Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-14 TranscriptionFebruary 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 1 of 33 February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn Staff: Atkins, Dilke, Franklin, Helling, Karr, Davidson, O'Malley TAPE: 05-14 (Side One & Side Two) Planning & Zonin~ A.) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH I ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 14-6-0 SIGN REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE COPY SIGNS IN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2), HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (CH-l) AND INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) ZONES. Franklin: First item is to set a public heating for March 1st on an ordinance to amend the zoning code for electronic changeable copy signs. B.) TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 25.67-ACRES BY AMENDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (OPDH-5) PLAN IN ORDER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL ZERO- LOT LINE DWELLINGS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON WINTERGREEN DRIVE (REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017). Franklin: Item B is public heating and first consideration on Village Green Development, Village Green part 23 and 24. Oh, I guess we need pictures don't we? Okay, this is the area that is shaded and includes considerable open space that was in a previous section of the whole Village Green South Development. This is all open space down in here and then it magically went to the next slide. I'm going to... Elliott: Karin, are we going to be asked to defer this? Franklin: You are going to be asked to defer it...but can I run through a couple things? Elliott: Sure. Franklin: Because I think you should know why. This project was originally approved in - I'm going to put this back one because I would think that the blurriness would make you sick - this is an amended plan development. It was originally approved in 1993 and it was for thirty-five single family and thirty zero-lot line dwellings. There's a net increase of eighteen units with the amendment that is before you. The zero-lot line's increase from thirty to sixty-two and the single family This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Io~va City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 2 of 33 decreases from thirty-five to twenty-one. So, the question that was before Planning and Zoning and the question before you is whether this new plan is an enhancement such that it makes sense to approve this over the old one and allo~v that increase in the number of units. In evaluating this, Planning and Zoning looked at the compatibility of this proposal with the surrounding area, as well as the internal compatibility in it, because of the mix of uses...or the mix of housing types. The illustration on the left, the stippled area is the single family and the gray shaded area is zero-lot line and this is what was approved in 1993. On the right, the shaded area shows the zero-lot line dwellings, so you see that there is an increase in the area that's for zero-lot line, that goes to the north here. O'Donnell: Karin, are the tracks on the lower left there and Scott Boulevard is right? Franklin: Oh yes, railroad tracks, yes. The Commission has recommended approval of this but with some stipulations which are outlined in the ordinance that it's your packet. We received a plan on Friday, which meets most of these stipulations, however not all of them. Just quickly to run through those...that a minimum seven-foot front yard setback be on the lots that are in the central, denser area. Now, originally that came in with a five-foot setback and the Commission wanted it pushed back to a seven-foot setback. The plan does allow, and I've got a hard copy here if we need to look at that, the plan does allow and provides for plantings within the right-of-way for trees because there isn't enough room with the seven feet to put in trees. It does require landscaping and a fence. On the lots which surround the denser part...these are still zero-lot lines around this part...and this is where the issue comes in...that these are to be a mixture of- and the ordinance refers to models A-l, A-2, and B - and A-1 is the figure at the top of this illustration. A-2 is a variation of it, as the red arrows indicate. B is the Lowden, as I think it's called, and that would have two units put together, so it was the upper illustration and this one that were approved, by the Planning & Zoning Commission, to the be used in a mix on Lot 65-84 and 131-134. On Friday we received the elevations shown here, none of which are the ones that we saw in A-l, A-2, and B, which is why we are suggesting - and in consultation with Jerry Hansen, who is the representative for Planning & Zoning today - are recommending to you that you continue the public hearing on this to March 1 to give us time to go back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. I think we can do it this Thursday, with the twenty-four notice, and have them look at this because they have not seen these elevations at all and the critical thing was how this all works together...the zero-lot lines aronnd this perimeter, as well as those in the central areas that they have the seven-foot setback. That feature of it was an important one in the discussion of Planning & Zoning. There were a number of other items that were discussed by people from the neighborhood, having to do with drainage, changes from the previous plan, and then there was some discussion of noise from BDI but that really was not pertinent to this particular issue. Vanderhoef: Show me where the alley is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 3 of 33 Franlin: Right here. Vanderhoef: That whole piece in there? And that's a private alley maintained by them? Franklin: Oh...this is so sensitive. Elliott: Is that then a street...those circles, the oblong - Franklin: Yes. Elliott: So the street goes along and then obviously the setback then would be off the street? Franklin: The setback is off the street, yes. Vanderhoefi So how big of street trees can than parking hold? O'Donnell: How big of a what? Vanderhoefi Street trees. With a seven foot set back you can't grow anything but - Franklin: No. The street trees would be in public right of way and we've brought that to Terry Robinson's attention, he's fine with it, there are street trees - pardon me? Vanderhoef: How big can they be? Franklin: It can be maple and oak, anything. Vanderhoef: It's got enough space that it will grow? Franklin: Yes. Elliott: So you would have that between the sidewalk and the street and then you're talking about this setback is from the sidewalk - Franklin: To the building, yep. You got it. Okay, so I think the only issue that is out there in terms of review of this as it was done by the Planning & Zoning Commission and where we are at this moment, is this issue of the building elevations and whether those are going to meet that determination of compatibility as to how this all fits together. Vanderhoef: Can you show, now that you've got that big map up with the numbers on it, show us the ones again that are the ones that we saw the pictures of. They go on the outside ring, is that it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 4 of 33 Franklin: Yes. They go on this outside ring of lots around the cul-de-sace and over to right there. Vanderhoef: And then single-family are - Franklin: This is single-family up here, this is single-family here, and then that's a single- family lot up there. So, this is all single-family here and then it goes zero-lot line - which is single-family but it's single-family attached and that's the distinction. O'Donnell: Does the single-family lots on the left back up to single-family lots? Franklin: Yes, it does .... and that was a very important issue with the neighborhood on Sterling Drive...and that is what it was on the previous plan, too. O'Donnell: Tell me again...show the pictures of houses that were submitted. Elliott: I want to go back to that in just a minute. Franklin: Okay...these illustrations were all submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In there discussion then, and their deliberations and conclusions, these two models were the ones that were selected as the ones that would be appropriate in terms of how they would work with that interior collection of zero- lot lines that are on the alley, okay the ones that have the seven foot setback, because the concern was that what was the street presence going to be of these buildings as one is across from the other...because in this loop around here, these will have the larger setback and the smaller setback is in these units right in here. Elliott: It's the buildings that you talked about, that you just had on the screen, and it's those interior lots that the question is whether or not they ~vill go on, is that it? Franklin: No, the building selection has to do with these buildings that go on these lots here. Elliott: And those back up to the railroad tracks, is that correct? Franklin: These back up to the railroad tracks here and here they back up to the open space. This is water in those ponds. Elliott: One more question, when you said eighteen additional structures or units, I think you said - Franklin: Units. Elliott: - is a zero-lot line structure is that one unit or two units? Franklin: Two. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 5 of 33 Elliott: Two, okay. Franklin: It's just a single-family attached instead of detached, so you have two units together. O'Donnell: Okay, and the illustrations that were submitted - Franklin: This is what was submitted on Friday. O'Donnell: - And Planning & Zoning has not seen those. Franklin: Planning & Zoning has not seen these at all. Because it is explicitly in the whereas portion of the ordinance, and because of the compatibility of this architecture was what was going to happen across the street so closely, we feel it is appropriate that it goes back to the Commission for them to review that. I think Jerry, if you want to say anything? Okay. O'Donnell: So we defer this until when? Franklin: If you would continue the public hearing to March 1st, which is your next meeting, we'll get this on the agenda for the Commission on Thursday. Elliott: Ross, will we hold a public hearing and then continue it, is that it? Franklin: You open the public hearing and then you continue...because then you can if there's any other issues that are going to come up from the public. Bailey: So, generally, when the Planning & Zoning sees these designs, this concern about dissimilar housing structures within this development - it's being addressed, right? Franklin: Exactly. That's why it's so important. Bailey: Right. Vanderhoef: How about pictures and elevations on the interior lot? Residences that are going to be facing these buildings? Franklin: Yeah...I'm sorry...I don't have those on here. O'Donnell: There was no contention on those, though. It's just... Franklin: Yes, and that's why - I should have left them on there, Dee. Sorry about that. When we come back with it, I can have that. Vanderhoefi Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 6 of 33 Franklin: Okay. C.) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY/MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SAO/RS-8) ZONE AND A PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OLDE TOWNE VILLAGE. (REZ04-00005) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin: Item C then is second consideration on Olde Towne Village. Was there discussion of collapsing that? Is this second right, Marian? It's just that we've got the preliminary plat on, too, and I'm not sure why since we aren't on the third ofrezoning. Uhmmm...there has not been a specific request to expedite it, as far as I know. Vanderhoef: I looked for it and I didn't see it. Franklin: Well, if you want to, there's the opportunity, then you go to the preliminary plat or not. Then, if you just do second consideration on Item C then D would have to wait. Champion: If there hasn't been any controversy about it we might as well - Franklin: There hasn't been. O'Donnell: So then collapse C and then vote on D? Franklin: Yeah. Elliott: Collapse and do D, too, and if- Wilbum: If someone has a problem with that they can raise it tomorrow. I just meant that if someone from the public has a problem with it. Bailey: I wasn't paranoid. Franklin: There has been no comment to date. Wilburn: So, unless we do the collapse, don't do D. Got it. Franklin: Okay. Moving to Habitat? Habitat for Humanity - Lot Purchase This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 7 of 33 Wilbum: Yeah, for this next item, it involves relationships to CDBG and HOME funding, so I will have a conflict with your informal discussion of this item and I'm not going to leave the room, I'm just going to back away from the table while you have the informal discussion...and you're the staff that's going to walk them through. Thank you. Franklin: Okay, what we need is direction from the Council on this. If you recall, when the FY05 funds were put out there for applications for CDBG and HOME money. There was a stipulation in that application form that said that applications may be denied by HCDC or the City Council if they are located in impacted-school areas. You had one of these once before when we brought in Blooming Garden. I'm not sure of the name but it was a project in the Whispering Meadow subdivision, in which the Council decided it was not appropriate to approve use of the FY05 funds in that location. What you have before you tonight is a request from Habitat for Humanity, which has located a lot on Crescent Street. Elliott: Which number is this, Karin? Karr: It is not an agenda item. Franklin: It's not an agenda item. It's just work session and it's just to get guidance from you as opposed to a formal vote. It's not on your agenda for tomorrow night. Karr: It's in your information packet. Elliott: I knew I had seen it and I was thinking it was on the agenda. Franklin: Okay, so Habitat has found this lot on Crescent Street. Crescent Street is in the Twain school district, which is also an impacted-school district, as was Whispering Meadows was in Wood, which is an impacted-school district. There are distinctions which I would draw between these two applications - that being in the Whispering Meadows instance, we were looking at sixteen rental units and in this instance we're looking at one owner-occupied home. In the Whispering Meadows instance, in that particular census tract - and I'm giving you some of the criteria that is now being used by the Scattered Site Housing Committee in their deliberations, no conclusions yet, but deliberations - in the census tract in which Whispering Meadows lies, 3.8% of all units are assisted. 10.2% of all rental units are assisted. In the Crescent Street tract, .6% of all units are assisted and 2.7% of all rental units are assisted. So, the question for you is whether you are comfortable with these funds, from FY05, being used by Habitat to support land acquisition for a house on Crescent Street. Vanderhoef: Is this an end-fill lot or something? Franklin: It's a lot that had been combined with another one and it requires Board of Adjustment action to separate it, which it is going through or has gone through, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 8 of 33 that process. I can't remember exactly where it is...but it's a vacant lot now. It's a non-conforming lot of record. O'Donnell: I don't have any problem with this. Our concern was multi-units and a single- family dwelling with percentages that are low enough, I don't see it as a problem. Elliott: When I was reading this initially, Eleanor, my question was...the way I thought about it was...there's a difference between low-income rental housing and owner- occupied purchased housing. Is there any problem with making that distinction from a legal standpoint? Because to me there's a difference. Dilkes: Are you talking about single-family rental versus single-family owner occupied? Well, it's certainly not a distinction that we ever make in any of our - I mean, Karin has told you a million times, we don't make those type, certainly land use, decisions on that basis. It might be a distinction that you can make. My concern here, as I've told staff, is that you need to have some good reasons why this is different than the last time. Off the top of my head, probably not...it's one of those things I'll reserve the right to do a 180-degree turn on. Elliott: But Mike then brought up the difference between owner-occupied and multiple units. Dilkes: I think the more appropriate distinction, just thinking off the top of my head, would be multi-unit versus single-family unit as opposed to rental versus owner- occupied, because I don't know what conclusions you can draw about whether it's rented versus owner-occupied. Elliott: It just seems to me that we might be making a precedent here. I don't know. I would like to see this go...but I'm also concerned about this whole scattered-site situation. Franklin: The distinction that I would draw probably rests more in the data about the census block, in terms of the percentage that you're working with to start with...and the percentage in the Crescent Street block in terms of assisted housing for all units, owner-occupied, rental - is .6%, whereas in the Whispering Meadows block it's 3.8%. Whether those numbers on the face of it are important or not, it's just the relativity of the two. Elliott: There will come a time, I'm sure, when I will want to say 'I'm more concerned with the school-district situation that I am with the immediate block itself situation' and I don't want to paint myself into a hole with that. Vanderhoef: Another piece of all of this, Bob, is that because the City has owned many homes, the Housing Authority has owned many houses in the Grant Wood attendance area and those are the homes that are being sold to the Through-The-Top program This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 9 of 33 - tenant to ownership program - then your ownership conversation may fall apart. Just something to think about. Elliott: I want to do this, but I want to find a way that I can do it and live with whatever repercussions might arise later. O'Donnell: I think we look at each case individually and this is not multi...it's single-family and the percentages are low enough. Can we talk about this? Dilkes: Yes. It's on the agenda. O'Donnell: That would be my line of reason and I think those reasons are defendable. Bailey: Well, it's one unit and I think we are waiting for guidance from scattered-site and given the census block data, I think that's the way you can support it. I'm certainly supportive of this. I have been concerned that we've slowed down development of low-income housing and I know how difficult it is for Habitat to find affordable lots. Vanderhoefi That's one of the things .... uhhrnm...we will be getting our report from scattered- site in the next, what, six to eight weeks? Franklin: Yeah. They just met again tonight and I know they're trying to get their conclusions crystallized so they can go to a public hearing.., so I would think... I would hope that you would have it by the first of April. Vanderhoefi And the second thing is that the money that Habitat is spending is that from this immediately passed funding year? Franklin: It's FY05, which is why this is even before you, because in FY04 and FY06, we did not...we do not have this particular stipulation in. In anticipation of the scattered site committee coming up with a recommendation, but...well...that's another issue in terms of when that comes out and how it effects the FY06 money - which we'll talk about when we get to that point. Vanderhoef: It's not as critical if we put this off for a couple of months. Franklin: Put what off, this decision about the Crescent Street? Vanderhoef: Uh-hum. Franklin: Actually it would be because there is a purchase offer pending. Vanderhoef: Oh. Elliott: I think I'm ready tonight. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 10 of 33 Champion: I'm going to support it because of the census block data and because it is a single- family dwelling. I think, I'm going to support it even though it goes against my principles of scattered-siting just because of the census block. I feel like you do, Bob, that this particular project is a good thing and I just have to go on a one-by- one basis. I think they deserve the opportunity go forward with it. Franklin: Okay, I'm hearing that the Council, the majority of the Council, is comfortable with it. Vanderhoef: I think it's okay to do this one, but I would caution ourselves not to do any more. Franklin: Of the FY05 money, what is left is essentially three lots and Habitat is the only applicant that still has money out there. Vanderhoefi Okay, they aren't up against a deadline for spending it out, but they're up - Franklin: No, this is just an opportunity that would be lost if this couldn't be decided, so thank you. COMMUNITY FOUNDATION AFFILIATE Wilburn: Okay, Community Foundation Affiliate. Mike? Stoffregen: My name is Mike Stoffregen and I work with a great bunch of folks at the Community Foundation and I've been in front of you before. We've had two excellent opportunities that have come up that.., in the past year.., that will require some discussions - certainly at the Council level. The first one was developed from the Iowa Values Fund that the legislature passed, just a little over a year ago, that was subsequently vetoed. There was some problems with the right to veto that the governor issued. Within the Iowa Values Fund, there were two opportunities to help build endowment within the State of Iowa. That was their overriding objective, was to help build endowment. The first opportunity was called Endow Iowa. Endow Iowa had two parts to it. One part was tax credits for anyone who would help using philanthropy to put money away, they would receive a twenty-percent tax credit from the State. A million dollars was set aside in that program for tax credits. The other side of that program was a million dollars of grants that would come back to communities to help them establish endowment programs. That was subsequently slashed. It was a little harder for the legislature to come up with real dollars versus tax credits and so the total dollar figure was $155,000. Those will be in the form of six grants issued - matching grants - that will be issued to communities throughout the state of Iowa. They become matching because the grant itself, if the community will raise 25 then the matching grant 25 kicks in from the Endow Iowa program. Now, there are a total of six of those. There are a total of eight community foundations that are qualified across the State that meet national council and foundation standards This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of tire February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 11 of 33 to be able to qualify for those dollars. So our opportunity was that for the Johnson County community, Iowa City included, would be the potential to receive this matching grant for $25,000 if we had the ability to raise $25,000 from our community. We received the documentation from the Iowa Council on Foundations the last week in December. The first week in January I met with Steve a couple of times and we subsequently met with several others from the Council with the idea that 'is it feasible for the City to reach...' - for the $25,000 match - 'for the City to come up with the $25,000'. In a meeting this morning, there are some issues behind that and one issue behind that is the ability to use public monies outside of the investment structure that the City currently has. Because...as the funds would go to the Community Foundation, we have a different investment policy than what the City would be able to have. So, there is an issue there. It's not a killing issue but it's certainly one that needs to be discussed and I think that will be looked at. I think Eleanor and Karin were doing some due-diligence on the proposal itself and at this point the due date for the application process is February 1st, so we're a little concerned that this is - I'm sorry, March 1st- February 1st, we'd be really late, wouldn't we? So, we're probably looking at, for several reasons, bypassing that opportunity, which leads us to the second opportunity, which I think is longer range in terms of dollars and cents and it's also a little further out in terms of the ability to put the program together. As part of legislation last year, the gaming tax law was passed that one- half of one percent of gambling revenues would be orchestrated through the Iowa Department of Revenue to counties that did not have a gaming venue within the county boundaries. In other words, if you had a riverboat or if you had a casino, you would be excluded from that one-half of one percent. That amounts to, as of last year's revenue, that amounts to five million dollars and that would be divided by eighty-six current counties that do not have gambling venues in the state. Washington is on the verge, if Riverside does go through as they anticipate, Washington County would lose that part of the funding of gaming tax dollars. This is longer range and this will be every year up to, at this point, about $55,000 to $65,000 would be granted to very county, just by dividing that five million by eighty-six counties, regardless of population base. The ability to reach for those funds and to access those fimds is through a qualified community foundation. Johnson County is a qualified community foundation and we will have the ability to establish affiliate funds under or within the boundaries of our corporate entity, that would be able to take those dollars and distribute the affiliate funds. So, that's kind of where we're approaching a little longer range thinking. Our responsibility, as qualified community foundation, is to the total Johnson County area, so we have been talking with different entities around the state, and quite frankly, we would like to see the City of Iowa City establish an affiliate fund so that you could have input into the decision-making as to where this money goes. The affiliate fund is actually established through it's own board. You have five members, up to a maximum of fifteen, that are called Board of Trustees, not Board of Directors but Board of Trustees, those Board of Trustees would understand the needs of the entity, in this case the community of Iowa City, and would certainly recommend to the Board of Directors of the Community This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 12 of 33 Foundation where those monies should be pursued. The really neat thing about this is that this is an ongoing, pending legislative action to reverse the bill, which I don't happening, but this is an ongoing type of $55,000-75,000 a year which we are interested in seeking out your assistance in how to grant that money. The Community Foundation is very broad based. We're not just health and human services, we're not just education, we're not just enviromnent, but we're really all of those things and so at this point, Steve has asked me to get up and talk a little but about this affiliate fund with the idea that we're going to hopefully go down the road a little bit and say 'Yes, we're interested in helping the Community Foundation on ways to get the grant monies out there' and I would think that would be a viable entity. Everybody loves to be able to help give money away. Vanderhoefi Okay, Mike, maybe you'd like to go a little further on the affiliate membership and we can set it up, but we certainly have to put money in to the foundation somehow or another to become an affiliate member. Stoffregen: That's correct. Vanderhoef: So, tell us the amount and do we run into the same problems that we were finding with this Endow Iowa? Stoffregen: Endow Iowa, because of the public versus private monies, I don't think that that idea will fly because of the investment, outside of the investment. Talking with Eleanor earlier today, it was felt that one shouldn't try to do something that the law sets a reason to not do it. Our investment policy is a little more different than the Cities. We did earn 10.13% last year. I'll let that be on record. (Laughter) Vanderhoef: That's really good. Stoffregen: We had a very good year. Our asset growth right now...we're at 1.3 million. We started out at zero four years ago and we're at 1.3. Our goal is to be at five million at 2007 and ten million in 2010. How does this work? There will be different cities within Johnson County that will figure out a way to do it. Some of them might come from existing trustee-type dollars that are out there. Maybe funds have been given to the City for environment issues, or some other type of issue that could be utilized. We probably will run, and I'll throw this back at Eleanor and Steve, we will probably run the same gamut of how do we establish an affiliate fund without using some form of dollars that we have yet to come up with. The dollar figure is $5,000 for a named-fund for the affiliate and then that gets us those gaming tax dollars - which is what we're really after. The $25,000 dollars for Endow Iowa would have been to receive the matching part of Endow Iowa and that's what I think we're looking at setting aside for now. Elliott: Minimum of five grand. Stoffregen: Five grand. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 13 of 33 Bailey: Five to play. Atkins: And I think we can do that. First of all, I really think the affiliate fund makes some sense. It does access...do you philosophically accept the fact that gambling money would be used to provide certain public services. If you say yes to that, then we're over the big hurdle. Champion: I would rather we didn't have any gambling funds at all...but if we're going to have them, I want them. (Laughter). Atkins: I sort of made the assumption that most of might. O'Donnell: As long as there's no gambling. Atkins: We would need to name a five-member board. A number of the members would have to be good citizens. I would suspect that we'd have a couple Council members on it, which could have come influences on the policies that we ask for, with respect to the distributions of monies. I had Kevin do a quick run-down on other foundations that we have in the City and other trust accounts that we have. I have go to believe that if you're okay with it, I would contact the trustees of Project Green, the Library Foundation, the Parks and Recreation Foundation, and approach them about contributing money that would get us .... in effect, their monies would be the seed money to cause this thing to occur...and then as we pointed out, I wouldn't have the concern of circumventing investment policies by the use of the public's money. This is a way to get the money and get the thing up and running. If you're okay with that, and Mike is okay with that, I'd like to see us put together an affiliate fund. The policies - we'll have to get back to you. It was five to fifteen members? Stoffregen: Correct. Minimum of five, maximum of fifteen. Atkins: So, you could make a pretty good sized board if you wanted. Stoffregen: There is a tremendous transfer of wealth coming. There's estimates from the CBC out of Ames, that up to forty-four trillion dollars are going to change hands over the next twenty years with the majority of that happening by 2017. By establishing a fired today, and I think that Steve came up with a great name for it, "The Iowa City Community Civic Fund" - which would be encompassing a broad range of purpose. You are position yourself for other donors that will transfer this wealth that will say, 'I want to give one source and let that source take care of it'. The legacy to Iowa City, if you will. Right now there are a lot of entities out there and when we talk to financial planners their questions are always, 'There are so many, how do we know who to give to?' The beauty about a civic fund is that you'll have five people - maximum of fifteen - that will help decide that ....so that people can give to one civic fund and the good will go on. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 14 of 33 Bailey: Steve, I have a question about your method. If you approach particular groups that have funds, is that setting them up for an expectation that they will receive funding down the road from this fund and how do we that before we determine the broad purpose. Atkins: It's a small amount of money. I would anticipate saying 'What we're asking you to do is to help us seed the thing, to fund it initially.' Are we setting an expectation of getting money in the future? Yeah, we probably are and you need to prepare yourselves for that and to think about that. There is going to be some expectations that they're going to get - ifI recall, the gambling money...that 75% of the gambling money must be distributed each year. Stoffregen: Within that year. Atkins: So it's .... we're talking $40,000 - $50,000 a year that would be going out...and for a small investment, they do stand a chance to participate in these monies. Bailey: I just want to be clear about the expectations we set up. We've seen that happen in this community before and it can really create some difficult feelings. Atkins: The difficulty is that we're really stuck is that the intent of these laws is to encourage philanthropy - Bailey: I understand that. Atkins: And if we can't use public funds .... unless we know of somebody who is willing to write a $5,000 right now and just give it to us, we really don't have a whole lot of choice, so that's why...when we looked through the trust accounts, ! think we have some options. Elliott: I share your concern and your caution....which I'm sensing you have some concerns about- Bailey: I think we should be really focused when we .... who we are approaching with the anticipation that those groups will be - Atkins: We won't do anything until we have a plan that we can bring back to you that says 'Here's the plan, here's who we will contact, etc.'. I want you to bless the thing before we head on out doing it, but I do want to begin the process of putting together an affiliate. Vanderhoef: I've got a couple of questions. The gambling money, you're saying, we have to spend out a certain percentage of it? Atkins: Every year. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 15 of 33 Stoffregen: Every year. Vanderhoefi Every year. So, our fund won't grow- Bailey: Very fast. Champion: It will grow. Bailey: But not fast. Atkins: One of the nice things about the gambling money, is that unless the legislation changes, every year $60,000 to $65,000 of new money becomes available to us. Vanderhoef: But only about $15,000 of it can stay in the fund. Champion: It's still something. Stoffregen: Twenty-five percent plus the earnings will always grow your fund. Vanderhoef: Okay. Elliott: You have to spend 75% minus the earnings. Dilkes: But that doesn't all go to the Iowa City Civic Fund. Elliott: No. Can we take this on a loan basis and just pay them back? Atkins: If we're using our good offices to secure the money, that's public money. If it passes through our treasury in any way, it's public money. Bailey: I want to ask a question. Elliott: I'm just saying...it wouldn't go through the City - Atkins: Yes it would. Someone is going to have to sign the note to borrow the money. Elliott: No, I meant that if these entities that you indicated, would provide that money directly to the affiliate, with the understanding that the affiliate, over the next three years, would pay it back to them. Atkins: As a loan to the affiliate? Elliott: Yeah. Atkins: I hadn't planned to go that far. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 16 of 33 Elliott: I'm just concerned about the expectation of them being first call. Atkins: I very much agree with what you're telling me...and that's why ! need to put a plan together so I can definitely answer those questions. Bailey: One of the things that we might want to discuss first is how we see using this civic fund and that could give us some guidance of who we approach because they would be natural partners. So, can I ask a question about the Senior Fund? We were able to do that because it was donated? Dilkes: I think we were a lot more comfortable with that idea because it was gift fund money because it was in the gift fund for the Senior Center. Let me just - a couple of things that were helpful to me when we had our discussion this morning...the Community Foundation on it's own can access the gambling money. You all know that. As I understand, the purpose of the affiliate fund, as Mike explained it is two-part fold. One, is to demonstrate or help demonstrate that there is this attempt of the Community Foundation to meet county-wide needs, because the Endow County fund, specifically by the legislation, has to meet county-wide needs, and it will then serve as an advisory board for how that money, if that gambling money comes in, how it's spent, but as an advisory board. The decision lies with the Community Foundation. Let me just echo what Regenia just said, that I think in some ways we're putting the cart before the horse here, because we need to define what the purpose of the civic fund is going to be, because it could be a million different things. Elliott: The affiliate fund. Would that be an Iowa City affiliate fund and then perhaps Solon would have an affiliate fund and then Coralville would have - Atkins: Assuming they would form one. Elliott: And the amount we're throwing around, the $65-$75,000 would be distributed among those? Stoffregen: That's correct. Elliott: But it would be a part of the County foundation? Stoffregen: That' s correct. Wilburn: But the part, excuse me, Dee, but the part that Eleanor just finished saying, though, that it's a recommendation to them and I know there are consequences, or at least public consequences, for the foundation if they chose to not go along with of chose to modify a recommendation from the affiliate, but it's still their decision as to meeting the County needs. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 17 of 33 Stoffregen: I think we found in this county is that donor intent is extremely important. Vanderhoef: So, if $5,000 came in to start the civic fund, that did not come from these sources that we've been talking about, then we would not have any precedence towards what they could get and that civic fund could be designated for a specific purpose rather than for all .... so if the civic fund in that case received affiliate dollars, 25% of whatever was given from the county share, could stay in the fund to let it grow, plus the proceeds, and the other would be spent out and if you made this just for human service agencies, the money would get spent out there. Stoffregen: That would be the Board of Trustees. The reason that there is a difference, because we didn't want to confuse Board of Directors, at the foundation board level, and Board of the Trustees, at the affiliate board level. So, the affiliate board level would make those determinations and I agree with what Regenia is saying in that it should probably be looked at and 'what do we really want to do?' and 'what do we want this civic fund to do for us?' Vanderhoef: I still want the civic fund to be earmarked for human service... (Tape Ends) Vanderhoefi ...that's our biggest need in the community and spending out part of it every year is very appropriate but those needs are never going to go away. We can do fundraisers for libraries, for parks and recreations, and lots of other things in this community when there is a project or a specific need that gets lot of good press and so forth. Human services do not get this and that need is continuous and goes on and on an on. Bailey: See, and I'd rather see a civic fund, that was broad in base...that I would like to support our community events from it because that, I feel, is leveraging investment because that, to me, is an economic development piece that is .... mean not to say that some of it couldn't be used for some of our human service funding - but we have these community events .... where I think a community event fund is important...and those are needs and quality of life needs and an investment in our community that I think would be a good use of the fund. So, clearly we have to have some discussion. Champion: I agree with you. Vanderhoef: The rest that I see, with human service, is as we struggle with our general fund budget every year and every year we continue to give dollars from the general fund, around $350,000 a year from the general fund, and that's not growing. As the budget goes...unless we get new monies into our general fund, to continue at the pace that we're going right now is even shakier. Bailey: Which I have said before, it is shaky. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 18 of 33 Vanderhoefi This is why I would like to get this fund going specifically to augment what the general ftmd maybe can not do in the future. We just don't know what it will do and to be building an endowment for that purpose seems like hitting a huge need within our community and will finally get to some where that we will really have dollars coming out of it. Elliott: I'm ready to - I'd like to see what Steve can put together. Atkins: If I have a go on the affiliate, I'll put that together with the understanding the policy, since you've already started your discussion, will follow very shortly. So Mike and I will be getting together. Dilkes: We can not draft the affiliate documents until we know what the goal of the organization is. Atkins: I need to lay out step-by-step how we're going to go about this. So, I need to do that for you so you understand who we're going to talk to, what we're going to ask them, all of that business and I'll put that together. Thank you, Mike. Bailey: Thanks, Mike. Stoffregen: Thank you. Agenda Items Wilburn: Agenda items. Elliott: I have several questions. Wilbum: Ask away. ITEM 7. AUTHORIZING CONVEYENCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 2311 NEVADA AVENUE TO A PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM TENANT. Elliott: Item 7. It refers to the banks written commitment. Usually it's stated that there has been a bank loan not a written commitment. If we authorize...would our authorization be void if something happened to the written commitment? Dilkes: Just a minute here, can I get the item in front of me? Elliott: Item 7. Bailey: Item 7, page... Dilkes: Oh, here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 19 of 33 O'Donnell: I think in every one of these cases, Bob, we get a written commitment. Elliott: It usually hasn't been stated in that way. Atkins: I understand your point. My understanding is that they've gone to the bank, secured their loan - that they have a commitment to do that - we need to hold up our end of the deal. Dilkes: We provide our funds at closing. The same time the bank does. Elliott: Okay. ITEM 14. INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION FOR THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $670,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Elliott: Item 14. City to buy housing facilities from the Greater Iowa Housing Fellowship. It was my understanding...and this happened before I came on the Council...that there was an agreement that the City would not purchase any more residential housing. Atkins: I can't give you the exact calendar of when all of this transpired, but it's about three to four years ago that we made the commitment on this project. This was to be for low-income housing facilities for folks of the elderly and the disabled. That's the target market that we're...whether there are any new ones, I don't see those in the future because you have an informal policy that we weren't going to be buying any more. Elliott: The situation might be that there is an informal policy but this preceeds that? Atkins: I believe it does. Elliott: I do have some concerns about that. Atkins: I understand that because this does truly increase our inventory of houses, I don't think there's any doubt about that. Elliott: And I would like to decrease that. Atkins: Well, I'll just remind you that the targeted population - Elliott: Others may not agree. Wilburn: My recollection is what Steve was saying because I remember when this came up, a discussion about concern about what you're saying. I remember it being This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 20 of 33 pointed out that it was targeted, I remember, it wasn't this - but it was a low percentage at the time - but it was decided currently or even after adding this on - right now, what the City owns in terms of what the City owns in terms of rental units is .006% of all the total rental units...so there was a conversation about 'let's put it into perspective because at that low percentage and it's targeted for assisting folks in the community that could use this', so my point is that that's my recollection of what Steve was saying. Elliott: I would be against it if it were coming now, but I don't think that our Council, at this time, should counter something that has been a plan for apparently several years. Dilkes: This is the subject of an agreement that was signed by Council. Elliott: Fine. ITEM 15. INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION FOR THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $510,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Elliott: Item 15. How much of the $500-some thousand goes for housing rehab and how much for art? Vanderhoef: $50,000 goes for art. Elliott: 50/50? Vanderhoefi No, $50,000 for art is in the budget. O'Donnell: We cut that from $100,000 to $50,000. Champion: You cut it, I didn't. Atkins: Bob, $400,000 is for the targeted rehab. Elliott: Thank you. Wilbum: Are there other questions, Bob? 4D(2). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO APPROVE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND PRICE PROPERTIES FOR APPROXIMATELY 21.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY LYING WITHIN LOTS 10 THROUGH LOTS 17 OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND LOTS 2 THROUGH 4 OF THE NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION - PART TWO, AND This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 21 of 33 TO DISPOSE OF SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 1, 2005. Elliott: One quick question, tomorrow for the consent calendar. Are we going to point out the Walmart purchase? I'm very much in favor of that, I think it's a good thing, but I think it should be brought to - Atkins: Folks, the North Airport Development Subdivision is it's official name. The property is being purchased by Price Properties of Alabama, who intends to assign it to Walmart. All of the reporters that I've talked to, I think, understand that now. Elliott: It's been in the papers, I'm very much in favor...I'm very pleased with it...but I'm sure that there are some people who might have some problems with that. Bailey: They'll be here at the March 1st public hearing, I'm sure. Wilburn: I was going to say, we're setting the public hearing and that will put everyone who wishes to say something about it the opportunity to tell us. Bailey: I have questions about that. Walmart. I have questions about the restrictions. I know that we've had a difficulty selling land there, but will these restrictions further impede our progress in selling land? Atkins: We talked about that. Bailey: And why a bowling alley? We don't have a bowling alley or a theatre. Atkins: The restrictions, and Karin, help me, the restrictions immediately adjacent to the Walmart property, is a two-hundred foot - what they're concern is, if one of those types of uses that they want restricted were to be located immediately adjacent, they're going to use their parking and parking is precious, they don't want anything to do with that, and so they're figuring if you can move it away, then their parking isn't compromised. The Planning Director nods a yes to that. Bailey: I'm assuming, because this was laid out in the agreement, that we don't have concern about further limiting our abilities to sell these additional properties. Well... 'no properties in the subdivisions or adjacent properties owned by the City may be used for grocery store, supermarket within ten-thousand feet' - well, that's enormous anyway - 'wholesale club, discount department stores' - so no Michaels, or one of those crafty stores - 'pharmacy' - not that they have a full pharmacy - 'general or dollar store' - blah, blah, blah - 'gas station, vehicle fuel station, or oil-change quick lube'. Atkins: Pretty much all of the things they do, they don't want to have right next to them. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 22 of 33 Bailey: I know, I get that. Clever. Atkins: When we staffed this issue, we discussed it extensively and we came to the conclusion that it's a small enough boundary that we don't believe it compromises the rest of the development. Now, one of the issues that will come along, and Karin will have to give you advice on that, is do you want to do the whole place CC-2 and actually make it a retail commerce park. Do you want to keep it CC-2 and CI-1, those are some of the questions you'll have? Bailey: Well, that was going to be my next question. If we rezone the entire area, what options will we have? Atkins: I need Harry Wolf's advice on that, because when we go to re-subdivide that land, the size of the lots at we're going to put in place, has some bearing on how we're going to market it. Bailey: Well, I'd like some answers. Franklin: I think one important point to keep in mind is that we did consult with Harry Wolf, our realtor on this, to get a sense of the market in looking at this because our goal with this is to sell the remainder of Aviation Commerce Park. It's not to impede that sale. So that was a lot of discussion as we went through this whole negotiation. Wednesday, I think, I'll be meeting with the Airport Commission, and we're going to have some discussion of this too, in terms of the remainder of Aviation Commerce Park, how important it is to them as far as aviation-related uses, what they see in terms of a future there. I think also is a common goal of turning this property over to get revenue to support the airport. So, CC-2, CI-1, the determination as to those restrictions was that they were not so onerous as to impede future and relatively prompt sale of that property. Now, that's obviously an estimation - it's a guess. You don't know until you actually have it out there...but it certainly seems likely, given the experience of our neighbor to the west, that when you have a draw like a Walmart Superstore, it's likely that it's going to make it very attractive right around it for other retail-kinds of establishments. We don't necessarily want another big box, which is what they are opposed to, we probably don't need another gas station, etc. So, the things they were saying that they didn't want to have, is probably okay. Bailey: So, when you look at other businesses that are attracted to a Walmart Superstore area to build on that area, they don't typically, they aren't these 8,000 square-feet Franklin: They might be, but then there's also going to be other ones. Any retailer is going to want to capitalize on all that traffic that is anticipated that is going to come in to go to the superstore. Which is why they're super. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 23 of 33 Vanderhoef: I question a couple of things. Restaurants and drive-throughs, and fast-food things tend to want to go near those stores. Franklin: Now you can do that outside the two-hundred feet. There's two sets of restrictions here. One is, I think it's two-hundred feet from the east boundary of the piece that Walmart is buying, so that's going to get your restaurants things, but then beyond that, on the remainder of the subdivision, we could have a restaurant. Vanderhoef: We touched on this recently at a work meeting and this may spur the Airport Commission to look at it... in terms of related airport businesses, we talked about what are they going to do on the south end of the airport property and that would figure into my thinking whether I was going to go CC-2 maybe versus keeping it more for related and I certainly want their input. Franklin: I imagine that's something we'll talk about on Wednesday. Vanderhoef: Please do because I'm not ready to rezone the whole thing until we've had a conversation. O'Donnell: This is probably a standard clause in any purchase agreement that Walmart makes across the country. Franklin: I have no idea. O'Donnell: I would imagine it is. Atkins: I think you're correct, because when Mitch was doing his work, they wanted a boundary even further out but we objected to that. Bailey: I just think it's important to consider because we want to sell the rest of it. O'Donnell: But that two-hundred foot was - Atkins: It's like one lot. O'Donnell: Thank you. Wilburn: Any other agenda items? Bailey: I have one more. The Lexington Street. Vanderhoef: That was mine too. ITEM 4D(1). LEXINGTON AVENUE GATE This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 24 of 33 Vanderhoef: I too want to know whether there is an interest on the Council to go forward with at least another survey of the neighborhood. Bailey: How long has it been was my question. O'Donnell: Two years, hasn't it? Vanderhoef: No, it's more than that. Atkins: I bet you it's four or five. Elliott: In answer to your question, yes, I'm interested. Bailey: Three people have asked for a re-survey of the neighborhood because - Davidson: A whole-neighborhood survey is probably either twenty-one or twenty-five residences, so that's the total population to be surveyed. Vanderhoefi I was told by one of the signers of the letter that there have been some change of ownership of the residences so that - O'Donnell: Well, then let's do another survey. Atkins: Do you want to do another survey? Bailey: And if we do a survey, is it only Lexington Street or does it go onto Park Road? Davidson: It's all properties that have frontage on Lexington, so the corner properties on Park Road and on River are also included - oh, and also to clarify, the cul-de-sac - the McLean Street cul-de-sac, which all the access goes on to Lexington, all those homes also. Bailey: What about...is it Park? Champion: River and Park. Bailey: Park is the street that I've had complaints about cars in their yard. Will that be surveyed as well? Davidson: No, the residence on the far side of Park did request from the very beginning of this process to be part of the survey, but we have limited it and that is consistent with our entire traffic calming policy, to limit it to property with access directly on the street or similar to the case like McLean, if it's a cul-de-sac, but you have to go on Lexington in order to get in and out. Champion: What about south of River? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 25 of 33 Davidson: Yes. Bailey: I anticipate that if we do this re-survey, there will be people on Park Road who will be concerned, because those are the people I initially heard liked the gate. Vanderhoef: But it doesn't inconvenience them as it - Bailey: It's a car that ends up in their front yard. O'Donnell: A car in your front yard is quite - Champion: Or your living room. Vanderhoef: You think that's inconvenient? (Laughter) Wilburn: It sounds like there is enough interest in re-surveying it. Davidson: We should go ahead with a re-survey? Bailey: Yes. Vanderhoef: I do want to see the transportation center - Davidson: Before we leave that, was that a yes to re-survey? Elliott: Yes. I do have some concerns about residents of a street, unless this is some unusual aspect, having control of the street. Atkins: Be there for the debates. (Laughter) Davidson: When we discussed this, Bob, it was the second or third year of the traffic calming program and it was determined that this was a rather drastic method of traffic calming. Not unheard of, but rather drastic, but that the Lexington dips were a special case and that we would handle it as a special case. The Council, at that time, put on notice to the rest of the community - don't be asking us to put up barricades across streets. Elliott: That's what I wanted to get at. O'Donnell: This was a safety issue. ITEM 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TWO LISTING AGREEMENTS WITH HARRY R. WOLF OF NAI IOWA REALTY COMMERCIAL TO LIST FOR LEASING PURPOSES COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 26 of 33 COURT STREET TRANSPORTATION CENTER (DEFERRED FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2005) Davidson: Dee, you did ask about the lease for the - Vanderhoef: I just want to see the map of where the - well, the child care and the bus depot...and when I read it, I was like 'Okay, we've already got those wrapped up, so where's the rest of this commercial'? Davidson: While my technician is setting up the computer... (laughter)... we have on your agenda tomorrow a contract with Harry Wolf to represent us as a real estate agent in the two leased spaces that are available in the Court Street Transportation Center. Originally we didn't have any lease spaces, we had two commercial spaces - the Greyhound Bus Station and the Appletree Childcare Center. In our negotiations with those folks .... Franklin: That's interesting...I'm sorry...it's blank. Champion: So you're going to show us where those spaces are coming from? Davidson: Although if we can't bring it up, I can probably describe it well enough. What occurred is that both entities decided, in the course of our negotiations with them...because as you will recall, we have a lease signed with the Apple Childcare Center operator, and I don't think we're quite there yet with Greyhound, but we're just about ready to sign on the dotted line with them as well .... that they didn't need as much space as we initially anticipated .... so if you can imagine, the Greyhound Bus Station faces the Federal Building on Court Street. There is an area that we have carved out the west of their space that is 760 square feet - so a relatively small space - that has...we've set it up with separate mechanical systems and all that so it can be a separate space...and similarly the child-care center which faces Dubuque Street...and to the south of that space is a space of about 2500 square feet...so it's quite a bit larger...but both are relatively small spaces. We've had some consultation - you may have noticed in your materials - from our real estate firm that we should probably price those slightly differently...because of the federal funding of the transportation center, this property will not be sold. These two spaces, as well as the bus station and the child care center will be leased spaces and become a revenue entity for Iowa City Transit... that's part of the deal with the federal funding. Atkins: Jeff, for tomorrow night...could you provide a handout showing the first floor? Davidson: I'll give Marian handouts of what we were going to show you, but do you have a vague idea of where the spaces are located? Okay. Oh, and also for your information, we did offer this contract to all the commercial real estate agents in two and took proposals and evaluated them and... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 27 of 33 Wilbum: Let's take a break until ten minutes to eight and finish up real quick. (BREAK) Wilbum: Any other agenda items? ITEM 10. APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DUBUQUE STREET/FOSTER ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT [STP-U-3715(625)- 70-52], AND DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDGS AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. Vanderhoef: I was just going to have Karin show us the map...I asked her to...the Foster Road and Dubuque Street -just so that we saw what we're sending out for bids. It's been quite a while since we had looked at that and I wanted to look at it and I thought, well, if anybody else wants to look at it .... so it's being raised where the double-dots are, is that correct? Franklin: Being raised? Karr: Bob, could you tum that mic towards Karin, thank you. Franklin: There's storm-sewer work that's part of the whole project. Then of course Foster Road, both legs of the intersection there and Foster going out to there where it was improved already, next to Idyllwild. Vanderhoef: But south of the intersection, isn't that being raised so we don't have quite so much flooding in there? Bailey: We talked about that already and because of that garage it was decided that we couldn't raise it. Atkins: They are raising that somewhat... Vanderhoef: But that house is clear down by Kimball Road. Bailey: No, it's right up there. Franklin: Tomorrow night at your public hearing, I'm sure there will be an engineer here. O'Donnell: That house is right next to the road. Bailey: Yeah, it's pretty close to that comer. Vanderhoef: Okay, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 28 of 33 Wilbum: Any other agenda items? There doesn't have to be. O'Donnell: Thanks, Karin. Vanderhoef: Oh, and Jeff has gone, hasn't he. Are we being asked...Steve probably knows .... Item 21. ITEM 21. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BY JOHNSON COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH GILBERT STREET IMPROVEMENTS - NAPOLEAN LANE TO CITY LIMITS PROJECT. (DEFERRED FROM 2/1) Vanderhoef: Are we being asked to defer or to totally... Atkins: We will know tomorrow...it's likely we'll ask you to reject. Vanderhoefi Isn't that the one that the County has already rejected? Atkins: Yes. Vanderhoef: I thought I read in the paper that - Atkins: Have they? I wasn't sure of that. If they've rejected it, then that's what will happen with us. Karr: They, at their work session, informally agreed to reject it. It isn't formal until Thursday. Atkins: Then you'll get the same recommendation, to reject it. Vanderhoefi Okay. Dilkes: So we'll probably be deferring tomorrow, then. Vanderhoef: Indefinitely? Or... Dilkes: No, just until the next meeting. Vanderhoef: Just until the next meeting. Karr: Because it's a county project, the thought is that the county should act first. Vanderhoef: Okay. If they go through with it, then we'll probably kill it because they want to wait another year and get the bids out earlier? Okay. That's all. Anybody else? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 29 of 33 Council Appointments Wilburn: I don't remember seeing Council Appointments. Anyone want Council Time? Council Time Elliott: This afternoon I was at a panel discussion on funding for the Task Force on Aging and the things that came up were parking and use of transit SEATS. This goes in to the next one. I'd like to talk some time about...has the parking...has there been long-term parking moved to the parking ramp that is adjacent to the Senior Center? Atkins: We've started to get the complaints from the Senior Center and because of some of the changes we made, with regards to capping the daily expense at Dubuque, people are moving...I have to admit the grin on my face .... remember Tower Place was never going to make it...remember all of that...we'll get you a memo outlining what we believe the issues to be...but we've received six to eight emails...and you all have probably too .... they have a pass but the garage is full. Now remember, the pass is really nothing more than a license to hunt...and they're saying that they can't even get in because it's full. I'll have more for you later. Elliott: The other item that came up, and I've talked to a couple of other council persons about this...the use of city buses, or city vehicles anyway, and perhaps SEATS to make runs for shopping maybe once a week or so. Has this ever been discussed with our bus people? Vanderhoef: Yes, that comes up regularly in the Transit Advisory Committee .... if there are enough people who want to run in off hours, it can be put together by working with the SEATS director...so it isn't on demand...but the possibility is there. O'Donnell: Yes, something can be scheduled, Bob, Elliott: Good. Champion: You know, the Senior Center is kind of like the library. The parking is never quite right. There is a lot of parking in that ramp...and they had to park down here before...and now they wouldn't think of parking down here...so it's a continuing problem...but I do park in that ramp and it is full a lot. It amazes me how - Atkins: Some things will change. Remember, this summer we're going to open another garage, another six hundred spaces will be on the market and that will change certain things. I don't to jump because we could all be back at this time after time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 30 of 33 Vanderhoef: How many parking permits do we have in that ramp, in Tower Place? Atkins: I don't know, Dee. I could find out for you. Vanderhoefi Yeah, because I know at different times we have shifted - Atkins: To accommodate the library we also did some shifting around, which created some vacancies in Dubuque - but that sends people to - but you know what I mean. It's all the same car, it just gets pushed around. O'Donnell: Are we going to shift some more, Steve? Atkins: I couldn't tell you. O'Donnell: I mean when the Court Street opens? Atkins: Oh, when the Court Street opens? Yeah, we would expect to do that. Vanderhoef: Should we have that in place before we open? Atkins: I'm pretty sure that Joe is probably working on that. Vanderhoef: I would like to have it in place right up front so we know what's happening. Atkins: I'll get you the permits for Tower Place. Vanderhoef: Well, just bring it all together .... all by itself...it isn't as meaningful. Atkins: I don't mean to be boyish about this, but I do get a kick out of 'it's never going to make it...' Wilburn: Any other council time? O'Donnell: When we're all leaving we should give plenty of room for Bob Elliott. Let him leave early...or stay here and let us leave early, Bob, because your car - (Laughter) Elliott: If you looked like a beautiful doe you would be in trouble. (Laughter) Wilbum: Dee, do you have something? Vanderhoefi Yes, I do. Just to report back from the state legislative day in Des Moines. The hotel/motel tax has some legs to it right now and for some reason they're trying to call it the League of Cities bill, which it isn't our highest priority for this year...but it was pretty plain that there isn't much sentiment to ear-mark it at the state level for cultural events and CVB's, but any city, once they have that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 31 of 33 opportunity...number one they have to vote on it in the city, so it will be a local decision if it comes to pass that they raise that by another one or two percent. The second thing, we are making a push from the League of Cities to move on this property tax proposal and they're asking us to meet with our legislators again and work to get a commitment from them on the pieces of the property tax proposal that they think has a possibility of passing and the things they are willing to support. Certainly we would like the whole package but we are not going to just absolutely hammer them with the things they don't like...let's get what we do like. Champion: What do they like? Vanderhoef: Well you were - no, I guess you weren't able to come .... they didn't talk much about it. I suspect some of them hadn't read it yet. Joe Bolkcom sits on the committee that's looking at it...and he head read it and looked at it...but certainly they had not talked about it...so I don't have a feel for what he wants...and in talking to...ah .... some of our legislators in Des Mo ines...they were interested in meeting with City Council again.., so it was more than Mary Macher's invitation to ask them back. This was Bob Dvorsky and Dave Jacoby and Vicki Lensing. They all said they would be happy to come back again and I would like to propose...Vicki even mentioned Friday... because they usually head home on Thursday nights.., and they are here on Fridays... so it wouldn't necessarily have to be a Saturday meeting if we wanted to invite them over to talk with them .... so I would like to look at that first Friday in March...because we want to get to them before funnel time at the state legislature. Karr: The first is a Tuesday. Elliott: Funnel day, I thought somebody said? I think the 11th. Vanderhoef: It's shortly after that .... so .... Atkins: If we're going to do it, that's probably the best time to do it. Vanderhoef: The Friday or Saturday, whichever works best... Elliott: I'd like to not have them have to go through the marathon they went through the last time they were here.., over there for an hour... O'Donnell: Didn't we make it fairly clear what we were proposing? Vanderhoef: But we got no commitment and now that they've had a chance to look at the other bills that are coming out...personally, I think we need to hear what's out there from different groups and what they like about our proposal and certainly to see if we can push our proposal or have some answers for some of the other proposals? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 32 of 33 O'Donnell: What's going to change on our viewpoint, though? Vanderhoef: That isn't the point...we haven't gotten a commitment from them and we haven't had a chance to respond to them if they bring us pieces from one of the other bills. Bailey: I think that if they're interested in meeting with us again, we should try to get, at least some of us who are also interested in sitting down with them.., nothing bad can come of developing a relationship with our... Vanderhoef: And certainly find out about where we are on the hotel/motel tax... Atkins: Invite them to lunch and have a boxed-luncheon here. Bailey: Which Friday? Atkins: The 4th. I'll see ifI can get them available. Spend an hour or an hour and a half with them. Wilbum: You'll let us know, Steve? Atkins: Certainly. Elliott: No, he'll keep it a secret. Karr: And we'll call you when you don't show up. Atkins: I'll check that out. Wilbum: Any other council time? We still have identification of priorities for discussion. Identification of Priorities for Discussion O'Donnell: That's something we seem to move right by pretty quickly. Bailey: Well, we've got a whole list of things we need to talk about. Vanderhoef: I wish those things were put on our future work session items and I don't know whether you don't have space usually, Marian, but .... Karr: One of them is space...we take off some of the upcoming dates and put on more but also just to distinguish between the items for discussion versus the items for future work sessions. Are they one in the same or two different ones? Atkins: I have a list that I maintain. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. February 14, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 33 of 33 Karr: Assuming those are two different issues. We do put those on the end of the minutes every time. The minutes have a continuation list. Elliott: I'd like to prioritize those, if we could, and actually get to them. Atkins: You have a fairly complex one in alleys. That's a biggy. Vanderhoefi But those aren't out there as reminders and I'm not sure the public is seeing them...and I've been asked just recently about....those things aren't on your list... Champion: What things, Dee? Vanderhoefi The ones for future discussions. Atkins: We'll get them back to you. Vanderhoef: Because I think we need to knocking those off one at a time here...if it's going to take that long. Wilbum: Good night all. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the February 14, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session.