, and this area will be a sunken
area in which there can be units that can be like garden apartments that border that
sunken area. So even though there are more units with this, it goes from forty-
three to fifty-two. I think the maximum they can have is sixty-three by the
zoning. The dimensions of the footprint are going to be diminished, and the
actual height of what you see, it's going to do it here in a minute.. ..okay.. .the
actual height of what you see is going to be very comparable to what you see on
Benton Street right now. All of the accommodations that were made for the
George Street elevation, to step it back and have it come down gradually to
George Street, to make the transition ffom the houses on the west side of George
Street to Oaknoll, will stay in place. So this is recommended for approval by the
Commission 6 to 0, and by the staff.
Vanderhoef/ I was a little concerned about a comment, a staff comment, about Council
position on widening west Benton.
Franklin! Benton, yeah.
Vanderhoef/ And, I don't think there's even been a conversation about that in a number
of years, and so we have new members here, so I don't know how they feel about
it, and...
Franklin! Fair enough. We understood it to be a strong position, but you're correct, it has
not taken place during capital improvement discussions the last couple years.
Champion! It certainly was a strong position a couple years ago.
Lehmani It was, as I recall, the right-of-way there is like sixty-six feet, which is adequate
to do almost anything a future Council would want to do anyway.
Franklin! Yeah, I mean, this project has nothing to do with how much right-of-way we
have for Benton Street. It's not going to encroach on that right-of-way.
Vanderhoef/ That was my question, how close we, if that were to be widened to four
lanes through there, how close would the street and sidewalk be to the window of
Oaknoll?
Franklin! The location ofthis, as we approved it originally, took into consideration
Benton Street and any future widening.
Vanderhoef/ Okay, that's...
Franklin! I can't tell you exactly what that dimension is. It's probably going to be twenty
feet back.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. ._"__~ 'mm_____..__._. __,_" __.'...._m__.._.~___ -- -..-.,....---....
August 2, 2004 COWlcil Wark Session Page 15
Vanderhoef! Still twenty feet back from the edge of the street?
Franklin! Right, exactly. I think that statement was.. . yeah, it shouldn't be. I don't know.
Again, I would have to measure it, but I don't know why it would be any less than
twenty feet, given the zone it's in. We have twenty-foot setbacks everywhere.
Vanderhoef I Is that the same as the most southern piece that presently is built? Because
that just seems like it's so close.
Lehmani Easterly, east of there.
Franklin! East ofthere? I don't know when that was built.
Lehman! About four years ago.
Franklin! Well then it's twenty feet back. Because that's the setback requirement.
Lehmani I assume it would be in the same line as that building that was just completed.
Franklin! This one right here?
Lehmani Right.
Franklin! Yeah, right there.
Lehman! Oh, you're showing it. Actually the new building sits a little bit further back.
Franklin! Yeah, you can see right here.
Vanderhoef I That's always concerned me when I look at that.
Franklin! This building right here is out to probably the twenty-foot setback line. Now all
we need for Benton Street widening is for you to say so.
Champion! I think Dee might be the only one.
S.f. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 75.25 ACRES FROM INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY (ID-RS) ZONE TO SENSITIVE
AREAS OVERLAY/ LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(SAO/RS-S) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF FOSTER
ROAD. (REZ04-00013)
Franklin! Moving on. (laughter) Okay, this...(several talking at once) this next item is a
substantial rezoning from ID-RS to SAOIRS-5 of property on the north side of
Foster Road. It's 75.25 acres. It is a development company that is new to Iowa
City, Regency High Development from Cedar Rapids and Des Moines. The
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. ..~- _.....,_..,_.".~- .._._,.._~---- _ '...n
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 16
development would include two 16-unit multi-family buildings, seventy-two
townhouse style units, and ninety-three single-family lots. They will dedicate
1.77 acres for the neighborhood open space. This is the whole thing. Just to give
you location...is everybody clear as to where it is? This is Oakmont Estates, just
to the south, and then just to the south of that is the Peninsula, or no I'm sorry.
That's the Elk's property. (laughter) Let's go back to this one. This is the Elk's
property, this is Oakmont Estates, the Peninsula, the Elk's Club, what was
Washington Park property, and of course this is where we have looked at
providing a loop street from Foster Road up through the Am property, south of
Forest View, down to Laura Drive, to provide additional access in this area, and
this development will begin that access point with a street running north/south at
this point, which provides access to the Am property, thus enabling it to develop
at some point. I'm going to go to some shots ofthis that are a whole lot clearer.
(laughter) Well, as I show you.. .these are the two 16-unit multi-family, and there
will be some berming here with vegetation along this part of Foster Road. These
are townhouse units in this area. These units here and here will access off a rear
lane, and there's kind ofa courtyard sort of thing in the middle here, on both of
these. Then these townhouses access from the front, as do these right here.
Otherwise we're looking at single-family. These are what they call their patio
homes, which are on slab, single-family detached. As you go north, it gets into
some bigger lots, along Interstate 80, and along with these lots on Interstate 80 we
have some concern about noise and everything that will happen with the traffic on
the interstate. This planting plan that they have shown here has been enhanced
some. The buildings here will be at least 150 feet from the boundary line of
Interstate 80. There also will be dedication of 1.77 acres for open space, and the
completion ofthe trail here that will take it to the Interstate 80 right-of-way,
which will then allow us to connect under Interstate 80 up to Waterworks Prairie
Park.
Vanderhoef/ Karin, what's the grade on that that is being dedicated? Is that north of
the...
Franklin! It's not that steep. Yes, it is. It's where the deer and the antelope used to play.
Vanderhoef/ Uh-huh.
Franklin! You can see it from the interstate. (several talking at once)
Vanderhoef/ Oh, the grassy area there?
Franklin! Uh-huh, yeah, it goes back through there and then down, you know, along the
right-of-way, into this.. .this is all going to be, all of this hatch-marked area is all
open space.
Vanderhoef/ But that's sort of off ofthe bluff, the limestone...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
___._._ _n_ - _. ...._~..__.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 17
Franklin! It's actually, well, this is where the bluff is is in here. This is kind of flat; it's a
forested wetland, and in fact we are waiting for the Corps of Engineers' okay on
this. We want to go forward; have you do your reading tomorrow if you are
(TAPE ENDS)
Elliott/ Karin, can you just capsulize how this development differs, this proposal, differs
from the local developer's proposals that have come in in the last few years?
What are the significant differences?
Franklin! I don't know that there are significant differences when I think about some
place like Windsor Ridge, which also has a mix similar to this, in that there are
multi-family. There's townhouses. There's zero-lot lines. There's single-family
detached, which is pretty similar to the Windsor Ridge development too.
Elliott/ Something caused the previous proposals for this to be rejected, and this...
Franklin! No, we haven't had a proposal come in on this yet.
Elliott! On this property?
Franklin! No. We've had discussions over the years with Frank Boyd, and Florence and
Jim Glasgow, and we got to discussions about kind of general concepts, but they
never actually came in with anything before, with any application. And what
we're looking at is not remarkably dissimilar from what we talked about with
them. I mean, I only raised that Regency Homes was a new developer, just for
your interest.
Elliott/ I just was wondering why local, but they never got past the preliminary discussion
stages.
Franklin! Well, yeah, and why Plum, or Washington Park, which is Plum Grove, didn't
pursue this particular spot, I couldn't tell you. You know, sometimes it's just a
matter of timing and what makes sense for them as a company.
Bailey/ So the only access out of this is going to be Foster Road?
Franklin! As with the entire Peninsula, yes.
Bailey/ Right. So we're adding more traffic onto Foster Road.
Franklin! Now, years ago when we set the density for this area, from essentially this
point, this line is an indicator, no I'm sorry, this line right here is an indicator of
the, it's called "No Name Street", and from this point back we looked at what was
a density that we could live with, and looked at that in terms of designing Foster
Road, knowing that Foster Road was not going to go through. And from a point
that's kind of, there's a ridge line right here, that this point back we said okay,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 18
then that's got to be our lowest density, the RS-5, in tenns of allowing some
development, but the lowest density. And then consequently, when we built
Foster Road, it's built at a standard that is closer to an arterial than to a collector.
And our policy in tenns of access, is also that of an arterial in that this
development, we're only allowing two access points, one of which will be the
road that will provide another loop of access around to Laura Drive. Does
that.. .you still look puzzled, Regenia. Okay. (laughter) So...
Bailey! What's the projection for that loop? I mean, what's the time projection for that
loop?
Franklin! That's going to depend on the developers of the Am property - the Am
property is for sale. This property is for sale. This property is owned by Ed Cole
and we've talked with him at various times over the years about getting that road
through there. He knows we want to. He has some idea, I think he owns this
piece too, he has some ideas about what he might like to do over time, but it's
kind of up to the individual property owners.
Bailey! Sure, sure. So, two access points onto Foster Road.
Franklin! Right, uh-huh.
Vanderhoef! But that gives us another loop around to get clear over to Laura Drive.
Franklin! Right. That...
Vanderhoef! . ..happened, uh-huh...
Franklin! ...if something happened in here, you could take this around and still get out.
It's just that the opportunities for access on the Peninsula, aside from a bridge
across the river, are very limited. One of the other options that was looked at
years and years ago was bringing a loop around, along the bottom of the cliffs
near the Elk's Club, which didn't go over big at all. (laughter) And I mean, we
even tried to get a trail in here and couldn't get the trail in. I mean, it could have
happened, if a council at some point decided to condemn it, but it just didn't seem
worth the agony.
Vanderhoefl And "No Name Road" also gives you a not a great street, but an emergency
kind of exit.
Franklin! And I continue to get requests, or discussion, about Taft Speedway, and what's
going to happen with Taft Speedway. Park, oh I shouldn't be doing this. It's not
on the agenda. Never mind. (laughter) Anyway, Taft Speedway and this road at
some point will likely be improved.
Lehmani Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 19
Franklin! Okay, the biggest thing with this is we've got to get that Corp thing before you
can finally give final approval.
Lehmani We have to what?
Franklin! Get the approval from the Corps on the wetlands before you can give final
approval, but you can go ahead with the public hearing, first consideration, maybe
even second. These are just some of the house types that are going to go in there.
S.g. REZONING APPROXIMA TEL Y 1.2 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL
OFFICE (CO-I) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1901 BROADWAY STREET. (REZ04-
00016)
Franklin! Okay, Item G is rezoning 1.2 acres ftom commercial office to CC-2. This is the
building that replaced the Colonial Park Office and they want to go to CC-2 to
have a greater variety of uses. We've got a conditional zoning agreement about
the parking for the residential, that they'll provide eight, signage for residential,
and I don't think it's a big deal.
S.h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE,
SECTION 14-6J-2, TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION OF
LOCAL PUBLIC STREETS IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING
OVERLAY (OPDH) ZONES. (PASS AND ADOPT)
Franklin! H is a repeat pass and adopt on the width of streets.
S.i. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL PLAT OF "EAST SIDE GROUND WATER STORAGE
RESERVOIR" (SUB04-00016)
Franklin! I is a subdivision that the City has initiated. It is to build a water storage
reservoir, a ground water storage reservoir...
Elliott/ Karin, is St. Mark's Church still involved with this?
Franklin! Yes, St. Mark's has purchased the entire piece.
Elliott/ I'm out of that tomorrow.
Franklin! Okay. And this four acres is the subdivision that we wish to acquire for the
ground water storage reservoir.
Vanderhoef/ Will we be annexing, or how do we work that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
<-- --- --
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 20
Franklin! No, not for a while. I mean, we can't, we're not close to it. But it'll be like the
landfill in that it's in the county but it's a city facility. It's just our ownership,
even though it's not within our jurisdiction.
Vanderhoef/ So do we have to request ofthem to...
Franklin! County subdivision, the county has to...
Vanderhoef/ No, to take it off the tax roles. Make it public.
Franklin! It'll be publicly owned.
Dilkes/ And I think it's going to be rezoned public. Aren't we going to do a rezoning?
Franklin! We won't zone it, it's in the county.
Dilkes/ It'll come off the tax roles.
Franklin! Yeah, I don't know that we have to do anything to do that because of the
ownership.
Vanderhoef/ Okay.
Franklin! What are you thinking?
Vanderhoef! Well, I'm looking at our gross line and what happening out in that whole
area.
Franklin! Well, it may not be that far away...
Vanderhoef! .. .because that's basically the ridge is meant for the watershed?
Franklin! Yes, it is. Yeah, and remember this line is a guess, and if we can sewer
property to the east ofthe line with gravity feed then we'll take it in. So, when St.
Mark's develops out here, if they put the church over here and they can put a line
in that can feed into a line that will serve by gravity to the city, then we'll annex
them and put them on city sewer, if they wish to. Because we're right here now,
we're right at this corner.
Vanderhoef/ So the sewer line is there?
Franklin! No, our corporate boundaries.
Dilkes/ You've already approved a purchase agreement for this piece of property, so we
have a binding purchase agreement. I think, won't there be a county rezoning?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 21
5.j. CONSIDER A MOTION TO SEND A LETTER TO THE JOHNSON
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A REZONING FROM OF APPROXIMATELY 3.74 ACRES FROM AI,
RURAL, TO RS, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5989 AMERICAN LEGION ROAD. (CZ04-00001)
Franklin! Well I would assume. So we'll get there, and take it in sometime. Okay, the
last item then is a letter to the Board of Supervisors, approving a rezoning of 3.74
acres from Al to RS. This is a peculiar little thing in that this property is zoned
AI, RS, AI. It happens. At any rate, normally we wouldn't condone rezoning the
Al to RS according to our fringe agreement, but you can only, it's only big
enough that you could put one dwelling on it so nothing is going to practically
change on the property. It just enables them to put a garage down here or
something. So, it all seems quite innocuous so we would recommend you
approve it, or recommend to the County that they approve it.
Lehmani All right.
Franklin! I'm done. That's all.
Lehman! We have had a request for a short break. (BREAK)
14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE
lOW A CITY AIRPORT SHOULD REMAIN IN THE AIRPORT
COMMISSION.
Lehmani Airport referendum, tomorrow night's agenda has an item where if we choose to
we can place the governance of the airport on the ballot in the November 5th
election. Now I don't know ifthere's any comments, discussions, or anything
else tonight. I know that I talked to the Chair of the Airport Commission who
would have liked to be here tonight. He will be here tomorrow night, and will
make a statement on behalf of the Airport Commission. So, but is there any
discussion on this tonight?
O'Donnell/ I think we should wait till tomorrow night.
Lehmani I think it's clear, I mean the issue is clear. Agenda items?
AGENDA ITEMS
Atkins/ Ernie, while you're looking I have one.
Lehmani Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. -~.. -..----...---......---.. ...--..
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 22
3f(19). CONSENT CALANDAR (Allan L. Axeen: HOME Grant)
Atkins/ Under the Consent Calendar, Ross will probably have to excuse himself. There's
a letter from Allan Axeen for the Home Grant, asking that it be changed from a
loan to a grant. We don't have sort of an official position. I can give you some
options, but as you know, we use the loan repayments to put back into the CDBG
program so that we can fund, particularly if we're short some year with respect to
federal monies. Is there anything you'd like for me to do, because the request is
directly to the Council? This is that policy we put together about, oh a year or so
ago. Remember all that?
Vanderhoef/ That's just the letter though.
Atkins/ Yeah, that's just the letter. It's from Allan Axeen, under correspondence, number
19. They want the payments waived which is tantamount to a grant.
Lehmani That would require Council action, would it not?
Atkins/ Yes it would, because we have a separate agreement with them.
Vanderhoef/ Oh yeah, what's the interest rate?
Atkins/ I'd have to look it up, Dee. I don't know right now. Sorry. I think it's 0%, that's
what they usually are. Ifit's not, then it's 1%. It's a nonprofit so it'd be 0%.
Vanderhoef/ But that was done prior to when we did that.
Atkins/ So, the big question is do you want to make it a grant, which I'm assuming you
can do by legislative action, or we can redo the agreement with them; hold them
to the payments, which our concern is that we need those monies again to
supplement the CDBG program, or some modification. I mean, I could....a
balloon payment at the end of some time. There's some things we can design, I
just need to know if you're interested in having me do that.
Dilkes/ Why don't we put it on a separate agenda?
Atkins/ Ijust need to know if you're looking for options. You are? Okay. I'll put it on
for the next meeting, and I'll have options drafted for you.
Lehmani Okay. Other agenda items?
3d(4) CONSIDER SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 31, 2004 ON
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION
TO THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS
DESIGNATING THE lOW A CITY CULTURAL DISTRICT.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 23
Bailey/ I just wanted to speak to the item on the Consent Calendar, the Cultural District.
I am sitting on that committee as the CVB, Convention and Visitors Bureau
representative. I just wanted to let you know, no zoning implications, those sorts
ofthings, I think those have come up, and I'll also mention that tomorrow night.
But if you have any questions, I'll be glad to talk with you about it, or we can
discuss it tomorrow night.
Lelunan/ Yeah, tonight just tell everybody what it includes, because I think it's really
neat.
Bailey/ It includes.. ..it's a nice community and University collaboration because it does
include the art's campus, and then it swings up through the art's campus, includes
the new art museum and swings up and grabs Shakespeare Festival Stage, and the
skate park, because it's not just all arts. It's also entertainment, so it loops up and
grabs that. Then it comes back through and grabs those bed and breakfasts on the
north side so there's also some accommodations; swings through the north market
district, picks up Riverside and the performing arts school, as well as the guitar
foundation, and it includes all of downtown. And then swings over and grabs that
arts collection at UIHC. So it really is focusing on the great things that we've
done with arts and culture and entertainment in our community, and we can get
that all in technically in one-square mile without (can't hear), so it's been fun to
sort of see what we need to include.
Vanderhoef/ UIHC?
Bailey/ The University of Iowa Hospitals has a fantastic arts collection.
VanderhoefJ Oh, okay, you jumped back across the river. I was (laughter)...
LelunanJ But it really is inclusive of so many things. I think it's a really great...
Bailey/ ...I think it's a recognition of the work that we've done in this community with
arts and culture, and the work that we've done downtown, you know, with the
Englert.
12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RE-ESTABLISHING A DEER TASK
FORCE.
Elliott! I have a question about Item 12. That's the deer task force. Steve, it seems to
me, I've heard that Cedar Rapids is starting to get serious about this same
situation, and is there anything that cities can ban together, say with the DNR, and
put together some sort of certification or licensure. It seems we spend a whole lot
of money to bring people in from the east coast, when there are so many people
who would like to do it. Is there any way we could get it done and still address
the litigation concerns that we would have?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. -" .--"....... ----~_._-_.._._----,---- .-...
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 24
Atkins/ Couple points; one is that the DNR, you know, has to approve this thing. I
believe it's on an annual basis. Secondly, when we were doing this two years
ago, the then Park's Commissioner, Dale Todd, was very interested. The new
Commissioner has expressed no interest to us, and as a city, to my knowledge
Cedar Rapids has taken no position one way or the other, whether they're
interested in being involved in the thing. We intended to prepare something for
you in a very similar fashion. I'd be happy to share the information with Cedar
Rapids, but quite frankly, Bob, I've seen or heard very little interest on their part.
And you're right, for the economics, getting them here and getting them set up,
and all the prep work, if it could be done once, it could save some money.
Elliott/ Well it seems to me that we've seen this happen, and we also have a good idea on
how it's done, and just with consultants, quite often you bring them in and after
awhile you find out what they do and how they do it, and you're able to do it
yourself.
Atkins/ Well, I would be reluctant to sponsor our own sharp shooting.
Elliott/ Well, as I said, the litigation concern is very serious.
Lehmani Well, but this, reestablishing the deer task force doesn't necessarily mean that
we shoot deer again.
Atkins/ Oh no, no in fact one ofthe issues that they'll be dealing with is we've been
doing it every other year. Well in talking to the folks at White Buffalo, they may
be suggesting that we take a smaller amount of money and do it every year, that if
they shoot earlier in the season, this comes off sounding terrible, the impact of the
kill is such that there are fewer fawns than in the springtime.
Lehman! But in any case, Council will deal with whatever recommendation they come up
with.
Atkins/ The task force is going to be substantially what you've experienced in the past,
and then you ultimately make the call on what we decide to do.
Wilburn! Who will be your city staffer?
Atkins/ Kathi, yeah.
Lehman! She's going to be a deer. (laughter)
3f(8) CONSENT CALANDAR (Terrence Neuzil: Cell Towers)
Lehmani We received a letter from the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, relative to cell
towers, indicating how he would choose to...is that, well I hope that's acceptable
to Council, because that's how we're doing it now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
- ----- - - --_.__.__.~ _.-._-- ,...-..----, .
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 25
Vanderhoef/ At this point we don't have any choice, unless the other supervisors have
conversations, and that might happen.
14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE
IOWA CITY AIRPORT SHOULD REMAIN IN THE AIRPORT
COMMISSION.
Elliott! Oh, one other thing. In the airport concern, I talked with at least one other
Council person, and in the description saying the Commission will be abolished
as a matter oflaw, I think that whatever way things go, I think this Council, I
would assume, has no intention of abolishing that Commission.
Dilkes/ Well, it will be, the Commission as it stands now, will be abolished as a matter of
law, and the Council will have to reappoint a commission, and describe it as you
see fit.
11. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED
"MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 8 ENTITLED,
"BICYCLES," SECTION 6, ENTITLED "PARKING VIOLATIONS,"
SUBSECTION B, ENTITLED "OWNER PRIMA FACIE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS" TO ALLOW THE
CITY TO DONATE ABANDONED BICYCLES TO NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef/ On Item II, the ordinance, down in the inset paragraph, in the event the city
is...I think there's a typo. It's the third fÌom the last line, and it's in lieu of selling
said bicycles at public option...it should be auction, so maybe we'll just tidy that
one up. And, in talking with Dale today, I was concerned the way this read that
all bicycles were going to be donated rather than still leave us with the option of
doing either, selling or donating. It is an option, and I didn't know if anybody
else read it the same way that I did. So, okay. I read funny.
17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN
AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN ADDENDUM TO THE IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR
THE NORTH DODGE STREET PROJECT STP-1-5(69)--2C-52
Bailey/ I have a question about Item 17, tomorrow on Dodge Street, will somebody be
there with the map tomorrow evening?
Atkins/ Ron is here, and we also have the maps so if you want to ask him now he should
be ready, he will be ready to answer those questions for you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
--
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 26
Vanderhoef! Well I think public education and Council education of the full thing is a
good idea at this point.
Bailey! So my question is about pedestrian and bike access all the way out, or to ACT.
Knoche! For the sidewalk, there'll be an 8 foot sidewalk on the north side, west side of
the street, all the way 1Ìom Governor here, all the way up to ACT Circle, and it
will be graded out the remainder of the way for a sidewalk in the future. On the
southeast side of the road, there'll be a 6-foot sidewalk, or I'm sorry, a 5-foot
sidewalk that'll go out to, that would be Scott Boulevard, and at Scott Boulevard
the sidewalk will end on that side of the road. So to go north to the future
crossing of the interstate, they would have to go to the north and west side of the
road.
Bailey! So if you want to go to the health club out there you can take the sidewalk all the
way out then.
Knoche! Exactly.
Vanderhoef! Can you walk me through the things that are on your page two of the
addendum. There's several bullet points, and for instance, the
connection.. .there's one ofthem that will be closed, North Street.. ..where's the
one that's closed? The connection of Dodge Street Court to north Dodge Street
Iowa I will be closed. Now where is that?
Knoche! What we have here is north Dodge Street Court currently comes out right by the
Hy-Vee. This is where the arboretum sign sits, in that triangular piece. We'll
consolidate both of those access points into one, that'll come out to Dubuque
Road.
Lehmani Get rid ofthat triangle?
Knoche! Right, the triangular piece will go away, and also what happens with that,
there's an access that comes out from the cemetery, right in that area, that will be
rerouted back and tie in to Conklin Street.
Vanderhoef! To St. Joseph's?
Knoche! Yeah, yes, uh-huh.
Vanderhoef! Okay. It says ACT Circle will be reconstructed from north Dodge Street.
Knoche! ACT Circle is this point right here, where the Sinclair station is, by Minerva's.
That intersection gets rebuilt.
Lelunanl It also gets widened as I recall, so a bus can pull off.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
- ~- ------ ---"-----
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 27
Knoche! Yeah, there'll actually be a bus pull-off, on the south side of the, of the south
and west side of that intersection.
Bailey! Can you show the bus pull-off again?
Knoche! Yeah, it's hard to see, but it's right at this point.
Bailey! Okay.
Vanderhoef! Just south of the Sinclair station?
Knoche! Basically right in front of the Sinclair station is where the bus pull-off will be.
Vanderhoef! Okay, but then there won't be any place for people to cross the highway
until they get clear down to Scott.
Knoche! Exactly. That was by request of ACT, not to have that access point, pedestrian-
wise, to their campus.
Vanderhoef! And there's not any way we can do it down closer to the comer?
Knoche! What we'll have at ACT Circle, or I'm sorry, at Scott Boulevard, there will be a
turn lane there so that... there will be a bus stop potentially there. They would
pull off into the turn lane and then get back into the traffic flow, rather than have
an actual bus pull-off at that intersection.
Vanderhoef! So both coming and going, both north and south bound, that would happen?
Knoche! There's part ofthe route actually runs through ACT's campus in the mornings,
and in the evenings for pick-up. I'm not exactly sure how that route works, but I
do know that we do provide service to the ACT campus itself.
Lehmani That map shows the road across rrom the Sinclair station going to the ACT.
That road's gone, isn't it?
Knoche! It's gone, that's correct. This is an old aerial photo.
O'Donnell/ Where is the turn-around out there for the bus?
Knoche! I believe they actually go up through their campus, so First A venue intersection.
Vanderhoef! They aren't pulling in to ACT?
Knoche! I believe they do, just at the peek times.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 28
O'Donnelll But you say the bus stops out by the Sinclair gas station? Where's the turn-
around out in that area?
Knochel That's right. They run out to NCS and come back into town, yep.
Elliott! This project will be done pretty much at the same time as the Dubuque one, is that
correct?
Knochel That's correct.
Elliott! How much time is it estimated that both exits will be troubled by this?
Champion! Handicapped.
Knochel The Dubuque-Foster Road project will have more of an impact on 1-80 getting
off rather than the Dodge Street project. The Dodge Street project, the first
construction season predominantly gets the contractor to get this portion of it done
here, from Governor up to Dubuque Road. There will be some utility work that
will happen in the corridor, but it won't affect the traffic flow, so theoretically
you'd be able to get off here, come in on Scott Boulevard and have access to
town, or traffic will be maintained through the construction corridor in that first
phase ofthe project.
Elliott! Yeah, my concern, but we've already made that decision, so...
Lehmani Yeah, but I think we were told that the Dubuque Street Road is going to be, the
plans are for that to be completed before we have the major tear-up.
Knochel Right, the Dubuque Street project would be done before we start really tearing
up and affecting the access, closer to the interstate.
Elliott! Good, that was my main question. Because we don't need more problems on
Scott Boulevard at opening and closing time. It's really a mess.
Vanderhoefi' And this addendum also addressed the exit. Are we getting two lanes
coming off of 1-80?
Knochel Yes, what we'll have, there's multiple things that go on at this interchange.
There will be a left turn and a right turn, and it will also be signalized, so that
when the traffic project is over there will be a traffic signal there, allowing people
to exit offthe ramp and not be cuing back into the 1-80 through traffic.
Vanderhoefi' So we aren't taking two lanes offofI-80, but it widens...
Knochel No, right, it'll widen out into two lanes to provide more storage for vehicles.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
..... '--'~ -- - . _'~__'4_~_,_______
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 29
Vanderhoef/ Okay, the stacking is so inadequate at the moment, but a light will
certainly. ..
Knoche/ And that's, yeah, that's the key. With the traffic signal being there it'll be set up
as such that ifthe cue or the stacking is back far enough, it'll trigger itself so that
it'll allow those vehicles to get out of there, and not back up onto the interstate.
Vanderhoef/ And how soon do you think the DOT will address it on the north side?
Knoche/ There currently isn't a problem with stacking on the north side, with the west
bound off-ramp. There's not that problem right now, but it'll be a matter of time
before they come in and want to put a traffic signal in there. I don't know what
the time fÌ'ame will be. You know the 6-lane project, they're looking at 2007,
starting with the design of that, so it's in the near future now more than it was two
years ago when we were starting to work on this project.
Vanderhoef/ So it's not until 07.
Knoche/ That's when they start working on their 6-lane project, through Iowa City.
Lehman! They have money problems too. Okay, other questions about the Dodge Street
project? Thank you. Okay, guys, any other agenda items?
Atkins/ Before Ron takes off, you did want Ron here tomorrow night to do a summary
for you all?
Vanderhoef/ I think it would be good to let our citizens know that time schedule and
answer the question, like Bob's, about Dubuque Street and so forth, because
they're all wondering.
Council Appointments
Lehman! Okay, appointments. We don't have anybody for the Airport Zoning Board of
Adjustments. Historic Preservation - we have one applicant, Jan Weissmiller,
and I understand, heard her nominated. Is that okay with everyone? Do that one.
Human Rights Commission - we have two vacancies. We have five applicants.
Bailey/ I would like to suggest Bev Wittwer. I worked with her at the Foundation. She's
a real good committee member, a real worker. (several talking at once)
Lehman! All right, Bev is in. Bev Wittwer. Okay, we need another one.
Champion! Well, I have some difficulties picking a second one. Does anybody have any
insight?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 30
Lehman! I don't know these people. I read Elizabeth Cummings' application. I was kind
of impressed with that but I don't know the rest of the folks so....
Champion! Well I'll nominate her, Elizabeth Cummings.
Lehman! Is that.. .do we have support for Elizabeth?
Vanderhoef/ I liked her resume as much as anything, and I have to admit didn't get
around to calling these people, and none of them called me.
Lehmani No, none of them called me either. Well, how many folks would support
Elizabeth?
Elliott/ We had too many things on the plate this time, we really did.
Atkins/ Ernie, I don't think you're obligated to appoint, are you?
Lehman! Well, is there any reason that anybody doesn't want to? (several talking at
once)
Elliott! I'd just like to know a little more before.
Lehmani Police Citizens Review Board. Beth Engel.
Champion! It is a female, which is good, cause they're all male.
Lehmani Did I hear you.. .Elizabeth being nominated? We have concurrence, okay.
Vanderhoef/ Do you know her, Ross?
MidAmerican ReQuest to Nel!otitiate Franchise
Lehmani Okay, the next item is Mid-American's request to negotiate a franchise.
Eleanor, you want to just bring us up to speed with where we are?
Dilkes/ As I said in my recent memo to you, MidAm has now requested that its franchise
proposal, or a franchise proposal, be on the ballot. They would prefer a special
election, but since the City Council declined to do that, they understand that the
statute requires that it be placed on the ballot in November 2005. So the issue
before you tonight is whether that proposal will be of Mid- Am's own making,
which they said will be the recently expired franchise, or whether it will be a
negotiated proposal. A proposal that is worked out between the City and Mid-
Am. In either event, unless Council chooses to pass an ordinance before the
election, which I assume you will not do, it will go on as a Mid-Am proposal. But
presumably if you negotiate, it'll have the backing of the City. So the issue is
whether you want staff to enter into those negotiations. In making that decision,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
- -- ""-..-
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 31
we thought it was important to give you kind of a sense of what the negotiable
items would be. I don't think there's any intention on the part of staff or I suspect
Mid-Am, to talk in detail about what positions on each of those issues might be,
but rather just to give you a sense of what the negotiable items would be. So,
that's the decision to be made.
Lehman! So, the franchise will be on the ballot in November of2005. The issue is do we
allow, allow... will Mid-American' s present expired franchise agreement be on
the ballot as a franchise, or do we want to negotiate a franchise and have that put
on the ballot.
Elliott/ I prefer the latter.
Vanderhoef/ I want to.
Bailey/ Eleanor, I had a question about something you said. You said something about
the franchise agreement, if we put that on the ballot we would have the "backing
of the City". What did you mean by that?
Dilkes/ Well, the language of the statute is very odd. It switches between proposal and
ordinance. The, Mid-American has the right to request that a franchise proposal
be put on the ballot, and the issue is whether that will be what they propose or
something that they and the City are proposing. Now by statute it will still be
Mid-Am's proposal because they're the ones who have the right to put it on the
ballot, but you know, I think the, what Mid-Am is requesting is that there be a
negotiation take place between the City and Mid-Am, and that a proposal that is
acceptable to both Mid-Am and the City go on the ballot.
Wilbum/ The presumption is that it would still be something in good faith, should it
successfully be passed, voted out by the public, but it could still change because
it's...(several talking at once).
Champion! I wanted to clarify that. It would not be a binding... we would not have to
sign that proposal that they put on the ballot, if it would happen to pass with the
voters.
Lehman! No, but I heard what you heard, and I think it would be very important that if
we negotiate a franchise with Mid-American, which I believe we should, it should
not be perceived as being supported by the City. I think it should be perceived as
an option that voters have. This is the best we can negotiate; this is the franchise
that the City has negotiated. The option would be do you want a municipal
election, or this is the other alternative is the franchise.
Dilkes/ Well, when I say that it has the backing of the City I don't mean that franchise
versus mum-power.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
-~ ....-.....-...- .---.---.-.-...---- - -~--
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 32
Lehman! Okay.
Dilkes/ I'm saying the agreement. I mean, if we're going to participate in the negotiation
of a agreement, of the agreement, the end result of that is to have an agreement
that is acceptable to both the City and Mid-Am. I don't.. .if you choose to do that,
I don't know where you go in a negotiation if you're not trying to get to an end
point.
Lehman! No, no, I understand that.
Vanderhoef/ Well, I think it should be negotiated, and I think the citizens have some
expectation of knowing what that might look like, and certainly would color their
decision one way or the other by what might be negotiated.
Champion! But we're not bound. We're not bound to it.
Vanderhoef/ No, but these at that given point, these are the things that we can agree on.
Champion! Except that I think the minute you negotiate that agreement that's going to go
on the ballot, you're saying to the public that we're backing Mid-America, and
we're not backing the public. I think you are. (several talking at once)
Bailey/ I tend to see it a little bit Connie's way, because that's why I caught that...
Champion! I don't want to be accused ofthat, I mean, I think it's fine that they can put
this on the ballot, and let the people to decide. Do they want us to explore a
municipal utility, or do they want us to stick with Mid-America? But to me if we
negotiate an agreement with them at this point, we're saying to the community
"we've made up our minds".
Wilburn! The other part to that, Connie, is that, and this is what feels awkward about this
in general. I mean, essentially even though it's non-binding to the Council,
it's...the feeling is you'd have to enter into a franchise agreement, and you don't
have to enter a franchise agreement, so it just feels awkward. (several talking at
once)
Vanderhoef} The present agreement, there will be some sort of an agreement there,
whether it's the old one or something that.. ..(several talking at once). A proposal,
right.
Dilkes/ .. . and Mid-Am said their proposal, absent negotiation with the City, will be that
which is contained within the expired franchise agreement.
Vanderhoef} So even if we negotiated, this still would be a proposal?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
, -- ..-~ _____'_..~,.__..._.M_ .--.--------~..-
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 33
Dilkes! I don't know. If you're going to pass an ordinance, then there's no presumably.
If you passed an ordinance that, because the statute doesn't require an election,
remember, and so you can pass a franchise ordinance, and there is no need for an
election, and that franchise ordinance will become like any other ordinance.
Vanderhoef! And we've chosen not to do that, right? So we would have either the old
proposal or a new proposal.
Bailey! And so we would be negotiating a fÌanchise, a fÌanchise proposal, as an example
to the citizens of what we could get. So why not hold the old franchise as an
example of what we could get? I don't know why we need a newly negotiated
example.
Lehman! Is the old fÌanchise indicative of what we could negotiate?
Dilkes! That's why we tried to give you a sense of what those items are, and that's what's
in the memo here, and I also tried to highlight those things that already are
addressed in the recently expired franchise, and what might be newer issues that
might be negotiated. So I thought it was important for you to have that
infonnation in order to make this decision.
Lehman! Well, I personally feel that it would be appropriate to have a negotiated
franchise as an option on the ballot.
Bailey! A newly negotiated.
Lehman! Yeah.
O'Donnell! I do too.
Bailey! I think it just serves as an example of what a negotiated franchise agreement, and
we've got one, so I don't see why we need...
Lehmani Well, the expired one happens to be a fifteen year tenn. I think there are a lot of
folks who mayor may not want a fÌanchise, but who are extremely opposed to a
fÌanchise of that length. That one is on the ballot, and suddenly folks say "no, no,
no; no way are we going to vote for a franchise; that's 15 years and we only
wanted 8... ", or whatever. So I think that the negotiated franchise would be a
better option to put on the ballot.
V anderhoetì I do too.
Champion! Better for whom?
Lehmani Better for the public, I think...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
.----- -- ----- .-------.---.."--- ----------
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 34
Champion! You think so? I think it will confuse them.
Lehmani Why?
Champion! Well, I sincerely think that if we negotiate with Mid-America at this point, a
rranchise agreement, the general public who doesn't always watch us and doesn't
read the papers, and probably doesn't care a lot (laughter and several talking at
once) will absolutely think we are endorsing that, and I think that's misleading.
Whether we as individuals are endorsing it or not. I think we say as a council that
we're endorsing this.
Elliott/ As a matter of fact, the whole referendum topic is misleading. So I just, I guess
either way could be a little misleading, but I think if we're going to have an
example, it should be an example of what the City feels is the best agreement it
could reach, and here is an example of the proposed franchise agreement.
Lehmani It would also give the muni folks an opportunity to have a target to shoot at, and
it would probably also give the folks who support Mid-American, propaganda to
work with. Propaganda, it's a real good time of the year to say that. (laughter)
Wilburn! Excuse me, Eleanor, what, how would this be, I presume a copy ofit would be
available at the ballot, but would it read "here is a proposal rrom Mid-American
Energy" or how would that read, or .. .
Dilkes/ Well, the language ofthe proposal has to be on the ballot. That's another weird
part of the ordinance, it refers to the language of the ordinance, but it clearly
allows a proposal to be placed on the ballot. So I think ultimately the call as to
what goes on the ballot is Mid-Am's, in tenns of what their proposal is.
Lehmani Wait, wait a minute. Ifwe negotiate something with Mid-Am, it's their choice
whether or not they want to put it on the ballot?
Dilkes/ By statute, it is Mid-American that has the right to request a franchise proposal
that they make go on the ballot.
Lehmani So it would not make any difference if we negotiated one ifthey choose not to
put it on the ballot.
Dilkes/ I think that's right.
Bailey! And it's not binding so it could just be an example on the ballot, and it wouldn't
matter. It could look great and then it's not binding, so it doesn't make a
di fference.
Lehman! On the other hand, it would be political disaster for them not to put the one on
that we negotiated. (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
., --. -_.~-- - --- _._-_._--_......_~-_._-
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 35
O'Donnell! No, you know, you're negotiating this thing together so you would think,
Ernie, that there's a meeting of the minds.
Lehman! I would think there are.
Elliott/ I wonder how many people will read what's on the ballot?
Champion! Not very many.
Elliott/ I bet if we put the proposal on there, I bet there isn't one in a hundred that's going
to read that, but I, it has to be that way so...
Bailey/ Well we don't put the proposal on, right? Mid-American does.
Lehman! All right. Do we want a negotiated franchise on the ballot, or do we want one
that is, I would (can't hear)...
Atkins/ Ernie, before you take a nose count, I'm assuming Dale and I will be involved in
some kind of negotiation if that's the way it goes. I'm not so sure I know how to
ask this question without sounding insulting (laughter).
Lehman! No, we haven't had any insult for about seven months, Steve. (laughter) Go
ahead.
Atkins/ You direct us to negotiate a franchise agreement and of course there's going to be
divided opinion, and you negotiate a franchise agreement that makes the muni
people look good, or it makes the muni people look bad. 1..I mean, if you want to
give me direction to negotiate an agreement between Mid-Am and the City, I
think we can do that but the ultimate outcome is. . .
Lehman! Isn't the ultimate outcome of a franchise agreement the best arrangement that
we can get with the utility company for the people of Iowa City? Isn't that the
idea of negotiating a franchise agreement?
Atkins/ Yeah, that's the higher calling (several talking at once), because I think
ultimately the language of an agreement could do that.
Dilkes/ But I think that the problem that Steve presents is a real one, because nonnally,
but for the muni electric situation, we would, if there was direction to negotiate a
franchise, we would be (TAPE ENDS) to get what staff would recommend to be
the best result for the City, and that would have an end result. It would be passed
by ordinance. That's not going to happen here because you all don't want to bind
yourselves before the elections in November of2005. So I do think that that is a
very different negotiating situation than one nonnally finds themselves in. And in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 36
fact, I don't really know what action, if any, the City Council would take to
endorse that proposal.
Champion! It wouldn't.
Dilkes/ You wouldn't because it will continue to be a Mid-Am proposal, and not an
ordinance.
Bailey/ So Mid-Am could place a proposal on the ballot that would be their best offer to
us, so we wouldn't necessarily have to enter into, I mean, even discussion about.
They would give it their best shot basically to position themselves. (several
talking at once) But they don't have to, right? They could put anything they want
to on the ballot.
Dilkes/ They could make a proposal that doesn't require the City's involvement, yes.
(several talking at once, laughter)
Bailey/ But Ijust think that they can put something on the ballot. They don't need our
negotiating help. I mean they can put an example on there.
Atkins/ If you gave us direction, could the scenario develop that they put a proposal on
the ballot and you pass an ordinance on something else.
Dilkes/ Yes, because the proposal.. .you are not bound. When Mid-Am puts a proposal
on the ballot, let's say, if Mid-Am puts a proposal on the ballot, you may proceed
in accordance with that proposal, but you're not required.
Bailey/ And once we enter into a situation that's a more binding negotiation, that original
proposal wouldn't necessarily hold. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily bring forth
that.
Wilburn! Well and adding to that, we could end up with two items that are not congruent
on the same election. (several talking at once) So, why.. .yeah...
Bailey/ .. .muddy more.
Elliott! I wish we were not being forced to do this, but if we do, I see no conflict of
interest or no problem with simply the appropriate person representing the City
doing the best job he or she can do to develop a proposed franchise agreement to
be put on the ballot. I don't think that necessarily means the Council favors it or
not, but we're saying to the voter, in essence, you have two choices. Would you
like a municipally operated utility...
Champion! That's not the question from the...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
-- --........-....-- _...__._._-~._-~---_._--_..-
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 37
Elliott! No, they will have that question. Would you prefer a municipally operated utility,
or would you prefer, do you want to vote for this?
Champion! That is not the question.
Bailey/ But you're setting up a false question, Bob.
Elliott/ Yes it is, is it not? (several talking at once)
Champion! The question is should we explore?
Lehman! Authorizes the Council to proceed with a municipal. . .
Elliott! Yeah, they're saying do you prefer.
Bailey/ But it does set up a false question, because you're asking if you're supporting of
this proposal, or if you're supporting the municipal electric. Well I support this
proposal, it looks great. But that proposal isn't binding. It's not necessarily the
proposal you get, and staffs time has just been spent getting the best possible
proposal but nobody is bound by it.
Elliott! As I said, I wish we were not being forced to do this.
Bailey/ Well I say let Mid-American put on their best proposal, don't involved staff time,
and when, if and when, it's time to negotiate a franchise, let's go in and get the
best deal for the City.
Elliott/ It's confusing. It's...
Vanderhoef/ Just like the electric muni is not binding, so.. ..
Bailey/ .. .but there's no proposal associated. (several talking at once)
Vanderhoef/... their proposal is to certainly go forward with it.
Bailey/ Right, but why spend staff time negotiating something that mayor may not
happen, when after the fact staff can negotiate the best deal for the City.
Champion! I think it's a waste of staff time to negotiate a contract that's not bound to...
Lehman! What's involved with negotiating a franchise, time-wise?
Atkins/ Oh, Ernie. They'll be unreasonable, of course (laughter) We'll have it done in
twenty minutes. (laughter) Ernie, and as you know I'm kidding. There's just no
way to predict that. They're going to have certain things...1 mean, Dale is an
experienced collective bargainer and he knows when somebody digs their feels in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
_.0- ~. ....~ ------..'._---..,,_. -._.~--.'-..--'------.--..-.-.-.-----'------.-.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 38
and how far you can.. . and we would do the same, and they would expect the
same fTom us, in trying to negotiate the best.
Dilkes! And I think you should not assume that this is something that's going to go to
staff and come back to you in a package. I mean, issues such as fTanchise fees,
for instance, are you know.. .some will think good, some will think bad. I don't
know even what the City's position will be on those, but.. .so, we're going to have
to have that dialogue as we go through this.
Champion! And we don't want it to go back to us. We don't want to endorse something
we haven't dealt with. I think we should stay out of it. Let them put on the ballot
what they want. Let the voters vote.
Bailey! I agree.
Lehman! The only other thing I think about, and I'm...is there any reason to think that
our negotiating position with Mid-American is a better position prior to the vote
in November of2005? It was...I think there is. Ifthe public were to vote down a
muni, that we're in a much weaker bargaining position than we would be before
the election.
Champion! You don't have to have a fTanchise period. They would like to have one.
They want a commitment.. . (several talking at once)
Bailey! They want a franchise that will be in a fine bargaining position, ifthey want a
fTanchise, right? (several talking at once)
Lehman! All right, what are we going to do? Are we going to negotiate a franchise, or
are we going to let them propose the one that's in existence?
Bailey! Or whatever they choose.
Elliott! Can we punt on third down? (laughter)
Lehman! You know, you don't even have to center the ball, which is kind of what I'm
hearing. (laughter)
O'Donnelll I think we should take part in negotiating.
Elliott! I do too, but I would not be devastated if we did it the other way. I would favor a
negotiated, proposed franchise agreement.
Vanderhoef! I think I would too, and I guess I would have an expectation that staff come
back to us ifthere aren't some new proposals and new possibilities in the contract,
and if it's broken down at that point, then I would just say put the old one on it,
but I'd like to try some honest negotiation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. - "' -- -.---.....----.--.-.- -'-
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 39
Lehman! I think I hear something that I don't think we can do. I think maybe I heard you
say we negotiate one and if we don't like it, we tell them to put the old one on. I
don't think.. .we either negotiate one and put it on, or we let them put the old one
on. I don't think. ..I'd love to do what you're thinking about...
Vanderhoe£l Well, that's the way negotiations go anyway.
Lehman! They are, except that ifthe Council says "we like this one" then suddenly we're
endorsing it, and I'm not sure that's...
Bailey/ Isn't it their language on?
Dilkes/ The proposal will be from Mid-American, whether that is a proposal they believe
has your endorsement, or not, is an issue yet to be resolved.
Bailey/ So we could negotiate and they might not put it on.
Vanderhoef/ And they would still write what they wanted to write.
Bailey/ Right, so I don't see.. ..ifthere is negotiation to take place, it won't...
Dilkes/ It will not go on the ballot or we will not notify the auditor for some time.
Vanderhoef/ What's the drop-dead date on...
Dilkes/ August of2005.
Vanderhoef/ So there's plenty of time. ...
Atkins/ Ernie, couple more questions. Are negotiations private between Mid-Am and
staff?
Dilkes/ If it's a staff negotiation, yes, because it's not a public...
Atkins/ .. .so there's no.. . okay, just wanted to make sure. That would have a bearing on
it.
Lehmani We have a negotiate. Negotiate, Dee?
Vanderhoef/ Negotiate.
Lehmani Negotiate.
Atkins/ Okay, before we get away from it, you're instructing us to meet with Mid-
American, put together a negotiated agreement, franchise agreement...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
-- --.-..---.-...--- -+--'---"-
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 40
Lehman! Which they mayor may not put on the ballot.
Atkins/ Okay, and that's, I'm not even going to worry about that. That's sort of
irrelevant to the discussion now. You want a negotiated agreement.
Lehman! Right.
Atkins/ Yeah, well, whatever happens, happens there. We will have to come back to you
with certain policy questions, duration, fees, and things such as that, because I'm
not so sure, yeah, I'm going to need you to endorse certain positions.
Dilkes/ Remember the rranchise fee is a pass, it's a...I don't think that's something that
the staff is going to be able to make a decision on.
Champion! Do you want to put something on the ballot that you've endorsed publicly?
Because that's what you're going to be doing.
Lehman! No, I don't think...! hear what you're saying but I think that if you come back to
us, and we tell you how long we want the franchise to be for, and we tell you
whether ifthere's a fee or not and how much the fee is going to be, then basically
when we pass all those things we have endorsed the franchise.
Elliott! Mr. Mayor, could we have until the next meeting to decide this?
O'Donnell/ I think that's a good idea.
Elliott! I think that, for instance, Regenia and Connie have raised some very legitimate
concerns. I'm not sure that I agree with them yet...
Champion! That's the nicest thing you've said to me. (laughter)
Bailey/ I'm falling off my chair. (laughter)
Elliott! I would really like some time to think about it, and talk with some folks.
Lehman! All right. Put it on the agenda for the next work session.
Atkins/ Okay, so right now.. ..okay.
Lehmani It's in limbo.
O'Donnell! Another decision made, huh?
Elliott/ Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow. (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
- - ---, ....."....._..~---
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 41
Lehmani You know, if it were as simple as this....
O'Donnell! I don't think you're giving the voters enough credit, Ernie. You're saying
they're going to be lead in like sheep and just vote, and not read what's on the
ballot? I think that is, I don't think that's right.
Champion! Would you understand a franchise agreement if you were a common voter
like me? I've never read a franchise agreement, and you know what, I don't want
to start right now.
O'DonnelV Well I'm.. ..they're not that complicated, Connie, you just look at several
items on there.
Elliott! We can talk about these over the next couple a weeks.
Lehman! Right, it'll be on the next work session.
COUNCIL TIME
O'Donnell! Coming down Dubuque Street - we're developing some real large holes in
there and big pieces of concrete out in the street.
Atkins! Where now?
O'Donnell! Coming south on Dubuque Street.
Atkins! Okay.
O'Donnell! You'll see them. They're right at intersections, but they're fairly large holes
and pieces of concrete coming out of them. But I've noticed those the last two
days. Who is taking the posters and staples off of the poles?
Atkins! We have a sort of little internal program where we have someone who is doing
some community service that did it for us. We had one of our own folks on a
scheduled basis for once a week, get in the truck, here's your route; ifit's on a
utility pole, take it off. And that's what we're doing. And quite frankly, they
grow right behind you.
O'Donnell! There's thousands out there.
Atkins! Weare doing it, Mike.
Lehman! You know what, Mike, ban poles. That'll do it.
O'Donnell! Do you not get the calls about entrances to Iowa City? I mean, how it kind
of...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
August 2, 2004 Council Work Session Page 42
Champion! Well if they use metal poles.. ...oh that reminded me of something. I don't
know, because it's litter. What are we talking about alleys?
Atkins! It's on our things to do. I've not forgotten about it. I know you want it.
Vanderhoef! Okay. I would like an update on the parking impact fee for the near south
side and where we are. We had a written report but there's some long-range kinds
of questions that I'd like to discuss.
Atkins! Sure. That's pretty simple to put together. If the rest of the Council is okay with
that, it's pretty straightforward stuff.
Vanderhoef! We got a memo of where we are but I think we need to have some long-
range plan and talk with this Council about what we do when and what we do
with our property. There's a lot of things down there. I've got a list of about
seven questions.
Elliott! I'd be interested in knowing how other Councilors feel. This summer has been
kind of mixed up as far as no regular meetings, bunch of special meetings. I
would really like the Council to really look at first and third Mondays and
Tuesdays all year. We're going to miss a few meetings, but it helps in planning
ahead if! can know that next December or next April, it's going to be the first and
third Monday and Tuesday.
Karr! Just to clarify, it's never the first and third Monday and Tuesday. Never can be the
first and third Monday and Tuesday. It's always the first and third Tuesday,
because the Monday may be the end of the month. Ifit's the first Monday,
yeah...
Elliott! You know I had a pretty good idea (laughter) and you're confusing me with the
facts. (several talking at once)
Karr! It's the first and third Tuesday.
Elliott! Whatever, I would like to have it laid out so I can count on it.
O'DonnelV I think we do that, Bob, because it gives staff a break. They don't have to
come in and listen to us until 8:30 pm.
Elliott! Shot down again. (several talking at once)
Lehmani I think there's a real advantage having meetings occur on the date they're
supposed to occur, not just from our convenience, but the public's expectation
that we meet on the first and third Tuesday. I know you're right and there'll be an
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
~- ~-_..~--_........_-~---_... --.
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 43
occasion where all seven of us can't be here, and for...I know it is, but I'm not
sure.
Vanderhoef! It has to do with holidays in the second half of the year. First and third
works very good from the first of the year up until Memorial Day maybe gets into
it, but usually it is at 4th of July, and then we run into Mondays, Tuesdays that are
a problem, and then we also try to take a break.
Elliott! I think that if we can't do it on Monday, then we meet at 4:00 or 5:00 on Tuesday
for the work session. Well anyway, think about it.
Dilkes! I want to be clear though, except for holidays, the changes are not staff initiated.
Elliott! No, no, no.
Dilkes! They come from the Council.
Elliott! The goofs do it.
Lehmani Bob, may I suggest the next time we go to schedule a meeting let's just remind
ourselves. . .
Bailey! It smoothes out the work load too. This was a twenty page agenda.
O'Donnelll Well then you can't...ifsomebody is gone and would like to participate in a
vote, then they have to understand that the meeting is scheduled and your vote is
not going to count that way.
Bailey! But they can call in. (several talking at once)
Lehmani We did that once. Somebody called us from Muscatine and did that.
Dilkes! You can arrange to do that. If it's not a quorum (can't hear)...
Karr! We did it once with a singular item. We've never done a full meeting, but yes, it's
possible.
Elliott! I didn't mean a big discussion. (laughter)
Lehmani All right, Bob, you had mentioned one time, at the last meeting I think, that you
would like to discuss under, whatever it is on the agenda, is budget priorities. If
we're going to discuss budget priorities, it has to be within the next two meetings
because, well it does. You're already...
Atkins! Yes, it does. I am preparing for you as we speak, I was hoping to do it at the next
meeting. I was going to give you a summary of all the budget reductions and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofIowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
. -~..- ---,.-.--.,.---., ~.~._---
August 2, 2004 Council Wark Session Page 44
implications and get you all caught up on that, and then at the same time do some
cursory projections, in effect to allow you the opportunity to say "okay here's
some of the things I want you to consider in budget assembly for next year".
Lehmani The next work session? Okay, then would it be appropriate for the work session
after that for Council ifthey want to?
Atkins! That's fine.
Lehmani All right. Is that all right with Council? (several agreements heard) First
meeting in September.
Elliott! And I think we need some time for that too. I don't think that's a ten minute
discussion.
Lehmani Okay, anything else, guys? Ladies? Good night. See you tomorrow.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of Iowa City Council work session
August 2, 2004.
- .- .''''.-''-.'.-- .___.._u 0' "_._~. ....._."'_....__.~_ _._.~___,.____.__