Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-06 TranscriptionJune 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 1 of 44 June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Bailey, Champion, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn. Absent: Lehman UISG Liaison: Schreiber Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Fowler, Franklin, Helling, Karr, Nasby, O'Brien, Severson, Shaffer Tape: 05-33, Side 2; Planning & Zoning A.) APPROVING A SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE AND A SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MWD DAVIS ADDITION (REZ05-00001) Franklin: Okay, first item a public hearing on a sensitive areas overlay zone and a sensitive areas development plan for MWD David Addition. This is the project that we have been talking about in terms of annexation and zoning for Mr. Davis' property, which would include the Menard's property. This is before you and going through this process because of the sensitive areas having to do with the wetlands and their necessity to work with the Corps on getting a wetlands mitigation plan approved. We had some negotiations through this process with them in terms of the buffer that we would provide around the wetlands and averaging that buffer...I've got to see what illustrations we have here...okay, what's before you is the compromise that we reached on the wetlands buffer averaging, which has been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff. So, this is ready to go. All of the buffer planting plan and the Corps of Engineers approval have been received. Vanderhoef: Karin, when the property on the opposite side of Kitty Lee Road, because I don't know what direction we're going always on that curve...uhhh...that's still planned to be... Franklin: This area? Vanderhoef: - large lot residential...but would we ever give another entrance off of Highway 1 or would they be using Kitty Lee to access that land going on back to where it is developed already... Franklin: Here? Vanderhoefi Along there but to that side...yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 2 of 44 Franklin: Okay...what the southwest district plan shows is that there will be a road coming off of Highway 1 and whether it's Kitty Lee or something a little bit to the West or Southwest, which would have better sight distance, is coming off of Kitty Lee and goes around a ridge line up towards the undeveloped area South of Rohret Road and then Kitty Lee would then 'T' into that future road. That's what is projected at this time without a lot of study or no engineering being done on it whatsoever. Vanderhoef: The only reason I ask is that there's discussion about whether street right-of-way on Kitty Lee and how this buffer works...makes me wonder if we should be getting the right of way for widening that street at least going all the way day. Franklin: There is a sixty-six foot right-of-way right now. Which is typically what you find in the County. That would be sufficient for a collector street. Vanderhoef: Okay. Franklin: So I think we're okay. Vanderhoef: Okay, thank you. Franklin: You're welcome. B.) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 25.67 ACRES BY AMENDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (OPDH-5) PLAN IN ORDER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL ZERO LOT LINE DWELLINGS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON WINTERGREEN DRIVE (REZ04-00017/SUB04-00017) Franklin: Okay, the next item then is Item B. Rezoning approximately 25+ acres to amend the planned development housing overlay. This is the Wintergreen Drive or Village Green South property that you have seen before. There was some debate about the design of buildings on this property and it was sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission by the Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission...(several cell phones ring in the background) I hear music everwhere! (Laughter) Vanderhoef: Would you like to dance? (Laughter) Franklin: I don't think so. The Planning and Zoning Commission then denied that revision. The developer when back to the drawing board and came back with this plan that is before you now. What has happened is that all of the properties around the edge of this are now single-family. The zero-lot line units are confined to the center space. This is six fewer zero-lot lines than what you looked at in February. It is twelve more zero-lot lines than what was approved in 1993, which had some zero-lot lines on this East side, here. So, this has now been recommended by the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 3 of 44 Planning and Zoning Commission. It was on a vote of 6-0. It is with the thirty- eight single family and the thirty-eight zero-lot lines. The ordinance that will rezone this property would reduce the lot area, lot width - front-yard set-back - for these units that are in this center area here. There was a lot of discussion about drainage at the Planning and Zoning Commission. We have been assured by the Engineering Department as well as the applicant's engineer that the drainage issues that are there now will be improved with the development here because the drainage system will be contained. Vanderhoefi What is the set-back? Franklin: The set-back on those interior pieces is seven feet. Vanderhoef: Oh dear. Franklin: And the right-of-way trees are being planted in the public right-of-way. Vanderhoef: So where are the utilities? Down the back? Franklin: No, the utilities down the front of the properties. Elliott: Underground? Franklin: Yes. Elliott: They preferred or you preferred an alley in the back as opposed to no alley and providing extra yard space? Franklin: When they brought this in, they brought it in with the concept of the alley. My understanding...it was something that the developer had seen elsewhere and wanted to try this. What we worked through in this whole process was the actual layout. That had originally had a five-foot setback. The Planning and Zoning Commission wanted it setback a little bit more to the seven feet. It's going to look quite dense. Elliott: The difference between now and when it came up last time. What's the difference in the density. I think you said that. Franklin: It's six fewer zero-lot lots and those lots were converted to single-family. Elliott: Okay. Franklin: So, it's less than what it was when it first came in this iteration but more than what it was in the 1993 plan. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 4 of 44 Vanderhoef: So the street trees can go in the public right of way...but with that amount of space it's going to have to be a little teeny-tiny tree to ever grow in that small of area. Franklin: Uhm, not necessarily, no. Champion: There are huge, huge trees growing in the public right of way in town. Huge maples.., and like my oak trees. Vanderhoef: The point is...is that you have to watch those big ones...they have such big foundations and they get into the utilities that are down there.., that's what... Franklin: I'm looking for the dimension of where those are going to be planted. O'Donnell: You're talking specifically, Dee, the seven-foot setback? Vanderhoef: Yeah, a small setback and what it will support...the Forrester had encouraged us on the Sand Prairie area that we couldn't get anything but little ornamentals in the front yard. Where the utilities are, you're not going to plant a big tree that's potentially going to have to be dug up if they have to get to those utilities. So, I'm concerned about softening the look when it's that dense. Franklin: There will be eleven feet between the sidewalk and the curb in which the tree can be planted. Vanderhoef: Eleven feet. Whoa. That's a biggy. Elliott: More room between the sidewalk and the street than between the sidewalk and the building. Franklin: There will be eight feet between the sidewalk and the building and eleven feet between the sidewalk and the curb. Vanderhoef: Okay, that sounds better. Champion: Just a comment. Not necessarily on this subdivision, but I hope that we don't totally give up the idea of having no setbacks and having all the setback in the back and have zero-lot-line dwellings because then you can have a nice open space in the back where people can actually have a deck or can have a big green space so they can put swing-sets and stuff...because that's very common in more urban areas and it's actually quite attractive and very useful. Franklin: One of the things that this development has which doesn't show up very well in this illustration but this is a piece that as we went through this was negotiated to get some open space in this area. These are quite consumptive of the lot. So, I think it's going to be interesting to see how it sells. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 5 of 44 Vanderhoefi Will we be planting the street trees on the other side of the street also? Franklin: The plan shows for the requirement that they are just on the east side of the street, which is where you have the eleven feet. On the other side of the street you're going to have six feet between the sidewalk and the curb and that's where the single-family lots are where presumably there will be a tree planted in the front yard of the single-family dwelling. Vanderhoef: The utilities are going to be on the East side so...a larger shade tree could be built or put in on the West side. Franklin: Essentially what's happening here is that the...where the trees are going to be on East side of Chelsae Court, which is this road, is being shifted from the private property to public property. Whereas on the West side it will be on private property as you typically see it. So it's a little bit different. One thing I need to point out to you is that in the packet there are some letters of protest. Those were received in February, which was before this particular plan went through. I've checked them and they're not going to meet the twenty percent anyway. You do not need to accept them as correspondence because they were accepted previously at one of your meetings but there is one email to Bob Miklo that you will need to accept as correspondence tomorrow night. Bailey: That email from April 7 is this plan, right? Franklin: Right. Bailey: Okay. Elliott: The people with whom I've talked to...one of the their largest concerns was the drainage situation and that apparently has been addressed. Trafficking will be a little less or at least slightly less. I think this addresses quite a few of a their concerns. Wilburn: Well, there will be a public hearing and they have an opportunity to come and speak. Franklin: Yes. C.) CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 54 ACRES FROM PUBLIC/INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (P/CI-1) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE FOR AVIATION COMMERCE PARK. (REZ05-00004) Franklin: Okay, next item. This is the Aviation Commerce Park North. In your packet is an amended conditional zoning agreement with some very minor amendments This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Jtme 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 6 of 44 that I got as suggestions from Dee that were explanatory amendments explaining what the screening requirements were, what an arcade was, what a display window was - what constituted a display window. The attorney's office has had conversations with the attorney for Walmart. The Walmart group is verbally okay with the conditions. We expect to receive a letter from Mr. Morgan, the attorney, tomorrow. The only difficulty has been getting everything through the corporate bureaucracy. The one issue that they had raised some concern about was to ensure that there was understanding as to what street improvements would be the responsibility of Walmart. In the purchase agreement, there are three things that Walmart had agreed to. One was the relocation of Rupert Road. From the illustration you can see that where Rupert Road is now goes right through the site that would be the Walmart site. So they have agreed to relocate this road and pay for that relocation. They have also agreed to installation of a left turn lane at Rupert and Highway 1 and to deposit with the City $100,000 for any other off-site improvements. That is in the purchase agreement. They just wanted it to be clear that that is what they had agreed to given some statements in the conditional zoning agreement about sidewalks and street improvements that were more general in nature. Remember, we are the owners of this subdivision and the conditional zoning agreement applies to the entire subdivision. It is not just about Walmart. Are there any questions? Do you know what you're doing tomorrow night? Okay, tomorrow night, remember that during the public heating you need to make a motion, before the public heating is closed, to accept these conditions so that there can be a signed CZA before the public hearing is finished. Then you will be voting on the rezoning with the conditions as they are in your packet. Okay. Bob? Elliott: Just as a clarification...you said that verbally this has been agreed to? Franklin: Yes. We are very comfortable that they do not have problems with it. Elliott: One question. I will probably be voting against this because I don't like all of the design things...but I think I'm going to be in a minority and it will probably sail through...but what constitutes a pedestrian walkway? Franklin: A sidewalk. Elliott: A sidewalk or if it's in a parking area and you just paint lines? Franklin: Usually it is a separated sidewalk because paint lines...well, it can have partially the painted lines...but it depends on the site. The idea is that you have a safe pedestrian way for people to get from the public sidewalk on the street to the building without having to dodge cars. Dilkes: I just want to clarify that we did talk to Walmart's attorney again today and he's hoping to get a letter to us tomorrow. We may not have it by tomorrow night. We feel, as Karin said, fairly certain or as certain as we can be without something This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 7 of 44 in writing, that they do not object to the conditions with that clarification about the street improvement. Franklin: I will add to that...that in working with the architect for the store, we have gone through an elevation which we have reviewed in the in context of the building design standards, which seem to be the biggest concern of the Council, and we've reached agreement on that building design within the context of those conditions. Elliott: How much other property is involved? This far we've been talking about only that which Walmart wants to buy and build. Wilburn: Actually we haven't. Elliott: What? Wilburn: We've been talking about the entire - Elliott: No, no...but that's where the attention has been focused. Franklin: Right. Bailey: They're buying twenty-one and we're talking about fifty-four, right? Elliott: Twenty-one out of fifty-four? Franklin: Exactly. Elliott: A little less than half and so we're setting the stage for these having to be followed by anyone else who would come after that? Franklin: Yes. Elliott: Okay, well, I would oppose it but whatever. O'Donnell: I would be a lot more comfortable if we had that letter in hand before we voted on this. Franklin: We've been trying. O'Donnell: Let's just hope the letter comes tomorrow. Franklin: Are we done with that? D.) APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 29.7 ACRES OF TERRITORY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF HIGHWAY 218 ADJACENT TO DEER CREEK ROAD IN NORTHWEST IOWA CITY (ANN05-00001) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 8 of 44 Franklin: Okay...public hearing on an annexation of approximately twenty-acres of territory located Northeast of Highway 218 and adjacent to Deer Creek Road in Northwest Iowa City. This is part of the whole Clear Creek project. Remember, we severed some ground to the north here that will go - has gone in to Coralville. This is taking us out to 218, so our corporate boundaries will hit 218 at this point. There are two property owners. Clear Creek Development Company and Beverly Horton. Both property owners have agreed to the annexation. Beverly Horton with the tax change over a five-year period that's allowed by state law. E.) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 29.26 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL ZONE (ID-RS) TO PART LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RS-5-10.92 ACRES) AND PART MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RS- 8-18.34 ACRES), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH SYCAMORE STREET NORTH OF SOUTItPOINT SUBDIVISION. (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin: The next item, Item E, is a pass and adopt on Southpoint Subdivision called - Southpoint, I'm sorry, it's just north o£ Southpoint...Brookwood ?ointe Subdivision just north of Southpoint on Sycamore. G.) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BROOKWOOD POINTE SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB05- 00005) Franklin: I'll just skip to Item G for a moment because that is the plat for Brookwood Pointe and with the rezoning being complete in Item E we then go to the preliminary plat for the subdivision for your approval. F.) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE 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) (PASS AND ADOPT) (DEFERRED FROM 3/22, 4/5) Franklin: To go back to Item F. This is the ordinance that changes the zoning and to the various commercial zones for the MWD Davis addition, the Menard's site. What we want you to do here, and this is so you we can have a good paper trail in terms of what's on the books, is to defer this to July 5. We're hoping that by that time we will have heard back from the Secretary of State and property will be officially annexed. If it is not, I will let you know and you'll need to defer it again. Champion: To what date, Karin? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 9 of 44 Franklin: July 5th, please? And I'm done. INVESTMENT POLICIES FOR CDBG AND HOME FUNDS Wilburn: Next step will be discussion led by staff on investment policies for CDBG and HOME funds. I am going to back away from the table on this because I continue to have a conflict of interest with this. Just a reminder to Council for Items 9 (this one) and Item 10 (tomorrow) I will also have a conflict of interest as that involves aid to agencies and the Council will need to make a motion appointing a temporary Mayor Pro Tem for Items 9 and 10. O'Donnell: I would love to have Dee Vanderhoef do that. Elliott: Sounds good to me. Vanderhoef: I will do it if you would like me to. O'Donnell: Sounds good. Nasby: Good evening. In your Council packet, I had a memo for you. At the work sessions on May 2nd and May 16th we talked about the investment policies for CDBG and HOME and at that time you asked staff to put together a proposal for a public facilities project. There was a consensus at that time to grant the money to the nonprofits or sub-recipients over a period of time. That way they could use the money and not have a repayment burden after the improvements had depreciated. Also though we were looking at how best to maintain the efficient use of these monies. So, what we have proposed is to have an earned grant. That means that the money will be a grant to them but it will be earned over a period of time. The formula that we came up with or are proposing is to forgive $3,000 per year. That way it's proportional - the length of time of compliance is proportional to the amount of money. So, if you have a project that's a large project, $100,000.or more, you're going to get 30 years of compliance and if it's a $1500 to replace a sprinkler system - like Free Lunch is doing this year - it's a year, a minimum of a year. So, that's what we've put together. As long as we're having this discussion we have some other policies...the housing policy, which the Council has discussed on several occasions and we have in place...and we also have an economic development policy and a public service project which are basically operational funding. So, we saw this as a good opportunity to formalize all of those policies and put them in place so we're able to find them easily instead of hunting through work session memos and things like that. So, that's what is in your resolution. One more thing I wanted to point out in the resolution is that the waiver requests that you've been getting from nonprofits or other sub- recipients. Basically the policies now are going to cover the whole gamut of assistance but there are several requests that do not fit within the policy. There is one from Extend-The-Dream, two from Greater Iowa City, and one from Habitat. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 10 of 44 If we adopt the policy as it's proposed, those four waiver requests would be denied but they would still get the funding in accordance with the City policy. Because we don't have a waiver policy, there is a not a waiver provision written into this resolution. So, if you wish to have the ability to grant waivers on occasion, that is something that you would have to write in to the resolution and also to think about what criteria would you have in place if you wanted to grant one, rather than doing it on a case-by-case basis. There would be 'Alright, if you match this criteria then the Council would entertain a waiver' - and I think that's important to have in place for everyone who is involved with that. Vanderhoef: Which brings me to my first question then .... If we adopt the policy then these four that have been tentatively approved for funding...that money goes back to the pool until such time as we put together a waiver or what? Nasby: They could either accept the policy as is in the resolution, if you pass the resolution, let's just the take the first one for example, Extend The Dream. For their rental housing...the policy would call for a 0% amortized loan over a period of thirty years. That would be their option. They could take that because it would then pertain to policy or you would have to, like you said, put it in a holding pattern basically until the Council came up an amended this resolution then added a waiver policy. Dilkes: Do you remember when we did a resolution adoption the allocations. We changed it to include a provision that said it would be subject to the investment policy that was adopted by the Council. Nasby: So the sub-recipient would basically have that option to take the policy or to continue to ask for a waiver and then it would be up to your discretion. Champion: Then it would come to us? Elliott: I appreciate the work done on the policy and especially the nomenclature of earned grant. I always...not always...but I would often be taken aback by things called...what was it...non-repayable loan which seemed like a contradiction in terms.., so... Nasby: Forgivable loans, shedding-balance loans - Elliott: Yeah. So, I appreciate this. Nasby: You're welcome. O'Donnell: Very good. Vanderhoefi Okay, so we still have a .... knowing the organization for Habitat for Humanity that they can not have loans... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 11 of 44 Champion: That's not true. Bailey: They can't have interest. Champion: They can't have interest. They can have loans. Nasby: Their preference is not to have them but yet it's no interest. Vanderhoefi Just no interest loans. Okay. Just to be sure. Champion: So, these four organizations that frequently fund would have to come to us every time that they wanted a waiver. Nasby: If you have a waiver provision in your policy, as the policy is drafted you don't have a waiver provision in it. You wouldn't see them. When they apply for the money, they know what the policy is and if they don't want to comply with the policy then we wouldn't grant them the money or if you want to adopt a waiver policy... Champion: I think that's (can't hear) Bailey: I think we need to adopt criteria because just the option of appealing to Council, we'll be in the same boat next year. Dilkes: I really don't. You've got to have some waiver criteria because otherwise this whole policy is meaningless. Nasby: Right and that's what happened last time with the housing. We adopted it and then we started entertaining waivers and you've just got one after another. Champion: So how would we develop the criteria? Regenia, do you have any ideas? Dee? Bailey: None off the top of my head. Vanderhoef: The no interest loan... Nasby: If they can demonstrate a hardship? Champion: Definitely nonprofit. Vanderhoef: For nonprofit would be one that I would look at. Champion: I would not have any waivers for profits. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 12 of 44 Dilkes: Well, are you sure you don't have to change the basic term for nonprofit? Maybe... if you can identify certain criteria on which you would evaluate a request when certain entities - nonprofit, profit providing x service, I don't know - but if you can identify those and want to give them some different terms, then maybe the policy should be (can't hear). Vanderhoef: That's a possibility. You have to send these in? Nasby: You tentatively approve funding subject to the policy. Fiscal year starts July 1. So, we've got sub-recipients - roughly thirty - looking to enter into contracts. Now, the vast majority of them are going to be obviously of the eighteen or fifteen waiver requests you had, the policy addresses a majority of them and then these four would still have the option to accept that or not. Dilkes: For example, it may be with housing you want to provide an earned grant or nonprofits as opposed to the zero percent interest loan...and that would then be a bigger distinction between the nonprofits and the for-profits but that may be something that you may be interested in doing. It doesn't make any sense to get a bunch of waiver requests every year from nonprofit housing places and give them an earned grant. Vanderhoefi We've got coming in to play...basically...we can't...uuh...now I've lost what I was going to say. Elliott: While you're thinking...when is the window of opportunity - how often does that occur for revising it? Is this once a year? Nasby: The policy? Elliott: For instance, if we were to adopt this and then to decide at a later date that we want to incorporate what Eleanor said... Nasby: The Council is free to make revisions to the resolutions at its discretion. Elliott: So this is not something that we have granted right now but it would be good to at least have it the way we would like it. Champion: But I don't want to inhibit these organizations from being able to use the money that's been promised them or delegated to them. This particular policy will prevent them from doing that.., because they can't meet the criteria of the policy. Vanderhoef: What we also have is with this new terminology, except for the ones over here that don't fit, on the short term small amount to earn the grant, which becomes forgivable basically, but if we go that route with all of them, our original intent had been to try to recoup some money so we could continue to do more and that's what we're losing out. Then, if we start trying to make these fit into that step... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 13 of 44 Nasby: Especially on housing projects. We specifically pick those out as income generators, which is why you had the repayment terms, and the distinction that you made between nonprofits and for-profits was the interest rate. So, you know if you're looking at ways...it depends upon what you want to do with it. Like Eleanor said with that policy, if you want to make a change in the policy to make a greater distinction, there is a number of options. You could lengthen out the repayment terms, make it a fifty-year amortized loan versus a thirty. That has the effect of lowering the monthly payment. You could defer half of it. Half-balloon loan, half-payment loan. Bailey: I would be willing to work with someone else on Council with Steve and Eleanor if we could continue this work that we have been doing with nonprofits, and somebody else could join us, and bring something to our June 20th work session. Elliott: Sounds good. Bailey: We could touch base with everybody. Vanderhoef: When do you go out of town? Nasby: I'm here. Not until July. Vanderhoefi I won't be here for the next Council meeting. Bailey: But we can certainly bring a proposal for a waiver policy and then make a decision then. Nasby: So what we'd be working on is the waiver provision. Vanderhoefi I can help write it but I won't be here to vote on it. Nasby: So we'll defer action on this resolution for tomorrow's meeting. We're going to be close in terms of getting contracts awarded but we'll be able to do it. Dilkes: It sounds like you're talking about some kind of waiver provision with criteria, not changing the basics of this policy as it is here. So you can start working on the agreements with the ones that you don't need to have - Bailey: I would suggest, if we can, get started with the agreements and then we're really looking at only four. Nasby: The waiver provision...that language we would insert into this resolution for the next meeting. Bailey: Okay, that sounds like a plan. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 14 of 44 Nasby: I think what we'll do in the mean time is staff will get a hold of all the (can't hear), if they haven't already seen a copy of this policy and say - 'This is what it looks like it's going to be but with a waiver or provision added' and then maybe they can participate in - Vanderhoefi So we will defer this? Nasby: We will defer from tomorrow until June 21st. Atkins: You clear on your instructions? Nasby: Yes, sir. Bailey: Thanks. Vanderhoef: That would be... Bailey: Httman Service Funds. Vanderhoef: We can do aid to agencies... Bailey: Right. Vanderhoef: ...and defer to June 17. Nasby: 21 st. Champion: Part of that aid to agencies comes from these funds, doesn't it? Nasby: Part of the aid to agencies is $105,000 and it comes out of the Block Grant budget and goes to aid to agencies. Champion: Can we vote on that one without voting on this one? Nasby: The policy for public service has been that it has been as a grant and that's what you're proposing to do. Your aid to agencies budget is a separate action. Dilkes: Is there any harm in deferring it? Nasby: Aid to agencies? Linda is here...I guess I don't have an answer. Is there any harm in deferring aid to agencies vote until next meeting? Champion: Well, I think we should defer the whole thing. I don't think we should take them apart. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 15 of 44 Vanderhoefi Defer both of them. Bailey: Okay. Vanderhoefi We can do that. Karr: So Items 9 & 10 will be deferred until the 21st. Vanderhoef: 2 lSt? Karr: Yes. Nasby: Yes, two weeks. Karr: Just a point of clarification, then, if we're in agreement and we're going to defer both items and since the Mayor Pro tem has a conflict, if there is no discussion and it's a simple deferral then we wouldn't need to elect a temporary chair...as long as we're not going to get into discussion. If we're going to get into discussion we need to elect a temporary chair. Champion: I don't think we need to. O'Donnell: I don't think there will be discussion. Vanderhoef: We just need a statement that we're still working on the policy. Champion: No, just vote to defer. Dilkes: It's fine if you make a statement and then just make a motion to defer. Wilburn: Okay, Item 7. ITEM 7. REPEALING CITY CODE TITLE 12, CHAPTER 4 ENTITLED BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE ENABLING ORDINANCE AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 4. Helling: Don Williams from Rice Williams Associates is here as you requested and as we promised. Don has a presentation that we've asked him to make tomorrow night at the formal meeting and I think one of the benefits to that will be that it will sort of summarize the franchise agreement as negotiated and it can be on the air. Atkins: Dale, before you finish...I am going to let Linda go home. Aid to Agencies is going to get pulled, right, so she doesn't have to hang around. Okay, goodbye. Helling: Also, Drew Shaffer is here. You can come up if you want to, Drew. There may be some questions that you could help with. Basically, it's your meeting. You This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 16 of 44 can have Don go through the presentation tonight or kind of walk you through it as a preview or you can just ask him questions about the issues that we focused on the last time. We've discussed that so I think he's pretty familiar with what those are, so it's kind of what ever you want to do. Champion: Did everybody have a chance to meet with him today? Helling: No. Wilburn: How long is your presentation tomorrow night? Williams: Well, let's see. The Powerpoint is actually only three pages of presentation and a total of twelve slides. So, what I thought would be maybe benefici.al is ifI can kind of tell you about the process that the City went through, why we chose to do it this way, what you can do at this point of time, what you can't do, and then what in fact we did and then take your questions as they come up. Is that okay? Wilburn: Sure. Williams: The first thing to do note is that you already had what I think has fairly been widely considered a good franchise agreement and a good ordinance - which was developed about ten years ago. The background for this extension of this franchise is that you're in a renewal period, which started three years before the expiration of the current franchise. That's guided under federal law. What has happened...I've been working with cities since 1981...is that consistently every single time period since then the amount of authority the cities have to regulate telecommunication providers and their rights of way decreases. It has not ever increased and it does not, in my opinion, look likely to increase in the future and that seems to be the case irregardless of political parties, Congress, White House, or indeed even in state legislatures. Right at the moment there is a bill in congress that would eliminate franchising of cable companies and public rights of way. Most of the state legislatures have telecommunications representatives also trying to eliminate franchise at the local level and make it a state franchise. That would greatly reduce what you can do. That's the general background. That is, in submation, highly unlikely that any time in the future you are going to have more rights to regulate the rights of way for telecom users than you do now. Now, you have less authority than when these agreements were drafted ten years go. That's the general background of it. A couple of other points that I wanted to bring up...one of the issues for everybody- consumers, franchising authorities, and indeed the industry is competition. In 1996, we passed a rewrite of the Telecommunications Act which was supposed to encourage competition. In some sense it did, but not very dramatically. What we have seen is a rise in satellite- provided multiple channels of video - so a lot of people have direct broadcast satellite now, but in terms of hard-wire competition, that has been much harder to develop. At the moment, there are two telephone companies that are trying to get a lot of franchises all at once - that's Verizon - and then there's SBC. Both of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 17 of 44 those companies would like to eliminate local franchising all together. That would be a real problem for cities who have vibrate local programming, good local customer-service standards - such as Iowa City. We were asked to look at the renewal process as it was coming up and we do this all the time for cities around the country. One of the things that is important in Iowa City is, aside from good customer-service standards, good enforcement standards of those customer- service requirements, is also your local programming. The local programming, and I don't mean broadcasters - I mean City Channel 4, Infovision, PATV, The Library Channel, the School Channel, the University Channel. To show how important that was, as well as making sure that subscribers were getting good customer service is that we did a survey.., a random-dial survey of subscribers in Iowa City. One of the things we found out, and we relayed this to Mediacom, was that local programming channels are very well watched. Frequently watched. We brought this to Mediacom's attention. One of the things that Mediacom is interested in is not losing any more subscribers to the satellite dish. Actually, that's probably of interest to your city as well. The cable operator pays you 5% of gross revenues to use your public rights of way, they provide benefits to the schools, the community, government buildings, local programming development, and more. The satellite companies do none of the above but they're in direct competition for every dollar in the market place to buy video channels at your home. We brought this up to Mediacom and said 'Well, it might be something to think about, rather than renewing the franchise, to extend the terms of the franchise and maybe increase some of the benefits for the citizens of Iowa City by increasing some of the support mechanisms for local programming and that would help you distinguish yourself from satellite providers because satellite companies don't have any of the access channels in Iowa City or anywhere else'. Mediacom, happily enough, said that they were interested in going through that. One of the benefits to them was indeed continuing to have vibrant local programming and also they wouldn't have to go through the renewal process - which can be pretty lengthy and pretty expensive for both sides. So, that's sort of the general background of what we're doing. The franchise in Iowa City, in the past, right now, and into the future, is not exclusive. If anyone wants to come in to Iowa City and apply for a franchise and put another set of wires - whether it's fiber- optic or coax in your right of way - and compete with Mediacom, they're more than welcome to. The City has certainly tried to do that in the past. Champion: And also the City could do it? We could provide our own utility? Williams: Yes, city governments certainly can do it. 90+ percent - it's probably more like 99% of the city governments that provide cable service as part of the city are cities that own their own electric company and the overwhelming majority of those cities started companies when there was no competition. They started out as the sole provider. Iowa has probably the largest contingent of cities who have started their own municipal electric systems in competition. Those again are all in places where they've already owned their own electric company. When you own your own electric company it makes it a little bit easier to do that. But, you're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 18 of 44 absolutely fight, you can. One of the other things the industry is doing, besides wanting to get fid of local franchises is they would also like to see municipalities be prevented from providing any kind of telecommunications services. So, they're very busy - not just in Washington but they're busy in all the state legislatures. That's not going to end. (Tape Ends) Williams: (continued) subscriber, no matter what other things you take, you have to take the basic tier. You folks have a very good record of regulating that one rate that you can regulate. But three years they wanted it to be $14, Mediacom put in the paperwork, the City reviewed the paperwork, we got the rate down to $11.75. It's been frozen by an agreement with them at $11.75 for a couple of years. They just turned in new paperwork for a rate adjustment. It looks like it's going to be right about there again, which is good. That's the only thing you can regulate so the City has been doing what they can to keep the rate down for the lowest tier of service for people who might have difficulty paying the monthly bill. So, that's what you can do at that end. Champion: I have another question, I'm sorry. Williams: Don't be sorry. Champion: You talked about 5% of the gross goes to the City for public access programming. You also mentioned that they pay for part of the servicing of these channels. What did you mean by that? Williams: They pay 5% gross revenues which goes to the City. In addition, they provide in this agreement and in your previous one money for video equipment, they provide operating expenses for the stations, and they also are paying two-thirds of the capital costs for providing more origination sites in the City. So that's it. Champion: We are doing things for our customers. I think that's pretty amazing. I didn't realize that. Absolutely, indeed, I will tell you...one of the things that is nice about Iowa City, as well as some other cities, but Iowa City is certainly far, far, far up on the ladder. You folks really do have a very vibrant local programming community. It's quite remarkable for the size of the community that you are. You have a great deal of identification in the populus about your local access chalmels - which is really quite good. Bailey: I need to ask a question about this basic tier. Whereas we have the right to establish rates for the basic tier, if there is no value there, that is to say if the programming in the basic tier or the channels available in the basic tier, it's really not much of a privilege to have the rates and I would suggest that the value of the basic tier, which is controlled by Mediacom, has decreased in the last few years. I see that we're losing C-SPAN 2 from the basic tier now. I do understand that there is a regulation that Mediacom must accept a channel if they apply to be part of or they want to be part of a package. I called about a loss of another channel, I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 19 of 44 think we lost MSNBC I think a couple of years ago and I talked to somebody about that because I somebody had applied to be part of that basic tier. Williams: What happens is that there are the must-carry channels. Bailey: Must-carry, thanks. Williams: Which are the local broadcasting stations - NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, Warner Brothers, there's bunches of them, including independent ones. If they apply and they are either significantly viewed or they can technical prove that they're in a Grade B contour, that is you take the math and you say this is where my signal goes - my signal hits your community - you have to carry me on the basic tier. That's a requirement. Mediacom can't do anything about it. Bailey: So that's what's been happening in the basic tier but I would suggest, despite the fact that we've had a very good rate with the basic tier, the value really isn't there. Williams: That may well be the case. One of the things that happens with the cable industry, and it's...when we regulate rates for cities one of the formulas is is the number of channels. The FCC doesn't care whether that's a channel that costs the cable operator ten cents and everybody watches it, no one watches it or it's a channel that costs a lot of money and everybody watches it. The only thing that helps the regulation of rates is 'what are the costs providing that service'? So, if you have ten thousand dollars worth of costs for providing twenty channels or thirty channels, it's the same, it's neutral. It doesn't matter what the channel is. That' s... you're right. Bailey: I would be interested in seeing some negotiation around this basic tier. If there is no value, despite the fact that the rate is low, then it's not really an issue. It's not a value to customers or consumers for those who are unwilling or unable to pay for an expanded or family cable package. I think that's one of the big challenges in the Mediacom franchise in Iowa City is that the basic tier has limited value despite those locate channels. Williams: That's true and that's reflected around the country. Only about three, four, or five percent take just the basic tier. In Iowa City it's about 10%. Bailey: Exactly. Williams: So, there's more people in Iowa City just taking the basic tier than in other places. Part of that is probably because you have reasonable off-air and you have very good local access channels and the rate is, while I'd like to see it much lower and I'd like to see those other channels on it, its working. Bailey: Well, if ten percent of our population prefers just to have the basic tier, for whatever reason, I would suggest that we don't loads of... some people what This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 20 of 44 minimum TV in their households. I would suggest that that might be a negotiating point with Mediacom and I think that that would...if we had...is it not a negotiating point that can be approached? Williams: City governments have not been able to require - Bailey: I'm not talking about requiring, I'm talking about negotiation. Williams: Things can be brought up in negotiations but there is no way to require it, that's for sure. Bailey: I understand that quite well, but looking at our population and demographics, we value local, we have a lot of local on the basic tier, we don't have a lot of news in the basic tier. I would suggest that that would add more value to the franchise if our customers were getting more quality programming in the basic tier. 10% of the enrolled subscribers are using only basic tier. Williams: That would make the rate go up. I wish it wouldn't, but I know what happens is that it will make the rate go up because when the programming is more valuable, the people who supply the programming charge more for it. Bailey: Right, that makes sense. If we negotiate or set that rate and .... Williams: It's going to show up on the external costs: Bailey: Have we tested that? That's my frustration with this franchise about value to consumers is the excuse seems to be 'that would make it go up', but have we tested those waters? What more.., are people willing to pay $14 basic tier if there was more value there? It seems that we haven't fully explored that to offer the value to the citizens and I'm not discounting the value that this community holds for local programming. I received some emails regarding that and I think that that is a terrific thing that Mediacom is doing, but when it comes to their product, there is limited value in their basic tier. I think all of us could agree to that. Williams: That's probably the case. Most cable companies do basic tier because they want you to come on to the system for a relatively low cost and then sell you - Bailey: No one needs fifty channels of TV, I'm sorry. Elliott: Piggy-backing on that Regenia...you're pointing out that there is limited value to the basic tier - which we have negotiated to be a minimal cost. Which then is picked up by Mediacom by charging more for the channels that a greater number of people want. So, what it comes down to is perhaps 10% of the population is gaining from something that 80% of the population is having to pay more for because of that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 21 of 44 Bailey: If their value is a lower rate and I would suggest that there is some middle ground that if there were...what I hear a lot is 'I want more news channels'. We're losing the news channels on basic tier. It's my hunch that a lot of basic tier people and subscribers are adults who are sort of- Elliott: I think...are you suggesting maybe in negotiation could we say 'we'll provide you with the opportunity to charge more for the basic tier if you will drop your rate for some of the additional channels'? O'Donnell: I don't really think you can do that. Elliott: I was just wondering about...in negotiations... Williams: I just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstood. If the rate for the basic tier is determined by a set of formulas in a grouping of connecting spreadsheets from the FCC - it's set for you because you regulate rates. That's how the rate is set. It isn't set by Mediacom picking a number for the market place. It's set by rate regulation formulas. Elliott: But you said that Mediacom came in with a request for $14. Williams: Yes, but we slsot it down because - Elliott: The City did so...could you revisit that and say 'Okay, we shot it down...we're down to the $11.50...how about we go up to your $14 and you drop back on some of the others'? Bailey: Or add two channels that are news and keep them there. Add MSNBC or something...that I hear people calling for. I hear a lot of what we can't do and I understand the regulations - but I don't hear a lot about offering additional value to consumers. I hear that we've looked at the local access and I think that that is good, but I don't see a lot of direct benefit to consumers with this franchise agreement. I've said it before and I hate to sound like a broken record. Wilburn: Just so we can take advantage of the time that we have with our consultant, is that a question that you can address, based on your experience rather than us ranting about what we want? Bailey: Is it a negotiable item? I guess that's my bottom-line question. Williams: I certainly wouldn't be particularly excited about negotiating a particular set of channels for people and making that rate go up nor would I want to particularly have those channels removed from another tier of service with people who are paying for that tier of service. In other words, if you get rid of some channel on expanded tier of service and put it on basic, that's a channel that those people no longer have on - This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 22 of 44 Bailey: They already have it because you have to subscribe to basic to get expanded, right? Williams: Right, but are we going to adjust their rate as well? Bailey: I would suggest that we should. I guess maybe the negotiating question is not negotiating specific channels but two additional channels on the basic tier. Champion: Regenia, I like what you're saying, but it scares me. I don't think politicians - and that's what we're all here - have any business telling people what they should watch on TV. Bailey: I'm not suggesting what they should watch but what I hear is that - Champion: You're determining what should go over the airways. Bailey: And I don't want to do that, absolutely not, but what I hear...I want to see more direct value to the consumers - especially to this 10% who are subscribing to basic cable. ! don't care what it is. I mean it could be the cartoon network for all I care. Champion: I thought you were - Bailey: I would like maybe two additional channels or maybe it's something else that Mediacom can offer to this basic tier to increase it's value. O'Donnell: The problem is is that you go from the basic tier to expanded basic and there is no in-between. If what Regenia is suggesting happens - if we enhance the expanded - er the basic - by adding more channels, then you will effect expanded basic and people are going to move down - so it's never going to happen. Williams: We work for systems that are municipally-owned systems. We get them up and running - O'Donnell: I'm sorry - go ahead Eleanor. Dilkes: Can you address the ramifications of negotiating an item over which we have no regulatory authority to negotiate? Williams: Well, we try to do that...but often it's not...we don't try to do that on programming. Dilkes: What I think Regenia is saying is that she understands that we don't have any regulatory authority. What is the harm, and correct me if I'm wrong, but what is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 23 of 44 the harm in attempting to negotiate those things with Mediacom? What happens when you do that? What are the ramifications of that? Williams: Well, the rates will change and the rates will change because we've decided, and perhaps we've gotten Mediacom to agree to rearrange what channels are offered at what price on what tier and if we do that in Iowa City, because your system is connected to other towns, that will also be done on those other towns. I'm thinking, because I work for municipal governments who own their own systems, programming choices are difficult to make. When you change anything in programming you are going to upset people, you're going to make other people happy. If you add channels to the basic tier, the rate will go up. I work for communities where they have a big basic tier that costs $20. Everybody is upset. They would like to have fewer channels on the basic tier so that people could take it without spending that much money a month. My own thought is that some of those decisions are probably best left to the marketplace. Bailey: We have no marketplace. We have one company. That's part of the challenge. I mean competition would do a lot to move this issue. Williams: I must... I just have to be straight forward...you do have competition. Bailey: If you're willing to stick a satellite on your house. Williams: That is correct. Champion: Put a TV antennae up. Bailey: Yeah, although you would not get very good reception. I used to have an antennae. It's fuzzy - trust me. Williams: Iowa City channels with out the aid of cable is not, not good. Elliott: Right. I think what is comes down to is that there is a disappointment that we have...an entry level that has very minimal value which virtually forces the vast majority of the population to go to the expanded and we're thinking, negotiation wise, not what the government says we have to do or can do, but negotiation wise could we somehow add greater value to the entry-level tier. Williams: By increasing the price of the entry-level tier. Elliott: Yes, perhaps you'd pay a little more in dollars...you might pay two dollars more and get twenty-dollars more value. O'Donnell: But see, Bob, that's never going to happen. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 24 of 44 Williams: That's never going to happen. It certainly wouldn't happen ifI were advising any of my municipally-owned system clients. Elliott: That's why you're here tonight. O'Donnell: Why wouldn't it happen? Williams: Pardon me? O'Donnell: Why wouldn't it happen? Williams: Because it's the worst idea - O'Donnell: Because the top tier would be reduced drastically? Williams: Correct. The way to do this, if you're...one of the lines that I have constantly when I talk about anything to do with municipal-ownership is, if the reason you're getting into municipally-owned telecommunications is to lower prices, that's the worst reason in the world to do it, because that is not the way to do business. Elliott: What you're saying is that...what we're saying 'could you negotiate?'...you're saying 'reality-wise, based on your experience, they are not going to buy it'. Williams: That's true. My experience is that they're not going to buy that, they're not going to want to rearrange the tier. Then we have to ask the question, which I am sometimes asked by City councils - and these are good questions - because that's what people do. They get TV to watch your show. And they want to know, 'Well, I'd like to get this particular network and I'd like to have it on this particular tier.' You go to the company and say, 'Well, this is what they'd like.' And the company goes, 'Well, we don't want to do that. It would make other things change. We have contracts and we can't do that.' That's one set of reasons. The other set of reasons is what shows are you going - what channels do you want to pick and how are we going to determine that? Wilburn: Let me point out to Council...he works for us...and staff goes under our direction. He's giving us his opinion, as he said, as to what will be the results. Now, I would encourage Council tomorrow to go ahead and allow the public to ask questions of our consultant, but if we're going to banter or debate whether we should~try something as a negotiation or not, that we save that for our discussions amongst ourselves and if a majority decides to give direction, that will happen. Bailey: I guess I'm frustrated because a lot of what I hear is 'can't' and then a lot of what that means is that we don't offer our customers the marketplace choice, that we're supposed to be pro-business...we don't offer them a marketplace choice. If it costs more they won't buy and then that will be that...then the next franchise agreement will look different or we'll learn something from it. By not offering This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 25 of 44 options and by saying that we can't do that...or by Mediacom saying that we can't do that, I think we limit the value of the franchise in our community and therefore we're limiting the value that we are charged with providing to our citizens. Elliott: I think I have just come up with another...my concern as I mentioned to you this afternoon, Don, is that I would rather not have this long of an agreement of thirteen years. I would go more for five years. You explained why some of my concerns could be eased, but I am thinking that if we continue with this and more and more people get dishes, maybe Mediacom is going to be more receptive to negotiations in the future at providing greater value for the dollar. O'Donnell: It's all about the dollars. Elliott: There again, I'd like to have not as long an agreement because we're not getting a very good...there's no way we can get a very good deal. Now, maybe if there were more dishes, we can get a better deal. Bailey: Or, if we explored municipal cable, maybe we would get more interesting deals from Mediacom. Schreiber: I don't think that the people that are concerned about getting a couple of more channels in their basic package are going to be running out to buy satellite dishes. Bailey: They're not interested in having a lot of TV in their house. They're interested in having quality TV and not watching us. Wilbum: Are there any more questions for our consultant while we have him? Williams: Two other things I just wanted to point out. There is a state-of-art clause in here which triggers new technology coming to Iowa City if it's in any of the Mediacom systems, coming out of the Ames head-end, Mason City head-end, Fairfield head-end. So that's a good trigger mechanism for the future. And...in fact, I do franchise agreements all over the country and this is a good franchise agreement and I think it's been well done. We'd always like to do more - but we must operate within the limits. Elliott: I appreciate your work. I'm disappointed but I'm appreciative. Wilburn: Before we take a break, when we come back from break, did the Council want to discuss further tonight or do you want to save it for tomorrow. Champion: Save it for tomorrow. O'Donnell: I think save it for tomorrow...but there is really very little that we can do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 26 of 44 Bailey: Well, if we're not willing to negotiate these things then we're not willing to do it and if you don't want to push it, then you don't want to push it. Wilburn: So, does this Council want to continue this tomorrow? Alright, let's take a ten- minute break. Dog Park Proposal (IP2 of 6/2 Information Packet) Atkins: Hopefully the memo in the packet was self-explanatory. You approved a contract the other day to construct the road and the parking lot from in effect the Upper Peninsula down to the lower area which is our municipal park. I was approached but the folks from the Dog Park committee and in hearing what they had to say, it seemed to make some sense to us to do this all at once. We can get the dog park constructed, we're already doing other work in preparing that site.., seeding, all the things that the Parks and Recreation folks do. We will open Iowa River Power before too long. Right now there is virtually no access point to this. This would in effect give us two access points to the Peninsula Park. The idea was not unlike what we did with the Englert. We would...where you have, in effect, a private group of folks wanting to build what will ultimately become a public project on the site. They have asked about the City advancing the money on a contract basis and they are fully capable of entering into a contract. What I'd like from you, if you're okay with this is to direct me to go meet with them, put together the agreement, ultimately it will have to come back to you anyway for your blessing. Wilbum: They're a 501(c)3, right? Atkins: 501(c)37 Yes they are. That's Beth Shields. Bailey: I would like to see, just broadly, as we enter into this agreement of a broad fund- raising plan that would include activities, the dollar amount goals, and maybe a couple of sentences describing...I mean nothing that would violate the confidentiality or the ability to carry out an affective strategic fund-raising plan, but some broad scope of how we're going to get there. Atkins: If you don't make it part of the agreement, at the very least you'll have some sort of letter or correspondence from them explaining what their fundraising plan. Beth is nodding her head that that will be part of it. Shields: I'm Beth Shields, I'm president of the Dog Park group now. I appreciate your question about 'what is our fundraising plan?'. We have actually just elected a new board of directors and part of that is that we now have one person dedicated to focusing on and leading our fundraising effort and that person is a very effective fundraiser in her past and has the ability and the time to work on this. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 27 of 44 So are we have about thirty-thousand in donations and pledges. As you all know, we have every year a dog paddle, which we will again be having this fall. We expect to raise somewhere between $5,000-$10,000 on that. Once we open the park, we'll have the opportunity to do more fundraising events at the park - in terms of having special days and things like that. One of the things that we'll also have - and this will have to be negotiated with the City - is a park permit. It's quite common for dog parks to have a user fee and something in the range of $25 per year is kind of where we're thinking. That's what Cedar Rapids does. So, from that we can expect a minimum, just kind of guestimating, $15,000 a year from user fees, at least part of which could be used to pay back the loans. The rest would be used on park expenses. Also, with having someone in charge of a fundraising campaign, who will be able to go out and approach major donors - we think that will really help our fundraising efforts along. Bailey: And I think it will help all of us be more supportive if we see that plan in place. Thanks. Elliott: Which item is this? Bailey: It's in your info package. Karr: It's IP2 of the 6/2 info packet. It's not on your formal agenda. Elliott: It's going to be on the agenda tomorrow? Karr: No. Elliott: Oh, okay. Atkins: What I'm seeking from Council is if a majority exists, go put the deal together and bring it back. Elliott: I've read your letter and their letter, I just...there is quite a bit more information I need about the kind of road, the type of road, the expenses involved...I'd like to know a little bit more about what's happened so far in the Peninsula...where it is, what's happening, what's expected, what's anticipated. I'll have plenty of time to gather that. Thanks. Wilbum: So, concensus to put something together? Dilkes: I just want to state what may be obvious, but, it's being referred to as a ioan...and there is no security for the loan, it's just simply a promise to pay back. You have to rely on that. That may be find but I just you to know. Champion: We have their dogs. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 28 of 44 Bailey: Did you just infer that we'd take their dogs as prisoners? (Laughter) Wilburn: That just adds more weight to what you were bringing up about giving us an idea of what's going to happen. O'Donnell: It's always been the intention of the City to put the road and the parking lot in, SO... Atkins: The road and the parking lot have always been planned.., from a long time ago. Dilkes: So there will be an agreement as some future date on the agenda? Atkins: Yes. Champion: The other thing that I'd like to bring up about the potential $25 fee. I know that's what Cedar Rapids charges, but I think the whole idea of this dog park is to help keep people's dogs from running lose in other parts of the City where they shouldn't be. I think $25 is a pretty steep fee. Elliott: Unfortunately, I think the dogs that run loose are not the people who will be paying a fee to take them to the dog park. Champion: I'm talking about people who let their dogs go lose in Hickory Hill park, specifically. Elliott: Okay, that's fine. Atkins: You'll have a crack at this...it will be coming back to you. Thanks. Parking Facility & Maintenance / Rate Adiustment (IP3 of 6/2 Information Packet) Wilburn: Parking Facility & Maintenance / Rate Adjustments and Future Projections. Atkins: Joe and Chris are here from Parking and Transit. The memo, hopefully, was explanatory. What we're doing is going through our enterprise fund. This is looking at our fixed assets, what condition they're in, what investments we have to make our the long haul, what it means from a budget perspective. Sort of the bottom-line is that if you find this acceptable this will be sort of the guiding financial instrument for the preparation of upcoming budgets as it relates to parking facilities. With that, Joe and Chris? Champion: Are we going to have a presentation or do you want us to ask questions? Atkins: Please ask questions. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 29 of 44 Champion: Well, I noticed that you had some rate increases here to cover the expenses of the maintenance. Fowler: Certainly. Champion: Do we do these with revenue bonds? The initial sum of money? Fowler: What we were presenting initially is to do a maintenance package to borrow the money from an internal City fund and then to enact the rate increases, which would pay that fund back in the future. Atkins: What we try to do, Connie, with any kind of debt is substantially to purchase a capital asset. All of our maintenance, even the more high-end stuff where we spend two to three hundred thousand dollars per year - that's current cash. In this case we think we're going to have to go do some internal borrowing. We don't want the rates to be too extreme but we are going to need a rate adjustment, particular in the odd years. Champion: That's my next question. Why are we waiting to do a rate increase? Why wouldn't we try to do something now? Atkins: Because I told them that I thought it would be a good plan to...but that doesn't mean it can't be dealt with. When we do the budget, you'll certainly have an opportunity to consider that. Fowler: Looking at a gradual increase across the system instead of a large one-time increase. Elliott: What are the rates now? What's the proposed increase? Champion: $.60 per hour. Elliott: $.60? O'Brien: Currently the meters are the first thing we're looking at changing. It's currently $.60 and $.40 in the outer areas. We're proposing from $.60 to $.75 and from $.40 to $.50 - so 25% increase if you break it down this way. Atkins: And that matches the University's. O'Brien: Right. The current rates of the University are $.75 an hour for their meters and they have proposed an increase to be at $1.00 per hour in the coming twelve months. Bailey: That's a lot. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 30 of 44 O'Brien: The following year we propose from $.60 increase to $.75 in our parking ramps and garages and Chauncy Swan we would propose from $.50 to $.60 as well. Bailey: So what are our other options? I don't really have an issue about...I don't have issue with a parking rate increase in the ramps but the meters...it's getting pretty up there. Champion: $.60 per hour? Vanderhoef: We haven't proposed them for bicycle racks yet. Bailey: Yeah, we could that. (Laughter) Actually, you should pay back for riding your bike or taking the bus. That would be the thing. What are the other options did you explore? O'Brien: Really there's four options, when you talk about things that we can do. Meters, garages, tickets, and permits. Those are really about the four options that you can go through. We try to keep the meter rates higher than or equal to the ramps because of the demand for the on-street parking. People are willing to pay a little bit more for that than they are the garages where you might have to go down stairs, use an elevator, park a little further away from where you want to be, etc. The citations we just increased within the last two years. That was a substantial increase from $3.00 to $5.00 and from $5.00 to $10.00. The permits right now, if you were to raise those without raising your garage rates, you're not really getting much of an advantage to having a permit. It takes away a lot of incentive. Even though we do having waiting lists, the hour per hour usage wouldn't really warrant the cost if you raise that rate. Elliott: What is the financial advantage for a permit? O'Brien: Currently, it depends on how many hours you stay. Basically it breaks down to...if you work twenty days and it's a $70 per month for hour highest one that would be $4.00 per day. Currently our daily maximum is $4.80 - so there's around a dollar per day or less. Elliott: But is not one of the benefits of a permit is access? O'Brien: Access in and out. Yes. You don't have to wait in line if there are people with cash ahead of you. Champion: But that's still not guaranteed. Bailey: You don't have a guaranteed parking spot. O'Donnell: What's the percentage? Do we have permits available? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 31 of 44 O'Brien: No, we actually have a waiting list. It's roughly between 800 to 1,000 on there currently. Especially with the amount...the way the downtown has changed with the amount of residential in the downtown area...people living in apartments, etc. There is a lot more demand for overnight parking. Elliott: As a matter of fact we are pleased that that is happening as a City policy, is that not correct? The residential areas downtown, more people downtown, etc. O'Brien: Correct. Bailey I guess that's the concern is that we have a neighbor to the west who has a lot of free parking in their downtown and shopping areas and we're doing everything we can to bring people downtown but we're going to raise parking rates. I think that's a concern. Vanderhoef: How much overnight parking do we have and how do you regulate that? O'Brien: Well, currently, I guess it depends on the facility. For instance, Tower Place probably has the highest percentage of overnight parking due to the apartments that are around that facility. I couldn't give you a percentage right off the top of my head as far as how many. The other problem...I shouldn't say that...the other issue with Tower Place and why people park there is that we do have a daily maximum there. So, if someone is there 24 hours is $4.80. For the other facilities if you park there overnight it's $14.40. So, there is an incentive for them to park in Tower Place, which actually worked when it was directed to us to put the daily max there. We shifted people from the Dubuque Street ramp over to Tower Place - which is what we were kind of shooting to do when we initially put that in. Vanderhoef: What about using Chauncey for the overnight? O'Brien: Well, actually it's free overnight. That option is there for people. After 5:00pm it's free. We don't start enforcing it until after 8:00am in the morning. Bailey: What about that option. To gain some more revenue to expanding hours that these are enforced and some balancing act? O'Brien: We're actually currently for our parking structures until 3:00am we have a cashier there on the busy nights such as Thurs, Fri, and Sat and until midnight on the other nights. There have been several occasions in which we've run numbers to see and it's been...any time that you run past those hours you're losing money...the money you're paying your people to be there. Bailey: Sure, but at Chauncey Swan you said it's free after 5:00pm. What about free after 7:00pm? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 32 of 44 O'Brien: You'd have to have parking enforcement on during that time. We currently have them here until 5:00pm. Once again, for one structure, you'd need to have two people when you get into the evening hours for security reasons. Bailey: So you ran those numbers? Okay, good. Champion: ! don't have a lot of objections. I think our parking rates are incredibly low. I know people don't like to pay for parking...as a merchant you have the opportunity to have Park 'N Shop so your customers aren't really paying for it. The meters are used frequently, I think, are by people who are going to an hour class and by customers looking for a quick place to park. The meters, I agree with you, kind of bother me because I think there are people who will not park in the ramp no matter how expensive you make the meters. The ramps offer some safety, they offer shelter from rain, snow, sleet and hail. I guess I don't really have any real strong objections to those being raised. I think they're really reasonable. I don't hear people complain at the cost. I never hear people complain about the cost. I hear people complain about having to go to a ramp. That's what I hear. I don't know how people feel about that. I know you have to raise money to make these repairs. Fowler: It's not just repairs, actually. In discussions we've had with Planning, we're already discussing potential new structures. Bailey: I have a question about that. (Laughter) I'm not a fan of the ramp. I'm not a negative person but it just seems tonight...I mean, do we really need another ramp? Aren't we accommodating a lot of University student overflow for classes? Fowler: We haven't really looked at any site selection. What we've had is that we've been in conversation with the Planning department. They're aware of potential development which could be occurring. They're trying to plan ahead if development would occur in certain areas. It's not like we've just decided we're going to build five-hundred more spaces. It's more of an overall look at the downtown as to where we are now, what might occur in the future, and to look at it so that should something occur, we're able to respond to it. Bailey: I wouldn't want our skyline such as it is to be more ramps than any other kinds of buildings. We have a lot of ramps in the central area. Fowler: We're not currently looking at a site or anything like that. We've been approached that there could be a demand in the future and we're trying to position ourselves so we can respond to that demand. Bailey: If it's a University demand, I assume that we're partnering or talking about potential...right? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 33 of 44 Fowler: We haven't in the past. We've had preliminary talks but there has been no final decisions made. Vanderhoefi What do you know about the University plans...we know where that one site is down close to the river where they have said they wanted us...well, we vacated streets and everything else because that's where the University ramp was going to be built. I'd like to have a timeline because with this new recreation building being built down there that their ramp be completed at the same time as that recreation because certainly we're going to bringing a whole lot more cars to that area. Fowler: We don't really have any influence over what they're going to do. Vanderhoefi I know we don't have influence, but I think it's one of those topics that we as a Council should be bringing up to the University to do some future planning in that area because that's what will overload our parking system if the University doesn't follow through with their ramp. Champion: They said they're going to put a ramp there? I don't remember that at all. Vanderhoefi Oh yeah. Atkins: Yes, there has been... Vanderhoef: A big, big one. Atkins: One of the first things we always try to do lately is that we don't use the word ramp any more. Garage is the more comfortable term. Champion: I really have no idea what you're talking about. Vanderhoef: Oh yeah, it's straight west of- Champion: I knew they were going to do surface parking. Atkins: Dee is correct. They have talked about doing that. Champion: The other thing is that I don't mind students parking in our garages. They are part of the community. I don't object to that at all. Bailey: I just think that if we're going to anticipate that demand, I think we need to be in discussions and not just assume that we're building for the growth of our downtown. Wilbum: What are we looking for in terms of tonight? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 34 of 44 Fowler: Basically, what we'd like to know is...is it okay to get the internal loan, make the repairs that we need, and then during the budgeting session would be when...for next year would be the discussion of rate increases. I think the one thing that you want to think about on rate increases is that the parking is a competitive business, even though everybody is kind of a captive audience, in that if our rates are substantially lower than the University of Iowa then we will attract more customers. We need to keep parity in our rates. Wilburn: So, where are we at in terms of the internal loan? At least that part of the process? Schrieber: I was just wondering, has it been discussed before the possibility of eliminating some of the pay booths and replacing them with a credit card type machine? They do that all the time in the cities like Chicago. I love those things and it would reduce the salaries and such. Atkins: Joe reviewed that and he'll answer that. Bailey: Can you do that for meters? (Laughter) Fowler: If you have a whole bunch of money. We will have credit card payment option in Court Street and there will be one in Chauncey Swan when we upgrade that equipment. We've been working with our distributor that we get our cash register equipment from to incorporate credit cards into the facilities that we have. What they're telling us right now is that we would have to go back and buy a completely new system to be able to do credit cards, so we would be looking at a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Champion: Are you talking...I'm talking about the machine where you go in and out. Fowler: And so and I. Champion: Could you do credit card and debit now? Fowler: No, not yet. Bailey: You don't even take credit cards in your ramp? Wow. O'Donnell: I think we should do that. Fowler: Well, we could increase this internal loan. Schrieber: People might be more apt to park there all day rather than just jump - Wilburn: Can I get a show of hands for the willingness for the internal loan? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 35 of 44 Champion: What I was hoping you would do, would be the credit card entry and the credit card exit. You go in with your credit card and then exit with your credit card. Fowler: We've spoken with our vendors. It's not available now. They've gone to the company. It's not available with what we have: Champion: Oh, I see. Fowler: We have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade to be able to take the credit card right now. We've gone to the company, the company said they're working on some technology that might work with the system that we have but since this system is not that old we... Champion: The nice thing about the credit card system would be that if you went in with a credit card you would have to leave with a credit card and people would have to pay for those hours that you're not staffed. Schrieber: Right. Champion: It might make you enough money to pay for the upgrade. Atkins: Don't you have to sign it though, on your way out? Champion: No. Fowler: If it's not signed, they can dispute it. Elliott: I've got a question and maybe Steve might have to answer this, but you said you had talked with Karin and her people about planning and there will be more need for parking on the north side or at least in the downtown area. What kind of need will that be? I guess my thought is that the big apartment that Moen is putting up, are they providing their own parking? Champion: Yes, undemeath. Only for the people - Elliott: Is our policy, Steve, that any new such building will provide all of it's own parking? Atkins: CB-10 zone, if I remember my zoning ordinance, the City assumes the obligation for them for parking. If you're going to build any kind of a more traditional multi-family project, you then have to have more onsite parking. Elliott: Right, so for any multi-family situation, it's already in our ordinances and policies that they have to provide parking? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 36 of 44 Atkins: We didn't mean for you to get too excited and exercise about building up north. We just simply put you on notice that once you finish one garage, we really start the planning process for another one. It's just the nature of parking. Wilbum: Obviously you'll have, when budget times comes and you talk about rates, you'll have some other issues to present to the Council. Vanderhoef: I would think that knowing the expenses that we have coming, and who knows what might be found later, and discussion about a future ramp as a possibility, I see no reason not to raise the rates now and have them in place by August. Why are we waiting until next year when the University may jump theirs even before we make (TAPE ENDS) Vanderhoef: I would be willing to move it forward.., seeing the kinds of expenses that are coming here and certainly these garages are not getting any newer. Atkins: How about we do this. Let's go back, take the memo as you prepared it, and just nm some assumptions - such as what Dee is suggesting, meaning we'll raise them now, how do those numbers crunch and we'll put together a couple of options for you on the thing. We've got most of that information, it's just a matter of manipulating the data to give you some ideas on what we can do. Champion: You sent me something...(unclear) Atkins: I remember doing something...but usually I send it to everybody. Champion: Can you show us what each ramp's debt was? Atkins: Oh yeah, we've got that. We'll put that with the report for you. The status of the debt on each of our parking garages. Vanderhoef: Is there any interest in Council in sending a letter of inquiry to the University about their timing on future garage on the south side of Burlington and the building of their recreational facilities? O'Donnell: You know...JCCOG, maybe they can bring it up? Champion: Yeah, we should bring it up at JCCOG. Wilburn: Good idea. Thank you. Atkins: We'll go back and prepare things and have it for you at the next meeting or so. Sounds good. AGENDA ITEMS This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 37 of 44 Wilbum: Agenda Items. ITEM 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "REGULATION OF PERSONS UNDER LEGAL AGE," SECTION Al, TO MAKE THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE AND OTHER SANCTIONS FOR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL UNDER THE LEGAL AGE EQUIVALENT TO THE FINES AND OTHER SANCTIONS UNDER STATE LAW. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Champion: I have one. I'm excited about the increase in PAULA fines. I think that will really help. O'Donnell: This is a very short agenda and that's really the only one that jumps out...that fines are actually going to double and I think that moved very quickly. Elliott: Yeah, from $200 to $500 for the second. O'Donnell: We just discussed that with our legislators three months ago. Vanderhoef: I would propose that Council send a letter to our legislators and acknowledge their listening to us and working towards getting this done. I understand that they were very instrumental in pushing this one through. ITEM 7. REPEALING CITY CODE TITLE 12, CHAPTER 4 ENTITLED BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE ENABLING ORDINANCE AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 4. O'Donnell: Absolutely. Item 7. We've talked this thing to death but really there isn't a whole lot that we can do on that. It's a matter of business. The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is thirteen years. Champion: The only reason I'm comfortable with the thirteen years... Elliott: Mediacom? O'Donnell: Yes. Champion: Is that others may not have public access. It may be part of an additional franchise. The federal government is going to keep lobbying things off and that will be one thing they'll lobby off. The reason I am for the thirteen is because it ensures the public access funding for that period. O'Donnell: Still, when the basic tier...I agree totally with Regenia. You have to get as much as you can out of it but it's a matter of accommodating, increase this, and it's a matter of money. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 38 of 44 Elliott: They're not going to agree to something that is going to cost them money. O'Donnell: Absolutely not. Elliott: That's the disappointing aspect of reality. Wilburn: You'll all have an opportunity to discuss this tomorrow. ITEM 6c. CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 54 ACRES FROM PUBLIC/INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (P/CI-1) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC- 2) ZONE FOR AVIATION COMMERCE PARK. (REZ05-00004) Wilburn: I've asked the City Attorney to give us a walkthrough and clarification on Item 6 (C) about the Aviation Commerce Park just so there is clarity and understanding going into the meeting tomorrow what your vote means and - in terms of the conditional zoning agreement and the rezoning. Elliott: 6 Z and... Wilburn: 6 (C) Elliott: 6 (C) and the other one is... Wilburn: It's both. That's the public hearing and the ordinance. Dilkes: Just a couple of preliminaries and we've been over them before...but just to review them, I think you all understand by now that the property has be rezoned for the purchase agreement to hold up. The contingiency of the purchase agreement fails if it is not rezone. The rezoning can be without conditions, obviously, then we've clearly met the contigiences of the purchase agreement, it can be with conditions ifWalmart agrees. As Karin told you earlier, our fairly strong indications from Walmart's attorney is that they don't have any problems with those conditions. We've been trying to get something in writing. We'll hopefully be able to have that to you by tomorrow night but can't guarantee that. If there are not four votes to approve the conditions, it has to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The reason we did not schedule an agreement or a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission, prior to tonight's meeting is because the Council indicated that there would be four votes for approval of conditions if Walmart was in agreement. So, you have two votes tomorrow. We're going to open the public hearing and then if we do the conditions by form of conditional zoning agreement, you know that when we have a developer come in and we have to have that conditional zoning agreement signed before the public hearing is closed - that's a matter of state law. We have a conditional zoning agreement because the City is the owner of the property that has to be signed by the Mayor. In this case by the Mayor Pro Tem and the City This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 39 of 44 Clerk and that has to be signed before the close of the public hearing tomorrow. If it appears that there are not four votes for the conditions, we're going to have to defer and set up a meeting with Planning and Zoning. If it appears that there are four votes for the conditions, you can make your motion to sign the conditional zoning agreement. Okay, that's the first vote - to sign the conditional zoning agreement. We're going to then take a break, we're going to have the agreement signed, and then we're going to resume and close the public hearing. If you vote to approve the conditional zoning agreement, then we will move on to a vote to approve the rezoning with conditions - with the conditions that you approved in the earlier vote. If that passes, and two more readings of the ordinance pass, assuming that Walmart agrees and we think that they do, we will have met the contigiency of the purchase agreement and the sale will go forward. If that fails, if the rezoning with conditions fails, we will not have met the contigiency of the purchase agreement and the agreement can not go forward because they can't locate their (unclear) absent ofrezoning. Elliott: If the conditions are voted down, then it would have to go back, it would be delayed, and the Council would have to meet with Planning and Zoning. Dilkes: We do that because the resolution provides for conferring before you vote. We get kind of a straw poll. Elliott: Therefore, that would, at the very least, delay everything for at least half a month. Dilkes: We would continue the public hearing to the 21st. Elliott: I think, to me, there is some need for expediency. Is it...I think this is going to put the Council in a very interesting situation. Can we get an informal idea of how people are going to vote tomorrow? Is that reasonable to ask? Champion: On what? Elliott: On the zoning conditions. Champion: I'm going to vote for the conditions. O'Donnell: I have a problem with the conditions because it's never been done before. Champion: That's not true. We do it all the time. O'Donnell: No, we have not. We've never put these kind of restrictions on any other business coming to town. Vanderhoef: We're putting these restrictions on the whole fifty-four acres. O'Donnell: Exactly. This represents only a reasonably accurate h'anscription of the Jtme 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 40 of 44 Elliott: The reason I ask folks is that I'm opposed to the conditions but I'll swallow the conditions to approve the rezoning. Bailey: Can we make him do that? (Laughter) Champion: I can't wait. Elliott: I don't want to vote no and find out that this is going to negate or significantly delay and so I would be interested in knowing what my fellow Council is - Wilburn: Informally by show of hands, how many are in support of this? Karr: A show of hands isn't going to be on the microphone. Wilburn: Okay. Alright. I'm just trying to get us to say it quickly. Vanderhoefi I'm going to support the conditions. Wilbum: I will support the conditions. Champion: I will support the conditions. O'Donnell: I am going to support them. Elliott: I'm going to vote against them then...but if...ifthat... Dilkes: I'm not going to tell you what order your names are going to come up on the yellow card. (Laughter) Wilbum: I'm sorry, Regenia. You didn't say. Would you rather say tonight? Okay. O'Donnell: That's a good point though. We probably should get our names on that. Wilbum: Thank you for that explanation. Any other agenda items. O'Donnell: I just have a couple here. Oakcrest (IP7 of 6/2 Information Packet) O'Donnell: Oakcrest has come back. I really would like to get this thing resolved. Elliott: Is that an agenda item? Wilbum: It's in the information packet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 41 of 44 O'Donnell: I the letter and I'm still not sure - Elliott: I want us to revisit the situation. O'Donnell: I think we need to revisit that and also in our correspondence there is a letter from Tom Gelman talking about additional bus service out to the Lodge. I think that is going to be required. Bailey: I think it's a good idea. Vanderhoef: We should have talked about that with Joe here. Bailey: That's a really good point. O'Donnell: Joe was talking about specific items. Wilburn: Any other agenda items? O'Donnell: That's it for me. APPOINTMENTS Elliott: Do we have appointments? Wilburn: We do have appointments. Bailey: We do, Telecommunications. Wilbum: Telecommunications. There are two. O'Donnell: Bebe Ballantyne. Wilburn: The other was Michael Christian. Bailey: Bebe seems to have some experience with just the kind of thing we were talking about. Vanderhoef: That's good input from our Senior Center. Wilbum: Okay, so Bebe Ballantyne. COUNCIL TIME Bailey: I was wondering if this group is interested in sending a congratulations letter to Coralville for groundbreaking on the Marriott? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 42 of 44 Elliott: Yes, very much so. Bailey: That's great. Champion: It's going to be an asset to the whole area. Bailey: I think so to. O'Donnell: Just one more thing. I got a call that I think there is a performance at the Englert. It's a non-profit youth group that is doing a performance there...I understand the West High Jazz Band is going to be there...there's going to be dancing... Wilbum: This Friday? O'Donnell: Yes, a silent auction at 5:30pm and the show is at 7:00pm. I think we should promote that. Elliott: I'd pay to see Mike dance. O'Donnell: What's that? Elliott: I'd pay to see you dance if you wear leotards. O'Donnell: Not for all the tea in China. Wilburn: Any other Council time? Champion: I do. I just want to say that I think ArtsFest was a great success. The weather cooperated. It started off bad and it ended bad - but I saw a lot of people downtown. Wilburn: The City Manager was downtown. Atkins: So was the Mayor Pro tem. Wilburn: Bob? Elliott: I just want to say that I agree with Mike that I'd like to revisit Oakcrest. I drove out there and I talked to some people and I think that what we did was to throw up our hands and come up with a rather unique situation, as opposed to throwing up our hands and saying 'Let's treat it the same as almost every other street in town'. Bailey: I think we threw up our hands and said 'When you all have an agreement in the neighborhood...we're just holding status quo for right now.' Elliott: But you took parking off the entire street. Anyway...I'd just like to revisit it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 43 of 44 Bailey: If we revisit it, I'd ask for a different situation from two months ago when we were talking about it. I think we need some clarity of how we're going to determine if we change it. Elliott: I think we can't talk any more about this. We should just decide to revisit it. Atkins: Revisiting means I should schedule it on a work session. O'Donnell: I think we should. Champion: Do we have enough people who want to revisit it? Bailey: I'm willing to revisit it if there is neighborhood concern. Wilburn: Schedule it. Future Pending Items? FUTURE PENDING ITEMS Vanderhoef: I don't know whether to put this in Council Time or in future items. We had a response from Parks and Recreation. I'm sorry that I didn't dig that letter out. It seems as though they took it that we were asking them to do fundraising and that was not the intent that I had when we talked about this in the budget meeting. Atkins: Help me a little bit. You were walking about budgeting... Vanderhoefi We talked about - Atkins: Sponsorship for projects. Vanderhoef: - looking at the CIP Projects that were there. I said it seems to me that there are some small projects there that are manageable with...that we could approach industry in this town - Atkins: It was a sponsorship and not a fundraiser. Vanderhoef: And it had to do also, at the same time, when the Dog Park was asking 'What was the amount to have naming rights?' Atkins: I remember that. Vanderhoef: We were going to get a review on naming rights. Atkins: I know that Terry and I spoke about it. Let me...I'11 get something back to you because I do remember the conversation now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session. June 6, 2005 City Council Work Session Page 44 of 44 Vanderhoefi I just want that little list ready to go and whether we just send them out and let people know that these are here and see if anybody bites. Atkins: I'm fine with that. If there's no objections, I'll contact Terry and we'll get it done. Champion: But we're not asking for them to go out fundraising. Vanderhoef: That was not my intent. Then, I have an item that I would like to refer to Economic Development Committee. At my transportation meeting in Rochester two weeks ago, one of their city planners was a speaker and one of our research topics is on freight movement. They very specifically had said 'Okay, what do we have within our city and how does freight move within our city?' And I'm thinking 'Yeah.' And I immediately went to thinking about the Lear project and they specifically asked us for something very reasonable and to get that turn and the lane and the light to move the trucks in and out of their plat quicker and will help the DDI. Bailey: So, we're going to be talking to some of our companies, that's one of the things we'll be taking on, so you want us to add this to the discussion when we meet with people? Vanderhoef: What they did was they had sort of a town meeting but with businesses from an area and just sit down and say 'Okay, what do you see needs to be done in your area...how can we help you move your product...' Bailey: So, we could do this one on one... Vanderhoef: Steve was rolling around some ideas after I sort of laid it on his desk, but I think it's an economic development thing. O'Donnell: Sounds like a good thing. Wilburn: I would suggest talking to Jeff Davidson too before you...just to get some background on anything he's - Atkins: I'll follow up with it. Thank you. Wilbum: Alright, we're adjourned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the June 6, 2005 Iowa City Council Work Session.