Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-18 TranscriptionApril 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 1 of 35 April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Jensen, Helling, Karr, Mansfield, Rocca Tape: 05-26 Agenda Items Lehman: Are there agenda items? Item 7 Amending the FY2005 Operating Budget Bailey: The operating budget, any highlights that you want to point out? Atkins: No, I don't think there is anything in there that is unusual. I'll do my best to answer any questions. We'll have to scratch up some of the detail on it but there is nothing unusual on it, Regenia. Item 4 (G) 1 Correspondence - Removal of No-Parkin~ Signs Lehman: Under the consent calendar, G-1 correspondence, No Parking on Oakcrest Street, we'd like to defer for another two weeks. The neighbors are still working on that. O'Donnell: I received correspondence on that today. Lehman: I haven't looked it. We will defer that if that's okay with everybody. Items lit 12~ 13~ 14 Hearings - Civil Penalties O'Donnell: We have all of these $300 civil penalties in here. Do we expect anybody to - Karr: I'm sorry, Mike, what was the question? O'Donnell: We have a public hearing on all of these, do we expect anybody - Karr: It's not a public hearing, it's a hearing to hear from the complainants. I've not been informed that they would not be here. They still have an opportunity to pay even up until tomorrow. We've received one more...you'll have one less hearing on there. You'll be assessing a penalty on T&M Mini-Mart. So, they have until the close of business tomorrow to pay that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 2 of 35 Lehman: Okay. Item 4 (G) 6 Correspondence- Construction on North Dodge Vanderhoef: The construction on North Dodge. This is correspondence. The request for a silt- basin and port-o-potty. Has there been anything checked on that? O'Donnell: Sounds like a very reasonable request. Helling: Public Works took care of that and we did send a response back to the person. Karr: It should be in your late hand-outs. Vanderhoef: Okay. Elliott: We're on Agenda Items? Lehman: Yeah. Item 22 - Sidewalk Cafe Elliott: Okay, I have a question... Item #22, the public right of way and putting chairs and tables out...I presume this is a council item because that's what it says it has to be in City Code. It seems to me that this should just be an administrative situation. Why do we make such a - Karr: That's on tonight as well for first reading. Elliott: Yes. Karr: And then you've got second. We're hoping to adopt it tomorrow night. Lehman: What item is that? Elliott: 22 Dilkes: I think you're talking 17. Atkins: 17 is the new ordinance. Karr: The new ordinance is 17, the individual ones are 22. Elliott: The individual one is 22 on our agenda. It seems to me that these sorts of things ought to be done administratively. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 3 of 35 Vanderhoefi What we have been doing is the first time we look at it and thereafter it's been administrative. Karr: The renewals are on the consent calendar. The initial one is on your regular. But this is also use of public right-of-way - so this is not on private property. Champion: Yes, this is on City property. Bailey: Yeah, on City Plaza. Elliott: Okay, it has to be. I still think it's - Champion: its fine, we can vote on it. Elliott: Okay. Item 4 {G) 13 Correspondence - Smoking Issue Vanderhoef: We started getting new letters and at least some of them are from students on the smoking issue. I think we better get a blanket return email for those people telling them that it is a State issue and not a local issue. That we had an ordinance that was deemed unconstitutional. Champion: Did we answer those emails? Karr: Yes, we did. Lehman: There's an item on here from the Economic Development Committee - recommending that we allocate $34,000 to the... Atkins: Extend A Dream. Lehman: Yeah. Are there any questions about that? Karr: Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry, I think that item was pulled because the minutes weren't ready. Lehman: You know what...I'm sorry. It was on the agenda and now it's been pulled. That is not an agenda item. Vanderhoef: Which agenda do you have? Lehman: Forget it. I got a preliminary agenda that turned out not to be the one we are using. Franklin: My apologies, I'm sorry. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 4 of 35 Lehman: That's okay, Karin. I don't want to keep Karin waiting. (Laughter) PlanninR & Zonine A.) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 3RD ON AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT' SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS) ZONE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) ZONE (10.92-ACRES) AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) ZONE (18.34-ACRES) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SYCAMORE STREET, SOUTH OF WETHERBY DRIVE, NORTH OF DICKENSON LANE. (REZ05-00002) Franklin: First item is to set a public hearing for May 3ra on an ordinance changing the zoning designation on some property on Sycamore Street, rather than go through the whole thing - it is to change it to RS-5 and RS-8. That's not what is up on the screen. This is just setting a public hearing for May 3fa. B.) 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) C.) 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 PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1, WEST OF HIGHWAY 218 AND EAST OF KITTY LEE ROAD. (REZ04-00030) Franklin: The next items...B&C are - Elliott: Karin, I had a question. You're talking about 6-A? Talk about cost-sharing. What's...is that anything different? Is it just the usual type - Franklin: Right. It's what we've done on Sycamore with other developments. Yes. Elliott: Thank you. Franklin: Items B&C then are the rezoning...the annexation and rezoning for the Davis property that we have been having some discussion about. Mr. Gelman and I have been working on the conditional zoning agreement. I think we are fairly close, but the issues that were outstanding...the last time that we spoke...had to do with the sidewalk on Highway 1...as we left the last Council meeting, our understanding was that what you wished to do was to enable this obligation to be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 5 of 35 put under a petition and waiver - which is essentially the developer and successors and interest, agreeing to waive their fight to notice and protest - Dilkes: The issue was how we bind future owners of the property to the waiver of the objection to the special assessment that the developer had offered to do and we determined that we needed to do that with what is called a petition and waiver agreement. Franklin: This was not acceptable to the developer since it would place a lien on all the lots in the project. Therefore they have suggested that an $18,000 escrow deposit be made, which would essentially have a life of seven years - that is that the sidewalk would need to be constructed within seven years or that $18,000 contribution would be returned to the developer. Lehman: Is that acceptable to council? Vanderhoef: That's just three years - O'Donnell: So what you're going to do is escrow $18,0007 Lehman: Right...and if we don't build the sidewalk then they get the money back. Champion: Do they mean seven years after the... Franklin: Seven years after the deposit is made, which would be upon the City issuing the first building permit. Lehman: Okay, that's a winner. Franklin: On the fence...we've come to an agreement on language regarding the fence and the design for it. That is, if there is a fence that totals more than 150 feet in length on the west boundary of the property - this is along Kitty Lee Road - that it would include design enhancing features, at least every 100 feet that provide dimensional and visual interest. These features would require no more than additional expenditure of $7500 per 100 feet offence unless it is offset by changing the landscaping requirements. In talking with a representative of Menards - Tom O'Neill, their real estate person - he and I felt that we would be able to come to agreement on what those features would be. They're quite willing to work on something. Elliott: What was the cost again, Karin? Franklin: The not-to-exceed cost that is written into the agreement is $7500 for each 100 feet. Elliott: The fence might well be how long? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 6 of 35 Franklin: 900 feet. Lehman: That's basically what we asked them to do. Franklin: Yes. Champion: Is $7500 the cost of the enhancement? Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Well, and it could be done for $2.80 if they could do it - but it just can't be seen. Franklin: Right. Champion: I think that's a great compromise. O'Donnell: It's subject to whose approval? Our approval? Franklin: Subject to approval as part of the site-plan review process which would be staff. Lehman: Are we okay with that folks? All right. Franklin: Okay, then the last item relates to Kitty Lee Road and the improvement of it upon development of Lot 1. The proposal that we have seen most recently indicates that upon the development of Lot 1, if the road is not already improved to City Collector Street Standards, it would be improved to City Collector Street Standards, the City would pay for over-sizing of the street - that is between the local Collector Standards and would pay 50% of the cost. This is different from when we came out of the last meeting in which the development would be totally responsible for the cost of the improvement of that up to the driveway to Lot 1. Lehman: We would be responsible for 50% of the cost of the street plus - Franklin: The over-sizing. Lehman: The over-sizing. That's not... Vanderhoef: You're saying that's from the - Franklin: From Highway 1 to the driveway that goes into Lot 1. Vanderhoef: How about from where the initial entry is? Franklin: The initial entry? I'm sorry... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 7 of 35 Lehman: To the westerly edge of the - Elliott: It's the same distance we've been talking about all along, right? Franklin: The Council at the last meeting eliminated the profession - the provision - in which the City - err, the developer, would pay for 50% of the cost of Kitty Lee along the entire boundary of the subdivision. What we're talking about now is the improvement of Kitty Lee to wherever that first driveway is that goes into Lot 1. So, let's just say for the extreme and sake of argument, that the driveway to Lot 1 is right at this point - which would mean that Kitty Lee Road would need to be improved from that point down to the highway. As we left the last Council meeting, the direction or acceptance at that point appeared to be that that would be acceptable to the developer. Then you had your discussion of the traffic improvements and there were compromises made in that one. As this has come back to us today, the proposal is that the City would pay for 50% of the cost of that improvement plus the over-sizing. Champion: Why are they doing that when that was totally (can't hear) from the original statement and we took away fixing the road - Franklin: I think that if you want to allow Mr. Gelman to think to that? Elliott: Is there something else because negotiations have to do with more than one item at a time. Franklin: My understanding is that this is in response to the negotiations on the traffic signal and the traffic configuration - in which you agreed to an 80/20 on the signal and to pay for any improvements on the south end of Naples and southbound turn lanes. Vanderhoefi However we took off the improvement for the rest of that property- so that seemed to be the trade off with the signal. O'Donnell: It was my understanding though that it was when and if there was an entry put on Kitty Lee Road on to Lot 1. Franklin: That's correct. This is all predicated on Lot 1 developing and there being an access to Kitty Lee Road. O'Donnell: So the 50% applies when that entry comes. Franklin: Yes. O'Donnell: I think that answers the question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 8 of 35 Gelman: It's an infrastructure sharing issue. The intersection costs will probably cost the City about $45,000. In other words, the south Naples Avenue ...$15,000 is the estimate for the improvements that need to be done over there. The traffic signal...which the City agreed to pay 20% of...which the developer had thought that that number would be closer to 50%...that's a fairly expensive item. It's about $150,000... so the City's total contribution is about $45,000 to the infrastructure for the development of this area. I think the owners feel that the contribution could be more, should be more given the benefit that the City will receive as a result of tax revenues from the development of this area. Vanderhoef: However, we gave you an additional benefit for the extension beyond all of your property there. Gelman: Actually, I really respectively disagree with that. That wasn't a give. That should never have been required as a condition to begin with. Vanderhoef: But it's something that we typically require. Gelman: No, I don't think that it is and I don't think you can in this instance because it's not benefiting this property at all. So it wasn't a give of infrastructure. The types of infrastructure issues that my client is dealing with here is on the westerly side of the property. There is presently a pipeline, multiple pipelines. It's going to cost a half-million dollars to move those pipelines. Then, the grading of this property is about one-million dollars. So, we have about a million and a half of infrastructure cost before it's even ready to start subdividing. Dilkes: I just want to remind you that when Mr. Gelman talks about what we could and could not require legally, he is advocating for his client, so you need to remember that. Gelman: I should have said 'It's my position that the City couldn't do that', I'm sorry. Lehman: We'd be disappointed in you, Tom, if you didn't advocate for your client. Vanderhoef: I respectively disagree with that trade-off. Gelman: The fundamental issue here is 1) whether the City is willing to offer more in terms of infrastructure than the $45,000 that is presently being proposed and...Menards at it's present location pays about $200,000 in property taxes. At this new location, they will pay substantially more if Menards is ultimately one of the parties on that lot. That's only one of the many lots in the commercial development. The City will have an annuity from this property for years to come of quite significant dollars and it's a commercially zoned area - which means there is no roll-back, which means it's really just an issue of infrastructure contribution. The owner was disappointed on the intersection cost, to be honest with you. So this is another area - This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 9 of 35 Champion: Can you tell me what we would ordinarily do in cases like this? Where can we can help developers with infrastructure - especially commercial development? Franklin: Let me think about that...because...usually what we have been dealing with with commercial developments, that I can recall, are the intersections. We've gone through that in terms of the variability and that from the developer paying 100% to 50%...you know, other instances is the development of Scott 6 Industrial Park - there was quite a bit more that went into that in terms of the City contribution. It's very difficult for me to answer that right off the top of my head. One thing that I do want to make clear that this $45,000 for the press is an estimate - which I am not aware of what the genesis of the estimate is - I had thought that the Naples improvements would be more than $15,000. That's you know - nickering over numbers and I can't substantiate one or the other. Elliott: This, which you stated earlier, is an agreement that the two parties had reached, is that correct, regarding 50% of the cost? Franklin: No, we have agreed to everything - Elliott: Except this last one? Franklin: This last one, yes. As Tom and I spoke at three minutes to five, it was still in the air. He had to speak to his client, so that one was not one that we, as a staff, have agreed to. Elliott: My philosophy on this, right or wrong, has been that when the City is dealing with commercial property like this, that ! think in the neighborhood of sharing the cost 50/50 because we think that Iowa City is a great place for commercial properties and commercial businesses to operate but we gain from those businesses and I think sharing costs on basically a 50/50 basis is very fair for everyone involved. Champion: Are you talking about everything? Elliott: I would have been that way on the traffic light. I think we benefit greatly from this. Lehman: We're talking about the road now. Vanderhoefi But when you say 50/50, are you talking about 50/50 for all of the build, not just the road, because the City already has the over-sizing to that, so if everything were put together, including the over-sizing, and then split it 50/50 - that might come out to more of a reasonable ....it's just different verbiage, but it would be more equal on sharing the costs. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 10 of 35 O'Donnell: I think Bob was specifically talking about the intersection. Lehman: I think what Dee says - if I hear you correctly - the proposal is that we pay for half of the regular street and all of the additional width - which would make the City's share of that somewhat more of a percent. What you're saying is that if we took the total project, the regular plus the additional width, and split it down the middle, that would be a 50/50 split - which I'm hearing you say you could support that. Elliott: Sound reasonable. Franklin: The numbers would not be the same. Lehman: No, I know that. Franklin: When you pay over-sizing, you're paying for paving alone. When you're paying 50% of the cost of the street - you're paying for grading, storm sewer, paving...so, if you agree to the 50% for Kitty Lee - you will be paying more than if you were paying over-sizing, considerably- Bailey: I just want to ask a somewhat naive question. Why do we feel that Kitty Lee Road has to be at City Street Collectors Standards to this driveway? I know its chip-seal right now, right? Franklin: Right. As soon as you have a commercial development in there, with the traffic that will come in to that and as we're looking at the plat now, Lot 1 is becoming two lots - which will have a cross-access easement for the second lot - it's just a matter....this has been kind of the stance we have taken in the past - not to say that you can't change it - and that is that when development precipitates the need for an improvement and it can be attributed to that development, that the development pays. If you wish to have sharing, that is certainly a political decision that you can make. That's just where we come from in the past. It would need to be improved to City standards, the road for access to it. Bailey: Can that be done as lot sells and is developed? Franklin: That's what we're talking about. Bailey: No, I mean, do we have somebody moving in to that lot? Franklin: No. This would not happen until Lot 1 was developed...until somebody tried to get a building permit on Lot 1 and then it would kick in the need to improve that road. So it's going to be whoever buys Lot 1 is the one who is going to pay for it. Lehman: Correct me if I am mistaken, until that lot develops, the present road - in its chip- seal condition - is adequate to serve the residential properties. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Io~va City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 11 of 35 Franklin: They have been, yeah. Lehman: In the absent of that lot developing, there is no reason to improve that road. Franklin: Correct. Lehman: So, it is the development of that lot which triggers the development requires it to be updated and improved. Bailey: So this agreement puts a lien on that property. Franklin: That's essentially it. O'Donnell: Even if they are developed, unless there is an entry on to Kitty Lee Road, there is no reason to improve Kitty Lee Road. Franklin: If it had internal access through Lot 2, you are correct. This is talking about Lot 1 developing and having access to Kitty Lee Road, because Lot 1 right now can not have access to Highway 1. That's just a given. If, however, Lot 2 were to allow access through there, then that would be possible - but it's probably not very practical. Champion: What was the amount of money, again? Approximately? Lehman: Do we know? Larson: The obligation is to install it to the northerly-most entrance. Franklin: I'll have to get an estimate from engineering. We're talking about - Lehman: Curb, gutter, and sewer? O'Donnell: We do that dual entry on Highway 1 now anyway, don't we? Franklin: What do you mean dual entry? O'Donnell: Like we've got one entry to Menards which branches off to the others. Franklin: Right. O'Donnell: The Toyota place, whatever that oil place is .... that can be done. Franklin: Well, this is a little-bit slightly different configuration because the entry to Menards, Lot 2, will come off of Naples right at this point here, so this lot or this one and Lot 2 would have to come through their parking lot. Menards has This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 12 of 35 indicated that they do not wish that to happen. As Tom says, until the deal is done, the deal is not done. Lot 2 may be something else. The important point is that the improvement of Kitty Lee will happen if and when Lot 1 develops and has access to Kitty Lee road and not a moment before. Lehman: Now, when access is...if that lot develops, we would not allow access to be too close to the comer, is that correct? Franklin: Right. Lehman: I mean, we would require a minimum of 150 or 200 feet or some such thing, is that - Franklin: Something. It's got something to do with sight distance, too. Elliott: In your explanation, is that a big a lot? ! can't tell from up here. I'm not familiar with it. Are we talking about an amount that is reasonable for whatever might be proposed for that lot? Lehman: Well, it depends on what is going to go on that lot. Gelman: (Unclear) Lehman: Tom, you need to speak in to the microphone. Franklin: Yeah, Lot 1 is now two lots. Gelman: It's now two lots. It's been divided and there will probably be a private access drive that will go then from Kitty Lee to the second lot. Vanderhoef: Karin - Franklin: In terms of that distance, I would have to pull up the plat, which I don't have in this packet, and do an estimate of cost. Elliott: You're not too terribly concerned at this point that we're talking about an exorbitant amount that would inhibit the sale or the purchase of that property? Franklin: I'm sure there would be someone who would argue with me ifI said 'Yeah.' or 'No.' or whatever. One thing to keep in mind here is that it may all become moot if the property to the west develops before this one develops then that one is going to be paying. Dee had a question. Vanderhoef: I need a clarification. You said something about this would increase the cost quite a bit. When we do over-width, we are we paying only for over-width on the concrete? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 13 of 35 Franklin: That's my understanding, yes. Vanderhoef: So that would be the proposal I would have is put all of the concrete . but not necessarily all of the engineering and so-forth- to split. Lehman: We've got to keep this simple if we can. Champion: What happens to our budget if we have to pay for half of that? Atkins: We're hearing $45,000 - let's say that's the number. Franklin: No, $45,000 was referring to the south of Naples. Atkins: I'm sorry, ignore that, lets move on. Strike that. What we do is we have two approaches. We have a line-item that we call over-width. That allows us to set aside money over the course of the year to deal with projects such as this, and as Dee was pointing out that is just the width of the street. If 28 feet is the average and we're going to build 31 - we pay the extra three feet. The developer pays for the water, the sewers, and all the other business. We also maintain an account in our road-use tax fund, do you remember, in order for us to be able to respond to this very kind of circumstance. It's healthy enough - I mean in terms of dollar figures - it's a healthy reserve. Champion: Good. Franklin: What are you landing on? Because what we would like to do is to amend the conditional zoning agreement such that Tom's clients can sign it tomorrow and we can move on with this whole thing because we have the plat coming. Bailey: It would be helpful to know - Franklin: Numbers? Bailey: Yeah. Lehman: Well, I think that time is kind of important. Do I sense this Tom? You'd like to get something or a formula of some sort so that you can have it in writing so that you can have it writing so you can act on it tomorrow night if everything is agreeable. Franklin: Okay, then what we have right now is the City paying 50%. Lehman: Well, that's Tom's proposal. I'm not sure that we buy that. Elliott: I buy it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 14 of 35 Bailey: I don't buy that. We wouldn't need to be doing this except for this sale. I don't buy it. Elliott: So then you're saying that the commercial property is not of that much value to us? Bailey: No, I'm saying that 50% of give me a number - I'm not willing to write a blank check. Elliott: I think this is a philosophy that I think that when the City goes 50/50 with commercial property that we're both sharing and acknowledging that we're benefiting from this and we have to have commercial property. Lehman: Bob, you're right, but if the development of commercial property requires us to spend tax-payers dollars to enable them to develop .... we are also the guardian of public funds...and if the action of the developer creates the need for that expenditure, it's not unfair to ask the developer to share, to some degree, in the costs of those improvements. I think that's what we've been talking about with this whole project. Elliott: Within the property, I would agree. But this is a street that will probably...in all probability will be used for other purposes. For instance, as Karen said, if the property to the west develops first, they pay. My thought has not to do so much with dollars and cents as a philosophy that the City and commercial developers share in the cost that will benefit both. Lehman: I agree with that, but I'm not sure that I agree that 50/50 is the correct sharing. O'Donnell: What do you propose? Lehman: I'm so glad that our meetings are not televised because... (Laughter) O'Donnell: We'll talk about that later. Lehman: Now, the basic road involves storm sewer, curb and gutter, and Collectors-sized street, is that correct? Franklin: Yes. Lehman: Probably no sewer? - No sanitary sewer? Atkins: It's unlikely, Ernie, that it would be a dry sewer. Lehman: A water line to service the lot, which that would be at the developer's expense anyway. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 15 of 35 Franklin: And that might not even go Kitty Lee - it's probably going to be on Highway 1. Bailey: So why don't we use the numbers we used for the traffic signal and go 20% plus the over-sizing - but let's see some numbers. Lehman: Our mutual problem is that we will not be able to put those together in time for action tomorrow night. Vanderhoef: How quickly can you get us numbers? Franklin: As soon as I can find an engineer. It means that we'ge got to change the document and it needs to be signed by the parties. Vanderhoefi I'd be willing to do a special meeting later in the week. Franklin: I'm not sure what's going to happen between now and two weeks from now that it's going to be critical. We're still in the platting stage in Planning and Zoning. If this moves along and you do some expedited considerations, once you have landed on something, we've still got to get through the plat and get it to the Council. It's an SAO and a rezoning - so can't we wait a couple of weeks and have everybody be comfortable? Wilburn: If we wait a couple of weeks, I would be more than happy to expedite it. Lehman: I would be happy as well. One of the things...the cost of this is irrelevant only when you look at what is going on the lot. If there is going to be storage buildings on that lot - Franklin: It's CC-2, it's going to be some kind of community commercial sort of use. Probably...I don't know, I'm guessing because it's a small size - a convenience store, a gas station - I don't know. Lehman: What I'm saying is that the cost of the improvements is absolutely relative. If we're going to talk dollars, it's relative to the amount of taxes that property is going to generate. We have no idea what's going to go there. I would support a 25%/75% on the Collectors Streets and the City pay for the over width. Franklin: Who's the 25 and who's the 75? (Laughter) Lehman: Karin, I think you now this. I would support the City paying 25% of a basic Collectors street and then paying for the over width so that 75% of the basic street would be paid for by the developer. We would pay the over width. Elliott: As a matter of fact, I would modify my statement earlier. I think that strictly 50/50 depends on the tax-based value of whatever would go in there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 16 of 35 Champion: We don't know. Elliott: That's right. I was speaking on philosophy, but it's something that...if it would generate a modest amount of tax, then I don't see us going 50/50 - but if it's something that generates a significant amount. Franklin: And not knowing what it's going to be, what would you say? Elliott: I would say 'punt'. Franklin: The mayor suggested 25/75. Lehman: Is there support for that? Champion: You're suggesting 25? Lehman: We pay 25% plus the over-sizing. That means that the grading, curb and gutter, Collectors street, and storm sewer - 75% of that would be paid for by the developer, we'd pay 25% of that plus the three feet of paving. Elliott: Let's let Karin and Tom and the other people involved think about that. I'm in favor of that. Let's move along. Lehman: ! would like to get...ifthere are enough folks who favor that...it's conceivable that an agreement could be drafted by tomorrow night. Champion: I'll go for it. Elliott: 25/75. Champion: How about 25/1007 (Laughter) Lehman: How many folks would support that? I count five. Going once, going twice, we've done it. Thank you. Wilbum: I appreciate the developer doing the escrow for the sidewalk. Lehman: Ernie, just a reminder, there will be six of you tomorrow night and three to three defeats something, just in case...heads up. Elliott: Karin, thanks for all work on this. Champion: Who's going to be gone? O'Donnell: Ross, he's going to Las Vegas. (Laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 17 of 35 Atkins: Do I understand that we're going to try to get this wrapped up so you can vote on this tomorrow night? Lehman: Yes, if they would like to do that, we are in a position that we could. Atkins: Okay. D.) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING TIlE FINAL PLAT OF J JR DAVIS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB05-00001) E.) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING TIlE FINAL PLAT OF J JR DAVIS THIRD ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB05-00002) Franklin: Okay, moving across the intersection of Highway 1 and 218 to the southeast quadrant, we have the JJR Davis second addition and third addition. Yes, it's in this area, its zoned commercial intensive. The second addition includes the northerly portion here that's checked. There is an out lot A that is put in to an out lot at this time because the final alignment of Grace Drive has yet to be determined. I think we have closure on the legal papers - or are close - and hopefully signatures will be accomplished by tomorrow night. So, we have nothing outstanding on this one. Any questions on this? Okay, the third edition is the southerly portion of that. It is two lots. On this one, the access on Lot 2 will come from an access easement that will be acquired that is on the neighboring property. This is so we don't have another access point to Mormon Trek Boulevard from Lot 2. Lehman: Is it going to be on Dane Road? Franklin: No, Dane Road is closed here. It's going to be a point farther to the east. Likewise we need signatures on those papers, which we should have by tomorrow. Bailey: I have a general philosophical question about this entire area because it's one of our entries into the city. At what point will be begin to take a little care to how this entry way looks because it's becoming very .... well, remember the Coralville strip in the 1970's? So do we have any plans? I mean Dubuque Street looks really good with the landscaping that we've done along it. Do we have any plans down the road to do something that makes it more of an entry way and less of a commercial strip? I know that we've talked about sidewalks and that would probably move it in that direction. Franklin: We don't have any plans such as what Coralville did along the highway there but as every project that has come in that abuts the highway, we have talked about landscaping, consolidation of access points.., in some cases we've had limitations on signage...I'm thinking of Westport Plaza. It has been on a case by case basis This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 18 of 35 as opposed to being comprehensive. At least two councils ago, maybe it was three, but I think it was just two councils ago, we had some interest in having some sort of entranceway overlay, which, well...it died for a lack of a second...it didn't get that far. There were some difficulties in imposing that without doing an overall plan for the entire corridor. We do have, in the zoning code proposal, requirements for landscaping along streets...which will then prevent the parking right up to the right of way or the sidewalk, but probably the item that you mentioned that will have the greatest impact on this corridor is going to be putting in a sidewalk. Bailey: I think we should be cognizant of these other items as we consider the sidewalk because it is an entryway that is an increasingly busy entryway - Franklin: And it will only get more so. Bailey: Right, and I think that when you come into a community that it should look better. Franklin: Let us know if you want us to do more on that. Bailey: We've talked about sidewalks. We'll talk more, I suppose, with our planning in the fall? Lehman: Regenia, we talked...you know Highway 6...we started that project about four years ago.., actually it was longer than that because Dean Thornberry was lamenting how terrible Highway 6 looked.., and it did...it was kind of like of the Coralville strip was so ugly and we drove it every day and didn't notice and suddenly we realized how ugly it was.., also there had been some financial constraints...but we did do Highway 6 and it started out, frankly, just the way we're talking about right now. Something needs to be done and we've worked on it but we're not there yet. Certainly we've improved that a lot and I think that's exactly how this is going to get done. I think we should talk about it in the fall with capital projects. Franklin: There's two...there's another component of this, which is good to keep in mind, and that is the fact that both Highway 1 and Highway 6 are rural cross sections - that is that they're built at highways are built out in the country. DOT has talked about making an urban cross section on Highway 6 and that same discussion, no doubt, will occur on Highway 1. With DOT, as it is with the City, it's a matter of funding. That's going in really...and you define the corridor with curbs, as opposed to the very broad shoulder and that's when you get in the sidewalks and green space. Bailey: Okay. Elliott: Just a note.., we've mentioned, I think, three times now another community in appearance in a derogatory tone and I'd really like for us not to do that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 19 of 35 Bailey: I was talking about them years ago - Lehman: Yeah, the way that it was. Bailey: And the way that it was and I think that they've done a nice job. Elliott: I'd just rather not do that. Bailey: Well... Lehman: I think the comment was made in a very positive fashion. They took something that was very unattractive and made it very, very attractive. Bailey: I think they would agree with my comment. Vanderhoefi Karin, just one more thing on this frontage area and so forth. How much property do we own, either the state or...well I presume it's the state or their right of way...where are we on the right of way for four lanes because obviously this piece of Highway 1 is going right across a four-lane bridge area. Franklin: I think we have sufficient right of way to do it. It's quite wide. Vanderhoef: I'm just thinking about as more build up goes along there. Franklin: Do you mean farther to the west? Because it's almost all four lane through the corridor mostly. Do you mean west of Kitty Lee Road? Vanderhoefi Yes. Franklin: I would assume that there is sufficient right of way in there to put four lanes. There is nothing that indicates to me that it narrows immediately, but we can look at it. Our growth area - our projected growth area - for twenty some years is not projected to go that farther west along the highway. It starts going up along the ridge line. Vanderhoef: But as traffic increases along that highway and it's pretty high already, I can believe that we will get more and more inquiries on at least highway commercial. Lehman: My suspicion is that we could go four-lane all the way to Kalona. Franklin: Well, this is the DOT super-two from... (Laughter) E.) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF ASHTON PLACE (SUB05-00007), This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 20 of 35 Franklin: Okay, the last Planning and Zoning item is a resolution on the preliminary and final plat of Ashton Place. This is a very small subdivision - a two-lot subdivision - to enable access of a lot on Normandy Drive to have access to the river. This lot here is the initial lot - in which this piece is being sold to this property owner. It needed to go through subdivision because this is part of a larger piece that has been subdivided over time but there are not particular issues with it. Vanderhoef: So it comes through from Normandy Drive. Franklin: Right and there's the river. That's it. Lehman: Thank you. Okay, we're back to agenda items if there are any more. Vanderhoef: I think there was something on the budget...but I've got to get to the page... Bailey: I think its page 147 or at least that's what it is in my packet. Did you say the budget amendment? Karr: While Dee is looking -just to follow up on some (Tape Ends) (Tape 05-26 Side Two) Karr: - which is the T&M Mini-Mart. We will not be conducting a hearing on that. There will be no hearing on that. We'll just have a resolution accepting the $300 payment on that one. Lehman: So we just need a motion to approve the resolution and no hearing. Karr: Yes. So you're down to three hearings. Champion: What number was that? Karr: 14. ITEM 7. AMENDING THE FY2005 OPERATING BUDGET. Vanderhoef: I know what I was going to ask on the budget. Our ending balance is a bit lower than what we anticipated. Is this our last absolute bottom? Atkins: No, it is not our absolute. This is a budget amendment. Vanderhoefi But this figure the- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 21 of 35 Atkins: I'm still looking. Vanderhoef: 89. Dilkes: Item 7, Steve. Atkins: I'll be right with you. Okay. Vanderhoef: We're down about fifteen million from what we had anticipated. Atkins: She said she did the calculations. Mansfield: I did. Vanderhoef: Go for it. Mansfield: General fund is actually pretty well balanced within this budget amendment. The eighty-nine million is total of all of your funds .... business type, general fund, special revenue.., and it's just an estimate. Your actual balance at June 30th will be something different than that. It's decreasing primarily because we're sending out bond proceeds.., about four million dollars in bond proceeds and capital project funds and we have on hand the Plaza Towers for 64-1A and we issued bonds for that and this amendment includes the disbursement of those proceeds. Atkins: Is that okay? Vanderhoef: Yeah. The use of the money and property...is that just reflecting our better interest rates on our investments? Mansfield: It's actually a combination of interest rates and also some reclassifications from our old chart of accounts to the new accounting system. I actually have the detail if you're interested and want to see any of those points. Vanderhoef: The quarterly bond market- Mansfield: Is coming up. Vanderhoef: Is starting to really show when we have a better rate. That's a real positive in my mind. Mansfield: Okay, thank you. Lehman: Other agenda items? Appointments This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 22 of 35 Lehman: Well, we have no appointments. The next item is the fire inspector. Fire Inspector Atkins: Andy's here. Lehman: Andy. Atkins: And Roger...excuse me. Lehman: The Roger and Andy show.' Rocca: Absolutely. It's our pleasure to be before you tonight. I think you all have the memo that was directed to our City Manager regarding the permit based fire inspection program as well as the fire inspector position. What I thought I would do tonight is to give you an overview of the program that we envision. If need be, we have our Fire Marshal present who can answer some detailed day-to-day operational-type issues through the Fire Prevention Bureau. With that in mind, I think I'll just jump right in to the heart of the matter. We were successful with our Assistance to Fire Fighters grant request that was drafted about a year ago. That grant totals $67,599. We believe that this is a golden opportunity to take an existing position that we have and upgrade it to this position to Fire Inspector and have a profound impact on public safety for many years to come. As I noted in my memo, this position is one that we have discussed for some time. It did result from our strategic plan, which called out the Commission on Fire Accreditation International as well as our annual goals and objectives. Basically, what this position does is it lines us up with the local level with issues related to Homeland Security. This is Homeland Security money that we've secured but there are many issues at the federal, regional, and local level that this position gives us an opportunity to do a detailed comprehensive inspection of a number of facilities and add that type of information to our database so it can be utilized by emergency responders to improve first-responder type safety, as well as subsidized-generating revenue - probably in year two - our current inspection practices. As I did mention to you, a number of these facilities do propose a higher risk, frankly, to the community than your average office space. That is largely due to the types of use, the types of processes - whether it would be local industry - the number of people who frequent that establishment, that use, and probably another very important consideration, I think, has to do with the assembly occupancies. We called that out in this memorandum for a purpose. Fire code allows us to look at an assembly occupancy where a number of people gather and look at crowd control management. We have a history here, locally, with some issues - particularly with liquor license establishments - of overcrowding and the way those practices are dealt with, and this code really does give us a legitimate means in which to deal with those people on a proactive basis. We can look at the facilities, the number of occupants that are legally allowed to be there under their liquor license, and train these managers to effectively control This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 23 of 35 the crowd limit, as well as on special nights where there may be a band - or whatever might be taking place in there - in the event that there is a some type of an emergency incident, we'll already have a plan in place to train crowd control managers can effectively implement to move people out safely. This is a tremendous benefit. So, I really think we've stepped through this. Again, I want to remind you that it is Homeland Security money that we're dealing with. It clearly is a step in the right direction from a proactive standpoint on managing risks in the community. It certainly gives us a comprehensive, detailed database of information that we can utilize - whether it is in the emergent arena or from a more proactive code enforcement standpoint. With that, I will certainly entertain some of your questions. Elliott: Would this be a fire-fighter or an inspector? Rocca: Well, the position that we currently have is fire-fighter and we are talking about a fire inspector position and that is what we have proposed. Elliott: So this would not be a fire-fighter? Rocca: Correct. We would take an existing position and reclassify it to fire inspector. Atkins: Bob, wait a minute. This person will be trained as a fire fighter. A fire-fighter trained individual who happens to be a fire inspector. Elliott: But is this a full-time job, three-quarter, half-time? Rocca: It's a full-time job, without question. Elliott: So the fact that the person would be a trained fire-fighter would be something additional to the responsibilities of the position. Rocca: It would be incidental to the close enforcement duties, correct. Lehman: He would not function as a fire-fighter. He would be an inspector, correct? Rocca: Normally, day-to-day, routinely. In an emergency call-back situation, we would utilize him in a fire suppression capacity or whatever was required. Vanderhoef: So this takes one person out of our regular rotation for fire-fighting unless we add at the end of the grant time. So you're talking about one full year of grant money and a portion of a second year. Then we have to pick up the FTE on our own budget, correct? Rocca: That's correct, but again, we would have the funds that the position generates from issuing the permits to help offset some of those. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 24 of 35 Vanderhoefi It might hold out for two years. Rocca: The grant money certainly can be spent over the existing fiscal year and next year. Vanderhoef: But we have no ongoing funds and the last I looked at our budget, we still don't have any opportunity to add additional fire-fighters into our budget. Now what it would be like in two years, I don't know, but I'm wondering if we can use someone to come in an do a lot of these assessments and training over the year to year and a half and then put that person back in to the rotation so we would have a lot of things in place but we would not have created a full FTE as titled ' Inspector'. Rocca: The problem I foresee with that is that all the work we put in at the front end to establish a program to start to deal with these uses is that who is going to deal with them once the program is in place and we remove that position or that person from the fire inspector position? Who will maintain that? These are annual inspections that need to take place. Champion: Andy, my first problem with this is exactly what Dee is talking about. If we're going to be funding an FTE, a full-time person for the fire department, I would like to think that we could be putting the funding towards our new station, and this is going to set that back even further. What do you anticipate the revenue being for this? Rocca: Well, we're probably looking at the low end of probably $20,000 during year two, once we get everything in place. I certainly appreciate your point on the fourth fire station. That's certainly one of my priorities, but I'm trying to be realistic and I'm trying to utilize the resources that you've authorized the fire department to use in the most efficient manner as I can. I think being proactive with a code enforcement initiative, frankly, in the long run, will reduce the tax on the emergency end of the operation. That's why, when I'm looking at our capital plan, the fourth fire station looks to be in the unfunded years, which is minimally five years out there unless something changes between now and then, and so this really provides an excellent opportunity to use existing staff and federal dollars to offset and subsidize some of our current inspection costs, as well as the benefits that I outlined earlier. Lehman: What would we do with this inspector that we are not currently doing? What would this person be doing? Rocca: He would be inspecting high-hazard occupancies. Lehman: That really doesn't tell me what. Let me be more specific. I do not feel it's appropriate for a fire inspector to do building inspectors work. I think it's absolutely appropriate for Fire Inspectors to find hazardous...I mean any condition that is hazardous to occupants of a building or hazardous to fireman in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 25 of 35 case of a fire. I think it is absolutely in purview of the fire department and they really should be there. I do not believe that fire inspectors should inspect sprinkler systems. Absolutely do not believe that. Rocca: You're certainly entitled to believe that. Lehman: The reason I say that is because I think as a property owner, when they have a building inspection, should not have to go two different places to find out if the mechanical portion of their property meets City code. I know of no reason why our building department can't inspect fire sprinkler systems. Rocca: Basically, what we've outlined here are provisions of the Fire Code. Which we bring to you on a regular cycle for adoption into the City does. In fact, a number of the last - particularly if you're talking about fire protection devices - the last one hundred cases that we've been involved in, twenty-five percent of them, we actually needed to intervene to see that the deficiencies were corrected and that's basically one in four we've had to intervene. People call the fire department when you look at fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems. That's what they do. They call us because we have the training and expertise in the Fire code to at least begin to answer those questions. Lehman: Is there any reason the building department can't do that? They have access to the same code you do. If there is an issue with an alarm or there is an issue with a sprinkler system being inadequate, outdated, not functional...it seems to me that it falls under the purview of building inspection. Rocca: It's all Fire code language, Mr. Mayor. Lehman: I think they understand that. Rocca: Who would understand that? Lehman: Building people. I've talked to building folks...people in the building department and they said 'Hey, if you want us to do it, we'll do it.' Rocca: I imagine that it boils down to a staff issue. If they do that, I don't know if there is something they're not going to be able to do or they would need an additional staff person, I don't know. We'd have to check with Doug to find out how that would shake down. In my own mind, when I look at the duties that are out there for a Fire Inspector position such as what we've proposed, the fire protection equipment is a small incidental component of it. There are many other occupancies out there, when you start to look at flammable liquid storage and hazardous material storage and assembly occupancies - those are really the crux of what we're trying to get at here. The fire protection equipment is really a minor component or incidental to what we propose. It certainly a component of it, don't get me wrong. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 26 of 35 Lehman: Could that be allocated to the building department to do? Rocca: I can't answer that. Lehman: I think you can. If someone calls you and says, 'Hey, we've got a problem with a fire alarm,' and you call Doug Boothroy and say 'We've got a problem at 123 Z Street, can you get someone down there to inspect it?' We do that with housing inspections, we do it with building inspections...is there a reason that couldn't happen? Rocca: Again, not knowing their workload and how they allocate staff. Lehman: I don't either. Rocca: I'm just telling you from our experience.., and perhaps Roger could speak of some of his first-hand experience and some of the requests that we get day to day that are related to those types of issues. Lehman: My frustration is when a property owner goes through a building inspection, and we have all kinds of building code requirements, meets all the requirements, works through our staff, we do all the inspections, we give them an occupancy permit and then you guys show up and say 'Whoa, your sprinkler system is wrong.' Now wait a minute, the property owner just spent all this money, he's got all these permits, he's got an occupancy permit, and now after he's done the Fire department comes in and tells him his sprinkler system is not right. Rocca: Has this happened or this hypothetical? Lehman: Could this happen? Rocca: No, I'm asking you... Lehman: I'm asking you - could this happen? Rocca: \Could this happen? Well, you know, we are involved in the front end when plans are submitted to us. The Fire Marshall takes a look at the sprinkler plans. We send a copy down to HIS and they look at the backflow prevention device, as per state law, and we're looking at the devices that will be installed for adequate coverage, average GPM, location of fire department connection, flow switches, on and on and all the components that make this thing work. We go out in to the field, after we've stamped those plans and submitted to the contractor, and find that something has not been done correctly, absolutely we're going to call the contractor and the owner on it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 27 of 35 Lehman: But our own inspectors during the building process do not follow whether or not the fire suppression system is being installed correctly, is that correct? Rocca: Roger, do you want to speak to that? You're involved day-to-day with the process. Jensen: Actually, they do at least monitor that information and they get their reports from me. I'll do a plan review...I don't have opportunity to do much in terms of rough-in inspections but I'm always there for a final inspection. Lehman: But are there people in the Building department who do approve the rough-ins, the installation of fire-suppression equipment? Jensen: They do not do any plan approval of any fire protection equipment. They don't have anybody on staff to do that. Lehman: But they get the plans showing them the way it's supposed to be put in, is that correct? Jensen: They maintain them in that office. Lehman: But they don't pay any attention to how they're put in? Jensen: That's correct. Letnnan: That's a flaw. Bailey: Because I don't know commercial property and don't have experience with this, but the thing that I liked about this was that it is in line with their strategic plan, they went out and got a gram for it and it's about public safety and it's a proactive way to approach some of the challenges we've talked about about this fourth fire station and the fact that we're growing so much. In the past couple of months we've annexed property. I think anything that we can do proactively regarding public safety, particularly when it comes to this occupancy and crowd control issue and in a University community, I think that's... Lehman: I absolmely agree with everything you're saying. If I can have a plan for my property - a new building - that shows the fire suppression, you guys look at it, you approve it, the plan goes to housing inspection services, I build the building, I get everything done and no one is paying attention to whether or not I put the fire system in right. Jensen: Respectively, Mr. Mayor, I am present for all of the final inspection for the fire suppression equipment and I've not see the problem that you're referring to. Lehman: You do do final inspections? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 28 of 35 Jensen: Yes. Champion: Any occupancy survey...the fire inspector from the fire department came when I did buildings. Vanderhoef: I'm going to get at this a little different way. I pay from the City a certain amount to have a trained fire fighter...and all the training schools and high risk things and the benefits are different for fire fighters as opposed to my housing inspectors. I'm looking at something that does not take a trained fire fighter to look at a sprinkler system and say whether it works or not. Certainly the ones who are installing them and come out and service them all the time are not trained fire fighters. So, I tend to agree with Ernie that the place that some of these things belong is over inspection and not use my expensive and well-trained fire fighter to be doing those kind of things. It's probably a little cheaper in my budget. O'Donnell: I disagree with both of you. (Laughter) I want that same highly trained fire- fighter looking at something that is important to my safety and the safety of the community. I think that's very important. I think...why don't we have a member of the fire department...I wonder if he would have the same expertise in terms of looking at a building as far as building code violations, etc. I wonder if he would have the same expertise as our building code inspector. It's a public safety issue and I think it's important to have the best guy out looking at it. Lehman: I agree with absolutely everything. O'Donnell: You just disagreed with us. Lehman: No, I feel very strongly that there needs to be a very strong coordination between the housing inspection and the hardware work with the fire suppression systems. I have no disagreement with inspecting for hazards. No one is going to spot a hazard like a trained fire-fighter. Elliott: One of the questions that Andy asked...you have to be aware...I think the concerns that some of us have...we have known in the past, when there have been conflicts in inspections when it was signed off and then it wasn't signed off and we're very sensitive and concerned about that sort of thing. If you could find some way of assuring that there would be no conflict in that sort of thing, where an inspector says yes... (Laughter) Rocca: Would you like a pint of my blood now or later? (Laughter) Elliott: I'm just saying for a 'for-instance'....all the things that Emie said he liked about the fire inspector and that you said are some of the primary responsibilities, why is it not then the responsibility when you see some things that need to be done with something mechanical such as a sprinkler system - why is that not forwarded This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 29 of 35 to the inspection unit and saying 'This has to be taken care.'? I'm just concerned that you have multiple units doing multiple inspections and it just seems ripe for problems. I agree with everything that Regenia says. We want the best trained, the best experienced, the best knowledgeable people that are doing proactive looks at things that represent safety to the public. Rocca: It goes way beyond that. There are a number of things that I could comment on, based on what you've said, but clearly it would improve public safety, the community safety...but don't forget about the fire-fighters who may have enter these occupancies when these uses are occurring. Elliott: They're part of the public too. Rocca: It has significant ramifications on their safety and well-being. I think, in the past, we have tried to coordinate and ! think we do a reasonably good job of coordinating our inspection practices with HIS. I found it ironic a number of years ago, when it first became apparent to us a need for a Fire Inspector position, that HIS actually endorsed and supported the concept of a fire inspector position that would go out and managed these uses and risks that we have presented to you today. They supported that a number of years ago. I know that from involvement with Tim Hennes, our senior building inspector, that he would continue to support that because currently we aren't managing it well. Lehman: I have one other question. Will you continue to have firemen going through commercial...we had inspections every year and usually there were different guy every time, which I thought was wonderful because that many more guys saw the inside of my building in case it caught on fire...but will we be having fireman doing inspections in addition this inspector inspecting? Rocca: The general fire safety...the commercial building inspections as you have come to know them, will continue and it will continue to be done by emergency response personnel so they can be familiar with those occupancies. Certainly that's valuable for us and it's probably the first step of preplanning the same type of occupancies for us. Champion: As I told you, my main concern is that we eliminate our chances of hiring another fire-fighter down the line, however, I am going to support this and I'll tell you why despite all of our hesitations against this. Is that I worked in a burn unit in Chicago and I also was there when the Catholic school in Chicago burned down and they could not get those kids out of there. My greatest fear in Iowa City is one of those bars catching on fire and nobody being able to get out. I've dealt with burns and it's the worst mess. My question is, is the inspector going to go to the bars and count people? A lot of them are so overcrowded. I think that's a major concern downtown and I've brought it up before and what happens if there is a fire in one of those buildings? Nobody is going to get out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 30 of 35 Rocca: Connie, that is part of the program we would outline here with working with crowd control managers. Certainly we can go in and count - but you know there are different ways to play that game. When you count, how you count, where you count, etc. and all those issues. If we have people in there that are charged with the day-to-day use of the building and monitoring the crowd and knowing how to implement their evacuation plan in the event of one of those awful emergencies - Champion: How do you know they have one? Rocca: We're going to see that they do. That's part of this program. They don't have them now. That's part of this program, to work with assembly occupancies to develop an evacuation plan and to train crowd control managers. That's part of what we're getting at here. O'Donnell: I think we have four people who want to support this. Elliott: Andy, I have one more question. Does this mean that this full-time inspector will be going out in a car and not a big fire truck? Rocca: That's correct. Elliott: Good. I think you won and I think the public wins. Rocca: Well, we think it's a win-win and we certainly appreciate your time and attention tonight. Any other questions that Roger or myself can answer? Champion: This is not the same position we talked about. You're going to come inspect my sprinkler system and then I have to hire somebody else to come inspect it to? Rocca: I would say that if your sprinkler system is compliant, and you've followed those orders, then there's probably no need for us to be involved with it. Champion: I just saw two people inspecting it. Lehman: But if you come in and find out that my sprinkler system is defective, you'll tell me that, but it's my job to go out and hire a sprinkler system to make it code compliant? Rocca: Correct. Vanderhoef: But you don't have to have annual inspections by an outside inspector? Rocca: The code requires that they are done. That they are maintained. Vanderhoef: But then you've got two again. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 31 of 35 Champion: No, they're not going to come out and inspect my fire system. Rocca: We're not going to come out and perform the maintenance on it. Vanderhoef: That was not the question. The question is whether or not you're coming out and inspecting it after there's already been an inspection out there and it's certified. Rocca: We're going to look for the code compliant tag that says it's been maintained by whichever contractor you hire. Lehman: Isn't there a requirement for an annual...I mean, my system needs to be drained - or whatever you do if it's a dry system - it's supposed to be checked once a year. Rocca: Correct. Lehman: So your inspection would verify that I have had it checked and it's done and ifI haven't then you're going to say 'Whoa.' O'Donnell: You guys have worked hard on this. Congratulations. Rocca: Thank you very much. Elliott: I think we have consensus on that, don't we? Affiliate Foundation Lehman: We have a memo from Eleanor. Elliott: I think, after reading the memo, my question is do we need to have the Affiliate Foundation or entity? Lehman: I think that's right. Is there any interest in pursuing this further? Elliott: Unless Mike...I would like to hear from him if he disagrees with that significantly. Bailey: I called him today and didn't hear back from him...so you know, this is something that particularly interested me but it seems that Johnson County can capture these gambling funds without going through the extra work of setting up the affiliate fund. What do you think, Dee? Vanderhoefi That's the way I read the memo. Personally, I am very, very disappointed that we don't have this piece in place because I still think there's possibilities of folks This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 32 of 35 contributing to a fund and certainly when the foundation funds are distributed annually, that some of them could come our way. Bailey: Well, there's nothing to prevent somebody from making a gift to the Community Foundation to benefit Parks and Recreation or another one of our departments certainly. So, I certainly wouldn't want to set up a fund that wouldn't be much beyond capturing these gambling funds. I don't want to compete with any other fundraising of any other organizations in town. I don't think that was the intent. Televising Work Sessions Lehman: I sense this has just gone away. Okay. Televising work sessions. Elliott: Where did this come from? Bailey: It came from me. Elliott: That's a good idea. Lehman: Information in the packet relative to the cost. Vanderhoef: No. Lehman: It would be very nice to discuss the pros and cons before we reject it. Champion: I was kind of in favor of televising work sessions, but I'm not willing to sit up there to do it. (Laughter) Lehman: Is there interest in pursuing this? Bailey: I would like us to agree, with the discussion that we had around budget time, that we would televise CIP project presentation and I would like to keep that on our calendar. Wilbum: I'll support that. Vanderhoefi Maybe they can do CIP's in particular and the first one, Budget 101 run-through - Atkins: When I do my budget run-through? Lehman: Is there a difference in cost for live telecasting and just filming? Atkins: No. Lehman: Okay, we'll film those things and just show them. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 33 of 35 Bailey: Well, they're during the day, that's one of the reasons for filming them and then showing them later is a good thing. Champion: Are we going to have to sit up there when we do that? Elliott: We sound old fashioned when we say film. Atkins: For example, when we do the CIP, as you know from last year as we did a whole different format, I think it lends itself...! think we can hook that thing to that thing to that thing... Lehman: We'll do whatever it takes to get a good production. We don't want something that's not good. Elliott: Does that mean that Mike can't be here, then? O'Donnell: A good production, Ernie, you sound like a director. Vanderhoef: I don't think that we have to televise the council table...just your presentation, as long as we have our microphones and that is being recorded. Maybe we can identify ourselves - Karr: I don't think, quite frankly, that's going to work. I mean we'll do anything you want, of course, but people at home want to see who said it. They want to see who is talking. When you're in a dialog, you're not going to identify yourself as you're talking to Karin Franklin. Lehman: We'll get into that later, but you're right. Atkins: Emie, we can do three cameras. Karr: We'd have to do three cameras. Bailey: ! think that's the right step in creating access, or additional access, to the public. Vanderhoef: There is a budget interest in general and I think the most thing they're interested in is our CIP. Council Time Lehman: Okay, Council Time. Champion: Bicyclists, bicyclists, bicyclists. I don't see anybody from stopping them for riding bicycles downtown at very high speeds. Elliott: You can make a citizen's arrest. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 34 of 35 Atkins: Don't do that. Champion: I don't want to get killed. Atkins: That's why we don't televise these things. Champion: It's very dangerous. I know everybody knows it but I don't know how we do something about it. Bailey: It happens - Champion: Maybe community officers could be down there or are they busy with other things? It can't take but a few days of them enforcing the law to. :. Atkins: Okay, but it will hit the fan. Bailey: Tickets not warnings. Atkins: You want tickets. Champion: I want tickets. Elliott: It's not just the young people doing it. Champion: No, not just students. Elliott: More often than not the students know. Bailey: He asked if the law pertained to all sidewalks, is that correct? Champion: Right. Atkins: CB-10. Lehman: Anything else for Council time? Bailey: Where are we with street cleaning? I have a virtual beach at the comer of Church and Van Buren and a car almost slid into the intersection a couple of times today. Atkins: I'll get you the schedule tomorrow. Vanderhoefi Mine just got done today. She could hear all the beep, beep and wanted to know where the heck I was. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 35 of 35 O'Donnell: I brought this up before, or probably twice before and maybe even three times, but as you come up Dubuque Street and you hit Church...there is a Cambus that turns to the right and cars turning to the left...you're backed up at that stop sign forever. Bailey: We're looking at that next year, we talked about that. Lehman: I wonder if it would be possible to contact Cambus to ask them to make their stop on their street instead of on Dubuque. Bailey: They do. O'Donnell: They do stop on Church Street but they have to turn that comer and if they can't make the comer if there are cars pulled out. Elliott: And the cars keep coming and the bus has to sit there. O'Donnell: If you have somebody turning to the left on Church, you can't go anywhere. Bailey: Take the alley. O'Donnell: I don't want to take the alley. Lehman: Make a note that that is the fourth time that Mike has brought that up. Any other items for Council time? Okay. See you tomorrow night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the April 18, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session.