Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-07 Transcription#1a page 1 ITEM NO. la SPECIAL PROCLAMATION - Storm Clean-up Lehman/Tonight we're going to do things just a little bit different than we normally do. It'll be a little bit unorthodox, but then we're a little bit of an unorthodox Council, and a bit of an unorthodox city. Now, I have written a couple of things down, because what I want to say, I think, is very important, and I don't really want to miss any of it. We of the Council are very proud of our community and the many, many things that we do for the people of this town. We have huge projects, public works, and so on, and we do most, I think, we do more than most communities of our size. We do need a little work with the PA system. In fact, we sometimes use sight of how fragile we really are. The storm of last Monday is a stark reminder of the realities of Mother Nature. Almost five years ago, to the day, we started to experience the dreadful floods of '93 and the weeks of stress and clean-up following that natural disaster. Today, much like '93, we have seen our people pitch in and help each other, and our city employees rise to the occasion and help all of us. Just as in '93, these devoted employees have gone the extra mile in trying to bring back some normalcy to our daily lives. A great deal of work has been done and there is much left to do. To our citizens, we say thanks for your patience and your understanding and your willingness to help each other. I firmly believe that something good comes out of every bad experience. Today, many of us know our neighbors better and have a greater appreciation for each other. To our critics, we are doing our best and will make every effort to bring life in Iowa City back to normal as quickly as we can. This is going to take some time. We ask for your continued patience and understanding. It is important that we all realize the great cost of this storm, both in money and in natural resources. We lost many, many trees in this community. Many of our routine tasks will not be done in a timely manner, so that we can concentrate on the clean-up. During the year when we have already lost much of the construction season to weather, this will represent a significant setback, affecting many of our projects. Few will be done on time, and many may stretch into the next construction season. Please be understanding. To all of us, let this be a time of renewed appreciation for our community spirit and the efforts of our friends and neighbors. You know, I didn't know for a long time where Mayor's Proclamations came from. And I found out that most of them are requests from groups who certainly deserve recognition, and they're read with the approval of the Mayor. Few, if any, to my knowledge have been instigated by the Office of the Mayor. However, tonight I have a proclamation which gives me the greatest pleasure to read, both on my own behalf, on behalf of the entire Council, and this proclamation is signed by the Mayor, but it's also signed by every person on the Council. And I think this will be the first proclamation that has ever been signed by the entire Council. "Whereas on Monday, June 9th, 1998, June 291h, 1998, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #1a page 2 strong winds estimated at 60 to 80 miles per hour and heavy rain pelted Iowa City, and whereas the residents of Iowa City witnessed the devastation of personal property, the threat to water and sewer utilities, and the loss of electricity, and whereas the giving of oneself and service to another benefits the giver and the receiver, and whereas City employees mobilized to help others affected by the storm, working often with clean-up awaiting at their own personal residences, and whereas it is the City Council's wish to honor our dedicated City employees who contributed their time and efforts to help Iowa Citians in various ways from locating loved ones, traffic control, insuring water quality, and removal of tree limbs, now therefore, I, Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby acknowledge and thank the hundreds of City employees who helped Iowa Citians to weather the storm." And Steve, I would like you to accept this on behalf of our employees. Steve Atkins/I'I1 see that they all get copies. Lehman/Gotcha, didn't we? Atkins/Yes, you did. You did. Well, thank you. Lehman/One other item before we start the agenda. Steve, I'd like you to kind of bring us all up to date on what has happened, what is happening, and what we can anticipate happening. Atkins/Well, we're all familiar with what happened on the aRemoon of the 291h. And that evening, set in motion, basically a response to clean up a mess. Our goals had been that we were going to clean up this mess, do our best to support our local power company, and do everything we can to return to some degree of normalcy, the level of community activity that we enjoy. So far, it appears, at least those things that we're actively involved with, that the only major casualty is our Fourth of July fireworks. That has now been changed to Sunday, September the 6th. Interestingly enough, it's going to be a Labor Day celebration. Thank you for what you just told the folks, and for the Jaycees. We appreciate their diligence in hanging in there, because they are the sponsor of our fireworks. We have a lot of community activities that folks just simply aren't aware of. There's many large-scale community picnics that are planned this time of the year. We have a major baseball tournament that's going to be played at our Parks and Recreation fields. I encourage our folks that are using our parks, please exercise caution. Our parks are somewhat of a lower priority. We have, in our mind, removed most of the major damage. But we still have not had the time to get up in the trees and do the trimming. There are bound to be loose limbs, and we just This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 # 1 a page 3 encourage you to exercise caution. The clean-up process is proceeding. It is very slow going. And it is backbreaking work. It seems that, and after driving around over the weekend, no sooner do we pick it up at the curb, and it's filling up right behind us. I can assure folks, we will be going through town a second time. We are going to make a few changes in the process of pick-up. Notably, our crews will be spending most of their time doing the smaller brush, and by smaller, I mean the smaller logs, brush, and items. If you see us skip something on your street, don't get excited, we'll be back, but we're coming back with different equipment. Something called a clam, which I can only describe by using my arm. It does this, and puts it in the back of trucks, which we believe will significantly speed the process. It may be several weeks, but I assure you, we'll be there. For our citizens, a couple of reminders. If you can take it to the curb, and it's trees and branch material, we'll get rid of it for you. We ask that you cut it up small as reasonably possible. It simply makes it that much faster for our crews to handle. But we assume, if you can get it to the curb, you were sturdy enough, we'll be sturdy enough to get rid of it for you. I also encourage our citizens, our people are working in the street. Please slow down when you're near them. They're working eleven and twelve hour days. Again, it's very tedious, backbreaking work. They can be distracted very easily. It's really incumbent upon us as drivers to be very cautious operating around these crews. Note, when you stack your debris at the curb, if you have a storm drain inlet, go out and please push it aside. One of them can bung up a neighborhood really, very, very quickly. And if you can just keep an eye on it, that will make it that much easier for us. Do not mix construction debris, sheetrock and nails and other sorts of construction materials, with your branches. We won't pick it up. Legally, our, it must be separate, because it has to go into a compost pile. The construction debris goes into the land fill. Please, do not mix the materials. If you can, take it to the landfill. There's currently no charge at the landfill. If you can get it there, take it out there, that'll get it out of the front of your house just that much faster. When you're stacking the material, please remember the line of sight. I can just take it from experience, we all put the car in reverse, we back it out, we don't look either direction. You're not going to be able to see as well. Please keep that in mind. Particularly residents who live on comer lots. When you stack this up, again, the line of sight for traffic is very important. Also, we've noticed some abuse. People are cleaning out their yards and their gardens. That's not what we intended to do. It's happening. There's really not much we can do about it. Do your best to work with your neighbors. They're the best volunteers that you can get. We ask for patience, as the Mayor mentioned. There's a lot of work that's not going to get done this summer. The grass isn't going to be cut as frequently. Park shelters are going to be a little messier. We have trees down in the park. And unfortunately, the grass in the boulevards is going to die under those trees. But the same people that do all of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #1a page 4 this work are the same people that are out and about picking up the brush. As a report to Council members, the public building damage, fortunately, was minimal. A couple, the scale house at the land fill is now in the landfill. It disappeared during the storm. A number of our public housing units sustained damage. We will be working in repairing those. Parks and playground equipment was mangled. Park shelters, a couple have been smashed. They'll all get replaced, it'll just take some time. Fortunately, we've only had one injury of any consequence to a City employee, and we feel very fortunate about that. Weather alert sirens. We have a system of seventeen sirens. We now have a system of ten. Seven of them are gone. They blew off during the storm. They will be replaced. We have new ones on order. We're not alone on this. They estimate about three months' delivery time on this item before they're replaced. The reservoir, the Corps of Engineers, has also been cooperative. We understand, and I think the news accounts have been very accurate, that the reservoir will reach 7'10" on July 1 lth. The concern, and I think folks need to understand this, is that flash flooding is the problem. If we get a heavy rain into Clear Creek or Rapid Creek, the volume of water coming downstream, that plus what's being released by the reservoir is what causes the flash flooding. The Corps can only do so much. If we do get a heavy rain, please plan on whatever cautionary measures that you have to undertake. As you know, we've sandbagged the water plant. We will have sandbags available. We had a large supply brought in. And unfortunately, folks, it is just something that you're going to have to check daily. The weather report, at least, that which we received this aftemoon, appears reasonably favorable for the next few days. I want to say thanks to a couple folks. Particularly the Mayor's Youth Employment kids. They're doing City Park. Not that our crews aren't out in the streets doing their thing, but the kids really have done a good job out there. And if I can digress just for one minute, Monday night the 291h was sort of a wild evening. And there was a lot of folks, police, fire personnel, were being called in. I was there, also. I checked in at home and found out that I'd had some rather significant damage to trees at my property, a neighbor's tree was also laying on my deck. Well, I don't know how to say this, other than say thank you. I got home at about 11:00 that night, my neighbors were sitting in the next door neighbors yard, sitting around a candle. And my yard had all been cleaned up. Lehman/What were they doing around the candle? Atkins/I think they were knocking down a 24-pack of something or other. I didn't ask. I want to thank my neighbors, and I want to thank my friend sitting over there, and colleague, who helped man a rake to take care of my property. That's it, sir. Lehman/Thanks, Steve. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #1a page 5 Kubby/I had one other thing to add. And that is, I'm observing people putting storm debris along creeks and into the creeks. And that can cause neighborhoods a lot of problems if it creates a blockage so that water can't flow through freely. Atkins/Yes. Kubby/So put it on the curb, not in the creek. Atkins/Yes. Lehman/One other thing before we get to the calendar, happy birthday, Mike. Today's the day. Is that fight? O'Donnell/No. Lehman/It is not today? O'Donnell/But tomorrow's my anniversary. My birthday's the 18th, but thank you, anyway. Lehman/I've got some bad ~- but I know that Dee Norton was the 2nd, is that fight? Norton/Yeah, that's fight. Lehman/And Steve Atkins is going to be Sunday, is that fight? Atkins/That's correct. O'Donnell/Good things happen this month. Norton/I stopped counting them, Emie. Lehman/I'm going to have to -- Kubby/Happy birthday to all of you. Champion/You're just lucky that you can still count. Lehman/Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 6 ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Lehman/This is the time for Public Discussion, for items that do not appear on the agenda. Anyone wishing to address Council should step to the podium, sign your name and address and limit you comments to five minutes or less. Bob Elliott/My name is Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover. And Mr. Mayor, I didn't know ahead of time that you were going to say the nice things about the City crew. That's why I'm here. I don't know if it was the City's responsibility to do it. I do know it was in the City's best interest to do it. But I'm here to talk about the manner in which the clean-up was done. Our street, Dover street, had an immense amount of tree damage, and there was a gargantuan pile of branches and limbs in our parking. And I wondered how long it would take to get them off. It was only a matter of a day or so. But the thing that impressed me, I now am unemployed and therefore able to sit home and watch these miraculous things, I watched the crew come up the street with the backhoe and an end-loader and a series of dump trucks. And the fellow with the backhoe, especially, I said to someone else, well, there goes our parking. Well, our parking did not go. He took the backhoe and took pieces of our trees and got them off without even touching the grass in many instances. I was just amazed. I'm amazed and respect people who are very good and skilled at what they do. Those people were good at what they did. They did it well. They did it in a hurry. And, I simply want you folks to tell them thank you. Lehman/Bob, thank you. Vanderhoef/Thank you. Lehman/But, for the public, don't expect yours to be gone tomorrow. We've got a lot to pick up. Bob, you were lucky. Norton/You were lucky, Bob. Lehman/Thank you very much for coming. Elliott/Story of my life. Ceeile Kuenzli/Is the overhead plugged in.'? My name is Cecile Kuenzli. I llve at 705 S. Summit Street. Thornberry/I'm sorry, I didn't get your name. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 7 Kuenzli/Pardon? Thornberry/I didn't hear your name. Kuenzli/Cecile Kuenzli. Thornberry/Okay. Kuenzli/And, could I put something on the overhead? I'm here this evening to follow up on your discussion last night of the large addition to 621 S. Summit, which is located in the Summit Street Historic District. I'm here because I would like to ask some questions. As I listened to your discussion last night, I had a few questions. But first, I guess I want to say how utterly frustrated I and the neighbors who are here and who are not here feel about this matter, about the lack of a defined appeals process for the neighborhood. There's the curious contradiction here that in order for an Historic District to come into being, the entire neighborhood is considered, and all the properties in it, and their relationship to each other. And yet, this decision seems to have been made in a manner that did not, that excluded from input the neighborhood and did not consider the effect that this addition will have on the environment of the neighborhood. This is the proposed addition. Let me explain a little bit. This part right here faces Summit Street. It's the original house. This is the proposed addition which virtually doubles the size of the house. On July 1st, the group of neighbors filed a legal appeal asking you to either direct the Commission to reconsider its vote, or to hold a hearing on it yourself, a public hearing on it, based on the fact that the vote was so close, four to three, and that it's outcome had to have been influenced by some opinion that the Assistant City Attorney gave concerning the applicability of ADA, said that it applied here. It did not apply. And that opinion was given at the very last minute as Commissioners filed in to start their discussion. There was no time for them to ask follow-up questions or interpretive questions at all. And that's pretty, pretty scary when you come into something like that. Last night, in your discussions, the City Attomey advised you not to hear an appeal, because she said, she thought binding financial agreements had already been entered into. And she thought they had been. I guess, my question is, I would ask that she inquire if indeed they have been entered into. We know that the closing is set for August 3rd, and that there are, or recently were some ongoing negotiations concerning finalization of the sale between buyer and seller. So, maybe the purchase has not been finalized yet, and there may still be time to do something on this. I think she would be in a better position to do that than we. Last night, your discussion about the grounds for an appeal centered on whether the Historic Preservation Commission followed This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 8 proper procedures in arriving at its decision. The City Attorney assured you that they had been. We maintain that they were not, proper procedures were not followed. The minutes of the meeting show that the decision was based on the Commission's interpretation of whether the project met the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior. But, there is another set of criteria which were not used, and which should have been used in arriving at this decision. A document which I have here which the Historic Preservation Commission created in 1990, and which City Council adopted in a resolution, Resolution 90-59 on the 17th of April, 1990, by a unanimous vote. This document is called "Procedures and Guidelines for Review of Projects in Historic Districts". Section B states that these guidelines shall be used in determining whether to issue certificates of appropriateness. Well, the Commission didn't use these guidelines. One can argue, therefore, they did not follow proper procedures, and that therefore, grounds for an appeal exist. The unprecedented scale and mass of this project destabilize the neighborhood, destabilize the Historic District. Some will argue that it could be removed in the future. Not likely. What, my question to you is what can we do now, given that procedures weren't followed, and that something seems to have gone very wrong at that Historic Preservation Commission meeting? Lehman/Eleanor, would you please address that for us? Obviously these are legal questions that I'm not sure Council is qualified to answer. Eleanor Dilkes/Number one, with respect to the appeal to the City Council. My opinion, with respect to that appeal, is not that it is not appropriate because there is a binding purchase agreement, but rather, because the ordinance does not provide for an appeal to the Council other than by an aggrieved applicant. And therefore, you would not have jurisdiction to hear that appeal. The issue of the purchase agreement and whether there's been reliance by the applicant on the issuance of this Certificate of Appropriateness deal is an issue that goes, I think to whether there could be reconsideration by the Historic Preservation Commission of its decision. It's my understanding that there is some thought, I believe they meet on Thursday, and that there has been some indication that there will be discussion there about whether they will reconsider that decision. Our advice to them will be that if there has been reliance by the applicant on the issuance of the Certificate to that applicant's detriment, and I don't believe that includes just a closing, but rather would be a binding purchase agreement, perhaps a contingency that has been released as a result of the issuance of the Certificate, that that reconsideration would not be appropriate. Kuenzli/As far as the inappropriateness of an appeal from the neighborhood, there is, I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 9 think, some suggestion, I think this is from the Municipal Code, Chapter 4, Article C, "Historic Preservation Regulations", Item E, states that under appeal to the City Council, any applicant aggrieved by any decision of the Commission may appeal the action to City Council. I'm excerpting here. City Council shall, within reasonable time, hold a public hearing on the appeal, give the public notice as required by State law, as well as provide written notice to the applicant and to the appellant if different from the applicant, and decide the appeal within a reasonable time. It seems to me that that section suggests that the appellant may be someone other than the applicant. And that, I think, is something that could be followed up on. Dilkes/Mr. Mayor, I'm aware of the provision that Ms. Kuenzli is quoting. I believe that does lead to some ambiguity. However, my interpretation remains the same, and I think that's buttressed by the provision in the State Code that talks about an appeal to the City Council by a party aggrieved as opposed to a person aggrieved. I don't want to et into a debate about the legal issues, but my opinion is as I've expressed. Lehman/You did indicate that the Commission will meet again on Thursday. And at that time -- Dilkes/As I understand it, yes. Lehman/Based on what may or may not have happened since their last meeting, they could, ifthere's no reliance on their decision, discuss this again. And I think you brought up a point that Council will be addressing. I don't know that any of us, I certainly was tinaware of the fact that the neighborhood had no recourse whatsoever. The applicant obviously does in the ordinance. And I think that's something that we as a Council are going to have to discuss and come to a conclusion. At this point, -- Kuenzli/I appreciate that. But once this thing is built, the damage is done. I mean, it may have stopped something in the future, but I think this deals a blow to historic preservation in future historic districts coming into being. And it does destabilize the neighborhood. Kubby/At Thursday's meeting, its seems that we should double-check the issue of whether proper procedure was followed, in terms of that section of the Historic Preservation Resolution. Dilkes/Yes. It's my understanding that the Historic Preservation Commission was not aware of the procedures and guidelines that Ms. Kuenzli is referring to. I, I'm not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 10 sure how that has happened, whether it's been a, it's not something that got passed down to the staff that's handling it. I've looked at those procedures and guidelines, and I don't see that, with respect to the portion on how they will, there is a section in there about conducting how they will, what information they'll take in, and how they'll deal with the Certificate, application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. I don't believe that there was not substantial compliance with that particular procedure. It has, I have not been, I have asked of one person who's been in to see me, whether they believe there to be a violation of some specific item in those procedures. And that's not been brought to my attention that that's the case. I, but I did express regret when those were brought to my attention, that somehow those procedures were not available to the Commission. George Lance/I'm George Lance, 609 S. Summit. I live immediately to the north of the 621 project. I'd like to just address two issues briefly, and there's a certain amount of overlap on some of the things that we're saying, of course. But, the first issue has to do with procedure, and the second one has to do with the issue of appeal. I think it's been already sort of indicated that the Commission, at their meeting, received two documents at the beginning of the meeting. And I've been told that they had not seen either of them before. So, there's certainly a question of how much you can scan, discuss, or absorb documents that have been given at that point. The first document was from the applicant, and incidentally, neither of these documents was provided to the public so them was no opportunity to address any of the issues that were raised there. This document contained a letter with a couple of attachments, and I just wanted to point out that the attachment that I'm referring to here listed ten objections of items that had been discussed at a previous meeting, with basically a statement that they should not be considered appropriate for discussion in any of the meetings in the following. There was a short discussion of each one of them, and then in capital letters, a fact and a statement following that that presumed to state a fact relative to that. One of those items I have no objection to. The majority I felt, were highly problematical. One of them was clearly, I would say, misleading. And one of them is clearly false. So there's a lot of information that was presented to the Commission at that point with no opportunity to clarify by anybody. And I believe some of it, at least, is demonstrably false. The tone of the document appeared to dictate to the Commission how that meeting should be handled, in terms of what should or should not be allowed, and what the Chairman of the Commission should do if such a procedure should be attempted to be carded out in any manner. So basically, what I want to emphasize here, that there was no ability of anybody to address any of the issues here. And the document was made available later, when it was requested. There was a second document that I'm told was from the City Attorney's office, that presumably dealt with issues of the appropriateness of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 11 ADA or the applicability of the ADA requirements, or other legislation relating to disabled persons. I was denied access to that document when I asked for it after the meeting, on the basis that it was confidential information having to do with Client-Attorney privilege. I don't know the legal implications of this. All I know is it seemed rather strange to me that a public commission receiving a, what amounts to a clarification of policy, presumably, or law, from the City Attorney, should be held from the public. It leads one to wonder what is in that document that might be that sensitive. In any event, again, this information was not available to us then, nor was it made available later. Second, relative to the denial of the right to appeal, again, I'm not a lawyer, of course, and I have some question about what can be done legally, what cannot be done legally. But let me just indicate how this appears to me as an individual. In the event that some property is to be identified as a Historic Property, a Historic Site of some kind, whoever owns that property is asked to give up certain rights and prerogatives. And in particular, you cannot add to the property in the same sense that you would be able to if it was under the jurisdiction of just the zoning ordinances. Furthermore, if you do want to make an addition, you have to apply to the Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission and get their approval for it. And this is okay. And in return for giving up those rights, you are accorded the option of appealing any decision that is negative to your wishes. So, this seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If we now consider the case of an Historic District, all of the residents and owners in that district give up the same rights and privileges, but we are told that they're afforded none of the protection under the law, that there's no appeal possible, and it seems to me, as far as I can tell, that that denial of appeal is based on the fact that there's a specific procedure set up for the applicant to appeal, but three's nothing said about the appeal of someone else. I think it's important to note that there is not a denial of that appeal in those documents. There's just no mention of it. And it seems to me, in a common sense point of view, that what's happened is that in probably 99% of all of the cases that you might find, the appeal is going to come from the applicant. They're going to be the aggrieved party, probably in the vast majority of the cases. On the other hand, if in fact whoever generated this document had given serious consideration to this other issue, that is, the issue of the other residents of the historic district, and had come to the conclusion that they should not be allowed to appeal, then surely that would have been included as a specific statement in that. So, it seems to me that what we're dealing with is an error of omission. Certainly not commission. And I, as a lay person, cannot understand how such an interpretation could be supported in a court of law. I simply do not understand that. I would, again, like to second what Cecile has said, that we would like to see the Council take whatever steps can be made to reconsider and encourage the Commission to reconsider it, or allow the appeal to go forward, or whatever can be done, and it's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 12 basically on both what we consider to be serious errors in the procedures in the meeting and also in the denial of due process to the property owners whose properties are being affected by all this. Thank you. Lehman/Thankyou. Kubby/It's important to talk about that the process that the Historic Preservation Commission goes through is not a recommendation to Council. If it were, we could, we would have jurisdiction to say we think your decision, here's some direction we want to give you, here are some hints about what we want to see. And we've done that with other boards and commissions. This is a different situation where they make the decision and it's, I don't know if it's legally quasi- judicial, because it's appealed to us, but that's the only way it comes to us is if there's an appeal. And last night, we did direct the Housing, or the Historic Preservation Commission to look at the issue of letting the neighborhood have the same appeal protections that the applicant does. Now again, it doesn't help in this situation, and in terms of the legal advice from our Counsel, we can't change horses in the middle of the stream. There's some due processes for the applicant, and some legal consequences for that as well. So, it'll be every interesting to see what the Historic Preservation Commission decides to do on Thursday, if that is indeed when they meet. David Arkush/I'm David Arkush, and I live at 730 S. Summit. And I would like to add my voice to that of others in the neighborhood. This house that we're talking about is already a large house for the neighborhood. And the proposed addition is almost a doubling in size. The footprint of the addition alone is something like 2,000 square feet. It is just huge. And it is going to create a structure which is totally out of character with the neighborhood. And I, and many other neighbors, are very upset about this. And in as much as there are some problems with procedure which you have already heard about, and I, in particular, am upset about this rumored secret communication from the Counsel to the Commission, which we were not allowed to see, and hence could not rebut, and which we believe may have contained incorrect information about the ADA -- Thornberry/David, I don't know of any communication between the Council and -- Norton/No, no, -- Kubby/He meant Counsel. Lehman/Legal counsel. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 13 Norton/Legal. Arkush/Sorry. In as much as the, in view of these procedural deficiencies, I would urge the Council to direct the Historic Preservation Commission to reconsider this matter. Norton/Eleanor, is that, it does seem to me that the due process, the appropriate procedure question is paramount here, and there must be circumstances in which a commission, for whatever reason, gets tangled somehow, and in good faith ought to rethink things. Does the Council not have the prerogative to ask them to reconsider? Dilkes/I think you can make a request to them to reconsider, but I don't think it has any binding weight. I mean, it's not a direction, but I think you can certainly make a request. Norton/But we could urge them. Dilkes/But I, again, my opinion to them will be that if there has, because there are not specified appeal rights for the neighbors, and let me point out, there is no public hearing requirement as part of this process, in other words there is, although the procedures and guidelines that have been referenced do provide for the solicitation of public input, there is no formal public hearing requirement, and participation by neighbors that way. And I think that buttresses the lack of an appeal right. If those appeal rights for persons other than the applicant are not specified in the ordinance, the applicant does not have notice that they cannot act in reliance on the issuances of a Certificate of Appropriateness. I think that's sort of the due process rights of the applicant that Karen was referring to. So, my opinion to the Commission will be that if there has been reliance by the applicant on that Certificate, and again, I don't just mean a closing on the sale of that house. There are a number of ways in which there could have been reliance. That they are not entitled to reconsider that. Norton/But if that has not happened, then the Commission at least, if two members, or a member of the majority of the prevailing side move to reconsider, they could get into the reconsideration process, assuming that that were possible, that no acts had been committed or completed by the applicant. The Commission would be free to reconsider a motion, where nothing had happened to preclude that. Dilkes/My opinion will be that ifthere's been no detrimental reliance on the issuance of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 14 that Certificate, yes. Lehman/Well, I that vein, are there four Council folks who would like to ask -- Kubby/Yes. Lehman/The Council, or the Commission to reconsider this if in fact there's been no reliance on it. I mean, may I see a show of hands? (Norton, Vanderhoef, Champion, Kubby). O'Donnell/Is that proper, Eleanor? Lehman/I think it is appropriate. Kubby/To request them. We can't direct them, but we can request them. Dilkes/I think you can request them. Lehman/It carries no weight, but I think -- Dilkes/To do it. Champion/Eleanor, what about also asking, and I would like to see the reasons why they issued this certificate? I would really like to see, and what reasoning they used to do that. Norton/Well, they've -- Dilkes/Well again, I think you can make whatever request of them that you choose to. Lehman/I would agree with Connie. I really believe that the reasoning that was used to, if they were to, for example, reconsider and come to the same conclusion, and we've asked this on other occasions, from other recommending bodies, I think that we, I would like to know, what criteria they used for making their recommendation, not just yes or no. Norton/But you understand what that's going to come down to, Ernie, because the guidelines from the Department of the Interior call out different considerations, and it's a matter of how much weight you put on, for example, issues of appearance -- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 15 Lehman/I realize that. Norton/From different properties, issues of appearance from the street, the size and scale question is still in some sense a matter of judgment. So, but we can certainly ask them to clarify the logic. O'Donnell/What kind of recourse would the applicant have? Lehman/Applicant? Dilkes/If there was a reconsideration? O'Donnell/Yes. Dilkes/If the applicant, if there was a reconsideration that went the other way -- Lehman/ He could appeal. Dilkes/I suspect the applicant would sue. Norton/Or could appeal to the Council, fight? Dilkes/Or appeal to the Council, yeah, probably, and then sue. Norton/And then sue. Kubby/Or sue first. Dilkes/I don't know. But I think that, I think that there would have been a violation of the procedures in that case, you know, for all the reasons I've already stated, I think we could have a number of problems. And, if I may just address the issue of the ADA opinion. I have not been made aware of any formal requests for that opinion. And I certainly can, we can take a look at releasing that. I don't think it probably would be a problem. I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about the ADA issues. I think we're on probably pretty solid ground in the opinion that we issued, so, but I haven't had a request for that. Thornberry/Eleanor, what does the ADA, what does the ADA say, specify, recommend, whatever, to private residences? Dilkes/The ADA, the letter of the neighbors states that they've contacted ADA This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 16 compliance people, and their position is that the ADA only applies to public buildings. The analysis, I think, goes much further than that, that stemming from the fact that the Historic Preservation regulations are governmental action, State action, and the ADA prohibits discrimination in governmental programs and services on the basis of disability, and therefore, I believe that there needed to be a balancing of the accessibility issues with the historic preservation issues. And that basically was what was set out in that opinion. Lehman/I think the only question that we have here, really, is whether or not we would request, and it can't really be an official request, but ask the Commission to reconsider, if in fact they can. And for some supportive evidence as to why they made the -o I mean, I, the pros or cons or facts of this are really not up for us to discuss. But whether or not, if they are in fact able to reconsider and choose to do so without any harm to the applicant, fine. But I think that's all we can do at this point. Although I do think this is something we need to address so it doesn't come up in the future. Kubby/And it's, I mean, they're going to need to listen to the City Attomey's Office opinion, and make their decision. Because there's also, from the neighbors' point of view, harm to the neighborhood, versus harm to the applicant. They're going to make that determination, putting all the information together, even if some financial interactions have gone on, how that balance comes down in their mind, and if they want to take those risks. And that's going to be their decision. I mean, and the other thing that I mentioned last night that nobody really bit on was that even though a decision has been made, it wasn't a conversation between the neighbors and the applicant in the formal process. It was the neighborhood talking to the Commission. It was the applicant speaking with the Commission. And a determination was made. And I really think this is a beautiful case to try mediation, so that maybe things can be talked about face to face in a way that can't be done in this formal procedure, where the applicant can get their needs on that property met without having the neighborhood feel that their rights are being infringed upon, or that they feel their neighborhood is in jeopardy. And that I just think, there are wonderful minds living on Summit Street. And the people ~- CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 98-83, SIDE B Kubby/Care about their neighborhood, too. And that they have a lot in common. And so why not request, we can't make people sit down and talk to each other. But we certainly can say we think you should. And give it a go. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 17 Norton/The Commission can do that. Kubby/Right. And that could be a third part of a request to the Commission. Norton/Yes, it could be. Kubby/To ask them to reconsider, to give us an explanation about how they're, what they emphasized in terms of the Interior Department's standards, and to ask them to try to facilitate some mediation. Thornberry/I was under the impression, Karen, that mediation usually comes prior to a decision being made. Champion/We can call it something else. Thornberry/A judge will ask two parties to go, you know, if they will accept mediation, prior to the judge making the decision. Once the judge has made a decision, at least this is in the cases that Eleanor's familiar with in the Courthouse, that once the decision has been made by the judge, there is no mediation afterwards, the judge's order stands. Kubby/Well, that's kind of the box -- Thomberry/And this is, if mediation would have been prior to the Commission voting, perhaps something could have been worked out, perhaps not. But at least they could have been talking. Once the decision has been made, the judge, or the Commission, rules on a certain thing, I don't know if, I don't know if that's the time for mediation. I guess I'm just -- Kubby/I mean, that's maybe the box that we're used to working within. And I'm saying let's broaden, let's push the envelope. It's an idea. Mediation works when two parties have something at stake. And that they're not agreeing on it, and that they want to work it out. That's when mediation is appropriate. I don't care ifit's before the decision or after the decision. O'Donnell/You can request that, Karen, but you can't demand it. Norton/Sure. Kubby/I'm not asking for a demand. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 18 O'Donnell/What we have here is that if the Historic Preservation Commission wishes to review that, they may. I don't believe we can direct them to do that. Norton/Suggest it. Lehman/Karen's not saying that. O'Donnell/I know exactly what you're saying, and -- Kubby/Well, no, you don't, because your language tells me that we're not communicating very well. O'Donnell/Well, we never do. Kubby/What I'm suggesting -- O'Donnell/What I'm telling you is -- Kubby/Just like we cannot direct the Commission to reconsider -- O'Donnell/That's fight. Kubby/Let this be a request. Norton/That's fight. Kubby/And they can, they make the judgment. O'Donnell/That's exactly what I said. Norton/Okay. Kubby/That's not what you said before. O'Donnell/You can request it, Karen, you cannot demand it. Kubby/That's fight, and that's what I said previously. Lehman/If the two parties -- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 19 Kubby/I never said that we should demand it. We can't demand mediation. That's not how mediation works. O'Donnell/Very good. Then we agree on something. Kubby/Yeah. Lehman/Then we don't need mediation for this. O'Donnell/No. Kubby/Listen. Atkins/Ernie? Lehman/Yes? Atkins/Since procedures are in question, my understanding is that Council is requesting the Commission to reconsider, request being the critical word. Kubby/Yes. Lehman/Request is the correct word. Norton/Is that --? Atkins/Because, in a reconsideration, someone on the prevailing side must make the move - - Lehman/Make the move. Atkins/To have the reconsideration. So, one of the four people voting affirmatively, no, negatively, no, affirmatively, must make the motion. If that doesn't happen, then it's over. Right? Lehman/I think that's fight. Dilkes/That's correct. Thornberry/Now again, if this does happen, and there has been something done between the time of the judgment, or the ruling, and the time that they reversed themselves, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 20 again, what's the legal ramifications of that? Dilkes/Well, again, my advice will be that if there has been detrimental reliance, that they should not reconsider. Karen's absolutely right. They can choose to act contrary to that advice. But that would be my legal opinion. Lehman/That's all we can do. Vanderhoef/So, the rest of that question, I think, that maybe you're headed towards, Dean, is that Eleanor is our Legal Counsel. So for us to make a request, open ended -- Thornberry/ Exactly. Vanderhoef/We, in that request, we would be looking at whether we choose to go against legal counsel in that request. ??/Wait, wait, no I'm not -- Dilkes/I'm-- Vanderhoef/That's not what we want to do. Lehman/Eleanor? Vanderhoef/I recognize that. Dilkes/I don't think the request to reconsider, if a reconsideration is appropriate, goes against my advice. I'm just telling you what my advice to the Commission would be. Thomberry/Right. Dilkes/I don't think that you asking, making a request is -- Vanderhoef/Okay. Lehman./I don't believe that a request is -o Vanderhoef/However, I, the question I'm still trying to get at, Ernie, is that if we are requesting the Commission to reopen this, are we asking them to reopen this, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 2 1 whether there already has been some sort of contract made on the purchase of that house? Nortoil/No, no, no. Lehman/No. Vanderhoef/Okay. Then that's what we need to clarify in our request. Norton/We certainly don't want to do it if-- Lehman/ I think that's obvious. And we also are not asking them to change their mind. Vanderhoef/Okay. But I want to be '- Lehman/ To reconsider is just to rethink it. Vanderhoef/But reconsider only if-o Norton/Yeah. Vanderhoef/There hasn't been any '- Norton/ Precisely. Kubby/That's their call. Lehman/That's their call. Thornberry/That's their call. Lehman/Yeah. Vanderhoef/So Council does not want to put that in their request? Thornberry/It doesn't, I don't think it has to be. They can go ahead and -- Vanderhoef/Just so it's clear which way -- Thornberry/ Rethink and re-look at the whole thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 22 Lehman/If they choose to. Thornberry/With the, because I understand whenever they meet, they have legal counsel represented by City. And their legal counsel would then tell the Commission what they can or cannot do, or if they change a vote, the ramifications of that change. Is that correct? Dilkes/That's correct. Kubby/Sure. Lehman/I think we're clear on what we're asking. Vanderhoef/That's-- Donald MacFarlane/Yes, I'm Donald MacFarlane. I live at 620 S. Summit, which is directly opposite the Mercer Mansion. I think there are other things that we can do. I think it's perfectly possible for the neighborhood and the applicant and everybody to agree on a modification to the plan. I think it would be very helpful in that regard, and I think your discussion has made it clear, the applicant themselves should re-look at the plans. We were, during the Historic Commission hearing, we were told various things which we find it rather hard to believe. That is, no part of the Mercer Mansion, as it currently exists, is suitable to be occupied by somebody in a wheelchair. And I don't think that that is true. I think we would welcome these people to our neighborhood. I think it's entirely appropriate to put on a disability-equipped garage and an elevator and a connecting area to the existing house, and to make changes to the house to make it fully occupiable by the applicant. We would love him to do that. We would love to have these folks in our neighborhood. I hope that we can keep this issue out of court, because that's where it looks to be heading, one way or the other. But I think the sense of Council, your thinking will be heard. It'll be heard by the Commission. It'll be heard by the applicant and by the neighborhood. And we'll be delighted to hear from the architect that he's coming in with yet a fourth set of plans which will not be 2, 100 square feet of new footprint, but a mere 1,000 square feet of footprint, and a design that is fully harmonious with our beautiful Historic District. Lehman/Thank you. Ruedi Kuenzli/My name is Ruedi Kuenzli. I live at 705 S. Summit Street. I would like to first say that I would very much welcome talking to the potential buyer, sit down. I have tried to meet with Gary Calhoun when he came down. I missed him This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 23 by 20 minutes. I waited for him for half an hour, and unfortunately, I didn't think that he would come. We have mutual friends in this town, and I've talked to these mutual friends. I'm very much aware of some of his needs. And I know quite a bit about family history. Again, I would agree with what Donald said. We would very much like to have them in the Summit Street Historic District as neighbors. And as people with whom we constantly talk, say hello, it's a neighborhood. I would like to talk about the meeting and again, about this addition. Lehman/Let me interrupt you just a second. There really is nothing we can do, other than what we've just said we can do. R. Kuenzli/There is -- Lehman/The comments you're making, really need to be made at the Commission meeting. These are the things that the people who really have the opportunity to make that decision need to listen to. We can't make that decision for them. We can't, and I think we've indicated, that we feel there should be more thought go into this. And I don't know that we can go any further. R. Kuenzli/Right. Lehman/It's not that we don't care to hear your arguments, but there is nothing we can do. R. Kuenzli/Right. There are two small points. Lehman/Okay, go ahead. R. Kuenzli/That the City Attorney mentioned. And that is one, about public input in the procedures. And when we again go to this document, which is the only document that the City has specific to, as it is entitled "Procedures and Guidelines for Review of Projects in Historic Districts". Now, the Historic Preservation Commission deals with landmarks. It deals with Conservation Districts. It deals with tourism. It deals with establishing maps for walking tours. It deals with plaques. It deals with all kinds of things. This is the only document that we have that addresses "Guidelines for Review of Projects in Historic Districts". This document augments the Secretary of Interior's standards and presents a somewhat different view of historic preservation. Whereas the Secretary of lnterior's standards present historic buildings in isolation, and then see additions in relationship to the structure that it is added to. The notion of a historic district, this changes in relationship to other buildings in the district. The key words in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 24 this document are "how many", "contiguity", these are words which you don't find in the Secretary of Interior's standards. The second point that I would like to make is public input in the process. The City Attorney said that there doesn't need to be public input. The guidelines clearly state Commission Meeting Format "The Commission members will then have the opportunity to question both staff and applicant. Members of the public will be invited to present their views. Persons in support of the application shall be heard first, then persons opposing such application." And so on. There is a clear notion that there is public input. Thank you. Norton/Can I ask one question here? Ruedi, you were on the Commission? R. Kuenzli/Yes, I was on the Commission. Norton/How did it happen that those guidelines didn't surface at the crucial meetings? R. Kuenzli/Well, this is a difficulty, because the City Attorney was asked to verify if the procedures were followed, and it was, of course, difficult for her to verify if the procedures were followed if neither the Chair nor the Commission members nor the staff member were aware of the procedures and the guidelines. Thornberry/Eleanor, I have one question, one last question, actually. I understand that the first two times the Commission voted on this project, they voted unanimously to not approve the expansion of this residence. Is that not correct? Norton/To deny, right? Thornberry/At what time was the third presentation made to the Commission where they voted in favor of it, four to three? Was it at the same meeting that they voted down one set of plans? Norton/Yeah. Thornberry/And then they presented another set of plans at the same meeting? Dilkes/Yes. Thornberry/Is there a provision in that ordinance or whatever that set up the Commission that the plans must be made available two days prior to the meeting? Dilkes/An application is defined as a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 25 Thomberry/Okay. Dilkes/And the ordinance specifically provides that the Commission may grant the request or may modify the request. And it is my, and there are also references in these guidelines as well as in these guidelines, that, about the Commission making every effort to work with the applicant to come up with an acceptable plan. It's my understanding, in talking, we don't normally staff this Commission at, we don't normally go to their meetings, but it's my understanding in talking to Scott Kugler who staffs it, that they often will at a meeting actually work with the plans to come up with something that's -- Thornberry/Massage the plans that were given to come up with something that they could accept. Dilkes/But the thing that I rely on is the ordinance language that allows a modification, an approval that's modified from what's requested. R. Kuenzli/The statements in the guidelines are, concerning changes and so on, if a Commission, after review, this is again from the guidelines that are not, that have gotten lost in that group, seconded by Karen Kubby in 1990 and moved by Ambrisco. If the Commission, after review, determines the application requires major changes or additions, the Commission shall defer the application. It's absolutely clear to the Chair and to everybody who was on the Commission that this thing should have been deferred, and that the third plan that was brought out reluctantly by the architect, should not have been brought out at all. Kubby/The other thing we might want to request is for the City Attorney to review that memo or opinion that was given to the Commission at the beginning of the meting and release it to the public if appropriate. Norton/The, regarding ADA issues? Kubby/Yeah. The people have the ability, and I will, and I don't know, after listening to those guidelines, whether we need to specifically request that if they do choose to reconsider, that there be time for the public to respond to the plan and to the memo and et cetera. Lehman/Eleanor? Dilkes/If I can clarify one more thing? Mr. Kuenzli stated that I had said there was not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 26 room for public input. That is not what I said. In fact, I acknowledged that paragraph that he quoted, and the public input that it refers to. What I said was there was no public heating requirement. And those are two different things. Lehman/We're going to take about one more speaker on this, and then we're going, you know, we have a lot of other business. I think you all know what we can and can't do, and we definitely have sympathize with you and we'll do what we can. Vanderhoef/There's someone else waiting. Thomberry/She was waiting before you came up there. Lehman/Okay, and then we'll take something, another topic. Eleanor Steele/My name is Eleanor Steele. I live at 710 S. Summit Street. And I will make it brief. My major concem throughout all of this has been the process, and I expressed my concerns to various staff members and members of the Commission, and I spoke to a few Councilors. I wonder, when you speak, have communication with the Commission, if the idea of public input was a major concern that I had. I felt that, in a number of ways, we were pushed out of the process, when I felt we should be brought into it. Regardless of what the rules are. And one of the concerns that was brought up very early on was that there is not public notification of these sorts of projects. It had never occurred to me that this is any sort of a problem. Generally, people want to put a porch on the back of their house, or a family room or something that many neighbors would consider appropriate. So, I don't know what can or cannot be done about public notification, the sort that occurs if someone's going to infringe on, I can't get the zoning tem~inology fight, but if they're going to creep over too far in the side yard, that that requires public notification. And I wonder if we might also look at including public notification in this process? That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Lehman/Thank you. Kubby/Thank you for waiting. Latoya Hoskin/Oh, no problem. My name's Latoya Hoskin. I'm at 2100 Broadway. And I just wanted to thank the City. I'm also a member of the Broadway Neighborhood Center Parent Advisory Committee. I just wanted to thank the City on behalf of the Broadway Community for their ongoing support and the efforts they have invested. And more importantly, the realization that safety This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 27 prevention is not only a neighborhood concern, but also a city concern. Because Broadway is a high-density area, there are a lot of challenges in that area. But it also has a sense of community. The Broadway Community would like to continue to work closely with the City in prevention and planning, as far as the vision of the future. I just wanted to point out that safety awareness is not also a police concern, also, but it is also a City concern, and the neighbors, the neighborhood centers, and the City working together can make a major difference in the Broadway Community. Thank you. Kubby/Thank you. Lehman/Let me just make one comment. It's because of people like you that it works. We can't do it without you, and people who care enough about their neighborhoods to help their neighborhoods make it possible for us to help. And we're more than happy to do that. Hoskin/Okay. Thanks a lot. Lehman/Thank you. Thank you, folks. Vanderhoef/Yes, Ernie. Lehman/We're going to take five -- I'm sorry, go ahead. Champion/Maybe we should finish public discussion first. Jim Weston/My name is Jim Weston. I live at 1524 Derwin. I know you said that was the last of the Summit Street discussion, but if I might speak very briefly to that question. Again, my name is Jim Weston. I'm with the Tom Riley law firm here in Iowa City, I represent Judith Calhoun, who is buying the house in question on Summit. Judith, because she did not receive any notice that this topic would be before the City Council last night, was unable to attend, and I was unable to attend. I was wondering if the Council could clarify what was decided last night. Lehman/Nothing. Thornberry/Nothing. Lehman/Any decision you have heard really, there's far more discussion tonight than took place last night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 28 Weston/Okay. But it was decided, my understanding, I guess, was that there was an appeal and it was decided by the Council that an appeal was not appropriate. Is that correct? Lehman/That's not correct. We were informed that that is not an option. Dilkes/There is an actual notice of appeal that has been filed by attorney John Nolan on behalf of the neighbors. It would be my intention, I think my advice has been clear, I think it would be my intention to put a formal resolution on your July 281h agenda to formally dispose of that appeal on the grounds that I've discussed with you. Weston/My second question then, was, to the extent that you can answer it, what exactly is set for Thursday night, then? Because Judith just received notice of that today. And didn't get any great detail? Champion/For Thursday night? Dilkes/There's an Historic Preservation Commission meeting, and it's my understanding that a request that they reconsider their issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness will be on the agenda. Lehman/Which they may do with as they choose. Weston/Okay, thank you. Lehman/Thank you. We're going to take a five minute recess. Kubby/Is there any other? BREAK Lehman/Is there any further public discussion of items that are not on the agenda? Roger Larson/My name's Roger Larson. I have a building that I have been trying to preserve now for over two years. And the City has been encouraging me to destroy the building and build a new one. And I brought them many site plans to try and preserve the building, and they always have different rules and regulations to deny the site plan. And my latest site plan, they've had now for ten weeks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 29 And I know the City opposes it, and I've been promised a letter concerning it. And I haven't received it, as of yesterday anyway. And I would just still remain interested to preserve the building. Lehman/Where's the building? Larson/802 S. Clinton. Kubby/Just south of the tracks? Larson/(Yes). Kubby/It's brown -- Larson/Brown and white. Kubby/Brown wood building. Lehman/I think we would be happy to check into that. You say it's been ten weeks and you've heard, you have had no response? Larson/Well, he told me that he's opposed to it, but he's promised me a letter and I haven't received it as of yesterday. Atkins/H1 check that tomorrow. Larson/At least that's my latest site plan. Like I say, this has been going on for two years. Lehman/Well, we'll see to it that if you're, if we do not approve your site plan, that you get a letter indicating that it's denied and why it's denied. Atkins/Your name, sir, was Roger Larson? Larson/Yes. Atkins/And 802 S. Clinton? Larson/Yes. Atkins/We'll check in the morning. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #3 page 30 Larson/Thank you. Thornberry/You know, Emie, instead of saying that it's denied and why it's denied '- Lehman/ I said if it's denied. Thornberry/If it's denied and why it's denied, I still think that we should work with these people to see what can be done so that it can be approved, if in fact there are things that can be done as opposed to just saying no, and this is why. Say no, but if we did this and this and this and this. You know, maybe. Again, it goes back to'- Norton/ They've been through ten of them. Larson/I agree. And the City has always encouraged me to destroy the building and build new. And they've been able to block it, mainly it was because of the front yard, it's in what was considered the front yard. Thomberry/I'm just saying -o Lehman/We don't know the situation. Thornberry/No, I don't at all. But if there's some way of doing it, you know, maybe there's some bending and whatever, but if it just flat can't be done, then it's -- Larson/Well, I've had a structural engineer involved, and suggested different ways. Thornberry/Okay. Larson/And that's what I presented to them. Thornberry/Thank you. Lehman/You will hear from us. Larson/Thank you. Any other public discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4c page 31 ITEM NO. 4c Public heating on an ordinance changing the zoning designation of approximately 22.2 acres from Public (P) to Public/Intensive Commercial (P/CI- 1) for property located at 1801 S. Riverside Drive. (REZ98-0005) Lehman/(Reads agenda item #4c). And for the public who don't know, this is the northern portion of the Airport, immediately adjacent to what was known as the Wardway Plaza. P.h. is open. P.h. is closed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4d page 32 ITEM NO. 4d An ordinance changing the zoning designation for 6.53 acres from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA- 5) zone for property located at 2727 Rochester Avenue. (REZ98-0006) ( 1 ) Public Hearing Lehman/(Reads agenda item #4d). Can we have a motion? P.h. is open. Marian Karr/Motion to accept correspondence? Thomberry/So moved. Vanderhoef/Second. Lehman/Moved by Thornberry, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? (ayes). Anyone wish to speak to this? Public -- Thornberry/Wait. Lehman/Oh, I'm sorry. You've got to be quick. The hearing's been open for at least fifteen seconds. John Beasley/The quickness left me fifteen years ago. rm a little bit superstitions and I'm on the 13th line here, so rm going to sign in on the 14th. Lehman/What is the penalty for skipping a line? Vanderhoef/John? Lehman/Deferral. Beasley/John Beasley, on behalf of the applicant, HBH Development. Since you've been up there teasing me, I did observe your singing at the Ronald McDonald, the Broadway Review, my daughter and I witnessed that. Free advice to you: don't give up your day jobs. It was nice to see the camaraderie among the group. We're requesting the rezoning as part of a subdivision application. It's 6.53 acres located just south of Rochester Hills subdivision. The, as I understand the Sensitive Ordinance, or the Sensitive Area Ordinance, and I had to turn it a few times to try to understand what it meant, but we are not requesting that you change the underlying zoning of that property. It will remain RS-5. As I understand it, the area that has necessitated the change in zoning with the Overlay is located, a small This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4d page 33 area located in the southeast comer of the 6.53 acres. And I would, the engineer can correct me, but I would say it makes up maybe less than 5% of the total acreage of the area. And it has to do with the sloping issue. I called the Housing Department to have them edify me on what this ordinance meant to them, and it's my understanding is that what it does is it overlays the current zoning and it gives the City the ability to review the plan, if there's going to be any modifications to that sloping area. And it gives a procedure to have the City have an input into that plan. So we would request as part of the subdivision process you approve the rezoning. We also appreciate your consideration of moving this along in an expedited fashion. I know everybody needs a summer vacation, but it would be helpful for HBH Development to move this along as quickly as possible. If you have any questions? Thank you. Kubby/We did talk last night about how fast we would move this along, and that some of us have some hesitation of holding a public hearing and first consideration one day, and then tomorrow, collapsing second and third instead of waiting two weeks. Beasley/Is it tomorrow, Karen, or the July 9th? Kubby/Thursday, okay, there's an extra 18 hours in there. Actually 23 maybe. But I have some hesitations about moving it along that fast. Even though it's not controversial. But we'll discuss that Thursday morning. Beasley/Right. Thank you. Kubby/Just so you know that. Lehman/Thankyou. Beasley/I anticipated that. Thornberry/You can close the public heating. Lehman/Dean says I can close the public heating now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4e page 34 ITEM NO. 4e An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article A, Zoning Title, Purpose and Scope, Section 4, Scope, to allow more than one principal building on a lot for religious institution uses permitted by special exception in RS zones and the RNC-12 zone. (1) Public heating Lehman/(Reads agenda item #4e). This is a p.h. The hearing is open. Bob Michael/I'm Bob Michael, attorney for Regina, and I sent you some earlier correspondence so I won't take up a lot of your time. But we would like you to approve of this amendment which would allow Regina to add a temporary classroom on site and I think the City staff approves this as well as the P/Z Commission. We would also request that you would give it a first consideration this evening, so that we can move this along quickly and allow occupancy of the building prior to the start of school in the fall. Thank you. Karr/Can we have a motion to accept correspondence? Thornberry/Somoved. Norton/Second. Lehman/Moved by Thornberry, seconded by Norton. All in favor? (ayes). Any other discussion? Vanderhoef/I guess I was just going to ask if this is a temporary building, for how long are we talking about temporary building? Michael/The honest answer is, I don't know. I would imagine it'll be there for a period of years, until they decide whether or not to add permanently to the building. I don't have any length of time for you. Vanderhoef/And is there any way that you think that there will be another temporary building request in the near future? Michael/I don't know of any possibility in the near future. I realize, even with this amendment, any request for an additional building would have to come before, as a special exception request to the Board of Adjustments. So each request would get review by the Board of Adjustments. But I don't know of any at this time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4e page 35 Vanderhoef/Okay. Champion/Bob, I'm assuming that you're going to use the building kind of like the School District does, a temporary building is not, it's just a functioning free- standing unit. Michael/Right. It's a prefab modular kind of building that will be put in on a foundation. If it's, if you don't approve of this amendment, the current interpretation of your zoning ordinance is that it has to be permanently attached to the main building at Regina, and that's what we're trying to avoid. Champion/Okay. Michael/At this time. Lehman/And let me remind Council, this is not an ordinance that is being passed for Regina. This is an ordinance that will allow a secondary building on any religious institution by special exception, whether it's temporary or permanent or there's one, two, or three, it makes no real difference, because they all have to be approved by the Board of Adjustments. Michael/That's fight. Lehman/This is enabling legislation to allow this to occur in the future. Michael/That's exactly fight. And it was just some actions that occurred to Regina that brought about this request. Lehman/Right. Champion/Sure. Thornberry/How are the temporary buildings put on City High years ago, mobile home type, they were on wheels, and I took typing in one of those things. Champion/They still use them all over, they're still all over the place. Thornberry/Yeah. Is there a way of doing that now? Lehman/That's government. Are they covered by the same zoning that--? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4e page 36 Atkins/I'd have to ask Eleanor, but I don't think they're covered by -- Michael/ I think City High has different zoning than Regina. Lehman/That's government. Thornberry/I see. Atkins/Regina is under RS-5. Thornberry/Right. Thank you. Lehman/P.h. is closed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4f page37 ITEM NO. 4f An ordinance vacating Second Avenue Court, located between First Avenue and Second Avenue, nodh of Muscatine Avenue. (VAC98-0003) (2) Consider an Ordinance (First consideration) Lehman/Is there a motion? Thornberry/Move adoption of the ordinance. Nodon/Second. Lehman/Moved by Thornberry, seconded by Norton. Discussion? Kubby/Well, there'd been a lot of discussion about issues of pedestrian access, lighting, and other kind of landscaping that the developers have been very, very accommodating about. Although the actual lighting brought in by Walgreen's in portions of the development will be less than one foot-candle, which is what's around Hy-Vee, there will be no recourse for the neighborhood to keep the original lighting or to make sure that the lighting is less than one foot-candle at the podion of the properly that is away from the two aderial streets and toward the residential part of the neighborhood. And I was kind of disappointed that the Council wouldn't go lower than one foot-candle for certain podions of it. That's kind of one small specific reason why I'm going to vote no on this. But I think there's a bigger issue here for me than the lighting, although lighting seems like a small issue, it has impacts every day on people's lives. And I'm, I guess from last night's demonstration, we had our staff come in with a light meter to show us what .8, or 8/10 of a foot-candle looked like by turning down the lights. And it was pretty non-intrusive, the .8. So it's something else that's intrusive about light besides foot-candle. And so I want to maybe explore that on my own, because the science teacher in me wants to know and is curious, and because it affects me personally, the Hy-Vee lights do. So I'm going to, before the lifting performance standards review comes before Council, I want to learn more about the physics of light, I guess. I '1 have to go to my professor friends or something. But the bigger issue for me about vacating this alley for this development to occur is that there are 33 units of rental housing on this property that have passed inspection and are housing 33 households at a level that is not luxury housing by any means. And just at a time when we've received the housing market study that says that we are in a real housing crunch in this community, that in the next couple of years, we need not just 1,000 units of housing, but we need 2,000 units of housing in various configurations, of various categories of multi-family, of ownership, of rental housing, that it seems like poor public policy, in my mind, to vacate an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4f page 38 alley which sets the ball rolling for the wrecker ball to come for 33 units of affordable rental housing along a bus-line, in an established neighborhood, that enjoys their presence. So I'm going to be voting no for that reason. It's not about Walgreen's itself. It's not about the developers not being accommodating to neighborhood requests. They have answered all the questions. But it's a larger public policy issue for me. Understanding that the underlying zoning there is the kind of commercial zoning that allows Walgreen's to come in, we're not changing the zoning. My decision here is whether we should vacate that alley and whether or not that's good public policy by looking at what the tipple-effects of vacating the alley are. And so, I'm not obligated in any way to vote yes to vacating an alley, so I'll vote no. Thomberry/Karen, I appreciate your stand on that. And I understand completely what you're saying. But, they would be able to do this without the vacation of this alley. And we don't need the alley. And all it's doing is being accommodating to them. And I appreciate what you're saying about losing housing, apartment housing. But you said, and the fact that it is not in a high-rent district, what if it were? I don't think that makes any difference, what level of economic station the people that live in those apartments are that makes the difference whether we vacate an alley or not. It's zoned commercial, and there have been willing people to do this project. And all they're asking us to do is vacate this alley, I guess. Kubby/I guess my point is -- Thornberry/But I -- Kubby/It's not the economics of the people, it's about because when new rental housing is being built in this town, it is not affordable, or it is not as affordable as these units are. So that's where the emphasis on that came from my perspective. Thornberry/I understand, I understand. Norton/Maybe we should have upzoned this -- Kubby/I'm sorry? Norton/Maybe we should have upzoned this region then for something, huh? Kubby/It would've been great. Instead of, I voted for rezoning for Hy-Vee. I liked the mobile-home park there. We should have rezoned it for more intense residential there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4f page39 Norton/This one has been commercial for some time, this particular piece. Kubby/Yeah. Norton/So it would have been a long time ago that it was changed to commercial, fight? It would have been a upzoning case, fight? I share your concern about the lighting, and I think we need to figure that out. But if it's consistent with the zoning, I don't see how you can quite change it at this particular point. Kubby/I guess I would love to see a commitment on the part of City Council, maybe through the suggestions we're going to get, and reaction to that housing market study from HCDC to focus on, at a minimum, in a certain timeframe to replace these numbers of affordable units. That are within walking distance of downtown. That is on a bus-line and close to three or four others. Norton/We certainly are under that commitment. Kubby/Well, I don't know that there is. Thomberry/I don't think there is. Kubby/We have to hear from HCDC. Norton/We need to get some more affordable housing. Nobody would disagree with that. Thornberry/Depends on what affordable is. Lehman/Is there any further discussion of affordable housing before we vote on vacation of the alley? Roll call- (yes; Kubby, no). Motion carded. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #4j page 40 ITEM NO. 4j Consider a motion to forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending that a request to rezone 2.0 acres of property from highway commercial (CH) to Planned Commercial (CP2) for property located in Johnson County on the south side of Highway 1 at Landon Avenue, be approved. (CZ98-0029) Lehman/(Reads agenda item #4j). Thornberry/Move adoption to forward that letter to Johnson County. Lehman/Moved by Thomberry. O'Donnell/Second. Lehman/Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? This is in our two-mile limit, which is why we would be forwarding a letter to the Board of Supervisors. All in favor- (ayes). Opposed (none). Motion is carried. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #5 page 41 ITEM NO. 5 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLECTOR WELLS -- LOWER TERMINUS PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE TO BIDDERS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. a. PUBLIC HEARING Lehman/(Reads agenda item #5). This is for the wells that will provide about, I think about 80% of the water for the new water plant. Estimated cost is about $1,800,000. P.h. is open. P.h. is closed. b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING Thornberry/Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman/Moved by Thomberry. Kubby/Second. Lehman/Seconded by Kubby. Kubby/Implement that water plan. Lehman/Yes. This really, I mean, this is not river water, this is flesh water from wells that will be going into our plant after the year 2000. Vanderhoef/Pre-washed through the sand. Norton/River water that's gone through sand, you mean. Vanderhoef/You got it. Thomberry/Same thing. Lehman/Sand water. Any further discussion about the sand water? Roll call- (yes). Motion carried. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #6 page 42 ITEM NO. 6 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 2, ENTITLED "CIVIL PENALTIES FOR MUNICIPAL INFRACTIONS," OF THE CITY CODE TO PROVIDE INCREASED FINES FOR MUNICIPAL INFRACTION VIOLATIONS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman/(Reads agenda item #6). Basically this is increasing the first offense by, I think what, - - CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 98-84, SIDE A Lehman/This is provided the range is allowed by State law, and we are just increasing those minimums which have not been increased for, I think it's been a number of years, but the exact time I'm not sure. Do we have a motion? Norton/So moved. Thomberry/Second. Lehman/Moved by Norton, seconded by Thornberry. Discussion? Kubby/I'm going to vote no on this because I think $100 for the first offense is too much. And I know that Housing and Inspection, our staff says that most of the municipal infractions are housing compliance, safety compliance issues. But I just think $100 is too much for the first one. Lehman/That's correct, Karen. At the same time they indicated to us that most folks were given time, they were informed of those infractions and had an opportunity to correct them before they're cited. Norton/Yeah, that's my feeling, too. They get plenty of notice. O'Donnell/I agree. Lehman/Yes, and I think that making a little more teeth in the ordinance is just good business. Thornberry/Well, the state legislature increased the maximum fines that a city may set for municipal infractions to $500 for the first offense, $750 for subsequent offenses. And I think $100 -- I was under the same impression last night, Karen, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #6 page 43 but after the discussion, I don't see any problem with $100 for the first offense. It's been how many years since this was raised? Eleanor, do you have any idea? Was it like twelve years or something? Lehman/That sounds like a good number. Norton/Not keeping up with inflation. Lehman/Right. Roll call- (yes; Champion, Kubby, no). Motion carried. Thomberry/I'll probably be the first one charged. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #7 page 44 ITEM NO. 7 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14~ CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE B, ENTITLED "PROJECT SPECIFIC TAP-ON FEES," TO CLARIFY THE PLAT PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR THE ADOPTION OF A PROJECT-SPECIFIC TAP-ON FEE AND CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE F, "SCHEDULE OF FEES" TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE NORTHWEST SANITARY SEWER PROJECT. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman/(Reads agenda item #7). Vanderhoeff Move first consideration. Norton/Second. Lehman/Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Norton. This is the first scrivener's error we've had in probably years. Kubby/A long time. Lehman/Yeah. I've missed those. Discussion? Thornberry/I don't know what a scrivener's error is. Champion/I don't either. Dilkes/It's a typo. Thornberry/A goof. Lehman/Dean, when you and I went to school, you weren't typists. Now, in today's age, when we pay them more, we call them scriveners. Thornberry/Okay. Norton/It's when you used a quill pen, and it got stuck. Thornberry/Okay. Thanks very much. Lehman/Any further discussion? Roll call- (yes). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #9 page 45 ITEM NO. 9 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE, PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS. Lehman/(Reads agenda item #9). Now the opening for this bid was on July 2nd. The engineer's estimate was $655,000. I don't know whether to congratulate the engineer, you know, when the engineer's estimate is low, we wonder why it's so low. He's so accurate this time, it's unreal. Maybe the bids are too high. But the recommendation is to accept All Amefican Concrete Inc. of West Liberty with the low bid, and we have an alternative on this. Actually there's a couple, three different ones. Do we have a recommendation from --? Karr/It's right on the second page, at the end of yonr comment on the second page. Right there, bottom paragraph, top, page your holding, bottom paragraph. Lehman/Oh, the options are to do either limestone or concrete planters. Staff is recommending the limestone planters as opposed to concrete. The difference in the bid on $568,000 is approximately $30,000 more for limestone. Kubby/But the project, the low bid is for the extra quality materials, is lower than the engineer's estimate for the project with concrete planters. Lehman/That's right. I knew they screwed up somehow. Kubby/Yeah, those numbers are reversed, obviously. Lehman/Would you care to speak to the limestone versus concrete issue? Rob Winstead/Sure. Originally, BRW, our consultant that designed the project, projected limestone to be more expensive than concrete. And they were right. But through the design process and calling suppliers with more details of the project, they changed that thought to limestone being cheaper than concrete, and then when we opened bids, reality hit, and they were fight the first time. Kubby/Oh, so these numbers are not reversed. Winstead/Yes. So, limestone is more expensive than concrete in the real world. Thornberry/And we did ask them to come back with -- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #9 page 46 Norton/It's a pretty modest difference. I would like to see us going in and do it fight. Thornberry/Well, we did ask them to come back with bids for both. Kubby/Right. Thornberry/And which they did. Lehman/And I think we discussed this very briefly last night. But in this climate, there's in the freezing and thawing, concrete cracks. And I don't care how well it's installed, there are no footings under these planters, and eventually those are going to crack. Limestone is far less likely to crack. So it should be a much more maintenance free material. Thornberry/Well that'll be in layers, won't it? Lehman/Large blocks. Thornberry/Yeah. Winstead/It's large blocks. Thornberry/But at least there's -- Lehman/ Big blocks. Thornberry/Just a big block? Lehman/Big blocks. Champion/Big. And I understand now, if we vote for this, which I'm certainly going to do, because I think it's really exciting to start it going, that we will obligate ourselves to limestone for all the -- Norton/ Right. Champion/Are we going to come back --? Kubby/If we want to be consistent. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #9 page 47 Vanderhoef/That's my question. Lehman/If we want to be consistent. Vanderhoef/What is the additional cost then as we go through the other phases? Lehman/$150,000. It's on page, the first page in the memorandum. Vanderhoef/For all phases? Lehman/For all phases. Vanderhoef/I missed that. Winstead/That's an estimate based on the numbers we have in front of us. Overall, if we stay on the course with the numbers we have before us, we expect that the overall cost for the project may exceed our target by 5% to 15%. But we're optimistic because Phase II will be bid in the prime bidding time, late winter, before construction starts. It'll be bid for a project that's three times as big as this, so we hope for economy of scale. And in reality, I thank the bids we have before us, we still feel they might be a little high. We're fight in the middle of one of our worst construction seasons, and we kind of talked about that earlier on that we're a little bit worried about the bidding climate fight now. Kubby/But we're still below the estimate. Vanderhoef/Well not really. Champion/Well, not really. Vanderhoef/And that was my question here. If we are excluding one kiosk and two posting pillars out of this, then this is quite a bit more. Winstead/The estimate there you're comparing apples to apples. The engineer's estimate that you're comparing to has taken out the kiosk and the posting pillars also. Vanderhoef/Oh, okay, good. Thank you. Lehman/When would be the estimated starting date for this project, and the completion date, barring more monsoons? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #9 page 48 Winstea& July 2 1 st, the day after the sidewalk sale ends downtown. Champion/Right. Winstead/And it would be completed in October. Lehman/Okay. Champion/That's really exciting. I'm really happy to see bids coming back this favorable. Lehman/And if I'm not mistaken, this does not represent major inconveniences as far as vehicular traffic is concerned, and probably minor inconvenience as far as pedestrians are concerned. Winstead/We are going to maintain access at all times to the businesses, but construction's never pleasant. You're going to have noise and dust, and we try to minimize that. We'll do the project in phases, keep everyone up to date on what's going on. Thornberry/It's probably only five home football games. Lehman/They don't play downtown, Dean. Norton/They don't play, yeah. Thornberry/Oh, they do. Yes, they do. Champion/It might be better if they played downtown. Lehman/Did we have a motion on this? Could we have a motion? Thornberry/Move adoption. Norton/I moved. Lehman/Mr. Norton moved it, and Mr. Thornberry seconded it. Further discussion? Roll call- (yes). I think we're all kind of enthused about this. Norton/This is (can't understand) day. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #9 page 49 Vanderhoef/Do we stand up and cheer? Lehman/We've talked about this for two or three years, taking the downtown. It started as a small project, and it's grown into what hopefully will be a really, really big improvement for downtown. Kubby/And we should probably say for the hundredth time, the bricks will remain in the Ped Mall. Thornberry/Yes, right. Kubby/They will be refurbished. They will be replaced. They will remain. Norton/Oh, yes. You're responding to some criticism that I had heard that we were just destroying the quality of the old mall. Kubby/Some consistent misunderstandings. Norton/We're simply upgrading it in, I think, a fai~y modest, and very beautiful way. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #10 page 50 ITEM NO. 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILLOW CREEK TRAIL PROJECT ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE WILLOW CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWER. Lehman/(Reads agenda item #10). I think we're familiar with this. The route taken by the sewer will also accommodate a trail which will eventually hook up with our total trail system. This just authorizes us at the same time that we're getting sewer easements to get easements for the use of those areas for trails. Kubby/Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman/Moved by Kubby. Norton/Second. Lehman/Seconded by Norton. Discussion? Roll call-(yes). Thornberry/Without resorting to condemnation. Lehman/Thank you. Motion is carried. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #12 page 51 ITEM NO. 12 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. Lehman/(Reads agenda item #12). Karr/ Mr. Mayor, excuse me. You also have the addition of a Library Board vacancy. Library Board of Trustees, one vacancy for an unexpired term ending 7/1/2001. Charles Traw resigned. That appointment will be made August 251h, also. Lehman/Thank you. Norton/I just want to add at this point, Emie -- Lehman/Yes. Norton/To encourage people who are interested in either the Housing and Community Development Commission or the Library, to apply. We really need good people on the Commissions, as is manifest from our discussion earlier this evening. These Commissions do heavy-duty important work. And we need good people to apply. Kubby/Right. Mr. Traw has offered some wonderful leadership for the Library Board and we very much appreciate his service. Norton/He has done great. Lehman/And I think if there's any doubt, our discussion earlier this evening should indicate how important those Boards and Commissions are to the Council. We really value their recommendations highly, and I think it's borne out by the fact that seldom does Council overrule a recommendation from a Board or Commission. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #13 page 52 ITEM NO. 13 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. Lehman/(Reads agenda item #13). We do not have an applicant at this point. Again, I would second what Dee said, encouraging people to apply for that position. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 53 ITEM NO. 14 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Lehman/City Council Information. Who would like to go first? Norton/Well, briefly, I just want to say I thought the JazzFest went off terrific. I didn't get all of it both nights, but it was, I thought, a very excellent event, and favored by the weather, fortunately. I was a little surprised there wasn't more admission of the considerable support the City puts into that effort. Not just in terms of direct subsidy, but in terms of assistance in cleaning up and getting the place ready despite the storm on Monday, and cleaning up the trash right during the process, they were replacing some of the trash barrels and so forth. So I thought it was a very excellent job. And I certainly want to thank all the people who contributed to that enterprise. Terrific. I hope we can end up with fireworks next year, somewhere. Maybe at the soccer field. That's it. Lehman/Okay. Dee? Vanderhoef/We have a joint meeting coming up tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 here in the Civic Center for City Council, Coralville City Council, and the Board of Supervisors. At our previous meeting, we had some conversation about using some sales tax monies, possibly, for road improvements that might be joint projects. And I'm interested in a little conversation tonight of where we are before we go into that meeting. For myself, I'll speak first, that I would be interested in a joint project for 965, which does entail both county and Coralville to put that project together, and each of us would bear certain costs in our own jurisdictions. So, in the conversation tomorrow, that's where I would be looking, but I think it is important that we go in as a Council with sort of an idea of where we are. Norton/In that case we should have taken it up more last night, wouldn't you think? Because you know, the question of road use tax which ordinarily supports roads and trying to move sales tax into that category, I don't know. I'm reluctant. But we have to figure some way to finance that operation. Kubby/But why are we, I mean, 965 is on the far edge of town. And when we chose the more westerly route which was not a unanimous vote. I'm not interested in facilitating that road happening sooner, because that means development, when a new road, big road development like that happens around it, and it's very inefficient providing services to people. I would rather have us flow a little more naturally and contiguously than facilitating 965 at this point. Especially because it's more to the southern part of that lobe for the Iowa City portion that I'm not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 54 interested in that happening in the near future. Norton/No, no big rush, yeah. Lehman/Although there was some interest on the part of Coralville, I think, some is probably conservative, about looking at the possibility of looking at, perhaps a hybrid of the 965 intersection with Highway 6 hooking up with Deer Creek Road. Which certainly would not be, you know, the whole ball of wax, but would provide a link on the west side. Kubby/You mean for a temporary solution. Because that was explicitly -- Lehman/For a number of years, but yes, temporary. Kubby/I mean, that was explicitly and deeply talked about -- Norton/Earlier. Kubby/When we decided on a route, and it was rejected. Lehman/As a permanent. Kubby/As a permanent, yeah. Norton/And I thought they were very reluctant, because of the termination, the difficulty of the connection at Highway 6 out there west of the 965. I mean, it's going to be really difficult to see how that end of it, where the bridge is, if it's going to work and if that end would entail a new bridge, then it gets to be quite an operation. If this is going to be a tough discussion tomorrow, and I don't, because I share Karen's view and had to be in there, but in time it wouldn't be very high. Vanderhoef/I guess what comes about to me in roads and streets and so forth in this City is that we need an arterial plan instead of developing all of our streets when the traffic gets so heavy that it becomes so paramount to have it completed. To my way of thinking, you know, there should have been another north-south kind of arterial on the west side of the river several years ago, so that we wouldn't be in this crunch that we're in right now. So when I start thinking about 965 as you say well that's way out in the future, I'm saying we ought to be, we ought to be a policy body that pushes forward to the future instead of reacting way after the fact. So, if I had put money into 965 and remove some of the traffic that is coming through this town and plan this in an orderly fishion, I'd be willing to put This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 55 some sales tax money into that, and use our present capital funding levels to do those things that we have to do now. Because we have a crunch time on arterials. Kubby/So are you willing to say no to development around that area? Vanderhoef/I'm willing to say no to development because we don't have the sewer, we don't have the water out there to go. But we need to move traffic. Kubby/I'd want to see some commitment in writing from the majority of Council members -- Norton/Boy, there'd be a lot of pressure. Kubby/No development. Vanderhoef/Council changes, obviously. Kubby/What we do with every decision we make, we bind (can't hear). Norton/Mormon Trek is so demanding -- if anything's going to be done, if kind of an emergency response were necessary, Mormon Trek would be more appealing to me. And surely something has to be done there, and in a fairly short run. Lehman/I absolutely agree with you. I think Mormon Trek is a big, big problem. Kubby/It is. Lehman/But part of Mormon Trek's problem is complicated by the fact that there is no route - - Norton/I understand that. Lehman/Where Deer Creek Road might go. I mean, I thank these are things that we need to discuss with the County, and Coralville tomorrow. As far as us having a conclusion, I don't think, obviously, we're going to come up with a recommendation. Kubby/Until we've had our CIP discussion later in the year, it's hard to set priorities. Lehman/No, and I thank it's more than that, too. We're looking at alignment of Mormon Trek, what it does, what we're talking about in the way of money. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 56 Coralville is obviously concemed about the connection of 965 at the north end. Maybe a little bit too heavy for them at this point. But we've got to start talking at some point. And I think, Dee, I think your point's well taken, that we do need to be, we need to move forward on these projects, whether or not we're building them and putting them in a specific year in the CIP I don't think is nearly as important as moving in that direction. Thornberry/Well, you mentioned, Dee, the sales tax money to help pay for that. I don't think I'd count on that too heavily at this point. Kubby/The other thing is is that we have an arterial street plan. I mean, from our conversation, people may think we don't plan for twenty-thirty year arterial street plan. We have an arterial street plan and 965 is in it. Thornberry/Yeah. Kubby/So I mean, we are planning our arterials, but they need to be built in an orderly fashion, and balancing the proactiveness of our policy-making and our actual votes to build it with the consequences of doing that, which creates inefficiencies for the running of our government and sprawl and, there are some negative consequences to acting on it too quickly. But it's in the plan. Lehman/What you said, Karen is correct. But I think you'd look at Mormon Trek, and if that is any indication at our expertise in planning arterials and how well they work, we've got a problem. Norton/We didn't. Lehman/That needs attention, and sooner rather than later. Kubby/We build our arterial streets to much different standards now than we did, even five years ago. Lehman/Yeah. Kubby/In terms of multi-modal needs and looking for the long-haul. Lehman/True. But what we're talking about here is what, a meeting we're going to have tomorrow. And if Mormon Trek is a priority, and I think it is, I mean, I think those are the kinds of things that we need to be getting rolling. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 57 Vanderhoef/Well, and we have had on our plan, as you say, which is true, for a very long time, about fifteen years ago, the plan to finish Scott Boulevard was in place. And it's never been done. So, where do we start getting a hold of these things and taking action that helps our City instead of constantly reacting to a Mormon Trek crunch. Norton/No, in the CIP we get a hold of it. Isn't that where we decide where we're going to put money and when? Kubby/That's fight. That plan is a 20-year plan, and we're, still in that Scott Boulevard for example, and we're making the connection. And we're in that 20-year timeframe. So, I'd say we're doing okay on that. I mean, we're maybe in the 15th year or 16th year of that being in there, and it's going to be completed in the next five years, according to our current CIP. Vanderhoef/So your interpretation of our arterial plan is that when it goes on there, that it will not be completed for 20 years? Kubby/No. I'm just saying that with the example that you gave as being a negative example that it's falling within the parameters of our twenty year projections, which constantly change, but -- Vanderhoef/Proj ections of what? Kubby/That artefial street plan is like a 20-year vision of where growth will occur and what kind of major arterial streets we're going to need. And so, I feel like we're not behind schedule with Scott Boulevard. I'm not saying it should have been done earlier, but it's within the 20-year timeframe from when you said it was first put in the plan. So, I'm not having a problem with our timeframe on that specific example. I don't think that's a good example to show that our system isn't working on having a 20-year plan. Vanderhoef/I guess I have a different interpretation of that, Karen. Lehman/Well, I think, Dee, what you brought up and I think it's a valid thing. We're going to meet with the County tomorrow, and with Coralville and are we, are there issues that we would like to discuss relative to roads? I would personally feel that Mormon Trek is one that would deserve some sort of immediate attention. Norton/Of course that can (can't hear) discussion at JCCOG. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 58 Lehman/That's where I think it belongs. Norton/That's where the serious talk gets going, isn't it? So tomorrow's just, tomorrow's not a decision making body, it's just a sharing information and to get their views, particularly where they are with respect to sales tax issues. Isn't that one of the key issues tomorrow? Lehman/That's one of them. Norton/School Board's there, too. Dee, you could list. Lehman/I think they will be tomorrow. Vanderhoef/Yes, thank you. I did forget that. Thornberry/What else? Vanderhoef/That's it. Thank you. Thornberry/I noticed, Mr. Mayor, that you received, and we received a letter from McLeod USA Telecommunications Services indicating their interest in coming to Iowa City and I just wanted the public to be aware that we have been approached by McLeod to basically be in competition with TCI and it will come to the voters to allow this to happen. Is that one way of saying it, Dale? It's got to go to the voters in order for them to come in to be a competitor to TCI. Dale Helling/To compete in the cable franchise, in cable TV services, they have to have a franchise, and that would have to go before the voters To provide telephone services and other types of telecommunication services. They don't need a franchise for that. O'Donnell/But three's an extremely tight schedule on this. Helling/To, for the November ballot there is. However, if it doesn't get on the November ballot, it can be done by special election at any time. Lehman/Well, Dale, I think it's also important to point out that even if the voters pass this and make it possible for McLeod to have a franchise, they still do not necessarily have to come in and build. It just gives them the opportunity to come in and do so if they wish. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 59 Helling/It gives them the opportunity to do it under the provisions of an agreement that would be negotiated. But they would not be bound until they actually signed that agreement. Lehman/Right. Thornberry/So, all I did was want to put out the word that McLeod has been, is interested in coming to Iowa City as per this letter. The second thing is that I would like to announce a Police Citizen Review Board forum, a community forum on July 14th at the Iowa City Public Library, Conference Room A, from 7:00p.m. to 9:00p.m. That's July 14th. If you have question regarding the PCRB, what is it, what's it doing, why is it doing it, go. The third thing. I would like to explore, perhaps, participating, maybe a little bit more in the fireworks with the Jaycees. How much do we give the Jaycees or participate in the fireworks? Lehman/We don't. Thornberry/You know, I went to the Coralville fireworks. It was great. A 45-minute display. It was just great. Perhaps the City could maybe we could talk about putting some money in to help the Jaycees with the fireworks to maybe get a little bit better display than we have had in the past. Or, possibly, and what I would really like to see, and we can talk about this later if there's any interest whatsoever, is a combination Iowa City-Coralville fireworks display, with the two sister-cities. Norton/You mean shooting at each other? Thornberry/Putting on a display that would be very, very, that perhaps TCI, perhaps Channel 2 would like to put on their Public Access Television that you see from New York City or Chicago or something. Not to that extent. But perhaps the two cities working together to put on a display that would be very impressive to the people of the whole area. Just a thought. We can talk about that. Champion/If you did it in the middle of the river you could still stay in your own respective communities, too. Thornberry/Anything else? Any other shots you want to hear? Kubby/I don't favor the City's investing in that to get, I'd rather invest in Human Services or other City services. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 60 Thomberry/We already do. Kubby/Than having it be blown up. Thornberry/We already do. Norton/We do provide quite a bit of support. Thornberry/And the last thing that I'd like to say is that I've got a little trailer that I pull behind my car. And instead of waiting for the City to pick up my brush in front of my house, I took it down myself to the area that you take your brush down to on Riverside Drive, and while there, I got some mulch and brought it home and spread it out and that was fine. Thought, gee, this is kind of all right. If everybody, and you know, so once a day rve been picking up some brush from some place. And taking it down to the are on Riverside where you're supposed to put the brush. And I do this, I don't pick up all the brush, I pick up brush where they have nice little logs cut that would fit in my fireplace, that are by the side. But if I take the logs, I feel that I should also take the brush, so I do that. But you know, if everybody that had a trailer or a pickup truck or something like that just made one trip a day, or maybe three trips a week just picking up brush and taking it down to the area where you take the brush down on Riverside drive -- what the hell is that area called? Atkins/Riverside Drive. Thomberry/Oh, Riverside Drive. But not just anywhere on Riverside Drive. Atkins/Oh, you can't miss it. Thomberry/Oh, I know. It's big. But if everybody just took a little bit of brush if they had the truck or the trailer or whatever, and took it down, we could clean this area up a lot faster. O'Donnell/Can I borrow your trailer? Norton/Think of all the gasoline you're using. Thomberry/I'm just saying, the quicker we get it cleaned up, the better, the faster we can get onto other projects and we can, you know, get the town cleaned up. So I'm just, I'm just saying that geez, ifI can do it, anybody can do it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 61 Norton/Connie's got a truck. Thornberry/But I did pick up the logs next to, up the street and stacked them in my trailer. Got it all heaped up, and started to bring it down to my house, and both tires blew out of my trailer. And that was about 30 minutes before the Work Session last night. I had to leave the trailer there. When I came home at 11:00 or whenever it was when we got finished with our meeting, my trailer was gone. It was not there. When I got home, it was in my driveway, and both tires were fixed. And I would like to thank Brad and Mark Phillips for fixing my tires and taking my trailer home. Kubby/Did you give them some wood? Thomberry/They can get their own wood. Champion/Did you pick up their brush? Thornberry/But that's -- I haven't picked up their brush either. But, Mark, I'll pick up your brush. That's all I have. Lehman/That's quite enough, Dean. Thank you. O'Donnell/How do you follow that? I'm going to pass. Champion/I'm passing, too. Lehman/Karen? Kubby/I have one quick thing. It's a reminder about how important some of the local ability to regulate corporations are. And that is that the Federal Communications Act has allowed cities to have some oversight over cable rates. At least until March of '99. I think that's the right month. And we continually monitor what TCI is charging us. And in the last two or three times that they have increased rates, we have done calculations, and found that what they want to increase to is a little bit too much, and we've gone through this federal process and twice you've gotten little bits of rebates and you're going to get a third one. So, I don't know what the timeframe is, but they're supposed to submit a plan to us for rebating the appropriate amount to our local subscribers. So, thank you to the Commission and to the Staff and to our consultants for exercising our rights under the federal laws. Having local oversight makes a difference every day on your bill. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 62 Helling/TCI does still have appeal rights to the full Commission, and they may do that, so nothing's guaranteed yet. Kubby/But thank God for the process and too bad it's going away. Lehman/No, we're not through. We're going to repeat a little of what we did earlier for those folks who may not have seen the beginning. I think we've all heard this and it's repetitive for us, but I think it's important that we do repeat some of the things that are happening as a result of the storm a week ago yesterday. And Steve, I'm going to call on you in a second to go through some of those things, including the location of where Dean can dump his brush. Thomberry/I know where to go. Lehman/The hours that is open, and if we have an idea how long we're going to be able to, the residents will be able to take their brush down there. And the fact that it is limited to only organic material. It's brush and logs and whatever, and does not include -- Thornberry/Plastic. Lehman/The cleanings of the garage or building materials or whatever. Three's a couple, and Steve, I'd like you to talk about that in just a second. But there's a couple things for Council. We have had, for a long, long time, every since I've been on Council, and I'm sure for years before me, there's always been a list of pending issues on our agendas. It seems that that list sometimes grows rather than gets smaller. I believe that we can attack some of those issues and work them off systematically. For example, we did spend, I think a couple of hours one day talking about police issues. What I would propose that on these issues, whether they, and the one I'm thinking about right now would be police issues, and there are several that we have not addressed, I would like to see those issues come up at a work session with a recommendation, in the case of the police, a recommendation from the Police Department, we look at the issue, read the recommendation, and come up with what we feel is the right course on these things. We're not really gaining on that pending list. And if I, if you don't want to do this, I understand it. But I think the best way to do it is to start our Work Sessions at 6:30 at night instead of having Special Meetings addressing these things, to try to knock these off, one or two at a time. I think we can get control of that pending list. And right now, we're not doing anything. Do you have any -- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 63 Thornberry/I think you're fight, and I'd be willing to do that. We need to attack that. Norton/We should priofitize those, I think. That's one thing. Because some of those can be attacked more easily than others. Lehman/I agree. Norton/And staff is ready on some, and it's going to be considerable staff work on others. So I would think we ought to systematically work down that list. Lehman/But I really feel that if we do that by meeting half hour earlier at our work sessions, we're going to be able to start trimming that list down. And our time is, you know how difficult it is for us all to get together at the same time. We do, really, I think this Council's very good about making meetings and not wanting to miss Work Sessions and Council Meetings. So those are times that we all make a special effort to be here. If we could make a little extra special effort and be here at 6:30, I think we could start knocking some of those off. And I think if they're important enough to be on the pending list, they're important enough for us to address. Kubby/So-- Champion/Emie, is this going to be a -- you know, I'm not willing to come at 6:30 if it's just going to be expanded time. I mean, I think if you're going to say we're going to work on the pending list from 6:30 to 7:00 --- Lehman/That's exactly -- Champion/If we're just going to start a Work Session at 6:30 -- Lehman/It's for the list. Champion/We'll use all the time available to us, whether we start at 6:30 or 5:30. Lehman/No. We'll start at 6:30, work till 7:00. If we're able to resolve things, fine. If not, we go after the Work Session. Thornberry/In fact, I think the Council Meetings used to be at 6:30. Lehman/They did. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 64 Norton/I find, Ernie though, the only question that's related to Connie's suggestion, some of these are not half-hour issues. Some might take you an hour -- Thornberry/You could hit two or three. Norton/So '- Lehman/ Some of those may require special meetings. But I just -- Norton/ It does expand the length of the work sessions, Connie, no doubt about it, that's what he's talking about. Kubby/So are we starting on the 271h? Thornberry/I'm game. Kubby/I need to be plan-ful about this. Lehman/Well, I would like to start that, if Council is agreeable. I think we should start that. Kubby/Actually, I may have a hard time on the 271h because I'm scheduled to be in Des Moines all day. And so it might be hard for me to be there at 6:30, but I would be happy to schedule future -- Lehman/ Okay. Then let's plan on starting the first meeting in August. Karr/The first meeting in August is the last meeting of August. There's one meeting in August, the 241h. Atkins/Only one meeting in August. Lehman/First and last meeting. Atkins/The August meeting. Thomberry/Good idea. Lehman/And I will sit down with you, Steve, and we can select a couple of things that we may be able to cover and we'll start at that point. And then I'd like to just, there was a note in the packet that I think folks should understand. We have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #14 page 65 talked about picking up mixed paper, and because of some difficulties with staffing, that probably won't take place until early fall. And the public will be informed in that. And for you Council folks, for our meeting on Thursday, Marian has some information that I'd like you to look over prior to our meeting Thursday. And it's I think pretty self-explanatory. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #15 Page 66 ITEM NO. 15 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER. Lehman/Now, Mr. City Manager, would you kindly go through where we are, where we've been, and where we'd like to go? Atkins/Sure. All right. I don't think you want the whole spiel. Lehman/No. Re-wrap this thing. Atkins/Why don't I spend the time just sort of responding to the things that I think are important to the citizens with respect to the removal. First of all, as I pointed out earlier this evening, that really our only major community casualty was the Fourth of July fireworks. That has now been reschedules for Sunday, September 6th. Community activities are proceeding. The process of clean-up is, as I indicated, slow, and backbreaking work. And as soon as we clean it up, it seems to fill in behind us. We are planning somewhat of a change, and this is important to the community, whereby the crews you see on the street now with basically smaller equipment will be moving from the smaller piles, they will come upon a large pile with huge tree limbs, things of that nature. We will skip it. We are coming back, but we will go around it because we have to bring in specialized equipment which we believe will help move that process along. To our citizens, get it to the curb and we'll get it removed for you. We appreciate it if you can cut it up into as small of pieces as you can. It just simply makes it easier for our people to handle. I'm sure you can understand some of those larger piles where it gets all tied together, it's yanking and tugging and pulling at times, and that just simply slows the process down. Also, remember that our people are working in the street. When you see them, slow down, give them the benefit of the doubt. Again, because the difficulty of the work,. Storm drains in and around your neighborhood, if you see something that's plugging it up, please remove it. Simple push the brush aside and throw it up on the parkway. Do not mix construction debris with tree debris. We will not pick it up. It must be separated. And I can't emphasize that enough. Earlier in the week we were having difficulty. It seems to be resolving itself. But I want to remind folks of that. If you can, take things to the landfill. There's no charge throughout this week. We assess it from week to week. I would suspect that we will probably be having the landfill open again free of charge for that material for at least another week thereafter. Lehman/That's the one on S. Riverside Drive? Weekend, folks. Atkins/We will have the Riverside Drive staffed. You can take it there. You do not have to take it out to the landfill. If you want to take it to the landfill, for some This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #15 Page 67 folks. Please remember, our landfill service is regional. And a substantial amount of the damage, probably the majority of the damage is not ours, it comes in from other communities. And we have chosen to provide the public service to them, the landfilling services to them free of charge, simply given the circumstances. There will be work in the community that won't get done. Grass is going to be a little bit longer, shelters are maybe going to be a little messier. The same people that we call upon to do that work for us are also the people that are doing the clean-up. Our concern with respect to the additional rain that might occur is flash flooding. The Corps of Engineers folks have been really responsible to us. The news media accounts are accurate. Difficulty is the outflow from the reservoir with say a real dump of rain on Clear Creek or Rapid Creek. It simply causes the flash flooding. Thanks to the Mayor's Youth. Thank to you all for recognition of the employees. And I thank my neighbors again. Now, any other questions? Lehman/Just keep up the good work. Atkins/Doing our best. Kubby/Steve, did we offer free landfill services for the folks in the County who had barns and silos and homes destroyed? Atkins/Yes. As long as they can get it to the landfill, that kind of construction debris, if they can get it out there, we do not charge them. Kubby/I was thinking of pre-29th, in terms of the tornado a couple weeks earlier. Atkins/Say again? Kubby/The tomado that hit a couple -- Atkins/Yes, we provided the service also at that time, too. Kubby/It's a good policy, I think. Atkins/Yeah. It financially is a lousy policy, but practically it's a good thing to do. Kubby/It's good neighbor policy. Lehman/And I think one of the things none of us think about, because obviously we're here to help the folks who live here. But the hauling of trees and limbs from private property probably isn't something that a city has to do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798 #15 Page 68 Atkins/No, it doesn't. Lehman/I mean, these, trees that go down on private property, and limbs, really are the responsibility of the property owner. And we are choosing to do this. And I think it's something we should do. Atkins/And a very important thing to keep in mind is that we don't want to become too short-sighted about it. When I say the landfill, that's the site. We do not bury tree limbs and brush. It is composted. Once it's disposed of on city property, we assume the responsibility of that for many months as we create, and I'm sure we're going to have more compost that you can imagine. But it is not landfilled. It just happens to be at the landfill. Because we cannot legally do that. We can landfill the construction debris. Norton/We should start selling our compost. Lehman/We've got a dollar a ton this week. Kubby/Give it away. Atkins/If you'd like some, we were thinking about offering a special on it, but we -- If you want mulch, we can take you up on it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of July 7, 1998. F070798