Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-12 TranscriptionJuly 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 1 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, Kubby, Norton, O'Donnell, Thornberry, Vanderhoef Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Grosvenor, Helling, Karr, Schoon, Trueblood Visitors: Matt Leonard, Big Ten Towing; Ron Clark, Amy Estes, and Jody Hovland, Riverside Theatre; Craig Willis, attorney. Tapes: 99-75 all; 99-76 all A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office. Review Zoning Items, 99-75, S1 a. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for July 27 on an ordinance vacating an approximately 7,720 square-foot unimproved portion of Virginia Drive located between Lots 2 and 14 of North Hills Subdivision immediately northeast of the intersection of Virginia Drive and Ridgewood Lane. (VAC87-0001) Lehman: Dee Vanderhoefbyeah, go ahead. We're starting. Norton: Do we know where Dee is? Lehman: Well, we know where she isn't. Franklin: Okay, first item is setting a public heating for July 27th on an ordinance vacating a portion of Virginia Drive. b. Public hearing on an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, by adding a definition of "adult business" and changing separation requirements between adult businesses and other uses. Franklin: The next item is a public heating and amendments to the zoning ordinance to define adult businesses and change the separation requirements. Basically, in the existing code there is not what we believe is an adequate definition of adult businesses--it's rather vague. And so the definition which is proposed is a little bit broader, and it also relates to the floor area which is dedicated... in which the access is controlled for people who are considered to be minors under the state obscenity law. Yes, did you have a question about the definition, Mr. Thornberry? Thomberry: I do. Franklin: Okay. And your question is? Thornberry: Recently, they have enacted a law--or reenacted it--that on R-rated movies, youngsters can't go in. It's--they're restricted from going into this movie .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2 Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: Thornberry: Kubby: Franklin: Thornberry: Lehman: Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: Thornberry: Without an adult. Without an adult. But it's--they're restricted from going in [if] they're not eighteen. Okay. Now, does that put that theater into the realm of an adult business for that movie? Not unless the movie is such that it would be considered obscene under Chapter 728 of the Iowa Code. Okay, but it says, it says... But it wouldn't be rated "R"? No, it would not. It would be "XXX."---"X." "any amusement or entertainment establishment, bookstore, massage parlor, motion- picture theater in which 25% or more of the floor area--and that would be more than that--not only to the public generally but only to one or more classes." There's a new definition... new definition .... There's--you have a copy that is clearer: "in which 25% or more of its floor area is customarily not open to any minor." All right. But wouldn't [it] customarily be open ifit's an R-rated movie? Okay, okay .... Customarily wouldn't be... would take 25% of the movie theatre would not be customarily available. There isn't a movie in town that that's true of. Dean, but the critical point here is the reference to Chapter 728--obscenity in the Code of Iowa. That is what--that is a minor by reason of age under Chapter 728 of the obscenity code. Okay? All right. So, as this is written, it's going to relate to that code, and it's not going to be just for an R-rated movie, which a movie can be R-rated just because it's violent. That's correct. But, they restrict youngsters from .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3 Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: [Several talking] [?]: Franklin: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Franklin: Norton: Dilkes: Thornberry: By age, but it has nothing to do with by age as defined by Chapter 728 of the obscenity code. I'm not that familiar with the obscenity code. Me neither. But I will refer to our City Attorney. Community statutes, can be different in each community .... Are you? Yeah, we had some issues about it before. Well, that's right. Yeah, not too long ago when we were .... And that's when we were talking about the PATV .... Oh, right. That's right. Obscenity is a pretty high standard, and Karin's right--just because a movie is R-rated does not mean the material in the movie is obscene. You're right. [several talking] Dilkes: Do you want me to read you the definition of obscene material? Lehman: They do restrict patrons from coming in because of age. Dilkes: But that's not enough. It has to be .... Kubby: It means that age under the obscenity chapter. So those two things have to be present. And that's why it's not .... [?]: I have a point to make here. Champion: Be an adult business, that's not in the movie. [?]: Hello? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 4 Franklin: Lehman: Norton: Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: [?]: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Kubby: What was that question? Connie wanted to do something different. [Laughter] What did? Are we getting this from some other places? I see you... sort of looking at other cities. I take it this must be a fairly standard .... The reason that this language was used with this reference to the obscenity code is because it's been used elsewhere and has worked. I just didn't think that ...places had called it--you know, they just started restricting youngsters from going into R-rated movies--at least enforcing it. But those .... I just didn't want to make, I just wanted to make sure .... I understand. And it doesn't, because the restriction here is under the obscenity code. Right, which is very broad, tight? I know that there--well, how far... be in terms of.... About a block and a half. An average city block is 320 feet. Because I'm thinking about, you know, I talked to some people today who live near some adult businesses. They had a couple of suggestions. One was--because they didn't know anything about this unless I would have called; it's just that they're an acquaintance of mine, and I know that they live in area, and we talked about some of the places on Kirkwood Avenue before in terms of a lot of kids living around--and they had two suggestions. One was that people who live within close proximity be notified so that they might make suggestions or know about the public heating, because .... Okay, remember that the location of adult businesses is by special exception, so there will be a notification process. Now that's 200 feet. For any new one, yeah. For any new business. The existing businesses that we have are in CC-2 zones and are nonconforming by our current code. Right, tight. The issue was about parking. They had the observation that a lot of people tend to park on the side street and walk--they don't necessarily want their car This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5 Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Atkins: Franklin: Atkins: Franklin: to be seen at that business. And that does create some congestion in the neighborhoods at various times of the day and night. And what is?... Well, this, okay, the locations where they could be under this change, because you couldn't read it very well in your packet map--we did this color one. Basically, the red areas are the ones that in which adult businesses would be allowed under our current code and under this proposal. In a CI-1 zone. They would have to come to the City for a special exception. They would have to be 500 feet from any, well, just let's read it here: "any properties containing schools, parks, a child day care centers, residential zones or any other place where numbers of minors regularly travel or congregate, or within 500 feet of any other adult business." So there's two things that are attempting to be achieved here. One is the distance from any place in which minors congregate or would reside, and secondly is distances between the adult businesses so that there is not a cluster of them in any one section of the city. This is by special exception. Now, the notice would just be within 200 feet. That would be typical of what kind of notice we would be giving, so the notice would be to other commercial properties, presumably if they're already 500 feet away. But I guess what you have to ask yourself then, if it's already going to be 500 feet away, is that distance insufficient in your minds. Five hundred feet is what is in the code now in terms of separation from restaurants and from each other. Well, what will restaurants be now? I assume that, I mean, if you .... It won't be pertinent to restaurants. So if an adult business opened in one of these new areas--the areas are colored red, I notice .... Okay, what is that pizza place that has birthday parties for kids? Happy Joe's. I don't know. There's a place where you can and you can have parties for little kids, and that's basically what it's for. And it's pizza and game rooms and .... Chucky Cheese? Yeah. [Laughter]. Thank you Mr. Atkins. You're welcome. Okay, something like that may fall under the "any other place where numbers of minors regularly travel or congregate." If you have such an establishment that's focused on serving children, but otherwise this will be a locational decision irrespective of restaurants. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 6 Norton: Champion: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Norton: Champion: Franklin: Champion: Franklin: Norton: Champion: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Thornberry: Okay. So if the Pleasure--what do you call it--the Adult day care, Adult .... No. What'd you call that? The Pleasure Palace? The Adult Marketplace. No, the Adult Marketplace, the Adult Store. Yes, the adult business. If this settles in one of those red areas, then if a restaurant wanted to move in within 500 feet, it couldn't? Under the current code. And that's one reason that we are suggesting a change, because the logic of that was escaping us. Yes, but 500 feet from other... jurisdictions, that they use 500 feet? Right. You know, Dee, I don't know. We took the 500 feet from the previous ordinance. I'd have to see if Scott did any further work on that. I mean, we kind of just kept that same distance requirement. Well, then the 500 feet and the 200 feet notice, is that 200 feet from the 500-foot radius? No, it's 200 feet from the establishment for the Board. So... next door .... Well, that's the standard for all of our notice for the Board of Adjustment. I thought we moved that to 300 for certain things recently. That was for zonings and subdivisions, yeah. Are you saying that an adult business can't go within... can only go in those zones right there? Period? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 7 Franklin: Thornberry: [7]: Thornberry: Lehman: Norton: [All talking] Thornberry: Currently that' s what zones CI-1, and that' s where they may locate. And you're not concentrating them? It's the only face they can fit. Well, I'm just saying that to ensure that, you know, they don't concentrate them. jeez, it seems like that's all fight in that one little "O" area. Or around the airport. They ought to be available to .... Well, I don't know. But you're saying adult businesses can only go in those zones, but a restaurant can go fight next to an adult business. But Franklin/ Lehman: Yeah. Thornberry: But a .... Franklin: Child care center cannot. Thornberry: An adult business type thing can't go next to a restaurant. Franklin: No. Restaurants are out of the question with the revision. The current code is a separation between the adult business and restaurants. In the revision, restaurants are out of the picture totally. They can go wherever restaurants can go; there's no relationship to adult businesses whatsoever. The relationship in the new code is between adult businesses and places where minors congregate. Champion: Okay, okay. Franklin: Okay? Norton: So that means, though, that this arrangement, just as in the previous case, restaurants were tacitly precluded from setting up shop near one, an existing establishment. Franklin: That's correct. Norton: This will mean that if an establishment were placed in one of these, that would preclude a day-care center from being in that vicinity, wouldn't it? Franklin: That's true. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 8 Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Franklin: Norton: Franklin/ Champion: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Champion: Thornberry: Now. Which is probably a good idea. Which is probably somewhat difficult, because some of these locations look like they might be in, from other reasons, suitable for day care. Well, CI-1, our commercial-intensive zone, is generally speaking not--I mean, we do have day care in commercial-intensive zones, but I'm not sure that would be the prime zone that you would focus on for location of a day-care center. I don't know. I mean, there may be some spots--whenever you make that kind of distance requirement, that is going to be a consequence. Well, the other thing is this: if a day-care center were located in one of these red areas, that just precludes an adult business from locating within 500 feet of it. Which one goes first, in other words, yeah. Well, yeah, whoever's there first determines the .... Whichever, whoever's there first, yeah. Well, could the, could the Board of Adjustment make an exception ifa day care wanted to go in closer than 500 feet? No. So, the two changes are the definition of restaurant and clarifying the definition of adult business. No definition of restaurant. The definition of adult .... Eliminating restaurants from the equation, defining adult business more precisely, and the relationship that we're concerned about is the adult businesses in' relationship to each other, as well as in relationship to places where minors congregate. Okay. Eleanor, are you satisfied with that that staff feels there would be sufficient areas remaining within the existing CI-1 zones for the location of adult businesses? Dilkes: Yes. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 9 Norton: We don't have to solve all of this tonight .... Lehman: No, we've got a heating Friday. Norton: There's a public heating. And I... more thinking about this myself, and I'm sure we'll hear some comments tomorrow night, I hope. Lehman: Okay. Kubby: But I think it's g--I assume this has been triggered by an application. Franklin: No. It wasn't. In fact it's .... Kubby: That we're talking about without something in front of us. Franklin: It's not a big issue. It's one of those housekeeping things, but what happened was a restaurant attempted to locate near an adult business, and we had to deny that permit. And it didn't seem sensible. c. Public hearing on an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow off-street parking on a separate lot in a different zone under certain conditions. Franklin: Okay. The next item is public heating on an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance to allow off-street parking on a separate lot in a different zone under certain conditions. Good-bye, Ernie. Lehman: Good-bye. Franklin: This is--we've called it the Oaknoll amendment, but it's also we have another circumstance in another part of town in which there is a business which wishes to have parking in industrial zone and the business is in the commercial zone. So, it's not something that is just isolated to Oaknoll, and it's this whole concept of having parking in a different zone. As you know, when we brought it to you the first time, the staffs position was that parking for use should be in the same zone, and that's the position that we will always come from as a matter ofptinciple. However, your direction to us was, "Figure out something that would work." And so what we brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and are bringing to you over the Commission's recommendation, which I'll explain in a minute--is an amendment which allows you to have parking in a separate zone. In multi-family zones, when the multi-family use is housing for the elderly, and you want to have parking in a multi- family zone. It does not have to be the same density; that is, you could have your housing for the elderly in RM-44, as in the case of Oaknoll, but you would have to have at least an RM-12, which is our lowest multi-family zoning, to allow that parking in a different zone. The reason for that is that we could--we strongly could not support having that parking in a separate zone in single-family residential. It just This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 10 Norton: Franklin: Norton: Kubby: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: seemed to be too much of an intrusion into the single-family residential area and too much what we thought was kind of a defacto sort of zoning, rezoning, to multi- family. So there's that one provision, and then also to allow that the pairings of commercial in other commercial zones or commercial and industrial, and likewise industrial I-1 and 1-2 or I-1 and CC-2 or CI-1. All of these things, when it is a circumstance where there is parking in a separate zone, requires going before the Board of Adjustment and getting a special exception, so there is a case-by-case review. And there are criteria or factors that the Board should consider, and one of those which has been added to the Ordinanceqmany of these are already in place in number 7 under the Ordinance--is that in the case of non-required parking, the need for additional off-street parking needs to be shown. But primarily the criteria have to do with the appearance of the streetscape, how the parking fits in with the area, the circulation, those kinds of standard stuff. In terms of the Planning and Zoning Commission's vote, which was 3 to 4, so it was a denial, three of those votes were based on the concept that they continued to believe that the property should be rezoned. As in the case of Oaknoll, it should be rezoned RM-44. And that was their position, that's what they had originally recommended to you, and that's what they stuck with. It was the 4 that voted against it, you mean? Yes. Of the 4 that voted against it, 3 of them took that position. The fourth person took the position that the rezoning of the parking-lot property near Oaknoll should occur first before we do this ordinance amendment. And that is something I can't explain, but that was their position. In terms of what this would require of Oaknoll, specifically, since that's what we've been focusing on, if this ordinance amendment passes, the next thing that Oaknoll must do is come to the city with a rezoning of that lot to RM-12, and then they must go to the Board of Adjustment to get approval of the parking lot on that lot. Could they come to the Board of Adjustment and ask for RM-44 again? They can't go to the Board of Adjustment. Oh, yeah. Or could they ask for .... Could they ask for RM-44 again? There's a requirement to go to the lowest RM, is there? No, there is no requirement to do that but, given the circumstances, I think that' s probably what's politically feasible. I mean, the reason that we're even doing th one of the reasons that we're doing this--is because the Council chose not to rezone the property to RM-44, that that was not the solution for them. It seemed that everybody This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Champion: Franklin: Champion: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Kubby: Norton: Kubby: O'Donnell: Norton: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Council Work Session Page 11 was okay with the parking lot, or most people were okay with the parking lot, but they were not okay with that density of development there. Now, Karin, today, I'm not sure they'd do it anyway, but will there be green around that parking lot and similar amenities to make it more .... That would be the sort of thing that the Board would look at. Okay And primarily I think they would look screening on the south and west sides of the lot, which, my recollection is there's already some vegetation there, I'm not sure if it's on the lot itself or the neighbor's, but, yeah, there is. I'm aware we're getting into the hypothetical, but do they, Oaknoll... own the other three properties adjacent to the south? There's one property right abutting the parking lot that is still owned by an individual. The other lots--I don't know if it's two or three--are owned by Oaknoll. And we were looking at the issue from the neighbor's point of view, if there's any rezoning of that to RM-12, as would be contemplated here, it would imply that conceivably the others later go that direction, and we're--they are increasing the density of that, although not to the extent that the RM-44 would be doing. That's correct. It also doesn't mean that once Oaknoll owns a property they would not want it [RM- ]44 .... No, I understand they might not, yeah. And rezone the RM-12 lot and whole block. Well, they'd still have to go through rezoning if they wanted it [RM-]44, if they did just one lot to [RM-]12. Yeah. Right. But in the interim .... Any change would require going through the .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 12 Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Thornberry: Well, this is a public hearing, because I've got to go back and review the logic of the P & Z. And if we were to make a different decision than P & Z, aren't we under some obligation to meet with them? To have some consultation if they choose to have that. Although I know that, incidentally, that we didn't do that the other night when we were discussing the P and R recommendation for Parks and Rec, and I think we owe some .... Well, you have a formal resolution with the Planning and Zoning Commission that tells you that. They said "no" to a [RM-]44; they didn't say "no"--P and Z didn't say "no" to a [RM-] 12. Franklin: Norton: [Several talking] Franklin: Norton: Thornberry: Kubby: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Franklin: Norton: They said "yes" to RM-44. They said "yes," but .... Their original recommendation was to I'm sorry, no, that's not true. That's not true. The three people who voted against this had said "yes" to RM-44. I stand corrected. Their 3 to 4 vote here was on this particular proposal that... before us .... Well, but I didn't think RM-12 was included in that at that time. It was? No, it was not. It was not. When you say "at which time," I'm .... Well, the time that once we had that whole hullabaloo .... I understand, but .... The only thing that was being considered was 44. P and Z voted on this particular measure that's in front of us and went 3 to 4 against it, right? So if we were in our wisdom tomorrow4whenever it comes up in a couple of weeks--were to go for it, we would then have to do that pending a meeting with P and Z, would we not? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 13 Franklin: Champion: Mm-hm. Well, what you have done in the past is if it looks like after the public heating you're heading toward a direction that is contrary to [the] P~and-Z vote, we then inform P and Z, and they can exercise the tight to have consultation with you if they choose to. They have said "no thanks" in the past. I mean, if it doesn't appear that there's any resolution .... What we're really doing is we are really trying to provide the parking for Oaknoll, and this is a way to do it without going to RM-44--which most of us were not willing to support at that time. Norton: I think so too. Thornberry [?]: It was 4 to 3. [?]: That was very close .... [?]/Norton: Okay [?]: All tight. Franklin: Okay? [?]: Franklin: O'Donnell: Franklin: [?]: Franklin: Thornberry: O'Donnell: Thornberry: I mean, it was pretty split last time at 4 to 4 [?]. Bring the boss back. Did you have something else? No. But, yes. Planning and Zoning--the first time we debated this, what was their reaction to the RM-447 Their reaction was in opposition to the RM-44. They did not support that, and I can't remember--I think the vote was 4 to 3. No--am I, 3 to 3 .... It was 3 to 3, and there was a new member at that time who didn't vote--it was her first meeting. Yeah, but it didn't support--so the three that, well, you've got the picture. And where were we, do you remember? It doesn't matter. I think it's going to be okay. It's going to be okay, but I supported RM-44 last time and now there's this thing. [Several talking] This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 14 Lehman: You guys done talking about this now? If you're going to talk about it, I'll leave again. [Several "no's"] Lehman: Okay. I don't want Eleanor to be upset with me. Thornberry: You'll know it. d. Public hearing on an ordinance conditionally changing the zoning designation of approximately .33 of an acre from Medium Density Single-family (RS-8) to Community Commercial (CC-2) to allow expansion of Kennedy Plaza for property located on the west side of Gilbert Court north of Benton Street. (REZ99-0010) Franklin: The next item is a public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning of .33 acres on Gilbert Court north of Benton Street from RS-8 to CC-2. This is being requested by the owners of Kennedy Plaza .... I was just debating which way to put this up here, because north is over here. This is Gilbert Court, where the railroad tracks are. Kennedy Plaza is over here. Norton: Right adjacent, right? Franklin: Right over here. It's the commercial, and the apartments are right in that square of blocks over there. Norton: The parking is that white? Franklin: The proposed--this is the parking for... Norton The existing .... Franklin: the apartments of Kennedy Plaza. Now, one of the questions, Karen, when this came up for setting the public hearing, that, so we talk about, the topography here. There's a steep drop here, and that is why this is designed such that the drive is not going to come directly from here over to here. But the drive--as you come west on this property, and a lot of what appears to be with this property is actually Gilbert Court right-of-way and the railroad fight-of-way, so when you're on Gilbert Court, it looks like the property line is fight there, and it drops down some. And as you proceed west on the lot, this flattens out here. And so this drive would come down to the lower parking area of Kennedy Plaza. And what's proposed here is the parking lot and the cornmercial building. Kubby: So the commercial building would be where the house was, that was sitting on that property? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 15 Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: [Several talking] Vanderhoef [?]: I think it scootched a little bit farther south. I'm trying to recall, yeah, that's south-- I'm trying to recall exactly where that house is. It may be fairly close to the current location. I'm thinking where parking lots 1 through 16 re is very steep. But maybe it's further down, maybe because of that appearance. Yeah, I think what's deceptive and was hard for me to understand, too, until Bob started explaining this, was the distance here--this isn't a lot of what you're seeing when you're on Gilbert Court. It was like the That's over in this part right here, where it's quite steep. So anyway, we looked at this in terms of the sensitive-areas ordinance, and there are no slopes that fall under the sensitive-areas ordinance. Now .... Will you put your laser again where the drive zone will be? And the access? Right here. And this transformer is going to be moved up to here. So will it just be parking, parking, parking? They said the... concrete that kind of flows up hill? Well, this is--I mean, that's a tree island there, so this is the boundary of the cement. Right, but it goes into--where does that driveway go into? That goes into that upper or the... The parking lot .... the parking lot in front of Kennedy Plaza. Yeah, yeah. There's not an exit onto .... Franklin: There is not an exit onto Gilbert Court, no. And I think that probably has--well, it has to do with traffic as well as the train tracks and the topography. Vanderhoef[?]: But there isn't another out onto Gilbert from this section? Franklin: No, no. Vanderhoef [?]: You still have to go up into the main section of the parking to the noah. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 16 Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Thornberry: O'Donnell: Norton: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Right, if you're going to park over here, you've got to come into this driveway over here. If this is the does he have sufficient parking for the apartments? But he wants to convert some of them from the public to the parking for the businesses? No, he wants to have--my understanding is that he'd like to have more parking for the apartments. He meets the requirements for parking .... Okay. But the demand, with the combination of the commercial and the residential, has exceeded the requirements. I mean, are there--are they bedroom units? I would assume that they are. I mean does .... They're not singles, I know that. The density thing getting away from us by lots of bedrooms, and therefore the parking is not realistic in a way. Dormitories. Well, I don't think they're four and fives; I think they're twos and threes. They are multiple as opposed to ones. So it does mean a lot of... street for parking in the general area. In terms of the site plan, I know that we at this point can't do anything about the current lot, but I just wanted to--because it does feel that on Gilbert Street when you look to the east that you're going to see this kind of massive amount of linear diagonal amount of cement and parking going from the plaza headed southeast .... There's a building right here... Right. that is on a separate lot. When you're going south, you may, I mean if you're looking fight in that direction, although there's trees along Gilbert Street, too. Well, it's obviously, it's more cement, no doubt it. There is. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 17 [?]: But it's--that's a commercial zone. Franklin: It's an area in which we've shown on the comprehensive plan for this to be commercial development, and that is why we have supported this. And this whole area right around here, this neighborhood, it's kind of a tricky one because of the railroad tracks going through here. It's a place where there are some smaller houses and, well, probably some more affordable units, but it's also a kind of a transition area, and it's hard to know really where a good place is for that for the line to be between the commercial and the residential. And an area where we're going to need to do some more very specific planning in this area as to what its future is. Norton: I was going to suggest the same thing, because as you go east from this past the railroad and progress up toward... or whatever, or Page, I don't know what the street is--but, at what point is that boarded out--the railroad? Is it residential from the railroad on east? Franklin: Yes, yes. Kubby: So why would, why the comp plan is the CI-I? Franklin: Well, it says commercial. Yeah, either CC-2 or CI-1. And so, you know, we have support of this. Now one thing I do need to point out to you is that the location of this building is such that they are still going to need to get a special exception for the residential above. They also will need to get a special exemption for the yards on Gilbert Street or Gilbert Court because of this large setback here already, and then at this point they need to have a 20-foot setback by code from that line, because this is a commercial zone abutting a residential. Thornberry: Karin, could they theoretically bring that back 20 feet and have parking between there and the lot, and the lot line? Lehman: Twenty feet won't do it. [Several talking] Franklin: Well, if they don't get the special exception from the Board of Adjustment to do this--this rezoning is dependent upon this site plan. So we'll be revisiting this in more ways than one if the Board is .... Thornberry: This is just a public hearing, anyway. Franklin: This is a public hearing, but the first step that they're taking is the rezoning based on this site plan. Their next step then is to go to the Board of Adjustment to get approval for the residential above and to have this yard--there's a porch on the front of the building here, and then have that proximity to the residential zone. If they don't get This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 18 that from the Board of Adjustment, we'll be back looking at the zoning, because the zoning is dependent on this site plan. Thornberry: Why don't they do that first? Lehman: If they can't get the zoning, it won't make any difference. [Several talking] Franklin: Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Norton: This is another one of those cases where you wish you had a computer depiction, because it's hard--I, every time I've looked at it--I live relatively near there and go by a lot--I have trouble getting a handle on what it's going to look like. Franklin: Well, we're actually working on that. I found--we have a software program called Photoshop, and the question now--we can take photographs and we can impose--we can take drawings or photographs of drawings and impose them on other photographs. What we don't know at this point is the relative scale and how accurate it is, and it's very important when you're doing these kinds of things and making these kinds of judgments, to have that scale be proper. Norton: That will be wonderful when we get it, yeah. Franklin: This is the building. Can you see any of it? It's basically, it's a fairly plain building, but it is a building that I think can serve the transition between the commercial and the residential somewhat nicely. So, this would be the side, that would be facing the residential, this would be the side facing Gilbert Court. Anyway, that's that. Any other questions on it? e. Consider an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article O, Sign Regulations, by changing the requirements regarding the number of freestanding signs on lots with over 300 feet of frontage. Franklin: Okay, the next item is second consideration on the sign amendments. f. Consider an ordinance vacating a 10-foot wide right-of-way located along the west line of property located at 1033 E. Washington Street. (VAC99-00002) Franklin: After that, second consideration on vacation of an alley off Washington Street. g. Consider an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article E, Commercial and Business Zones, Section 2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, and Article L, Provisional Uses, Special Exceptions, and Temporary Uses, to allow pharmacies to have a drive-through facility in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone, and to adopt location, design, and size criteria This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 19 for drive-through facilities associated with pharmacies and financial institutions in the CN-1 zone. Franklin: Then--what is that?---oh, pass and adopt on the drive-through for pharmacies. h. Consider a resolution approving a preliminary plat of Milder Meadows, a resubdivision of Lot 1 of Milder's Subdivision and Auditor's Parcel in the West ¼ of Section 17-T79N-R5W of the 5th P.M., Johnson County, Iowa, a 47.69-acre, three-lot residential subdivision with one agricultural outlot located on the north side of American Legion Road one-half mile east of Taft Avenue in Fringe Area B. (SUB99-0003) Franklin: And then, we have a resolution of Milder Meadows. Norton: Again? Franklin: Say "yeah!" [Several talking] Franklin: I think you probably all remember this one. Basically, we're at the platting stage now, and this is the preliminary plat, which we want to go forward with. We'll hold off on the final until this one is passed. I guess that really the only--they made~did all the negotiations they needed to so, so that the neighbor was happy with whatever property they needed. Outlot A will remain as open space with a covenant on it that it is used for agricultural purposes or open space. This drive in here, instead of meeting the city---or the rural-design standards--will just be a rock drive, because there really isn't much need to have it be improved any higher standard, since it's only going to serve agricultural land. So I think we can put this one behind us. I'm done. Lehman: Thank you. Agenda items, and this is also where we're going to do any City Council information, because city conservation does not appear on the agenda for tonight, so this is the only place that we can do it. 99-75, S1 Review Agenda Items 1. (Agenda #15: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEW JOBS AND INCOME PROGRAM 9NJIP0 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT~ AND NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO ASSIST WITH A FACILITY EXPANSION.) Kubby: I had a couple questions. They're both on page 10 of the agenda. One is on item 15... about the NCS resolution for the NJIP agreement. I know that the wage issues definitely meet our economic development guidelines, but it would go through all the other guidelines? I mean, I know that this isn't our program, but our guidelines do say that when we're participating... that we need to have some assessment of how those guidelines are met. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 20 Schoon: Right. This is the project you reviewed, and we reviewed it based on our economic- development guidelines earlier. This .... Kubby: Is this a shift of the program that we're doing, we're kind of redoing it because the program's different? Schoon No, what we're doing is entering into the agreement for them to receive the benefits. Before you just reviewed and approved the application, and this is the formal agreement. Kubby: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. 2. (Agenda #17: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DECLARING AN OFFICIAL INTENT UNDER TREASURY REGULATION 1.150-2 TO ISSUE DEBT TO REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR CERTAIN ORIGINAL EXPENDITURE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIFIED PROJECTS.) Kubby: I think that another one is about the item 17, so I think it's a question for Steve... about using the Landfill funds, and we'll reimburse ourselves. I'm just kind of confused, and need that to be explained to me. Atkins: What we do is that you pass a resolution declaring an intent to reimburse yourself for expenditures that you may have made in conjunction with a project that you ultimately intend to put in place long-term financing. That's a long sentence .... And what we call it is a reimbursement resolution. What we will do in the short term is often borrow from ourselves. We've made a habit of letting you know where we're going to be borrowing from. This fund is not in jeopardy, and as you know we have an obligation under state law to accumulate large amounts of cash in here. We just simply use that cash to our advantage. Kubby: And we pay interest? Atkins: And we repay ourselves with interest. That's correct. 3. (Agenda 11: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING, AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND BRIAN CLARK AND ASSOCIATES OF DES MOINES, TO PROVIDE CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE IOWA AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT. Norton: I think I have a couple of items. I think it's number, item 11, is it, on the Iowa Avenue improvements? Is that the number? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 21 Atkins: The design contract for construction? Norton: Yeah. Now, is the University involved at this point at all? Atkins: Yes. Norton: Is that .... Kubby: In what way? [Laughter] Norton: I was going to say, is that public knowledge? Because it looks to me... like that project gets... right, to have that fact well understood. [TAPE BROKE] Atkins: We have--I have received, and I thought I'd shared with you, a commitment from the University that they would pay $1 million toward the cost of this project. There has been a number of conversations--some involving me, several not involving me-- between the mayor and the President of the University discussing this very issue. We do not have a final number. In my conversations with Doug True, Vice President of Finance, I feel clearly there' s a million-dollar commitment .... grow any larger, I don't know the .... Norton: And at what point do we see the color of the money, you might say? Atkins: Doug had indicated to me that what they would likely do is pay that over a couple of years. They have sort of a discretionary fund for capital improvements in and around the campus, and that's where he was going to commit those monies. And since we were going to put in place financing, I did not have any trouble with--because we wrote a formal letter of agreement that he would fulfill that pledge, and knowing him, I don't have any trouble with that. Norton: Now, the reason I bring this up is that I've had a number of people in speaking about the multi--the Iowa Avenue parking structure. Has--the University ought to be sharing in that, and I think, well, they're not in that particular one, but in the related closely related, the improvement of Iowa Avenue, and it would be nice to get that understood. But I don't want to jump the gun or put somebody on a fence here. Atkins: Yeah. Unless the President of the University changes her mind, I think there's a very clear $1 million commitment toward Iowa Avenue. Norton: Well, if we were to say something on the air tomorrow night [laughter], that would help wouldn't it? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 22 Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Champion: Norton: Champion: Norton: Champion: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Lehman: Well .... I won't do it if you think it's inappropriate. [Laughter]. The last conversation I had with Doug indicated that until they knew the cost of the project, you know--and that would be after the engineering and whatever is complete, and obviously my interest is in more than--I think clearly there is a commitment of at least a million dollars. I think there may be a possibility of doing more than that, but I share some of Dee's concern. I really feel that if we're going to ask the University to participate in the cost of the project, that they should be involved in the design of the project. At least walk it through. I don't think that .... Absolutely. Take a look at it. Absolutely. So it really becomes a joint sort of project .... Maybe we can make it match the skywalk. On the other hand, let's forget that. I don't think you should mention the amount of money that they have obligated to the project, because that may make them think that's all they have to give us. Right. No, no. But I just think if we're going to design it, and .... But they indicate that they're involved, they will be involved, and we can talk with them about this, and that they will be involved without going into further--it just seems to me good public relations .... I agree. Well, I don't think there's any doubt--Karin and Chuck will likely be the managers of the project, and I've been in conversations with Gibson and those folks, and I expect Karin's spoken with the same people, and we fully intend to involve them, and there's the practical side--the whole noah side of Iowa Avenue is all University property. Yeah, yeah. And we're sort of compelled to make sure that they apply to all the .... But they will be involved with--this contract is between Brian Clark and Associates of Des Moines and the City of Iowa City. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Kubby: Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby/ Lehman: Atkins: Kubby: Vanderhoef: Council Work Session Page 23 This is our contract; this is our project. Any money we get from the University is in addition to, but it is our responsibility, as much as our .... I realize that, but if we expect the University to contribute to the cost of the project, I believe they should be involved in the design, at least. They were involved. They walked along .... Let Karin answer that, because I think she can give you a better .... Yeah, they were--Larry Wilson was on the committee that was part of the Iowa Avenue streetscape design, so the University's been involved in this design .... And they will continue to be alo--with this? Absolutely. All right. That was my biggest concern. So we couldn't have passed the preliminary design, because we have--all of these mentions and all that stuff. So, I mean I know that we need to have a more detailed design. I'm not quite sure why it costs so much to go from a preliminary to the one that .... These are construction drawings, Karen. These don't .... Yeah, yeah. A $3.5 million project and several of us asked the same question. This is about the .... So it's the whole thing--it's all the way from Clinton to .... This is the whole thing Gilbert. This is the whole project. Are we going to have one more track on here, though, the construction observation and all that good stuff that... ? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 24 Norton: Supervision will be on-site. [Several talking] Atkins: We will estimate into the project that there is the potential for that. I mean, hoping by then we will have recovered from our shortfall in employees and get this one back on track, and have our own folks do the in-house inspection. Now the testing, I'm sure there will be some of that. I can't tell you specifically. Most of that is public thoroughfare that's probably been tested a number of times, because there's water and sewer and utilities and streets and everything there. That would be my impression. But we will have an inspection component, absolutely. Norton: Well, I had forgotten about the extent to which, when you get down into the 300 block opposite the Christian Church, for example, and you get into some sewer problems .... Atkins/ Lehman: That's 200. Norton: That's 200 block, I'm sorry. Yeah. Yes. You get into some sewer problems where the sewer was lower than the basements and so forth. They had to pump .... Atkins: If I recall, Karin, there's sewer problems in both the 100 and 200 and also down near in 300 off their sewer, but there is Beer Creek that we have to accommodate .... Norton: Those granted. But some of those ought not necessarily be part of the Iowa Avenue project per se. They're... in getting that done. Franklin: This contract includes work by Shive-Hattery as a sub on the storm sewer project, which is the Beer Creek deal. The sewer project or the repair to the sewer in the 100 block of Iowa Avenue, that would be a separate--that's not in that $3.5 million whatever. The sewer in the 200 block of Iowa, that is not a problem per se. That is-- it is functioning. It was constructed in such a way that it is low and it is pumped at First Christian Church. I think probably--Rick has told me that that is something that we would not be repairing or changing with the project, because it would be major, and it would mean changing all of the connections for everybody in that block, which is really very costly when there is not a problem per se. Vanderhoef: The 200 or the 1007 Franklin: 200. The 100 would be repaired. Vanderhoef: And it's going to be dropped lower? Several: No. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 25 Norton: Lehman: Norton: Franklin: Atkins: Lehman: Norton: Atkins: [All talking] Norton: Atkins: Thomberry: Atkins: Thomberry Atkins: Thornberry: Norton: Thomberry: [?]: Norton: I don't think they have the elevation problem there, do they? No, but you couldn't drop it lower unless you changed it down down-flow from it. I don't think the elevation problem is in the 200 block .... Right .... So you are aware, when we do these projects, and we inspect them, you know if we see sewer repairs, we make them. Right. I understand that. I'm just... Open up that can of worms, to look down in .... There's some old sewer there. I understand we ought to do it, but this is that whole big Steve about budgeting for your infrastructure .... and we're getting stuck with it. Any city that's as old as ours is is going to have that, is going to experience that. But we would repair them. You know, you brought up that amount for that, the design of that thing. These are construction drawings, and that, they have to sign off on those, too, so that the .... These are engineering drawings. These are the bid documents. This is ready to go out to bid. To bid. Yeah, to bid. What I didn't--thought was a little high was the demolition drawings. I still don't understand the demolition drawings. It' s a requirement. That' s where we're going to put a few fire crackers .... [Laughter]. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 26 Thornberry: I just don't understand the demolition expense--you know, drawings, to take down these buildings, and, well .... Norton: There's no element... there's no demolition,.... [Several talking] Lehman: Okay, other agenda items. Mike? 4. (Agenda #7: PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE OAKLAND CEMETERY PHASE ONE EXPANSION.) O'Donnell: Number 7. I'm glad we're proceeding with this at long last, and there is a delay of several weeks. What was that? I read Terry's letter .... [?]: A couple of issues. Terry's going to be here for the Festival, if you want to wait and get the details then, okay?. He'll be here later on. Norton: We have two delays, fight? [?]: Right. Both Riverside Festival. Our concern there is cost and Oakland was--Terry will answer that, I think. [See discussion after item 7.] 5. (Agenda #16: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND JAMES W. AND ANNA M. BARKER FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A PORTION OF PARK ROAD IN IOWA CITY, IOWA.) O'Donnell: Also number 16. This is Jim and Anna Barker from Park Road. I was really glad to see that we could accommodate these folks in a timely manner .... Atkins: So you understand, the 30-second response was that the fight-of-way line found its way, and the young man put his fence up on what he thought was, if you look at any of the newer neighborhoods, it's a straight line. On Park Road, it's more erratic. Lehman: Serpentine. [Several talking] Atkins: It was an honest mistake on his part. O'Donnell: Well, we handled that very well. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 27 Lehman: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: He called me today and thanked us for it. Well, I thought it was not done, we have a resolution to do tomorrow night, don't we? Well, what I did was I authorized him, because our building inspector had determined that this was hazardous in the sense we've got a partially finished job with large .... Yeah, fight. I said go ahead, and I will ask for the Council to ratify... the rest of the time .... Well, you could turn it down. We won't leave you twisting in the wind. Thank you very much. We won't leave you hanging on the fence. Okay. Other agenda items? 6. (AGENDA #18: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE VEHICLE TOWING AND STORAGE SERVICES CONTRACT TO HOLIDAY WRECKER SERVICE, INC.) Kubby: Item 18, the towing contract, I'm not sure if I want to have an extensive conversation tonight, but I guess I want to understand better for tomorrow night what customer service component was part of the bidding process--if any. How do you monitor customer-service issues? Atkins: Well, we usually do it by complaint. Two bidders were both satisfied with the customer. I couldn't give you the details, Karen. I'd have to look that up, but they both satisfied... that they're both reputable firms. Kubby: Okay, so in a sense we've monitored that through anecdotal phone calls, or through letters that we get. Atkins: Yes. In three years I've not received a complaint on this company, but of course, then, I don't recall ever receiving many on the other company, either. So, I mean, both companies are reputable; that's not a problem. [Several talking] Thornberry: I recall that you did in the same argument, I believe. For one to say that I'm better than the other one. I have trouble with that argument. If there's enough complaints, This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 28 even two or three--I mean, there are going to be complaints when people get their cars towed, and I didn't call around to see... Norton: I didn't. Thornberry: who was better in the eyes of the Police Department and other companies; I didn't do that. But, without complaints on either, other than complaints that "my car was towed .... " [Several talking] Kubby: The important point for me is the public-policy question, that if it is part of our bid document, how do we monitor, and how do we assess it and use it? And the guidelines .... Thornberry: If the bid was only 10% of the contract, was the other 90% overwhelmingly, I mean, was it done?... Atkins: I don't know the exact factors of customer service. I can tell you that when I spoke with the purchasing agent, I asked a straight question: Are both reputable companies that can do the job? And the answer was "yes," unequivocally. Norton: Is that going to be discussed anywhere at all or simply acted on? I thought we met somewhere .... Atkins: It's on your agenda for tomorrow. Norton: I thought we had a request for somebody to talk about it tonight; I don't know whether that was .... Kubby: Well, we did. Lehman: Let's take a minute, or a couple of minutes. Leonard: That'd be me? Lehman: All fight, a couple of minutes. You have to stand up here where we can hear you. Leonard: Okay. My name is Matt Leonard, and I own Big Ten University Towing, and I've spoke to a few of you. And I got my copy of the contract, and the only thing I have the page that has the 100 points on it, supposed 100 points. I have copies for everybody if they want them; if they don't, that' s fine. I checked this bid, and I'm not the smartest duck in the pond, but, and I don't know-- there's a lot of stuff in there that I don't understand, but I've had my attorneys check it. I don't see where it says "low bid wins." I can't find it, I've looked for it. The This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 29 best I can say is like I've asked you all to do: call references. That's it. I mean, ifI tell you who to call, it's not going to be fair. So I just want you to--and I know and you said you didn't do itq Thornberry: I didn't. Leonard: And all I ask for you to do is to do it. And to ask the people that I work with--the parking officials, the Police Department--you know, the people that are actually out, out there. You know, I've got repeat customers--a lot of them, granted thanks to the City's Parking Division--but they all, you know, they come out, they steal a little bit of candy out of the candy jar, and they're all working for their tenth tow for nothing, because that's the big joke between the students. You know, if you get nine, you get the tenth one for free. And I've given those away. [Laughter] Kubby: Responsive, I mean isn't there, doesn't the state law doesn't it say here?... Dilkes: No, not really. This is our own procedure. And I haven't looked at the bid documents in detail, but my immediate response to the fact that it doesn't specifically say "lowest bid wins"---I don't find that to be problematic, frankly. I mean, I think that's often implied. It's one, it's a factor, and I think the history of this contract has been that it's a maj or factor. Norton: Well, what is the logic? We had one the other night that... was drawing out that there was a difference of $12 between two very large bids, and we were obliged to take the lower. Kubby: It's a different process altogether. Lehman: A separate process, yeah. Dilkes: For pub--I'm sorry, which one are you talking about? Kubby: It's for a, I don't know, it was a big public project. [?]: Public improvements are different. Dilkes: Public improvements over $25,000 have a number of state-law requirements that .... Norton: Well, I just wanted to get in to give this little bit, because I didn't respond to your call, because I'm trying to figure out how to be fair to both you and the your competitor, and do we, would we have to call his references, but he doesn't have the same local recent history that you do, so it's kind of a--I don't see how to be fair at this matter other than look at the bid. Leonard: Well, Jerry Wissink has been in the wrecking business a lot longer than I have--I mean, a lot longer. And, like Cathy Eisenhofer, when I bid this contract, she wanted This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 30 Thomberry: Leonard: Thornberry: Leonard: Lehman: Leonard: Champion: Several: Leonard: Vanderhoef: Leonard: Lehman: Leonard: Norton: Leonard: more people to call, so I said to her, just open the phone book, call ten places. And I don't care who you call. Call any of the automotive garages, the heating-and-cooling people--I do work for everybody in Iowa City--I have over 100 accounts with private-sector towing alone. You know, I've lived in Iowa City, I know all these people in Iowa City, you know, and I'd like to stay here, but .... [Laughter] Big Ten also tows airplanes. Yes, yes we do. And does a good job. I thank you. I mean we .... Why don't you pass us out what you have? Okay. Wasn't yours the low bid to begin with? No. No, mine is not the low bid. It's interesting that the bid that we got this year is the same price as three years ago that was awarded .... It's 1987 price that he submitted. Yes, the price he has submitted is 1987 prices, which I have a copy of his contract from 1987, which I can also bring up--1987 pricing is what he's bid this contract at now. I would remind the Council, however, the man has committed to the bid--both parties--which means that number is what they have committed to. Regardless of what the date is .... Financially, I can't back up to 1987, and I wouldn't ask my industry to go back to 1987. We're in a bind if we've got that number. True. But it also doesn't state--unless I can't find it, which is also very possible, but it does not state "low bid," and according to your schedule, price quotation is 0 to 10 points. That leaves 90 points floating out there someplace. And I know for a fact that my corporation has never been in the media for unhappy customers, dissatisfied customers, and if you would just even pull up the last--any month, I don't care which one, of somebody that's had their vehicle impounded at my office. Take ten people, This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 31 Kubby: Lehman: Dilkes: Kubby: [?]: Norton: Leonard: Champion: Lehman: Champion: Leonard: Kubby: Leonard: Norton: Kubby: Leonard: call the ten people, and ask them how they were treated. treated fairly. And if they believe they were But the other point on here about, you know, lot receipts and all that stuff, I mean our Purchasing folks are saying that those are--I mean that we didn't--the stuff that we got, we got the price quotes; we didn't get the points, did we, anywhere? Right. Eleanor, did you have a comment? Just, I think you should remind yourself of what we typically do when we do bid the public improvement projects. We very rarely go through an analysis when we award a contract of who's the most responsible bidder. Once there's a base met, we go with the low bid. And I don't think that's--that's pretty much what' s happening here, I think. Staff is satisfied that the other performance history and capability and financial stuff is responsible? Both firms are reputable rims, both firms .... And our staff was responsible to recommend us that, too, yeah. Except I live in Iowa City and he lives in a different city. Well, that was my point, Dee, of the bid on the major .... Civic Center. Twelve thousand dollars out of $1.5 million. Right, but you give it to the local firm, the $12,000 .... But you're taking someone's vehicle outside the city limits. Now, say Fred Durras out of Cedar Rapids or Hiawatha wants to bid the City contract at $15.00 a tow. What's the difference? Well, your lot location points would be much lower for that person. The points would, but now we're back to price quotation, which is the lesser of the price. And Fred Durras is a friend of mine, he runs a very reputable business. Oh, boy, this is ..... That would be different, because the .... So, you got a little catch there somewhere. I guess all I can say, and all I want you to do, is just do as I asked you to do, you know, make a few phone calls, and remember This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 32 Atkins: Leonard: Atkins: Leonard: Atkins: Leonard: Norton: Champion: Leonard: Norton: Leonard: Several: Lehman: Leonard: Kubby: Leonard: Lehman: that I'm the only Iowa City-based towing service. The only one. And I'm the only one that subcontracts out to the other professional Iowa City towers. Mr. Leonard, where is your lot? My lot is two miles directly straight west of Interstate 218 and Highway 1. Outside the city limits? And the only reason it's outside the city limits is because there is no zoning inside the city limits. Council knows that. Just point that out to you folks. Because I at one point in time tried to buy a piece of property at Heinz Road, and I got shot down. For towing, for towing, yeah. It's fight across the interstate, fight? Yes, it's in between Noel's Tree Service and Doug Yansky Automotive. I'm not in the salvage business, I'm not in the trucking business, I don't jump cars. All my vehicles go to Ace Auto Salvage, which is another Iowa City business. What vehicles I don't give to them, I donate to the Iowa City Fire Department. I've donated over sixty cars in the last two years. So, I, you know, it's a big money contract, don't get me wrong, and I'd like to keep my money, but I've invested over $300,000 to get this contract three years ago, and I don't make enough money to pay back $300,000 in three years. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Matt. Thanks for listening to me. I appreciate it. We didn't have this... in front of us. Ifthere's anything else, feel free to call me, and I will be more than happy to talk with you .... Okay. Any other agenda items? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 33 Kubby: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: So, there are a few things I wanted to bring up that might end up being things we decide on, and since there' s not Council planning .... One of them is the letter (Agenda #3.g.2) we got from one of our employees about domestic partnership dental insurance. And to me, it seems that any kind of benefit that is given to married couples should be given--I mean the intent of when we did domestic parmership insurance was to make some equality with relationships, and I think that we should do something about this. We will, we plan to prepare a response for you. We'd remind you that it is being done outside our traditional collective-bargaining process, so it's going to be very clearly a policy .... Wait a minute. What's being done outside?... If you were to add this as a benefit to Miss Pahl .... So there's no oversight, then? No. I think that you--when we were going through this--and the debate was the medical insurance, and we took care of it, and deliberated the matter. Although, you know, I can say what was in my mind when I was saying health care. I thought you meant the whole gamut, and maybe that that may have not been going through .... We do do life insurance .... But we're going to get a response on this? Oh, yeah, we'll prepare, yeah .... Okay. Are there other areas of benefits besides dental ...? That's what I'm going to look up, yes. so that we don't go through this multiple? . . . Pick away at it over a period of time. And certainly to contact the union, to see--I mean, they might say "This is no problem with us. That it's outside of that process." [Several talking] This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 34 Lehman: Yeah, it's always to their advantage .... Champion: We could have a letter of understanding--isn't that what they call it? Lehman: I am do or die. We need an answer, we know. Norton: I just had one question that could come up tomorrow. The Council--Connie and I need to know this--we have not yet taken any finn position, have we, with respect to issues about the Senior Center and its expansion or possible expansion, and that has not come before us explicitly, even though we've talked about it, fight? Atkins: No. Norton: Okay. Nor about the connection--possible connection--neither of those. At some point I want, and suppose we will have to make a finn decision, fight? Kubby: But I thought during our budget discussions about the library and Senior Center, it was very clear that there wasn't going to be money for expanding the Senior Center. That we would do the lease option on that portion so had an option at a later date, so I think that's .... Norton: That was kind of a straw ballot, I guess, yeah. Kubby: I think that's pretty--I mean it was a vote, formal vote, but .... Lehman: As I recall, we totally rejected the 8,000-square-foot proposal. Norton: Yeah, that's fight. Lehman: We did not totally reject the 4[,000], but I think we gave a pretty strong indication that at this point in time that building wasn't a strong possibility. Norton: That's all I wanted to know .... Lehman: I think that's what we said. Norton: I understand where we were .... Kubby: Well, they couldn't find $1,000 anywhere in the budget, so how could we--maybe that' s just a deduction on my part versus a decision on our part. Lehman: I think that's a pretty accurate deduction. [Several talking] Kubby: Well, I don't want to make any assumptions, so .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 35 [?] ~o~on: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Lehman: That's what I remember. I don't want to take this very far, but the Steve Bullard thing about the sewer back-up and the rain (Agenda #3.g.6), and you know, with... still bothers me looking forward to the storm-water issues. It still bothers me that we simply don't know how to determine where these cross-connections are and they've got to be there, and it drives me crazy that there's no way to sneak into somebody's and find out whether they're cross-connected or not. I can't, I don't remember the exact number. I think that Rick told me that he figures there are virtually hundreds of outlets into Ralston Creek that we don't know anything about. Okay, I'll keep worrying about it. If the... we do some of the... in storm water, we'll find them in the summer if they're .... Well, that's what is going to come up further as we... the storm water thing, and clearly we're trying to figure that out. We'll have to handle the public relations .... We will release something on storm water in the next several months for you, a little more specific detail. And is there anything to the notion at the Human Rights meeting about the police having difficulty with cameras? Where are we on the cameras? Are they installed yet in police cars? I don't think they're installed yet. There was some indication in the Human Rights Commission minutes that this was of some concern to some policemen. I just wondered whether they were in yet, or have we any .... I'll confirm that for you. I don't know. Do we have any kind of understanding about whether or not any of videos would show up on a cop show? I would hope that we would not choose to go that route. I think we can make that rule. I hope so. [Several talking] This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 36 [?]: We could sell them. Lehman: No. Norton: You don't think we should franchise them? Lehman: No, I agree. Are there?... [Several talking] Lehman: No. Go ahead, Karen. Kubby: One was the letter we got back from the Center Plaza Hotel about 641A. I'm not quite sure what I heard. I heard we don't want to do anything now, but leave us some space? Atkins: No, this is me. Let me tell you--my conversation with Mr. Gauthier went sort of this way. I explained to him... of the history, that there'd been interest in the past. I explained to him the possibility of the hotel expanding over the site, as well as underneath; that is, extending your conference-meeting space. And it was clear to me was that... we're about to invest in this hotel for refurbishing, fixing it up, getting a new franchise... [?]: Condo thing [?] Atkins Yeah, something such as that. I told him that our library has thought about the possibility of using a good portion, if not all of that site, as potential library site, and that we were in the process of putting that together. We, speaking on behalf of the library. And it would be several months at the earliest before you, the City Council, would ultimately have to this up or down--but tight now, Mr. Gauthier, I'm heating you say that you do not have immediate interest. The door is slightly ajar for the next couple of months, but after that, you close it. It's done, and he knows that. Kubby: It seems like the sooner the library knows what the parameters are, the more time they have .... Atkins: And they know this. I sent this to Susan and talked to her about it. Kubby: At some point are we going to have a deadline where it's like the door closes? Atkins: I left with the very clear impression that the only thing that kept the door open was time, because it was several months before they put a proposal together, and the library wanted to be able to do their proposal-planning process with the use of that time. And they may come back and say, "No, we're not interested in using the site" and do something else. We're not, we're .... So that's where we are. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 37 Vanderhoef: The newspaper article seemed more, like more interest than what I read in your memo. Atkins: Oh. Yeah, I think Adam talked to--well, Adam and I had spoken about it, and at least my impr--well, I read the story and thought Adam was off point. That' s sort of what I heard from you guys. Kubby: Last issue: there was a memo about water-plant art (IP6)... Lehman/ Atkins: Yes. Kubby: and do we want to use water money or art money, and I think we should probably have a conversation at that time about that. Atkins: I think you need to do that. I need to have that confirmed. Lehman: When do we have that conversation, because I think when we built that water plant, we told the public very specifically that the costs associated with that water plant would be paid by rate fares, and it was strictly water plant, and I don't think the $100,000 for art should be out of water. Champion: I agree withthat. Atkins: Well, I'm not, yeah, I know Miss [?] would agree with that, and I heard that you wanted an attractive water plant, an attractive physical site, I mean everything about it. We're getting down to a point where it's gonna be real hard to decide that' s water and that' s not. And my recollection of debate, Ernie, it was substantiated a recreational component on Water Works' part. It was clearly to be something other than water revenues--that's what I heard you say. Lehman: But the art feature--it doesn't preclude it having an art feature. One way it's paid for in the general fund, the other way it comes from rate fares. That' s just the question, isn't it? Atkins: That' s the question now, because now the Public Art Advisory Committee is going to want to have some idea, does that take away from the $100,0007... [Several talking] Champion: I'm not going to have people' s water bills pay for art at the water plant. [?]: No way. Norton: Well, but why not something functional .... Champion: This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 38 Norton: Wait a minute. [Several talking] Vanderhoef: Why not something not only nice, but useful but ornamental? Well, I liked the idea of taking the fountain from downtown, if it can be repaired, and go out there. That was the original thought that we already .... Norton: What I had in mind was a giant faucet, giant, huge faucet, right? And then the water would have to be piped somewhere, and it goes through that faucet as part of the aeration process. What you see from the highway is a giant faucet. [Several talking] Norton: Sort ofa Claes Oldenburg or something, right? Really, I'm serious. But I don't think that comes out of the $100,000 for public art--that's more than they can possibly spend. Atkins: Well, we clearly have a difference of opinion amongst you. Kubby: Maybe at our next informal, could we have ten minutes on this, or whatever? Norton: At least. Kubby: Could this topic... another monthly meeting, we need the other information from staff before we have that conversation? Atkins: Okay, I'll put it on work session unless I hear otherwise. Thornberry: You know, that was my argument against not having an art fund, was to have, let' s design these buildings so that they are attractive, and do that in the design feature. Because you're gonna go forward .... [Several talking] Thornberry: You're not going to go over and above a nicely designed building--then it's art. Kubby: Well, let's have that conversation .... [Several talking] REVITALIZATION AREA Lehman: Obviously there's going to be some discussion relative to this. Are there other agenda items? The next item is urban revitalization area. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 39 Atkins: That' s me. You have a recommendation from us concerning the creation of an urban revitalization district, which is substantially in the CB-10 zone in downtown. I would ask you to set aside momentarily any discussion about Moll and Mondo project-- that' s something else. They would likely enjoy the benefit of this, but to just cut to the chase, we've discussed it extensively, as a staff are recommending that we put together this urban revitalization district in downtown. The City has made its commitment, that the purpose of the district is to capture that portion of the taxes--the new investment--and then allow for to be abated over a period of time based upon a schedule in the plan. Beyond that, that' s sort of the scoop on the thing. I would like to take a minute so you understand some of the consequences. I have this as a handout, just to give you a feel for the magnitude. The total taxable value in the City is $1.726 billion. The total taxes at our tax rate of 13.8 is $24 million, generated from that tax rate. The commercial tax value, that portion of the taxable value is $718 million. Downtown's tax value is $101 million. In other words, 14.2% of our commercial taxable value we have tied up in downtown. So I think you can appreciate the magnitude of the decisions you make, particularly that cause to occur. Lehman: Steve, that's tax dollars. Atkins: No, that's value, Ernie. Norton: It says value. Atkins: Yeah. Lehman: What, no wait a minute. The one side tax value. Oh, $101 million. Atkins: Hundred and one million dollars in value. Of that, of the commercial value--the number fight above it--it's 14.2%. Now, remember, commercial values are real bread-and-butter issues for us, because it's 100% of value, that's a way to grow the economy, things of that nature. Of the total taxable value, downtown approaches 6%. Now to give you again--it's not going to dry up and blow away--but when we lost machinery and equipment, that as 3.75% of our total taxable value, so this is approaching one-and-half times that size, so this is of some consequence. I point that out, because when we budget, we assume reasonable growth in that value and a little bit of new investment. When you constrain that a tad bit, that does have some longer- term implications. I'm recommending that we go ahead with the Rec dollars recommendation, knowing full well that we have a tight budget, and maybe just get it a little scoche tighter if you cannot capture that whole taxable value on new investment. And I thought you might be curious: the downtown taxes just for the City only are $1.4 million coming out of that CB-10 zone. Champion: But Steve, when I read this, I mean, it's new investment. It's an old investment that gives the tax benefit. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 40 Atkins: Champion: Norton: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Champion: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: That' s correct. Correct. So in the long run, it's much more beneficial to the city .... Oh, yeah. Yeah, the long pull, Conhie, is what we're in this thing for. Just to give you a kind of a quick example: a million-dollar building in downtown--100% taxable value--is going to generate $13,800 in taxes for the City. Now, it is permitted to grow at its normal rate of growth. So the next year, it may be $1 ,030,000--that's a 3% growth. Taxes increase accordingly. Well, the owner of this million-dollar building decides to put two new floors on top of it for an investment of $200,000. It's that $200,000 investment that would abate the taxes over some schedule, over some period of time. The foundation is there, the foundation grows a little bit at a time based on inflation. But that's basically how it works. We're okay with that? Okay, annual inflation... Karen, is there? .... growth of the basic building will continue to .... Yes. We will continue to accrue that benefit in our financial projections. But the point that I wanted to make to you is that downtown is a substantial piece of our tax base, and stimulating it--the term I used is have we reached the point where we cannot not do something to cause investment to occur in that component of our economy. But it's--14% of the commercial value is an awful lot. And I think the other thing we have to keep in mind is this little... from years ago when I was on Historic Preservation, is that this is an important tax to the city, this downtown, and we've got to preserve neighborhoods around the downtown. That's. . . Karin's here to go over the plan. If you need any questions, I think it's pretty specific. I want to be sure I understood what... just said, though. When you do this and enter into one of these things, then does the assessor actually then assess the old--just take the old number and inflate that, and then add on the--I don't know, I'm trying to figure out how this actually works... inflation on the basic value. Yeah. Okay. The building has a value of a million dollars right now. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 41 Norton: Right. Atkins: Annualized inflation rate of 3%. Norton: Okay. Atkins: So next year this same building... Norton: Okay. Got ya. Atkins: will have a value of that. Norton: Okay. Atkins: If you take 13.8, which our tax rate on a million--that's $13,800. If you take-- assuming the same tax rate next year--13.8, that's 14 point value--that's $14,2100]-- so this goes up. You have this available to you in your operating budget. Now, this building owner wants to put two more--wants to put $200,000 investment. That'll get assessed, it'll be incorporated into the assessment. But that'll be ....That times 13.8 is... Lehman: 27.6. Atkins: $2,760 in tax dollars to be generated from that. Now, because we are on urban revitalization, this may be abated... 90, 89, 70--some schedule, say over 10 years-- ultimately, you will recapture the whole value of the thing. These two then become the new value for the property at the time that this abatement expires. Norton: Where does inflation on that $200,000 turn up? Several: Every year. Atkins: Every year, yeah. It's all factored in there, yeah. Right. And that's what will happen is that those folks taking advantage of this will nm that number, its value, because they'll have to be projecting their cost. And like in most investments, they're gonna want the best benefit on the front end. Norton: I know--you asked that. You already had details that I didn't have. Atkins: Karen? Kubby: I .... Thornberry: Just something to... Atkins: Oh. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 42 Thornberry: think about... Atkins: Oh, David. Excuse me. Thomberry: when you're looking at these numbers. And a million dollars for a building is not out of the ordinary downtown. Because I had one, I bought one, downtown only serve food, no alcohol. And to see the proliferation of food carts downtown, when I'm paying that kind of taxes, and the food carts aren't even having to meet sanitation, basic sanitation, is a little hard to swallow sometimes. Just something to think about. Atkins: Keep in mind that ifthere's any .... [Several talking] Atkins: Okay. If there's a health problem, then you--we need to know about it, and we'll deal with that. But they pay $750 a year to be on the plaza. And that thought process was, that is based on the fact that you don't pay property taxes. So that's why we charge the $750. Lehman: Okay. Thomberry: No it's not. Lehman: Say that on this urban revitalization, is there a rule of thumb or any particular way of determining the amount of time that that abatement would take place over? Schoon: There are four schedules identified in the plan that a person can choose for the length of the abatement. And what's .... Lehman: This is the build--the property owner makes this choice? Schoon: Yes. But it also is dependent upon the qualifications of the plan. In the plan, for additions, rehabilitations and new construction, only, to break this down-- nonresidential commercial property, and I need to clarify that for tax purposes, an apartment or rental unit is considered commercial property, so that's why we use the terms "residential commercial" and "nonresidential commercial"--under the plan only the nonresidential component of a new building or new addition would qualify for abatement under the plan. The exception to that is when a historic building is involved. Then any components of the building, whether it's residential commercial, residential or nonresidential commercial, they would all qualify for abatement under the plan .... With one goal, with the goal being, we want to encourage investment in downtown, but not at the expense of the demolition of historic buildings and replacement of those. So it's also trying to provide an incentive to reserve those buildings and to reuse those by providing abatement for those projects. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 43 Lehman: Schoon: Lehman: Schoon: Lehman: Schoon: Lehman: Schoon: Atkins: Champion: Schoon: Thomberry: David, under the tax abatement, if a building was demolished--razed~owntown and a new building was put in its place, wouldn't the abatement apply only to the difference in value between the building that was there and the new property? It would all depend on the timing of when that demolition took place and when the new building was constructed. Plan was in place. I decide I want a new building, so I tear my building down, and I build a new one, and I want to take advantage of tax abatement. Now, my building is assessed at a million bucks or .... Would then, and I build a new building that's three million, would only two million of that be abated because it's replacing a million- dollars that was already there? If I can explain, it depends on the timing of the demolition. If you demolish the building this year, and in two years you then build a new building, it goes to the last assessment of the year prior to when you apply for it. So, typically, someone's going to demolish a building and then immediately rebuild it in the same year, so then it would be on that base--what was would be the value in addition to what had been there. But if there's time that lags between when the demolition occurs, when the next assessment occurs, when the construction occurs, and when they apply for the assessment, there's the potential that it would be on just the land. Example: the Hieronymus property on the comer of Clinton and Burlington Street,. You know, there were properties on there with value. Those have been removed for some time now. Now the base value has become the land, so any increment would be on top of that land value. So, if it sits long enough--if I tore a building and let it sit for five years and wanted to build--the entire value of the building would be abatable, but not the land sitting on it. Correct. If I tear it down and rebuild it immediately, then I'm going to pay only the difference between the value of the property as it now exists and the value of the new property. Correct. David, it's commercial value. Right. Correct. It's just the nonresidential commercial. It would seem to me, then, that you're asking for a longer period of demolished building. It would be beneficial to not build fight away. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 44 Kubby: Schoon: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Schoon: Kubby: [Laughter] Atkins: Schoon: Norton: Champion: Norton: So if you don't have the... value the viability of the building being there for five years, and the rents and all that. Right. Of avoiding that tax. This is truly a circumstance where timing is everything. If you timed it fight, got it, removed it, got it started again, it's a nice way to .... Because to understand when the assessment took place is to be sly. If someone demolished a building in December, the land value--it was then assessed on January 1 of just the land value--that becomes the base value. They would do construction during January of that year. They apply for abatement January of the following year, would be that of January 1 ~t. No, it's not real hard to figure out. But that doesn't mean the land has to sit for a long period of time--it just becomes the timing of what they do .... But in the case of the Moen problem, you're starting with zero value, now, fight? You're starting with zero, fight? No. With the exception of a blank .... [Several talking] Lehman: Well, but I think what Dee's saying, does the Moen property--are we looking at the value of the land only? [Several talking] Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Can I ask you to drop Moen? Yeah, okay. We'll come back to that. I don't mean to drop Moen, you know .... [Laughter] This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 45 [Several talking] Thomberry: The difficulty "the brothers" have with urban revitalization has been the patch of blight, you know. [?]: That's what happens. Thornberry: I think it's inappropriate. [?]: Yeah, [unintelligible]. Champion: And the other thing, too, is when you have a building burn down like [all talking] Prairie Lights bum down [all talking], Bremer's burn down--there've been a lot of fires downtown. We don't want people to start setting them to get tax abatement. Norton: So let's let David... explain how .... Champion: You don't start a building instantly. Lehman: No. Champion: It must take at least two years. Norton: What do you want us to understand now, David? Atkins: What we want you to traderstand is that you like the concept, are you prepared to .... [Several talking] Schoon: And you understand that it's for a new building--it only applies to the nonresidential commercial component. Norton: Right. Schoon: So, for the project we're not supposed to talk about, it would only be for part of that project .... Thornberry: But on the theoretical aspect of that, if I had commercial--I mean residentialqabove commercial, I'm being taxed as though those were commercial units. That is commercial property. Norton: Why do you talk now about .... points. Thornberry: Yes. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 46 Schoon: One reason is under urban revitalization and urban renewal, you have to--there's four criteria that you can use to designate an area an urban revitalization area. Two of them are slum and blight, which we feel we cannot designate these areas as slum or blighted areas, that they don't meet the definitions of state law. Then the other two criteria are economic development and historic preservation. Under economic development, the code is very specific, that that can be for commercial or industrial properties or for low- or moderate-income housing. So, under that criteria, abatement would only be available for low- and moderate-income housing. Champion: What was the taxes .... Schoon: At this point, that hasn't been an interest in providing low- and moderate-income housing in the CB-10 zone. So, the housing that's been discussed has been market- rate housing. So, that designation doesn't help us. The last one, historic preservation, we can use that criterion and provide abatement for residential commercial uses, but that's only then in a historic building. So based on what state code allows us to do, we don't feel we can justifiably designate the downtown as a slum or blighted area. If we could, then it could be for any type of residential uses. Thomberry: What if they fumished it with antiques? Lehman: That's not slum, that's blighted. [Laughter] [Several talking] Norton: Whether those were apartments on the top floors or whether they were condos that were sold, no matter how those may be taxed in the present situation, has nothing to do with making them commercial in this issue. They are not commercial if they are residential, right? Whether they're apartments or whatever. Schoon: Their apartments are considered residential commercial uses. They're commercial uses that are residential. [Laughter] Atkins: Keep in mind--let me try to answer that--the value, and I'm going to make these notes in chop marks, so forgive me--the value of the Moen property before the fire was a million dollars. It burnt down; it's gone. But on the tax roll, if you have it taxed on December 31st and it bums down on January 1, it's sort of too bad, because that's the way it's set. And when it comes to number-crunching time, if the taxable value is just the land, the Moens have the ability now, because at $800,000 worth of tax value that's gone, to reconfigure their financing. And so there is a direct tax benefit when we make that decision that it's the land on a certain date at a certain time that the assessment is actually put together. Am I explaining it okay? Several: Yes. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 47 Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Lehman: Champion: They'll have to go back and reconfigure their financing--I don't pretend to be, have any knowledge or to be involved in it--but that's how it would work. I'm interested in doing what we reasonably are permitted to do .... And that's in--there is a discussion between Moens... and Monica and Mark, and I believe that issue will resolve itself, at least it's being resolved. And that we believe, as a staff in recommending this, that the individuals involved--and we do not recommend blight in any way, shape or form--that the individuals involved will be able to take full advantage of the law as it exists. So, blame something. Go for it. And I like this, because it's a general thing, it isn't just for one specific person, it will benefit downtown, I think greatly in the long run. [Several talking] Vanderhoef: I just have another question that isn't the one that's specifically on the table. Lehman: Yes, so far. Go ahead, Dee. Vanderhoef.' In the historic building and housing, if housing were put into a refurbished historic building, would that also have to be for moderate and low income, or could it be anything? Atkins: Lehman: It could be anything. If it's a historical building, you don't have the... Vanderhoef: You can .... Lehman: Norton: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: It's part of the disquali~er for residential. Cedar Rapids did that, I think, with that big building on the south side. That was the big .... Okay. I have three questions. Yes, Karen. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 48 Kubby: One is, the vote tomorrow night always gets caught up in this, and maybe it's me that repeated about the--what was the word?--the necessity to do this. And I'm always with that worrying in there. I'm concerned that if there is no public comment or the public comment is favorable or if I just think about it, I... vote to do the public heating, but it says then it means you're gonna do it. And ifthere's public comment and I decide no, I can't support this as good public policy, then I'm locked in, because I voted for the public hearing and the vote of necessity to do this because the resolution has language in there saying, "I think this is a good thing, so I'm holding a public hearing about it." So I want to be .... Dilkes: I think we talked about this last time, Karen. I remember your concern, and I just think it makes no sense to hold a public hearing if you can't then vote as you believe, if appropriate, following a public hearing. So I think this is just the formality of how we get the public hearing set. Kubby: Okay. The other thing is there' s no explicit mention in the plan that I can see that talks about our economic development policies. And I don't know ifthat's just an assumption, because it's part of our way of doing business, that any business that would apply for this tax abatement would also have to go through that process. Vanderhoef: Review of our policy. I don't expect it .... Kubby: Right. And on page 7 it says "In order to be considered eligible, all improvements must be completed in conformance with all applicable regulations of the city." And I would love for that to just say "policies and regulations." So that it's--includes that. Atkins: Personally, I don't have any trouble with that. David, is there any?--I mean... it as a repeated state law. Schoon: Yeah. Kubby: But just so that it's clear there, so they say, "Well, we've done everything in the plan. You never told us about the policies .... [99-76, S 1 ] Lehman: For example, for industrial looking at expansion or new industry .... Kubby: Our policies say that any kind of public assistance that's given, and this is part of that. Lehman: I don't know... Karen? Kubby: When we're foregoing tax money, that's a form of assistance, and those policies are meant when there are any kinds of assistance to individual businesses, which this would be, that those policies--those guidelines--that process has to be gone through. So it's for, in my estimation it's not up to us to decide which things it goes to or not. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 49 That policy' s already there. And that I just want to make it clear that people would have to go through that process on the front end in this document. [Several talking] Dilkes: Where I see a problem with this, Karen, could be like if the ownership of the building is different than the business owner who rents the space. Kubby: But it's a commercial enterprise, so that's a business. The leasing of that property is the business that we're providing the assistance to. [Several talking] Vanderhoef: I think that there's a concern that you're talking about wages and salaries and so forth, that part gets .... [Several talking] Kubby: That there are other things that might be. Norton: Well, why don't we look at it? Is there any problem, is there anybody here that has a problem flying our economic .... Why not take a look? It will certainly not apply to wages, because that's not germane. But maybe other aspects .... Kubby: But it might be in terms of how the increased value is brought about, in terms of construction. And most of those wages then easily fit into our guidelines, in terms of the remodel... structure. Lehman: Could we have a short synopsis of what that would mean in terms of applying for abatement, for time--how much it's going to hold up the project, how complicated would it be to apply those policies, if you will, to an urban revitalization area we're going to give tax abatement, as compared to a situation like Oral B or NCS, or something like that? [Several talking] Schoon: It would be a little more complicated to apply it to the downtown area. I think we didn't include the wording specifically in the plan as we were looking at this as a way to specifically expand the tax base versus increase employment opportunities per se, though that would be a benefit from the urban-revitalization plan. So, I think we were coming more from the aspect of the commercial viability of the space in the downtown versus focusing on the employment opportunities that would be provided. Kubby: But there's more than that in the guidelines. There are things about waste, there are things--energy efficiency, which are all part of those guidelines. So some guidelines might not be appropriate to apply. And so it's obvious that you applied the guidelines This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 50 that are appropriate, so that' s what I'm asking about. And some, I think you could make the argument that you should have them apply for the jobs created through the project itself. Lehman: I think that's impossible. Champion: That's impossible. Vanderhoef: I can't go that far, but .... Kubby: Champion: Kubby: I mean in terms of remodeling: you're gonna add two floors, the wages of the people who were added on those two floors. Oh, no. I can't .... And they'll fit, because it's going to be construction. [Several talking] Norton: We ought to take a look at that and see .... Kubby: We should review what the policies actually say before you automatically dismiss .... Lehman: Well, we're setting a public hearing tomorrow night--is that what we're doing? Norton: Yeah, have we come to .... Lehman: In the meantime, can we get a short little synopsis from you as to what the impact you think of those policies would be? Schoon: Okay. Norton: No, we don't want to get tangled up in acres ofpaperwork, either. Lehman: Yeah. No, no, don't go to... [laughter] tons of work on it, but get us at least a rundown. Vanderhoef: But I really like it that .... Atkins: Any other questions for Dave? Lehman: Mike? Okay, thank you. Champion: Can we have a ten-minute break, Dad? Lehman: Yeah. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 51 lBreak] Yard Waste drop Site - Landfill Lehman: Yard waste drop site. Steve? (?]: Lehman: [?]: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: [?]: [?]: [?]: Lehman: Kubby: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Emie, we're only half here. Oh. There' s four of us. That' s enough. Let' s go. There were seven of us here a minute ago .... Steve, who's going to do the yard waste. Oh, I am. I think it's a wonderful idea. Anybody else have any problems with it? Okay. I think it's great. Sounds pretty good. Thanks, Steve, it's good. Thank you. All fight, next? Steve, go ahead. I think everybody likes it, but Karen got .... Well, I switched my packets, and .... I have a question. Steve, what's the current charge for residents bringing yard waste to the fill. If a person in their own car--not a hired .... Something per ton, $24, I think it's $24 a ton. That's what commercial haulers, but if I back in with my car full of junk, we charge the same thing? It's the minimum charge. [Several talking] Atkins: Usually you don't come close to meeting the .... Norton: I understand. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 52 Kubby: Lehman: Atkins: Norton: [?]: Atkins: Kubby: Norton: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Lehman: Several: Norton: Atkins: Lehman: But what's the minimum? There is no minimum for yard waste. I don't know. So whatever it is, it's going to be free now? Right. It's free now. So, I like the policy, but I don't understand the economics. What are we losing here? Yeah, what are we losing in terms of dollars? What is 30%? Seventy percent of the yard waste that comes to the landfill is commercial. The other 30% comes from all of Johnson County. We're 12% of the total of the landf--I mean, it's really rather insignificant, if you take it county-wide. But I could .... Well, I, okay, 12% percent, let's just say it's 12%. But I don't know what that means moneywise, and what effect does that have on the operations of our yard waste. So I like the idea .... Less than a thousand dollars. Okay, that's what I needed. I mean, it's got to be something real small like that--less than a thousand dollars. Steve, I have one question that just occurred to me. If I'm a commercial tree trimmer, and I cut trees down for hire, can I dump my tree branches and trunks out there for free? No. This is only private residents. Yes. Then it can cost the same thing, that's a great convenience. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 53 Kubby: Well, you have some kind of staff thing, you have to bum it over, and I just want to know, you said a thousand, that's okay .... Atkins: [Several talking] Atkins: Lehman: [?]: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Can't imagine it would be much more than that. I'm just guessing, but I can't imagine--I mean a thousand, twelve hundred, I mean a very small number. The only cost is turning [in] the stuff which you're going to have to turn in anyway. Yeah, there is no cost. There is a cost. There's a lost revenue, but no cost. Wait a minute, there's got to be some loss here. This can't be done with mirrors. There are too many things done with mirrors out there, fight? Lost revenue, not increased cost. [Kubby, others talking] Norton: What's the lost revenue? Lehman: They're not paying to dump it anymore. Atkins: We are going to staff the man or the woman that turns the compost pile every day. That person is going to be there. From now on that person is going to be there, but there may be more or less yard waste coming in under this policy. It's still the cost, we still got to staff for 'em whether it's .... Norton: Well, I don't understand what we're trying to accomplish here .... [Several talking] Atkins: What we're trying to accomplish is that we do not allow leafbuming. We do not have a spring pick-up. This gives people another altemative. For example, my next-door neighbor... has a truck, and he cuts his grass and trims his trees and throws it in the back of the truck. And will take it out to the landfill. But he doesn't want to pay a dollar a bag at the curb. Now, we'll still continue to pick it up for you .... Norton: But if he takes it to the landfill, he's not charged $24, is he? Several: No. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 54 Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Champion: Atkins: Champion: No, it's a very minimal amount for a pick-up truck. But now it'll be zero. Yeah. Now it'll be zero. And what happens, too, is it keeps your neighbor from dumping it between the yards. My neighbor would never do that. [Laughter] Well, I'm not saying .... [Several talking] Champion: Plastic bags, they dump it in the back of their yard or behind the garage or somewhere. And then that produces... disease--this is a health measure. [Several talking] Norton: Atkins: Norton: [Several] Atkins: Norton: [Several] Kubby: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: I'm still not clear, Steve, about one issue: when you say a "commercial" hauler, I've got a guy that comes and cleans up my yard, let's say, and he puts it in his truck. Now, is he a commercial hauler or .... Yes. He has to pay .... Well, he'll throw it in the ditch then somewhere, won't he? He's been doing it already. You paid him to do that work for you. We charge him at the landfill. But I don't think he incorporated the $24--I got to figure that out, because .... I bet he did. Well, that's a private thing .... Well, no, I mean the point is you're not gonna divert stuff from the ditches if you can't make it attractive... that's all. Well, attractive--the dump is zero; that would be .... Not for a commercial dumping. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 55 Thornberry: Well, a commercial guy better not be doing that anyway. Ifhe's doing it, if he would do it then, after this ordinance, he'll do it now. RIVERSIDE FESTIVALSTAGE Lehman: Okay, we're done dumping. Riverside Festival Stage. Kubby: We don't want to dump that. Atkins: That's Terry. Lehman: I'm sorry. What? Kubby: We're not going to dump that. Lehman:: We're not going to dump it. We are going to dump it. We.just dumped it. Terry. Atkins: Before you start--ifI cut the cake, will people eat it? [Several]: Yes! Trueblood: Do I wait for the cake, or do I go .... Lehman: No, no. Go ahead. Trueblood: Okay, I don't get any cake? [?]: I think we have to vote on that. [Several talking.] Norton: Let them eat cake! Trueblood: Well, it's certainly a pleasure to be here tonight. [Laughter] Lehman: You just discredited anything else you might have said. Norton: You're supposed to start off, "Friends, Romans and countrymen," come on .... Trueblood: Well, you didn't let me finish. I was going to say "right between yard waste and flat rents" [laughter]. I do have some good news and bad news tonight regarding the Riverside Festival Stage, and the good news is the design work is coming along quite nicely. And the bad news is, we don't have enough money. Before I go any further, I'd like to introduce some of the Riverside folks here tonight: Ron Clark, and Amy Estes, and Jody Hovland and our attorney, Craig Willis. Figured we might need an attorney tonight, so we brought Craig along. We also, we have some drawings that we brought along, which really isn't intended to be a show-and-tell, but we brought them This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 56 along for reference, if you have questions regarding that. I'd like to start just by giving a very brief history, kind of a refresher of where this started and where it's come since then. In June 1998, a little over a year ago, is when I received a letter from Ron Clark kind of outlining this proposal for partnership between the City and Riverside Theatre for this community resource. From there we took it and talked it over at the staff level, first my own staff and then later Steve, and had concurrence that it sounded like a neat idea, unique idea, good concept and wanted to proceed with it. Took it to the Parks and Recreation Commission after that. The Commission endorsed the project. And then eventually brought it to City Council. And that led to discussion through the CIP budget process, and eventually budgeted $120,000 for the project. Now, I'd like to tell you there's a typo there, and we needed one more zero, but I won't tell you that. This amount, this $120,000 was based on some very preliminary cost estimates. And I wanted to emphasize that we did not hire a professional design or engineering person to put the cost estimates together. With hindsight, probably should have, but we didn't. And one thing, too, I'd like to add before I go on is that I had neglected at that time any fees for architectural or engineering services. Frankly, at the time I didn't think it was going to be, you know, I mean enough of a project to really warrant a large amount in there for that, but as it turns out it's kind of a complicated project, and bigger than what I had originally underestimated. Which brings us to where we are right now is that the total project amount now, including architectural/engineering fees, is upwards of around $300,000. I want to emphasize that this is the same project that Riverside Theatre started out with. They have not been--and we have not been--expanding it, adding new things to it that weren't originally there, that sort of thing. It is still the same project. It's just that original cost estimates that we based our budget figure on--we were off big time. We do want you to know also that we have been meeting quite regularly, been trying to look at every angle, and working at budget reductions so that we could bring the costs down for the project. And we have, in fact, already made a number of reductions including, for example, no plumbing in the buildings. Stubbed in, but no plumbing from that point on. We've gone to wood-frame buildings, as opposed to what we were originally looking at, [which] was concrete block or masonry; we've gone to wood floors as opposed to concrete floors; we've reduced the size of the dressing rooms; and we eliminated a stucco application from the exterior of the buildings. All this to the tune of approximately $75,000 in reductions. Without further ado, I guess, I would just go on to say, as we see it, we all have basically the following options, or I should say you have the following options. One would be to appropriate another $180,000 to the existing budget, and we would go away very happy, and I'm sure you'd feel better about yourselves in the long run. [Laughter] [?]: Absolutely. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 57 [?]: Option two? Trueblood: Oh, you want me to go on? Okay. Option two would be to allow us to borrow the money--the extra money, if you will-on a payback basis, as you we have done on occasion with other City projects. And in order to pay that back, we would seek grants, donations, donated services, etc. And in fact we have identified three potential grant sources that fit in nicely with this sort of project. What this would do would allow the entire project to proceed on time, with you fronting the money, so to speak. A third option would be what you might call a phased approach. That would mean to build part of it now, with the remainder to be done over the next year or possibly two years. With this approach, the City could either provide the additional funds over the next one or two fiscal years or loan the extra funds as outlined in the previous option. The difference would be that the entire project would not proceed at this time. The grants would still be sought, and there's possible donation of labor from Riverside Theatre to assist with construction of the dressing rooms. A fourth option would be to provide funding for a reduced project or the "core project," as we call it. This would be--this "core project," as we see it--would still be $160,000, plus the design fees. And what that would buy us would be the site preparation, the stage and storage area, which are intertwined, and the concessions and control booth, which is also intertwined. Essentially, what it wouldn't buy you would be the, at this time, would be the dressing rooms, which dressing rooms are fight here and right there. And it wouldn't buy you the poles and the lighting gallery that connect all those poles. And, although I hesitate to mention it, my friends at Riverside didn't want me to mention it, and I didn't really want to mention it, either, but I might as well, since you know this option is there anyway. And we don't consider it to be a good option at all, and we hope you agree with this, and that would be not to do the project. So, as we see it, those are the five options at this time. And so, I would like to at this time, if Ron or Amy, Jody, Craig--if any of you have some corrections to what I have said or additions to what I have said, either one, and then we can certainly entertain any questions you might have. [?] Do you have those options written down? Trueblood: I do. [?]: Could we have a copy of the options? Trueblood: I can get you one. Clark: No corrections per se Terry at all. I think Terry's laid out the situation very clearly here. What I want to focus on is to go back to what we had originally envisioned here This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 58 Kubby: Clark: Kubby: Clark: Norton: Kubby: Clark: Norton: Clark: as a partnership between the City and Riverside Theatre as the group that provided the initiative and the original concept for this. I think it's crucial that we recognize that this is going to be a wonderful facility for the community--not just for Riverside Theatre--but for the entire community. It's going to be able to host a lot of different events, festivals, concerts, the occasional wedding, perhaps? And it's going to--I believe--offer a great deal of satisfaction to the people of our community and, moreover, attract people to the community. The economic impact that this represents is tremendous. We're still asking for what, granted, is a much higher level of investment from the City. But in terms of the economic impact, what it can do for the community, what it can bring to the community with visitors, with community pride, is extraordinary. The problem that I foresee here is that we could lose sight of that and start looking for ways to cut that could go so deeply that we're going to end up with something that nobody really wants. And that's what we need to avoid here. Could you talk a little bit about what private investment is involved here? Riverside Theatre has set as a goal and will certainly achieve a goal of $225,000 in fundraising over the next three years. I'm pleased to tell you we've already reached 64% of that. The community response to this has been incredible. We have never launched a project that has gamered so much excitement and enthusiasm in the community. Starting off with an incredible gift from Craig and Nancy Willis of $100,000 to lead the campaign, we now have another contributor who has made a promise of $15,000 over the next three years, we have contributions of $7,500 over the next three years coming in. Right down the line, contributors at the $1,500 level. People are--not to be flip or facetious, but people are literally lining up to be a part of this. They're excited by the idea and want to see it happen. So is that money for the operations? That is money for Riverside Theatre's operation. We're looking at an initial outlay this first year of probably about $100,000 to launch this, to launch this Shakespeare Festival. Do you mean--is that in the form of, what, costumes and things of that sort? Promotions. Promotions, staffing, initial equipment purchases, we're looking at a lighting system that would--and this is a bare-bones lighting system that we're looking to purchase in the neighborhood of $40,000 in lighting equipment. When you say operating expenses, then some of those are capital expenses, aren't they? Some of those are capital expenses, that's true. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 59 Norton: Even costumes are capital in a way, aren't they? Clark: Well, they're inventory that we develop, and hopefully can be reused. We'll probably be doing some costume rentals from other theaters as well. Norton: This money that you mentioned is entirely over and above or distinct from the $300,000? Clark: Yes. Norton: And may I clarify? Is the $300,000 thing without plumbing--without bathroom facilities? Clark: That is. Well, we would be looking, and even if we had plumbed the buildings, Dee, we would still be looking at renting portasans to cover the festival. There is an existing bathroom about 60 yards off, but to build a facility just to house toilets would be another huge expense. Lehman: Is that $300,000 the wooden floors and whatever, too? Clark: Yes. Lehman: And a wood-frame building? Clark: Yes. Lehman: How much would this thing have cost if we had done it the way we thought we wanted to do it? Clark: In the neighborhood of $375,000, $380,000. Lehman: We didn't even come close, did we? Clark We didn't. And I tell you, I don't want to tell you to take all the heat on that. We've run into problems with the flood plain, in terms of what you need to do to put up a utility pole on a flood plain is rather remarkable, compared to if you want to put it out on Highway 6, high and dry. Lehman: We've got a problem putting a utility pole in a flood plain? [Several talking] Clark: You have to put in deep footings. Lehman: How would this work if we were somehow to come up with a partnership where we loaned money--how do we get paid back? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 60 Trueblood: You want to tell them Steve? Atkins: Well, we'd start with the Council, taking donations. [Laughter] Lehman: All right, now you got 5 bucks. [Laughter] Atkins: That failing .... Typically, the way that is done is it's simply like you borrowing from yourself, from your savings account. Saying, okay, I'm going to borrow from this, and I'm going to pay myself back with interest over a period of X number of years. So, what we would be doing is borrowing, I assume, from the contingency fund, or .... Kubby: Landfill fees. [Laughter] Atkins: Okay. I shouldn't mention the City Manager's salary here or anything like that. No, okay. So that's, and then that would become a line item, presumably in the Parks and Recreation budget over the next five years or whatever of X amount of dollars per year until that's paid back into the contingency fund. But I want to emphasize one of the things that I had said in that. Borrowing would simply allow us to get this project started--hopefully in its entirety--and completed on time. And then, and we would be seeking grants and other donations, so maybe that wouldn't have to become a line item in the Parks and Recreation budget--that we could finance that extra amount through these grants. Kubby: So if Riverside generated more that your goal of $225,000 for three years, I mean one of the things you could talk about is instead of expanding your operating budget, that a certain percentage of anything above what you raise for your operating goes to .... Clark: I'm going to bring up our Managing Director. They discourage me talking about money too much. [Laughter]. By the way, this is our new managing director .... Estes: Hi. Clark This is Amy Estes, who just joined the staff after a fellowship at the Guthrie. Amy joined our staff May 1st. Estes: Nice to meet you all. Karen, basically what we would be looking at doing, since this will be a facility that is owned and operated by the City, and basically in use by Riverside Theatre for perhaps a month out of every year, would be that the Riverside Theatre staff would be working in conjunction with Terry to raise funds through the Parks and Rec Foundation. And what we have done in our conversations thus far is we've identified three grants that could provide some substantial sums. And they are grants that really would not be appropriate for Riverside Theatre to apply for as part of our own fundraising; however, they seem almost tailor-made for the City to apply for, for the infrastructure for this project. One of them is the new Community This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 61 Development and Tourism Attraction grant through the Department of Economic Development, and we've just received the guidelines and application for that today. Also, as I understand from Terry, there's a Recreation Infrastructure Grant that might be a possibility, and then Jody and Ron have also noted that we might be able to get a grant through the Department of Cultural Affairs, the Community Cultural grant--is that correct, Jody? Hovland: Right. Estes: So, that's three I think very good sources that we could look to for grants that would be more appropriate for the City's purposes than for ours in fundraising. Norton: I think those partnership things that we could do that. I would think you would have to shoot for something like your original plan. I kind of agree that if you get this thing scaled back too far, you're not anywhere. Your saving of $75,000---was that things that could be put back? If you go to wood instead of... now that's fundmental, isn't it? Trueblood No, no. Norton: That is one you'd go back on--the stucco coating or whatever you could or couldn't? [Several talking] Trueblood: The stucco application could be put over wood any time. Actually, the masonry could be done some ways down the road, but it's nothing that you'd want to look for in the short term. Norton: Wouldn't you prefer, though, to try to proceed, if you were proceeding on a loan basis or even to some extent phased, wouldn't you still try to shoot for that higher goal? The original goal? Rather than scale back one? Trueblood: Well, I think at this point we're pretty much committed to going with the scaled-back one, because, you know, I mean, we think it can be done without a great deal of sacrifice. We think we can still make it look nice, we think we can still make it look like the Globe--is that what we're trying to do?--the Globe. I've got culture now, Steve; I'm dangerous. [Laughter] Norton: That's right. We can't keep him down on the farm now. Atkins: I said Chucky Cheese, and you .... [Laughter] Trueblood: There's that, too. Thornberry: You are talking no plumbing here, so there is quite a bit of sacrifice. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 62 Trueblood: Thomberry: Champion: [71: [?]: Yeah. Wood frames, wood floors, talking more maintenance, and building it piecemeal seems to me, I don't see that as an option, because when you get the third phase done, the first one needs rejuvenated. I'd like to see it done and done right. I think wood is a mistake when it's outside, and .... No cover in the winter. Iowa winters .... [Several talking] Thornberry: How long is that flooring going to last out in the weather?... Trueblood: No, the flooring, the wood flooring that we're talking about is indoors, inside the dressing rooms and the concess booth. Thornberry: You say inside the restrooms? Estes: Dressing rooms. Thornberry: Oh, the dressing rooms. I thought, jeez, what kind of.... Champion: Stage floor would be? Trueblood: Plank. That's wood. Lehman: Wood. Trueblood: And that pretty much has to be wood. Steve, just as a reminder, one of the strengths we have is that we don't have trouble raising capital monies. Atkins: True. Trueblood: But we do have trouble supporting operating expenses. So keep that in mind. If we borrow from ourselves, and it becomes a line item and carries budget, that just somewhat exacerbates our operational dollars. Kubby: And the other issue for Riverside and the Foundation is if we went to the 375[,000] model, are you willing to help raise an extra amount of money, which is an extra issue and of the partnership, too. Clark: I want to, yeah. We are willing to work with Parks and Rec Foundation, but we want to make that clear that when monies are asked for, that they are asked for from one This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 63 entity or the other, so that it's very clear that this is the City's project, this is Riverside's project, and we come together in the partnership. It's just simpler, you know? It gets muddy. But we're happy to answer--the short answer is "yes." We're glad to go on fundraising calls, we're glad to help work on drafts of fundraising or the grant applications, we've already started going over guidelines together. Vanderhoef: Are there any corporations that might be able to provide in-kind support? Kubby: I assume that you kind of assessed how much energy you can devote to paying back the borrowed amount, and that if we make a decision to go with the original versus the scaled back, that that might mean some additional footwork and energy on your part to attempt to raise that extra amount of borrowed money. Clark: Right. I think I can speak for the Company that if you would have that show of good faith, we would certainly would do everything we could to retire the debt before it becomes that. In other words, move as quickly as we can to find grants and donations to cover us. Norton: On the Scanlon --pardon me, on the Scanlon project, Terry, didn't you work through the foundation there for the fundraising? Trueblood: That's correct. Norton: And here you have people to help you with that process to some extent, right, so it doesn't entirely fall on the Commission. That's quite a .... Thornberry: Of these three identified grants that you haven't pursued yet, what kind of money are you looking for that might be available for this? Trueblood: The Recreation Infrastructure Grants program is probably the most restrictive in a money sense, in that they will give $1 for every $2 that we put in. So let's say if you had a $150,000 project, you'd be eligible for up to $50,000 from that grant program. The one Amy spoke of earlier is 50:50 match up to 150--is that right? or up to 200? Hovland: No, I think up to the total of the project. Trueblood: Up to the total, okay. Fifty percent match. And then the last one I'm not familiar with. Hovland: The Community Cultural Grant. Atkins: The Community Cultural Grant is a grants program that's been in place for a number of years, and it--the grant awards range anywhere from 5,000 to $25,000. It's a jobs bill, basically, but they want to promote, they want jobs that are going to promote tourism as well as the cultural life of the community. So, that's right in the sweet spot of this particular project. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 64 Thornberry: If you get one of these, would that money be eligible to be getting the one for two? Arkins: That's matching state money with state money--they frown on that, Dean. They have very big accountants in Des Moines--great, huge people that come and steal your children if you try to do that. Norton: What I would like to see is a proposal--I kind of favor going for trying to do it tight. I think that's very important for something to last. And if it's to take a larger goal, if you wish, and get it proper. And I'd like to see the layout a little bit of if we went that route and what the loans would be and what the possible income from grants might be, and see a little bit more of a prospectus that might lay out that scenario. O'Donnell: I would agree with you, Dee. And I think a couple things I'd like to hear from you tonight~ne is that do we have kind of a top-end budget on the thing? I've heard 375[,000] is sort of where we're going. Norton: That was where they were. O'Donnell: Yeah. So I know what to work from, that would be one. And secondly, I'm assuming if that budget is acceptable to you, you need to send us back, because we're probably going to have to take that number and carve it up into a number ofpieces--City's share, Theatre share, possible grants, fundraising. You know, I think Terry and his folks are going to have to sit down with their .... Vanderhoef: Might need to see two scenarios. Maybe the top-end one and one lesser than that. Atkins: Well, I think we may be able, I think if you want to do the project as I had envisioned it from what Terry has told me--the 375[,000] appears to be our targeted project expense. Now that we know that, how can we put together a financing package .... Lehman: Well, tomorrow night .... Vanderhoef: What would those numbers look like if we went with the 300,000 and extrapolate? [Several talking] Norton: You can extrapolate backwards .... Atkins: You want to do, Dee, is extrapolate backwards from the thing, but I need to have some idea if is there something where if this budget is 300,000, we go back and work and work and work and we're still 50[,000] short, does that kill it? Lehman: Well, tomorrow night we're going to have the public heating and close it, and it looks like we're going to reset the public heating for July 271h. Is it possible within that two-week time to come up with some scenarios as to how this could be--I'm sure one This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 65 Champion: [.9] Atkins: O'Donnell: Atkins: [?] Arkins: Norton: Atkins: Champion: Atkins: Norton: Lehman: Kubby: Dilkes: of the options would be bonding. Obviously that's not something that comes out of operating expenses where--whether it's going to be from you, Terry, if we're going to fund this thing, it comes out of your budget. What does that mean, that you can't do that you're doing now? If we can get grants and whatever--I think there are a number of options; that probably might determine how we'd look at it. But I sense from listening to the Council that we feel that if we're going to do it, we probably ought to do it right. Yeah. The option of doing it haphazardly is not an option for me. Gotta have those bathrooms. One of the things that I... Shakespeare hauling across the parking lot just doesn't make the grade. I want to make sure we understand the movers and shakers behind getting this project up in front of you were Riverside Theatre. Those folks, they kind of caused it to occur. And we have an agreement in place with respect to the use of that property. And there is clearly a general public-policy use there that, in my judgment, should not be their obligation to cover. Right. That's ours. If you like this idea, this concept of the theater, forgetting Riverside for a minute, we come up with it and they come to us, and I think that's really important. If Riverside Theatre is going to use their 30 days out of a 180-day season, potential .... Well, we better think about it pretty carefully, because it's a community resource we're talking about. Absolutely, Dee. That's my point. And so they should not have to bear the whole cost of that project, if we have a general public policy .... No, I'm asking them just to help raise the money. Oh, yeah. I think they understand that, too. But I agree with you, Steve, that's very important not to forget that. Well, let's leave it at that. We'll open the hearing, close it, reset it for the 27th and .... Think what 375[,000] is .... Well, we have a timing problem here, though. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 66 Lehman: Dilkes: I'm sorry. When we set a public hearing, that means that the plans and specs go on file, so we cannot wait for two weeks--I mean if we're going to hold the public hearing on the 27th, we can't decide what the plans and specs might be on the 26th. [Several talking] Champion: We have the plans and specs, don't we? Lehman: What are you saying, Eleanor? We don't have the plans and specs7 Dilkes: Well, you're going to be making some--you're talking about which version you're going to go with, and we need to know that when we set the public heating. So either we have to delay the public heating .... Atkins: I think it's important you tell it, Eleanor. Plans and specs means they're available for somebody to walk in and look at them. Dilkes: Right, right. We say we're going to hold a public hearing on the 27th, go look in the Clerk's office if you want to see what we're gonna build. Kubby: Right. So if we come back with the ~nancials and look at the 375[,000] one and say this just there's not the operating money in the next two years to add to Terry's budget .... Lehman: But how does that differ from a contract where you have options under the contract? Dilkes: Well, that's different. You can have plans and specs that provide for alternates, and maybe that's one thing to do. Lehman: The plans and specs for the 375[,000] with alternates to bring it down to various levels--heck the public hearing could be on the whole thing. Dilkes: Yes, we could have that as long as that's the understanding. I just .... [?]: As long as the architects can provide the .... Dilkes: As long as the architects can give us those plans and specs that provide the alternates. Norton: Which 27th are you talking about? July? Several: No. Dilkes: But remember .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 67 [Several talking] Champion: Lehman: Kubby: [?l: Kubby: Trueblood: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Why couldn't we--we all support the whole concept. Why can't we have the public hearing with the specs they have, because that doesn't obligate us to support it, does it? We're going to have a public heating tomorrow night and close it. No, but there's a timing issue. I mean, right? At least that's a question. Is there a timing issue that we want to get this done by a certain time. There is, yes. Timing is very critical at this point. That's where the alternate... option may be. Our contractors and architects agree that this is probably a three-month building process. Now, if you take out January, February and possibly March as potential building months, you have a very narrow window of opportunity, so we need to get this rolling. Again, I don't want to pressure you on this, but the calendar is running. When did we originally discuss this and decide it was a project that we were willing to pursue? That was--when? February. January-February? [Several talking] Atkins: It was during your capital improvement discussions, yeah. February, I .... [?]: February of last?... [?] We had the idea last year. Kubby: The alternate seems like the best scenario, because then we can do the whole thing, but we have options to do less than the whole thing if financials come back much different than expected and people just can't support it. That way, we can move forward--have the option of doing the whole thing, but have flexibility to not if something should be strange. Norton: I still don't understand how we can have those within... week. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 68 Lehman: Can we have those in two weeks? [?]: Yes. [Several talking] Dilkes: I'm sorry, can I just--when are we going to have the plans and specs? Atkins: At the latest, the Thursday before the 27~h. [?] With alternates? Atkins: Yes. Yeah, well, we haven't talked to the architect about alternates, but that should not be a big problem. I wouldn't suggest that we go that way. Let's do it. That works in terms of the City Clerk? Which we're going to have to have on that date, though. Lehman: Norton: Kubby: Karr: Yeah. [Several talking] Thomberry: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: We don't want to do it a fourth right or even three-fourths. If we going to do it, have a City project, we want it done right. Where are we going to come up with the money? We're trying to figure .... Well, the decision you've made--the way I read your decision, if you've made a decision--[is] that we're going to have a[n] outdoor theater constructed at City Park and that one of the primary tenants is going to be Riverside Theatre. But there are going to be a number of other tenants, folks using it, and we've got to find some way to carve out not only the operational responsibilities, but also the capital. Well, one question: Have we, literally, talked to other agencies about using it? I don't want to put something down there and have it used one month a year. I am convinced, knowing Terry, he will program the heck out of the thing. That's--I don't even worry about .... [Several talking] [?]: Is there room for skateboarders there? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 69 Champion: Atkins: Thomberry: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Clark: Kubby: Clark: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Lehman: Norton: If you build it, they will come. Terry will put it to good use, I don't doubt that at all. Maybe you ought to contact the school board and see .... These are not people who are going to pay big fees to use the place, either .... And that's part of the public-policy debate that you're going to say is that you're-- we're investing in this thing. My concem is not raising the capital. My concern is the operational. I was just telling... Spring Green charges 30 bucks a ticket. I mean, it would be like a mini-Hancher down there. I assume .... We're not going to charge that. They'll get a pretty skinny crowd at thirty bucks a pop. Right now we're looking at a ticket range from 10 to $15 and looking for our own grant underwriting to do a family night that has a maximum cap for a family on a Tuesday or Wednesday night and try to grow that part of our audience as well. Good. So we're looking at trying to make this as affordable as possible. But we do need a bunch of other users, because there is five... six months of the year is all .... Dee, I had envisioned when you approved this thing that it really could be--Hancher's the wrong choice--but that it ultimately could become something. Terry spends the winter programming and sells season tickets to five or six events or something like that. He can sell to families, not unlike we do some of our other .... So it's our back doorway to a cultural center? Give him something to .... Council meetings. [Laughter] I didn't think of that, except for rates. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 70 Lehman: Clark: Lehman: Norton: [?]: [71: [?] Champion: [All talking] [?]: [All talking] Norton: Thornberry: Lehman: [?] Lehman: [?]: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Well, I think that you guys have a good idea of what we're looking for. All right? Just for clarity--you want a prospectus that lays out our proposal in terms of funding, in terms of... funding sources and what it's going to mean in Terry's budget and Terry's salary. Terry can be a lot of help in doing that, because I think there are sources that he's got up his sleeve. Put something in there to remind us about these other users, or at least typical ones, because that's going to be important when come to talk to the public. Well, this thing has a little bit of flavor of the band shell .... Yeah. That we want other folks to use .... I still have five kids to get married. [Laughter] It'd be a lovely spot, Connie. I'd want to be sure it's 500 feet from something so we can have an adult show. They could use this for band concerts. Yeah, but it's too close to .... Thank you very much. Appreciate your support. All fight, guys, we do not have Council time. We have reached the end of our work session. We have one more item: flat rents. FIat rents. I'm sorry. Okay, before flat rents, someone on Council had asked an Oakland Cemetery question, and Terry is here. Yes, Terry. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 71 O'Donnell: I just mentioned... with this--it's been a long time. Are we going to let in a package where it's delayed for a short period of time? What's that about? Trueblood: Well, the only thing that's delayed is the public-hearing approval of plans and specs. It's not going to delay the bid date or the construction schedule at all .... Because of that one meeting in August, late August--24th, I think it is--our consultant said that if he could have a couple of extra weeks, he'd like to have it to make sure everything's finalized, and he didn't really want to give people five weeks to bid on it, anyway, because he said they all wait until the last two days, so it doesn't delay anything except the approval of plans and specs and the public heating. Norton: So we have two things to defer tomorrow. Lehman: That's correct. Well, and two to .... Trueblood: And they're both money, Dee. Lehman: No, we open the public heating and close the public hearing. Then reset them. FLAT RENTS Lehman: Okay, flat rent. Grosvenor: Outdoor theaters are a whole lot more fun that flat rents. It's not my word, it's HUD's word. Trueblood: I don't know about that. GFOSVeI1OF: It'S HUD's word, okay? I would choose a different word. So, long and short, Quality Housing Work Responsibility Act of 1998--we gotta do this. What they say, we gotta offer public-housing residents an option. They get to pay the normal 30% of their adjusted gross income towards rent or a flat rent. That's what's before you. The flat rent has to be market rent. It has to be what's--you know, for that neighborhood. So what we've done is done a market analysis, taken the average three comparables, and come up with a flat rent for every public housing. And that's it. Thornberry: Question on this flat rent. How often can that be adjusted? Grosvenor: What we've proposed is that on the Section Eight side there's the fair-market rents. A as those are adjusted, that you adjust the flat rents accordingly--whatever percentages, up or down, so it's market based. Thornberry: How often? Grosvenor: Right now, I've seen them do it twice a year, but they normally do it once a year. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 72 Lehman: [99-76, S21 Grosvenor: Norton: Thornberry: Grosvenor: Thornberry: Gro svenor: Thornberry: Grosvenor: Thornberry: GrOSvellOr: Norton: Grosvenor: Nortoil: Thornberry: Grosvenor: Thornberry: Grosvenor: Lehman: All right, once a year. Well, the thought is, you want to keep higher-income people in there as long as possible on an economic base, running your business. Second is, if you want tenant ownership, you want higher-income people in there. This gives them that opportunity that they can have a flat rent coming in. Honestly, it's not going to affect that many people. Is anybody going to explain this tomorrow night so that people will know what we're doing? Boy, I was really opposed to this, but when you say that it's .... It's to raise more money, is what it is. I just don't like the idea of capping rents, a flat-rate rent, I just don't like it, but if it's adjustable .... We don't have a choice, Dean. We do have a choice. No we don't. We do not have a choice. This is a must out of the federal regs. Well, you never say never. I mean, you don't have to do .... It's a must. It's not debatable. That's why it's on the consent calendar. Well, somebody ought to explain stuff.... I 'm trying to do that right now. Tomorrow night is what .... Still, you said it can be adjusted annually, yes? You can adjust it, right. We're proposing that you adjust it as the market goes, which the fair-market rents do that. I was thinking flat rates, New York City, twenty years you got a flat rent, you know? No. It's market based. Would you like to have this is for the consent calendar? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 73 Grosvenor: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Grosvenor: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Grosvenor: Norton: Kubby: Grosvenor: Lehman: Grosvenor: Lehman: Grosvenor: Lehman: Yes. Would you like this explained tomorrow night? Because if we're going to bring it .... I always feel guilty when we're passing things that we can hardly understand, let alone somebody that hasn't been in here. I think that's right, but I also think that it needs to be presented as a HUD requirement. It's not an option. That's fine, but to get into a philosophical argument about this is going to be .... No, we don't want to do that. Well, I'm ofthe--I don't care. That's just a matter of what you feel the public ought to understand what's gong on here maybe. I don't know. I don't want to make Maggie come in just for nothing. Well, I, we can say that it is a requirement of HUD, and we are required to do this .... That's why it's presented as it is, because it's a requirement. You don't even have an option how you come up with the flat rent. You can't decide we're going to charge this astronomical amount or this low amount. It's gotta be market rent. You gotta have the data showing you did your market survey. So that's not even an option. But no, Maggie, what I wanted to know was the rationale behind that. I traderstand that--that is, what does this do for the person who is in that--how is it an incentive to move up or get out? That's all. It says it's the tenant's choice .... It's the tenant's choice. I think most everybody will choose 30%, unless they come in really high income and are interested in buying that home, then they'll choose the flat rent, get in there, save their money, and then be able to buy the home. Is this a pre-runner of the flat tax? Oh, I have--no, no, no. It's an ugly word, too. Thank you, Maggie. So, do you want me to present something tomorrow night? No, you do not need to be there tomorrow night unless we call you immediately before the meeting---on your cell phone--just give me your number. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299 July 12, 1999 Council Work Session Page 74 Grosvenor. [All talking] Lehman: Okay. [Laughter] Steve, kudos to you .... We are adjoumed. We are out of here. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 12, 1999. WS071299