Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-04 TranscriptionApril 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 1 of 35 April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Bailey, chamPion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Helling, Karr TAPE: 05-23 (Side One & Part of Side Two) Planning & Zoning A.) APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 62.03 ACRES OF TERRITORY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1, WEST OF HIGHWAY 218 AND EAST OF KITTY LEE ROAD (ANN04-00001) Franklin: The first item...well, let me just address A and B together. A is the annexation of the Davis property and B is the rezoning. First of all, because we haven't discussed this at all yet, this is the annexation of approximately 62 acres. We are zoning about 62 acres and the reasoning for the disparity is because of the highway. That's the difference in the acreage. This is to enable a commercial subdivision. As you may recall, you have already acted on the comprehensive plan amendment to change this from residential to commercial. With annexations we look at whether this is a long-range growth area - which it is - and also whether it fulfills any kind of need that the City has. This is an opportunity for commercial development and we'll talk a little bit later with the costs associated with this because this is another factor that you look at with annexation. Is it going to create costs for the community? Is it an area in which we have an interest in having some control? Yes, because it is in our growth area, it is around a major interchange, so yes, it is in the City's interest to have some control here. So, the recommendation from Planning and Zoning is that it be annexed with a 6- 0 vote. Now, the other factor that comes in to consideration when you're looking at an annexation is whether you extend the fringe area to take in additional subdivision review area in the County. In this case, we're suggesting that you not extend it. It's a fairly minimal area in which it would be extended. It is clearly outside of our growth area and as you can tell, by the display that it is your packet, that shows the piece that would be put into the two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction. It really is diminomous, as the attorney's would say. Just a little bit. So that's the annexation. Now the zoning, which is the bigger deal. B.) CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM COUNTY A1 TO CC-2, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (APPROXIMATELY 16.05 ACRES), CI-1, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (APPROXIMATELY 20.22 ACRES), CO-l, OFFICE COMMERCIAL (APPROXIMATELY 10.92 ACRES) AND RR-1, RURAL RESIDENTIAL (APPROXIMATELY 2.83 ACRES), FOR This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 2 of 35 PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH HIGHWAY 1, WEST OF HIGHWAY 218 AND EAST OF KITTY LEE ROAD (REZ04-00030) Franklin: We're looking at a combination of zoning classifications. CI-1 for the largest piece, which is this 20.22 acres in the center here. CC-2 along Highway 1, the intersection of Kitty Lee Road and Highway 1. Elliott: Karin, Kitty Lee, is that the existing road that is there now? Franklin: Yes, Kitty Lee is this one that goes up the side. This is Highway 1 here and the interchange with 218 is right here. Elliott: Where is Naples? Franklin: Naples is south of the highway now and will extend to the north with this project. So, the Community Commercial or retail zoning, is along 218 as well as along Naples Avenue as it is extended. Then, it transitions to a Commercial Office zoning in this area, because that is one of our lowest - it is our lowest density commercial zoning - and is right up against the existing residential development there on Kitty Lee. This piece, which we wanted to annex now so as not to have a remainder as some time in the future, would just be RR-1, which is that Rural Residerltial zoning that could come off of this access here. It is unlikely that it will develop as anything. So, that's the zoning pattern that we're talking about. Now, is there a question here, Dee? Vanderhoefi Go ahead. Franklin: What I'm going to get into now is the conditional zoning agreement. First of all, just to go over the issues that we all agreed on - and when I say 'we all', that is City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the developer. This is a concept of the subdivision plat. We are not reviewing a plat at this stage, it's just the zoning. This gives you a better idea of the particulars of what we're talking about in the conditional zoning. Vanderhoef: Karin, you've put up two different maps for the commercial area and I didn't know which one we were working off of. One has six lots on it and this one has three. Franklin: That one. Vanderhoefi That's the one we're working off of. Franklin: Yes, and remember, this is generally speaking for now because we haven't done the plat, so it could change. The important thing with this one is where the CO zoning boundaries are. This one I want to use is to illustrate where some of the public improvements will need to occur. Naples, which is to the south of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session · Page 3 of 35 Highway 1 now, would extend to the north and would end in a cul de sac, roughly in this configuration. What has been agreed to is the construction of Naples that is the standards at which it would be constructed and the limitations on access points. Lot 13 and Lot 14 would have a common access point and that would be across of the access to this larger piece here and any other access to Lot 2 would be as far north as possible on the lot. That has been agreed to by all the parties to date. Lehman: Those are the only two accesses on to the large lot? Franklin: Yes, these are the only two accesses for this property. Improvements to Kitty Lee, with development of Lot 1, there is a stipulation that upon the development of Lot 1, since Lot 1 has no access to Highway 1 that it will have to have access off of Kitty Lee and that at that time Kitty Lee would be constructed to City standards to wherever that driveway falls that comes out to it. There will be landscaping along the north property line between the commercial development here and these residential properties, and that there will also be landscaping along a proposed fence, if that fence is constructed on Lot 2. There will be no access to Highway 1 other than Naples and that the sizing of the sanitary sewer and the lift station will be adequate to serve the watershed. The way it will be built is that it will serve this development now and will have the capacity to increase its capacity with additional impellers to have that lift station serve that whole watershed. Vanderhoefi How big is the watershed? How much more can it take in? Franklin: I don't have an area map on here, Dee, but it proceeds to the west, just north of Highway 1...it's a little hard to describe it abstractly...but it's based upon the ridge lines and the low points. Vanderhoef: Are we talking twenty acres or one hundred acres? Franklin: We're talking at least one hundred acres. Lehman: But that computation has been made in setting the size of the lift station. Franklin: Right and all of that will...when we do the subdivision plat and get the construction plans for the final plat, all of that will be locked. What this agreement is is about agreeing to the concept, that yes, it will be built so that that capacity can be increased. Elliott: All the agreements that you're discussing now are agreements between the City and owner, correct? Franklin: That's correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 4 of 35 Elliott: You'll get to where there are disagreements? Franklin: Right. In fact, I'm going to get to that right now. The debated issue...there are three of them that are about money and one of them is about a fence design. I'm going to deal with the three that deal with the money first. What this is about is really 'who is going to pay?'...when we have a development, there are improvements that will or may be a consequence of that development and the question that is always out there is 'who is going to pay?', the general public or the particular developer. It's really up to you to arrive at that balance between the general public paying and the developer paying and that's going to depend upon how much you want the project to go forward, the benefit that you think it has to the community versus what you think the developer should pay. With that, the first issue is the allocation of costs for Highway 1 and Naples and the traffic circulation improvements. What that involves is... well, let me go through the three first. It's the allocation costs for Highway 1 and Naples. The cost allocation for Kitty Lee Road and the sidewalk on Highway 1. Naples and Highway 1. The Planning and Zoning commission has recommended that the developer pays 100% of the construction ofNaples...I'm going to go to this one... 100% for the construction of Naples and that includes anything that needs to be done at this intersection in terms of extra lanes. 100% of the traffic signal, which would be at Naples and Highway 1. Again, this is the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation. 100% of any north bound turn lanes. So, if you have a left-turn lane here going north, or a right-turn lane coming off of Highway 1 for traffic to go north. 100% of that would be at the developers cost. This City would pay 100% of any south movement and 100% of improvements to Naples south of Highway 1, such that Naples, as it is now, will align properly with the lane from Naples from the north. Through these negotiations, at a staff level, we look at 'would these projects have to happen but for this development'. The next thing we look at and always negotiate initially from a position of protecting the tax payers...that we do that at the outset, what I would say vigorously and then try to come to some middle. Particularly when we're looking at a development that we think is going to be of benefit. That was what the Planning and Zoning Commission was looking at also when they negotiated this at a Commission level. The developers proposal, and it has changed from when the Planning and Zoning Commission was considering this - and I'll point out that change after I explain it to you - the developer is proposing to pay, as the Commission suggested, 100% of Naples to the north. They would pay 100% of the north bound turn lane, as proposed by the Commission. They would pay 50% of the traffic signal. That's different from the Commission. The Commission said 100%. However, they would also pay for Naples to the south, any changes that occurred to Naples to the south. That is different. That was not asked for by the Commission. What the City would pay in the developer's proposal is all of the south-bound turn lanes, as with the Commission recommendation, and 50% of the traffic signal. So, the differences are in the traffic signal in which the developer said 100% - wait, no...the Commission said that 100% of the traffic signal would be paid for by developer, and the developer suggested to split that 50/50. To sweeten that, they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 5 of 35 have also indicated that they would pay any cost of change to the lanes in Naples to create the proper alignment. Lehman: How much does that cost? Do we have any idea? The alignment of Naples... Franklin: The alignment of Naples is probably...and this is an estimate...about $25,000. Lehman: And the signalization? Franklin: The signalization .... about half of the signalization would be about $50,000 - $70,000 - if it's $150,000. So, that's what's out there. Elliott: As it been agreed, as I recall reading, they would cover the cost of realigning Naples to the south, only that which is required to align with Naples to the north, or are you doing more? Franklin: Yes, that would all that anyone would do. Vanderhoef: The City is then still paying for the turn lanes .... Franklin: For the southbound, right. Then 50% of the signal. Vanderhoef: You didn't talk about the Kitty Lee comer...you said something about road standards up to wherever that driveway might be to enter Lot 1...but then another time you swung your cursor all the way up. Franklin: Those are two different things and its coming. Right now I'm just focusing on Naples and Highway 1. There's three points in Tom Gelman's that I want to respond to. Just for factual information. The traffic study was requested by the City, to be done by the developer but requested by the City, and we use that to determine the allocation. That's how we came up with the initial 90/10. It was intended for our purposes for the allocation. The CC-2 zoning to the north is going to be more intensive in terms of traffic than the CI-1 zoning to the south. There are other precedents for the cost sharing. Tom cites The Lodge at 50/50. Westport Plaza, 100% was Westport. Now, across the street is only a single- family home and that's why it was 100%. With Menards ay Sunset, that conditional zoning agreement was... 100% was paid by the Menards for the turn signal and for the turning lanes. So, the precedent is varied. Vanderhoef: By The Lodge, you mean? Lehman: No. Menards. Franklin: The precedent that Tom cites is just The Lodge. Vanderhoefi Oh, got it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 6 of 35 Elliott: Karin, you said the development to the south is going to be much less intensive than that to the north and it's that basis on which you thought a 90/10...was it a 90/10 - Franklin: We started with a 90/10, yeah. Elliott: It's that basis on which that decision was made, correct? Franklin: Well, it was a number of factors...that was one of them. Elliott: Yeah. Franklin: The other point of debate is the cost allocation on Kitty Lee. Now, it is not about what you were referring to, Dee, in terms of improvement when Lot 1 is developed. That's agreed upon. When Lot 1 develops and they have to have a driveway to Kitty Lee, they have agreed to Kitty Lee to City standards. Lehman: To what point? Franklin: To where the driveway is. Lehman: Just to the driveway? Franklin: Yes. The point that is debatable is the position to require them to pay 50% of projected cost of improving Kitty Lee for the length that they abut Kitty Lee. The rationale behind that, in terms of the staff and Commission, is that when this annexation occurs, there are certain costs that are eventually going to accrue to us as a consequence of that annexation. One of those is likely to be the improvement of Kitty Lee. When, we can't say. Tom has stated very clearly of their position. No access to Kitty Lee, they shouldn't have to pay anything. So, it's up to you guys. Lehman: But it's running past their property. Franklin: Yes, it's running past their property. It comes right here. They abut it to this point. Vanderhoef: Okay .... I recall a place out on Court Street where the City did put the street in - the oversized street in - to connect us with another property that was developing further out and put in place that there would be an impact fee at whatever time the other part was developed. To me, that's the same kind of situation here...that if the street gets in there...it may well be a year but it could be within months somebody will come in say 'I'm going to develop on the west side of Kitty Lee' and I would to having that same kind of an impact fee. If we charge it for... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 7 of 35 Franklin: Actually, what you're referring to was on Lower West Branch Road and it's .... we don't like to refer to it as an impact fee. It makes Eleanor nervous. (Laughter) Vanderhoef: She looks pretty calm. (Laughter) Franklin: Inside she's broiling. (Laughter) What we've done on Lower West Branch Road - and we've done it on Sycamore, too - is that we negotiate, in the conditional zoning agreement, that a portion or a proportion of the cost of the improvement of that road will be bom by the abutting development when they come in for a final plat. We've done that on Lower West Branch and we've done it on Sycamore. Vanderhoefi So that's already in there...because I didn't happen to see it. Franklin: What we are saying in here is that 50% of the cost of Kitty Lee Road for this extent, from here to here, would be the responsibility of this development. The argument that they will make is that there is no access point from here to wherever on Lot 1 and so they should not have to pay it because they are not going to access it. Elliott: Karin, I have a question. How does this development necessitate the improvement to that road? Franklin: It does not immediately, but if this stayed in the County, if it were not developed, we would not be talking about the City taking on the future improvement of Kitty Lee Road. Elliott: So...this is an annexation...and were it not for that, the City would not have to take on the road, therefore - Franklin: Because it would be in the County and we wouldn't be paying any attention to it. Vanderhoef: Okay, the annexation is too midline of Kitty Lee, is that right? Franklin: Well, actually not. It's only the Davis property...which is about fifteen feet, so that's all we can get of Kitty Lee Road at this point and time. Vanderhoef: Say that again, please. Franklin: The way property is owned in the County...usually it's to the Center line...I don't know why, in this instance, this property only owns fifteen feet of Kitty Lee Road right of way .... or I think it's fifteen, that's what I recall. Yeah, it's odd. O'Donnell: Since Kitty Lee is not going to benefit the Davis property, what they've agreed to is to participate in any costs should they ever decide to - This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 8 of 35 Franklin: They have agreed that as far as Lot 1 is concerned that when that is developed - and there is a drive out to Kitty Lee, that they will improve Kitty Lee to that driveway. Vanderhoef: Going back to my original question, the remainder of Kitty Lee is the part is still unresolved, shall we say, and the land to the west - Franklin: Yes. Vanderhoef: How can we assure that the land to the west will have an obligation to pay for part of an already existing road if we build the whole thing up to City standards? Do you see what I'm saying? Franklin: I do .... that if we improved Kitty Lee to City standards prior to the development to the west, how would the developer to the west be impacted? They would not. I know. Vanderhoefi That's the problem to me. Franklin: The other part of the problem is that you then make the decision at such time that Kitty Lee needs to be improved, you or a future Council, either absorb that cost as a public cost or you do an assessment project. Assessment is there as an option for you. I've been here twenty-five years and I don't think we've ever had a successful assessment project because as soon as you have an assessment project, you'll have the abutting property owners saying 'No!', but that's a political question. Lehman: Does it also take a vote of six or seven to - Dilkes: Six. Lehman: Six. Franklin: To do a project, yeah. Lehman: Seven if there's an objection? Dilkes: If it's 75% objection...I think it's 75% objection. Franklin: So you've got to be very strong willed. A Council has to be very strong willed to do an assessment project. Lehman: If there is a waiver to the objection of the assessment, then this does not take the majority vote. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 9 of 35 Dilkes: He can only control waiver and objection to the property that they can control. Assuming he can do that for future property owners, but he's not going to do it for the other side. We don't know what that assessment project would involve at this point, but if you got enough objection without his property, you'd still force it to a unanimous vote. Lehman: I understand that, but if at the time that Kitty Lee is improved, there was an arrangement of the property owners on the undeveloped site to pay their share and he had waived his ability to object to this side, then conceivably the road could be built without excessive costs to - Dilkes: Well, we're going to have to...I mean if that's something the Council wants to consider, we're going to have to look at the whole issue of enforceability of the waiver and how you tie that to the land and bind future property owners. In addition, and I think politically, even if you can somehow tie it to the land, it's hard to enforce those waivers. It's kind of like we've talked about agreements to annex in the future. Lehman: I see the red flag. Dilkes: You know, that kind of concept where you're binding.., anyway. Vanderhoef: One more question about Kitty Lee Road before we get off of it. What is the master transportation plan and future of Kitty Lee? Does it go over and connect where the line is for the new 965? Franklin: No. Kitty Lee...what's likely to happen is that this will - either at this point or possibly even farther to the west a little bit - would go off on a diagonal - this is the only area map that I've got here - would go off on a diagonal and Kitty Lee would come and T into that. So, Kitty Lee is likely to be a local street for a very long time. Vanderhoefi That just dead-ends up to the intersection. Franklin: Yes, given the topography and the area and what's there around Kitty Lee now, it's unlikely that all of these houses are going to be taken out and it's going to be redeveloped. It's not that...it's not an area that is of that nature. Even if the arterial or collector comes in at this point, it will go off to the west to follow a ridgeline and this will be brought in as a T intersection into that. It will be improved some time at residential standards. Vanderhoef: I walked the property yesterday and it's so amazing when you get up there at the end and you look straight down Mormon Trek. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 10 of 35 Franklin: Oh yeah, because it used to be that alignment. I think I will - if I can just interject an opinion here - this whole issue would be much more serious and I would argue it much more vehemently if this was going to be an arterial or a collector. Elliott: Two quick questions, Karin. One, I think to recall one of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners saying something...they thought Kitty Lee might extend north further rather than dead-end. Is that a possibility? Franklin: It's possible...uhm... Vanderhoef: It would have to curve. Franklin: Yeah. Vanderhoef: It would have have curve because it would hit 218 and there's a house right there. Elliott: The other thing...and remind me again...you would like them to go 50/50 on the road, 3/4 of it in question, or you want them to pay all of it? Franklin: 50% was the recommendation. Elliott: They want to pay none, the City wants 50/50? Okay, thanks. Wilbum: Did their counter-proposal say...address the sidewalk recommendation. Did they say they would not do that or... ? Franklin: Yeah. In the Highway 1 sidewalk assessment, which is the other financial issue to discuss, they do not believe that that it is appropriate for them to pay for this now, that, again, this can be done by assessment in the future if and when a sidewalk is extended here. We do have a sidewalk on Highway 1 in unfunded years of CIP. It's from Riverside to Mormon Trek. We've talked about it on the north side of the highway, mainly because of The Lodge and how much foot traffic we're seeing there...but again it's a judgment call. O'Donnell: It seems to me like this road is going to have limited usage and I'm wondering if the sidewalk can just go up and end? Franklin: Well, it won't always be that way and if we had done sidewalks with every single development on Highway 1, then we would not be talking about this kind of being out there in the middle of no where. O'Donnell: Well, it truly is out there. Lehman: Menards is going to be a giant project. I assume that that's the project that is in - Franklin: We have to look at as it could be. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 11 of 35 Lehman: That's a tremendous traffic generator. At some point in time we're going to have to have sidewalks along Highway 1. I don't think there is any question about that. Vanderhoef: They've offered to do it in the next ten years by an assessment. Lehman: Except in the case of the sidewalk, are they the only property on or along this... Franklin: It would be these four properties that would be assessed? Lehman: And there could be four different property owners and undoubtedly will be. Franklin: They will be. Lehman: I'm sorry, but could that waiver of assessment be put in as a requirement when the property was sold? Dilkes: Well, that the whole issue. The whole issue is whether we can do that. Because it's a statutory waiver as opposed to...it raises some question. The special assessment process is statutory. Franklin: We've had waiver of objections used before in the past. I remember in the eighties we had one on the east side where there was a waiver of objection by the developer, but then people bought the properties and they came to Council and they objected. Yeah, well technically there is a waiver of objection, but as a councilor, you're not going to not listen. Champion: What about...they don't have finish Naples Road...I just think that's so far in the future. They do have to do the sidewalk though. Bailey: You mean Kitty Lee? Champion: Yeah. They have to pay for the stoplights and sidewalks. Franklin: That's your choice. Lehman: I'm sure tomorrow that Tom will be there. Franklin: Yes, he will. Elliott: My question is, the City wants the owner to escrow the costs of the sidewalks and get it back within ten years if the sidewalk is not built. Has the owner agreed to an agreement that they would pay for a sidewalk if it were put in in ten years? What is each side saying? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 12 of 35 Franklin: As I understand it...what the City wants is the...the estimated cost of putting in a sidewalk there. Not all of the earthwork that needs to be done, because there it's going to require that there be a culvert put it and that it be brought up to a grade where you can put a sidewalk in...but assuming all of that is done by the City, that the developer pay for the paving and labor or whatever it would take to put a sidewalk in. I think it's about $12,000 or something...I don't know, that may be wrong. I take that back. Champion: It's got to be more than that. Franklin: It's probably more than that, now as I think about the trails that we've done. Maybe $120,000. Elliott: What I'm trying to get at is there a time limit on that? Dilkes: No, Bob, we just gave them the escrow option so if they wanted to get the lien off the properties they would have the option of doing that. Elliott: But there would be no time limit...that would be forever? Dilkes: Time limit on giving - Elliott: I was reading in some of the materials that if it were not in ten years they would get the escrow back or that they would agree to pay at a future time, that amount for the sidewalk, if it were put in in a ten-year period? Dilkes: It's a ten-year period, I think - Franklin: For the escrow. Dilkes: The sidewalk has to go in in ten years or they don't pay for it. I think that's the current proposal that we've made, isn't it, Karen? Elliott: And they would get the escrow back, correct? Franklin: Right. Dilkes: Let me look...go ahead and let me look at the conditional zoning agreement. Vanderhoefi I agree, Bob, that's the way I read it. Elliott: I was wondering if the City would be holding their money for ten years or would they be agreeing to pay within ten years...which I think is... Dilkes: No, the escrow option...it's solely at their option...there will either be a lien on the property for that ten-year period that they may have that obligation to install This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 13 of 35 the sidewalk. If they want to get a lien off the property, when they're selling it, etc., then they have the option to escrow it to get rid of that land. Elliott: That's what I was getting at. Vanderhoefi But if they sell the lot or those front lots, then there is a lien on the property and they can't sell it until they've put money into the escrow. Dilkes: Right. Lehman: The amount of the money for the sidewalk - Dilkes: They can pass the lien on or they can - Vanderhoefi They can pass the lien on? Dilkes: Sure, if the buyer would accept it. Vanderhoef: There was one more question that was spoken in the Planning and Zoning minutes and then I spoke to someone yesterday when I was walking around out there and it had to do with a deceleration lane as you are headed south... Franklin: For Kitty Lee? Vanderhoef: For Kitty Lee. Franklin: We have put in for a U-Step Grant for that to see if we can't just get state funding to do that independent of that project. Once it's in the City...because we got that input also from the people who live on Kitty Lane and others. Vanderhoefi The stoplight may help a lot but it's a fair distance that if people are accelerating... Franklin: We have two U-Step applications in right now. One is for the deceleration lane go take a right turn on to Kitty Lee Road and the other is for the signalization of the ramp, the southbound ramp which is an issue right now, but that's all independent of this project. Lehman: Because there is only one shortcut between 218 and Kitty Lee, mainly Naples, there probably is little or no reason that the sidewalk couldn't be constructed sooner rather than later. There's not going to be construction equipment running back and forth across that area. What I'm saying is that if we feel the sidewalk is important, and I think there are some of us who do, rather than having...I think in his proposal he would agree to a lien for up to ten years...if we think that sidewalks are important, I think we should see to it that it gets built. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 14 of 35 Elliott: However, is there not a question about a bicycle/hiking trail on where that would go? Franklin: I don't think that's as much of an issue as the earth work that would need to be done to create the platform for the sidewalk, which we don't have programmed. Lehman: I should really walk this. Franklin: Pardon me? Vanderhoef: Well, they'll be doing all the roadwork and the equipment is there right at that point in time. Elliott: I'd sure like to take a look at this area. I think it would be beneficial to us to go out with one of your folks... Franklin: Oh sure. Elliott: And take a look tomorrow. Franklin: Okay. The last issue, which is not about money...well, maybe it...everything is about money when you get right down to it...it is the concern with the fence...the length of the fence. I want you to understand...this is the fence that is at the existing Menards and its 14-feet high. We, the staff, and I think the Planning and Zoning Commission too, as it's reflected in their recommendation, are concerned about this because of it's size. We do not have a lot of specific criteria as to how you evaluate a fence because we really didn't conceive that somebody would put in a fence almost 900 feet long...I mean, that's almost three blocks. This fence is going to be 95 feet back from Kitty Lee Road...but it's also going to be twenty feet up...it's going to be the grade at which it starts and then twelve to fourteen feet about that...so you're talking about thirty-two to thirty-four feet. There will be a landscaping screen in front of it, granted, which will take some time for that to grow. Landscaping screens kind of sometimes come and go. We had one up at Hy-Vee on Dubuque Road and one day that arborvitae was leveled .... so it's a hard thing to control always...I'm not saying that that's going to happen here but I think with a fence this size, it's very important to be cognizant of the fact that you're going to have a wall...and it is a structural wall because if Menard's goes there it stacks the lumber on the inside of the fence...so you will have this fence for 900 feet at least twelve feet if not fourteen feet high. It is along a road that now serves a residential neighborhood. It's not on the back of anything, it's along this road. We gave the developer the option of giving us a design right now, so we didn't have to worry about what the criteria were, we'd look at it and work it through now. They didn't want to lock themselves into that because if the Menard's deal doesn't go through then they have this in there. We're willing to put language in there that if the fence is in excess of"X" number of feet, because you know if you're just dealing with a normal fence, the concern is not as great, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 15 of 35 that there should be some City approval of that fence. What we're talking about is what, in architectural terms is called articulation, something that breaks up this straight mass. That one I do feel strongly about. The money ones you can deal with. (Laughter) Champion: Is there a host of things they can do? Franklin: Well, you can offset portions of it, you can put some features on it that just break it up visually. Champion: Like boards or decorative boards? Franklin: Yes. O'Donnell: What we're asking...you're seeking to control height? Franklin: No, not control height and length but...pardon me? O'Donnell: That would be part of the design that we're requesting? Franklin: We are assuming that this is going to be a fence that is twelve to fourteen feet high and 900 feet long. What we would like to have input on is what it looks like. This is what Menards, if they are the entity that buys this property, and likely the only entity that would put up a 900 foot fence, but I don't know, that this would be what they would put up because that's what they put up. This is on the back of Menards now and it's fine. Champion: You're right, who cares. Elliott: How far off the road is this fence going to be located? Franklin: It's 95 feet off of the road but there is also a grade change between the road and where the bottom of the fence will be. That's going to be twenty feet above where the road is. Champion: Well, they sell wood. They should be able to come up with a very nice-looking fence. Vanderhoefi It's sort of like driving down the interstate and they put nice buffer fences help the homes when they cut into their back yards. Franklin: So, those are the issues that are out there. Vanderhoef: Is there a way that you can put in the contract, as you say, the visual screenings and plantings come and go...what always bothers me is 'I put it in, only half of it lived, and then I don't ever have to put it in again' sort of thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 16 of 35 Franklin: Well, actually, we do have a survivability requirement in the code right now. Vanderhoef: But do you have anything you can do... Franklin: To go back if it dies within five years? Vanderhoef: No, to put in the original contract in perpetuity to keep the visual screen. Champion: No. That's impossible. Dilkes: I think it's not a question of what you put in the contract, it's the question of enforcing it. The arborvitaes that were knocked down, you might have contract language that might say that it has to be replaced, but you're going to start with little...I mean...it's more an enforcement issue than I think it's a drafting question. Elliott: This is a question of trust, it seems to me. Do they trust the City to not ask them to go to ridiculous Standards, does the City trust them not to do something that would be abhorrent. Champion: I don't trust them. Franklin: I don't put it in the terms of trust...but what is the understanding and what are we going to come out with in the end. Elliott: Trust may be too strong of a word. Franklin: I don't think there is anything devious here. Elliott: Both sides fear the unknown. Franklin: Right. Lehman: Alright. Well, we'll see what happens tomorrow night. Dilkes: So I think until you have a CZA that is acceptable to you, that is signed by the developer, then you need to continue and defer everything, but the annexation and the zoning. Franklin: And the developer's attorney will be here tomorrow night to give their perspective. Lehman: Well, my suspicion is tomorrow night we may be able to give some direction as to what sort of agreement might be acceptable but there is no way we'll have an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Io~va City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 17 of 35 agreement together by tomorrow night that can be signed so we'll have to defer any action, although the public hearing... Franklin: Continue the public hearing and defer the rest. Lehman: Right. Champion: Good, that was easier than I thought. Franklin: We're not over yet. (Laughter) Before we start the next item, I want to introduce to you, Sunil Terdalker, who is our new planner. He is taking Shelley McCafferty's place. Sunil comes from us from the University of Cincinnati. He is an architect. He's working with the Historic Preservation Commission right now, half time. Otherwise he is working on Urban Planning issues. Elliott: Were you cheering for the Bearcats or the Hawkeyes? That's all I want to know. (Laughter) Vanderhoefi You trust him, huh? ITEM 7. DECIDING THE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE IN THE FACADE OF 13. S. LINN STREET. Franklin: This item I didn't think we'd get into any substance tonight at all. This is what we're talking about tomorrow night on the appeal. Eleanor has given you a memorandum about the process of the appeal and what you're looking at. Tomorrow, Mike Maharry will be at the meeting and Sunil will be at the meeting .... and Tim will be at the meeting, maybe, ! don't know. Do you have any questions on how to proceed tomorrow? Lehman: Bottom line, it doesn't make any difference if we like it or not. It has to be that they were arbitrary or capricious, period. Franklin: In the guidelines, yes. Lehman: We understand. Franklin: Okay. Champion: Quite simple. Franklin: Excellent. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 18 of 35 Wilbum: Just a quick question, Eleanor...does that mean completely arbitrary or if there is a component...or something that was considered...if there was several relevant disagreements that were part of their decision but there was a part of the component that was arbitrary capricious. Does that invalidate the whole thing or does that... Dilkes: It would depend on whether...one can envision a situation where that was the critical component and if that was just off the mark and arbitrary and capricious, then yeah, you might be able to say it was...but...I think it depends on the circumstances. Lehman: Of course the portion that was arbitrary capricious is a significant factor. Agenda Items Lehman: Okay, Agenda Items? O'Donnell: Really not much there. Lehman: Good. ITEM 8. DECLARING TItE CITY'S INTENT TO PROCEED WITH AN AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. Atkins: I was going over the agenda this afternoon and I realized that I don't believe we prepped you very well for this landfill hearing that you're going to have tomorrow night - the acquisition of property rights. Rick will be here. It is something a little new...because it is agricultural land, we have to go through this process of notification, public hearing...we met with and they are represented by council the, I think it's pronounced Hee-bal, the Hebl family. They had a number of questions about why we're interested in their property. Simply spoken, the landfill property brackets their property now. They're in the middle. They may come tomorrow night saying 'we object, we're not interested in selling.' We didn't get that from the meeting, but they are certainly entitled to do that. The logical extension of the landfill for the future is to the west. To the east is a creek and the 965 corridor, so going west is really about our only choice. In order for us to begin with appraisals and other expenses associated with this potential land acquisition, we have to go through this process. What we try to do, as sort ora rule of thumb, we'd like to keep twenty to twenty-five years of landfill capacity sort of in the bank. We know what's going in Cedar Rapids and we certainly want to avoid that. We're beginning to slip down near the twenty. We also need dirt - that is we have to excavate some of the land. The nice thing is that we can excavate land from the Hebl property and build a cell simultaneously. That's the most efficient use of the land. Beyond that, I didn't feel as though I prepped you very well for the meeting. They may not come. They may, this is an authorization for us to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 19 of 35 proceed to have discussions with them. If condemnation were to occur, we could bring it back to you, but again, we have it bracketed. Okay. Elliott: Tomorrow night is basically a listening process, then? Atkins: Yes, hear what they have to say. They are represented by council. The meeting that staff briefed me on this morning was productive. They're not nodding they're head saying 'we're ready to sell' - but they discussed leases, people who can stay on their property, etc. Lehman: All we're doing here is a public hearing is a public hearing authorizing staff to proceed with discussions. Atkins: Yes. Eleanor, did I get everything. Okay. Lehman: All right. Correspondence 9. Water Tower Vanderhoef: I've got a couple of things. On correspondence 8, 9, and 10...all have to do with the water tower that is not ours. Did anyone send a brief reply saying that it's not ours? Atkins: We've not done that yet, but we will do that. We were getting a kick out of everybody jumping on the bandwagon. We were going to have someone show up with a bucket of paint at the University Hospitals, but that was a bad idea. (Laughter) But we'll likely do is to drop them a note and send copies of these off to the University so they can talk to the folks. Item 4 F (1) Removal of No Parking Vanderhoef: Let the kids come paint it. A little volunteer labor from University students. I have one more that I did a little more checking on today, which is the JCCOG...Williams memo on Oakcrest Street. I remember when we put that 'no parking' on Oakcrest at that time...and I called specifically to ask about the fire tracks, which is about the same situation as the bus to get through there, but it does take some weaving to get through if there are not...ifthere are cars parked along there...certainly you can't meet another car if you're buy a parked car...but what the pictures indicated to me and staff followed up and looked at it was that there are some rental properties there and we have may more a problem perhaps with over-occupancy and there is a rental permit on one of them, but they haven't been there for occupancy, but clearly the driveway situation is that there is as single driveway so they are only eligible to have two cars in that driveway and there are four of them being parked around there. My request to staff was...can we get out sooner rather than later before leases are written, and check on occupancy and rentals on those so if there is a problem with off-street parking and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 20 of 35 meeting our codes...that they would have time enough to put on a wider driveway in to their property and also alert the property owner that...what his occupancy can be in these houses? O'Donnell: Did we do a survey there? I think we did. Lehman: No, when we restricted parking we told...Oaknoll asked for this. We told them that we would prohibit parking through Christmas. That was the estimated time of completion by the contractor. It went significantly longer than that to get the project completed, but we told them at the time that we restricted the parking that that restriction would be removed at the completion of the project. As far as the over-occupancy, I think we can certainly let people know there are regulations, but I hate to see the Council to instigate the complaint. I mean, if there are issues in a neighborhood, I think the neighborhood should do that, not the council. Vanderhoef: No, I think we've already been notified by the neighborhood with the pictures. The pictures are notification to the City when they're parking in the grass. Lehman: Well them take them down to Doug, don't bring them to us. Elliott: The buck stops there. Champion: You know, parking is a problem in a lot of these areas. There are people who park in the grass all over town. That's not just happening here. Unless you call and object to it, I don't think we should be doing something about it. Bailey: I disagree. This is a complaint...we have ordinances on the books...these are happening. If we see it, ! think we need to be doing something about it. If it's an over-occupancy problem - which causes not only a violation of ordinances, but also a potentially dangerous situation when these people are sleeping. I think we should be checking into it. O'Donnell: It's not really over-occupancy, it's - Champion: Over-parked. O'Donnell: It's over-parked. It's a two-bedroom apartment with four kids in it and each of them has a car. It's a parking regulation. Elliott: Regenia is saying that it's a result, perhaps, of over-occupancy. Bailey: Potentially a result, not necessarily. Could also be a result of... Elliott: We do have instances where one or two people have multiple vehicles. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 21 of 35 Bailey: We do also have a rampant over-occupancy problem in many of our residential neighborhoods. Lehman: So, where are we? Bailey: Take them down to Doug. Vanderhoef: Take them down to Doug and I would say don't remove the no parking until such time that things are squared aware there. Lehman: But we told them we would. Vanderhoef: That I don't recall. Lehman: Well, I think we can find that out. They asked for a temporary 'no parking' because of the construction and we indicated that was temporary and I think the temporary part of it is over. O'Donnell: That was my understanding. Vanderhoefi We're only talking about the one block on up to the west of Oaknoll, between George and Sunset. Lehman: That's where the construction folks were parking and Oaknoll folks. It created a real issue, which is why they restricted it. I don't have an issue with this. Vanderhoefi I don't remember that but I say we just leave it no parking until we get everything resolved. We're roughly half and half and some of the survey cards have four names on it - which indicated that perhaps we have four renters in the same house where there are supposed to be three. Lehman: This is on the consent calendar, do we want...well, tomorrow night... Vanderhoef: Can we just pull it offuntil we have a little time... Lehman: I have no issue with removing the no parking, but that's what we told them. We'll just take it off tomorrow night and address is separately. Other agenda items? Item 4 F (10) Outdoor Burning Bailey: I have a question about correspondence #10 about the outdoor burning. What is our policy about these outdoor fire places? Elliott: I think the Council specifically allows it, does it not? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 22 of 35 O'Donnell: They're Chimeneas. Champion: Whatever they are, I can't remember what they're called, I just know what they look like. Dilkes: It would be nice if we could pick you up on the mikes. (Laughter) Lehman: There may be something you don't want to pick up on the mikes. Elliott: Well, it's allowed now...so just allow it or forget it. Council Appointments Lehman: Other agenda items? Hearing no other agenda items, we'll move on to Council Appointments. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment, I don't believe we have any. O'Donnell: I'd like to nominate Robert Brooks. Bailey: I'd like to speak for Wally Plahutink. A small business and neighborhood perspective will be very good. Vanderhoefi I like Wally and Bob Brooks, too. Elliott: We do have...I'm told the Council has no rule that a history of allowing people to serve a second term, not only allowing, but usually they serve a second term. My concern is that these terms are five years - is that it? - I would like at some point to ad&ess that. I think ten years is too long. Bailey: Bob Brooks is serving a partial. Elliott: Yes. My concern is Jerry Hansen. I will support Jerry. I talked with him and I told him that I think ten years is too long. I would like to address that at some point in the future. Bailey: That's one reason why I was nominating Wally because I think he brings a neighborhood perspective that Jerry has provided and it's a new voice. Elliott: Of the reasons why I said what I did is that I think you need some fresh ideas coming out. Lehman: All of those in favor of reappointing Mr. Brooks, please raise their hands. Okay, that's a definite. Now, we have one other appointment, are you nominating Jerry. We have Jerry and Wally. Are there other votes we should consider? O'Donnell: It is our policy to appoint for two terms. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 23 of 35 Champion: That's not our policy. I remember on Historic Preservation four of you didn't want you to reappoint someone. So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! Lehman: Well, now the ganders are going to vote. (Laughter) How many would support Wally. One, two, three, four. Elliott: That does it. And everything I know about him, he'll be a good one. Bailey: I think Jerry has done a good job. Elliott: Telecommunications we have next? Lehman: Yes, and I think Terry Smith is the only one. Is that okay with everyone? Elliott: As a matter of fact, I think it was a neat application. Lehman: I think he is already serving a term. Champion: He is. Lehman: It has been requested that we take a short break. (BRE~LK) Lehman: We can go over the next item. Scheduling of Future Pending Items Atkins: Just to give you a quick heads up, and I apologize, the Fire Inspector thing did not get completed due to Andy's vacation. We'll have that for you next time. I've got the Penninsula Project update memo prepared and that will be in your upcoming packet. I have a memo prepared for you that should hopefully be in the next packet regarding the consultants, so we'll knock those off. Lehman: Are there other pending issues? Champion: When are we going to schedule the zoning code? Lehman: Well, we have to wait until Planning and Zoning get through with their hearings. Champion: When are they going to be done? It might take us several hours to go through that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 24 of 35 Lehman: It's going to take several hours, at least a couple of meetings, maybe more...especially. Champion: We should be thinking about it. Elliott: Your schedule says that preliminarily, there will be two, two-hour meetings and more, if necessary. Atkins: Scattered Site is apparently dealing with it tonight. Lehman: I visited with Dale, last Friday, and we are sending a letter to the bar owners who indicated they would respond with a report on or about the first of May and we're going to try to schedule them for perhaps. Karr: They are on for May 2nd, tentatively. Lehman: Tentatively May 2nd. Are there other pending items? Karr: Are there any other items on the list that you'd like scheduled for the next meeting? That's what we were going to try to do is to pick from those items as we go through and identify them for the next meeting? Lehman: Regenia, you're in the driver's seat. Atkins: Heads up, you're starting to pack up a pretty good meeting for the 18th and 19th. Routine things. Elliott: Coming within the next couple of months, Scattered Site, Zone Changes, the Deer Hunt, etc. We're going to have some good discussion items on those. Lehman: The Affiliate. Eleanor? Affiliate Foundation Dilkes: There you have it. (Laughter). Those are my questions, at the end of the memo. Essentially what is attached are the draft agreement between foundation and the affiliate and the draft policies and guidelines. We really have to have some more direction from you all as to what you want to do with this before we can go farther. At the end of my memo, I ask the questions I think I need to have answered. As I understand it, and Mike is here and can correct me if I'm wrong, but at least in terms of accessing the gambling money, the benefit of establishing an Iowa City Civic Fund is in having the community foundation in a position to demonstrate, along with all their other affiliates, that they serve county-wide needs, because in order to access the gambling money, you have to have an organization that is serving county-wide needs and that would help them make that showing. It would not be the Iowa City Affiliate itself that would be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 25 of 35 accessing that gambling money. It would be the Foundation accessing that gambling money. The second benefit, as I understand it from Mike, to the Iowa City Civic Fund is that it would then serve as an advisory board for the use of the gambling money that came to Iowa City. Lehman: Would we have to appoint a board? Dilkes: You need to have a board of this affiliate, so that's the first question. Who do you see as comprising this affiliate board of trustees? I think both, and maybe Steve can speak more this, but I think both for open meetings purposes and I assume for political purposes, it might not be as effective to have a board made up entirely of the City Council. That's something that needs to be decided. Champion: Would we create a commission? Dilkes: Would you create a commission? Uhmm...you still have those open meetings issue with a City-created commission. Lehman: We're not talking about a board or a commission, whatever you want to call it, that would have to have regular meetings like we do with so many other boards and commissions like twice a month all year long...that would be my guess. Dilkes: Let's start with the basics. How do you envision this board of trustees? I don't know. I have a lot of questions about this affiliate that I feel like you need to tell me what you want to do with this. Do you envision this as a couple of council members with other members of the community? Do you... I mean...is this necessarily a City function? I don't know. Bailey: When we discussed this originally, we talked about this affiliate fund to enhance our abilities support our human services and our community events funding. So, I think there was an assumed strong relationship between the affiliate board of trustees and the Council so we could continue to enhance or have some priorities played out through this affiliate fund. Is there a way that we can do that? Dilkes: You mean you're talking about the Council essentially being the board? Bailey: That would be one association. The goal of this was really to play out our objectives as a council to support community events and human service funding. Dilkes: That's a question for me. I've never heard the Council discuss what the purpose of this fund it. The last we talked about it, some people were interested in having human services be a priority, and some people were having it be a broader based civic fund that wasn't solely based on human services. So, I don't know. I've not heard Council have that discussion. When Dee and I, Mike, and Steve met, that's kind of what we assumed, that community events...the two funding areas that we do now, the community events funding and the human services funding...that this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 26 of 35 fund would help us enhance our abilities to invest in those two areas. That's always been my assumption of the objective of the fund. Lehman: I thought it was to, so it could take a little pressure off of general fund or a combination of both. Bailey: Potentially, given the amount of funding we' re talking, it's not going to make much of a difference. Dilkes: Although, I think some of those conversations, as I understand it, because I wasn't involved in those conversations, but some of those conversations were held at the time that you were talking about looking at the Endow Iowa money and using $25,000 of general fund money to serve as the match. That's not what we're talking about now. Bailey: I don't think the idea of having another funding stream to enhance human service funding or community events funding has really changed, at least in my understanding of speaking with other members of council. Vanderhoef: It has not changed for me. Dilkes: But I've not heard the conversation. There has been no meeting of the Council about this, so this is the time for you to talk about. Vanderhoef: We discussed this when Mike came. Champion: Yeah. Lehman: Okay, we're going to discuss this right now. How many of us feel that this was primarily conceived to help with community event and human service funding. Okay, we not only have direction but we have unanaminity, which is wonderful. Now, what's next? How would we want to administer it? Elliott: Before you go on to the next one, part of my interest in this was also that Iowa City would also benefit the community foundation. Let's not have that get lost. Bailey: And by accessing gambling funds...because 75% of that will be passed through the affiliates, but 25% of that will be held with the community foundation to build their endowment. Lehman: It's a win-win. Elliott: Yes, I just didn't want that passed over. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 27 of 35 Lehman: Then I guess, if I understand correctly, Eleanor, you're kind of interested in what sort of board would we expect to administer this. Is there consensus that the Council would like to do this? Atkins: I thought there was some concern or some restrictions that Council could not be the governing board. Dilkes: That's the basis of the footnote .... I'll let Mike tell you what he's found out about the footnote. I don't know if we're at the bottom of that. Stoffregen: At the bottom of the very first page of the draft of the affiliate agreement, there is a footnote that says the board membership is governed by the following provisions of the community foundation declaration of trust and I think Eleanor was a little concerned about that. At no other point in the documentation is it referenced as declaration of trust. In talking with the Iowa Council of Foundations and the National Council of Foundations, which use this as a template, the declaration of trust is what is used or referred to as your bylaws and your articles of incorporation to receive your 501(c)(3) designation in the world of philanthropy. I think Eleanor and I have kind of agreed, well, we understand that...but the other thing in the middle of it says that there are some problem areas with the board of trustees, which is what you would appoint, can not be holders of salaried, public, or political offices or candidates for political offices. That's what I think is part of the declaration of trust that I think is bothersome to... Elliott: That means no Council. No elected official or staff. Dilkes: The concern with the footnote is two-fold. One, there is no declaration of trust, fine. Articles of incorporation or bylaws are the governing documents, it doesn't matter what you call them, but the quote that continues to...that assumes that there are limitations on the board of trustees, I can't find that anywhere in the articles of incorporation or bylaws. The next question becomes to me, is there some kind of legal requirement for 501(3)(c) status or whatever that limits it to...limits who can be on the board. Stoffregen: My answer is no because we actually have elected officials on our board. Lehman: So we can have elected officials on the board. Stoffregen: This affiliate agreement states that you can not, though. It doesn't state that in our articles of incorporation. So this is what Eleanor is pointing out - Lehman: Could you lose that? Stoffregen: Could that paragraph go away, yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 28 of 35 Elliott: I would like two or three members of that body to be members of the City Council, but I think there should be community people. Champion: If we ever get any money, we'll decide where it goes. O'Donnell: We're the ones that do that anyway. Wilburn: I'm sorry...I'm presuming and maybe I'm presuming incorrectly, if this is allowable through...did this come through the state gambling or gaming... Stoffregen: Correct. Dilkes: Did what come through? Stoffregen: Dollars. Dilkes: The money? Wilbum: The process that you could do this through a community foundation. Did that come from the State Gaming Board? Stoffregen: It came from a law enacted by the State Legislature last July. Dilkes: You have to be a qualified community foundation or an affiliate of that to access that money and what determines whether you are qualified is whether you are certified by the National Council on Foundations. Wilbum: But my question is who put my footnote in that there? Dilkes: That's my question, I have no idea. Wilburn: Because if that's the State, we can't just say...no offense, Mike, but we can't just say 'Well, Mike says it's okay to lose that.' Dilkes: Well, these documents came from Mike, so that's why, when I saw the footnote, I asked. Stoffregen: This document is a template that is adopted by the Iowa Council of Foundation and National Council of Foundations. Wilbum: But does that statement appear anywhere with the State? Stoffregen: No. It's a template that we use for the donor-advised affiliate funds. Vanderhoef: And you didn't- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 29 of 35 Wilburn: What was the reason that was put in there? Stoffregen: That's a very good question. I don't know. When I called to ask that question of the declaration of trust, I did not follow up with why that was even in here. Bailey: We can certainly get another template, though. Stoffregen: Sure, this is our agreement with the affiliate. I think it can be amended. Bailey: I think if other Iowa foundations are not using this - Stoffregen: Not all of them do use this. In fact, we can draft our own affiliate agreement if you want. Dilkes: There is no question that you don't have to use this template, but still, it would be nice to know what the origin of that footnote is and why it's there since.., it's just a little troubling. Wilburn: We don't want to get something started that we have to undo later. Bailey: Do other funds have affiliated-city funds? Stoffregen: Do other funds... Bailey: Other Iowa funds. Stoffregen: Yes. Bailey: Who? Stoffregen: A good example is Mount Pleasant. Mount Pleasant just established an affiliate fund and in fact they used $25,000 to match to apply for that matching. Bailey: What about Waterloo? Stoffregen: I can call Mary Anne and ask, but I'm pretty sure that...city entities can have funds. Bailey: Right, I'm just thinking that perhaps their council could talk to Eleanor and get a better sense of what this was...particularly, I have a great deal of respect for Mary Anne in Waterloo and know that if they set something up then it's... Dilkes: Mary Anne in Waterloo? Stoffregen: Mary Anne Burke. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 30 of 35 Bailey: And if they have something similar, I think it would be worth looking into or Des Moines. Stoffregen: Mary Anne is really an excellent resource. Vanderhoef: Mary Anne is the one that spoke at the Iowa League of Cities last fall. She's been encouraging everyone to affiliate, rather than everybody go out and create their own foundation. Dilkes: Okay. Elliott: If we find out that we can do it, and we all want the Council to be that, then we're taken care of. Dilkes: In Waterloo, do they have city affiliates? Stoffregen: Yes, they do. Dilkes: They do? Stoffregen: City of Waterloo has several affiliates. The City of Applington is an affiliate under the City of Waterloo's qualified umbrella. Bailey: I'm sure there are foundations that you can speak with about their language. Atkins: Do I understand then that the $5,000 necessary can come from City funds? Dilkes: I don't know. I have concerns about the $5,000 coming from the general fund... Atkins: We're going to burn up a lot of correspondence to get $5,000 and it's just a lot easier to transfer from contingency and there's our contribution and we' re ready to go. Bailey: Well, if they could have done that then it's too bad we couldn't get the $25,000 but that's water under the bridge. Atkins: That's right. Dilkes: We're not going to find a definitive answer to that question. There are issues, as we discussed, about the use of general fund money, it seems to me, to serve as this match. Because the investment tools that are used at the foundation are not those that are available to the City. Bailey: ! think we'd be safer if we didn't use general funds. It just seems more prudent to be very careful. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 31 of 35 Atkins: I'm assuming that we could take it from a utility account. I mean there is a lot of things we can do .... but my concern is to raise $5,000...I was going to contact service clubs and get $500 here and $300 there. I'll forever be writing letters. Dilkes: But are the investments...you mean there are utility funds that are not governed by the same investment restrictions? Atkins: I don't know the answer to that. The investment restrictions remain. Dilkes: Yeah, as I understand, those investment restrictions apply to all City funds. Atkins: If it passes through our public treasury then I've made the assumption that it's subject to those rules. Dilkes: That's what I thought, too, which is why we ended up, when we had our conversation with Mike, talking about other ways, either through individuals or other foundations, to fund to get that initial $5,000. Atkins: But Mike was saying that other cities have just taken it from their funds. Stoffregen: I sat on a committee that decided those matching grants for the state and we were able...I saw Mount Pleasants application and there was a check for $25,000 and a picture of the governor hand-in-hand. Bailey: I talked with other past Council Members and I thought one method of raising some of this money to talk to current and past council members to invest in this and some are interested and would be interested in encouraging others to do so. I mean, it's $5,000. In the fundraising world, that's not very much money. It is a few letters.., but... Lehman: Does anyone have any idea where we are? Champion: I think we need to get an answer to that. Can we use public funds? If not, then how do we go about getting it. Vanderhoef: I'd just as soon not use them and move on. Bailey: I thought that this City felt that we couldn't. Atkins: That's what I have been operating on. Champion: Then what we need to find out is why the footnote is there. If we're not using public funds, then maybe the footnote is not relevant to us. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 32 of 35 Elliott: Did we talk about, in raising money, can we take loans? Is there any reason why someone can't make a contribution and just get paid back after the $5,000 is reached and matched? Atkins: We wouldn't decide that. Bailey: No, actually it's in their bylaws they don't do that. Elliott: That's one down. Stoffregen: We accept pledges but not loans. Now that I think about it, I've seen other affiliate drafts and that paragraph is not there. On the Des Moines affiliate, it's not there. Wilburn: I understand that...this is a purposeful statement and I want to know if they sat around and said 'We need to have this' or was it pulled from something related to state law or administrative code. Bailey: I agree, I think first and foremost we need to. Elliott: Mike, you're going to check that out, right? Stoffregen: Yes, I'll go through Eleanor to make sure it's applicable. Atkins: Then it's my intent to continue to pursue the $5,000 outside of the City. Lehman: Okay, thank you. Dilkes: Did we decide who's going to be on the board or are we going to try to answer these questions first? Lehman: What I think we've decided is that it will be the Council unless for some reason we can't. Dilkes: So when you're making.., so you don't have any problem with having your meetings being open, then? As this affiliate? Bailey: If you were an affiliate fund, you wouldn't necessarily have to make these funding decisions in public, if you weren't a Council. A donor-advised fund doesn't have to make it's donor...it's granting decisions public. Lehman: But I think there could be significant advantages to being able to do that non- publicly. Champion: Really. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 33 of 35 Bailey: Housing and Community Development seem to do fine with their funding process in a public meeting. Elliott: My question, is it fair of us to just ask Steve to raise the money? Atkins: As long as you don't ask for payroll deduction, I was going to get out there and... Bailey: I really was going to follow through with this approaching people that I have talked to. Elliott: ! don't know how fair this is to just say 'Steve, go do it.' Atkins: Well, I'm going to contact...I've already talked to the Library Foundation, they said they'd put some money into it. I'm going to Project GREEN. I'm going to contact the Parks & Recreation Foundation. That's who I intended to visit with and ask them for $1,000 or $2,000. But I have to tell them that this is a gift. It's gone. Bailey: We also have to know the purpose of the fund. Atkins: Yeah, and I'll explain that. Vanderhoefi I think there are a lot of service clubs out there that are certainly... Champion: It's a small amount of money. Atkins: It's a small amount of money, it's a lot of work to get the small amount of money, but I don't know what else to do. Vanderhoef: We should think big and hope we get $10,000 instead of five. Bailey: You never get $10,000 unless you ask for $10,000, you never hope. Vanderhoefi If you ask for more in every request... Atkins: I'm not very good at asking for money. Lehman: That would be my first choice, to put Regenia in charge of it. Okay, Council Time. Council Time Champion: I have a complaint. Somebody leaving my store almost got hit by a bicyclist racing down the street. Bailey: A bicyclist? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 34 of 35 Lehman: On the street? Champion: I mean on the sidewalk. It's beside that entrance way ....it was just close. Elliott: I've seen that numerous times in the past couple of weeks. They've not been college age students. They've been older people. Not as old as me - but older people. Champion: But it's a real problem. Atkins: Every spring it happens. Bailey: This happens every year. Atkins: We start writing tickets and it starts to slow down. Champion: It's really dangerous. I'm so glad that the streets are going to be swept again... Elliott: Illinois will be tipping off very soon. Vanderhoef: Just a quick question. Last...two weeks ago in our packet...we had the Airport Commission's Security Plan. Do we need to accept that or do anything? Atkins: I don't think so. They're just reporting to you as that's their obligation. Kart: I'll double check on that, Dee. I'll let you know tomorrow night. Vanderhoefi I think they did a good generalized plan there and I would like at least acknowledge to them that we received it and read it and like it. Bailey: I have a question about Friday, April 8. I think we all got an invitation to The Week of the Young Child at Pheasant Ridge. I'm planning to attend and I just want to make sure... Vanderhoef: I'm planning to attend. Bailey: It's a discussion, so I just wanted to make sure that we didn't have over... Elliott: I don't remember that. Bailey: It's the Pheasant Ridge Neighborhood Center. Karr: You all got a postcard invitation. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 4, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 35 of 35 Bailey: Sometime I think we should talk about televising work sessions for accessibility. Honestly, I'm not crazy about this idea, but this is where we're going to have the student liaison sitting around this table and I think to create access...we've talked about doing that with other meetings and I think we should talk about it. I know this has been discussed before but this is a different council. Elliott: I'm sorry, Regenia, what was that? Bailey: It's been discussed before but this is a different council. Elliott: Yeah, but something accessibility for... Bailey: For other groups. We're going to have a student liaison sitting around this table...this is where the student will be...other groups may be interested in how that will work and what the access that we've created is going to look like and I think it would be good to create some transparency about that. Elliott: I would like...when we have something where decisions would be made...I'd like to have the other side represented. Lehman: This is a discussion that needs to go on a work session. Steve, can we have a session, perhaps not at the next meeting but the one after? Probably won't be a long, drawn out discussion. Alright, we'll put it on a work session. Wilburn: Just a reminder, I will be at the next work session but not the next Council meeting on the 19th. I'll be in Phoenix, AZ. Vanderhoef: Too bad. Wilburn: I'll be working. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 4, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session.