HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-26 TranscriptionJuly 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 1 of 105
July 26, 1999
Council:
Absent:
Staff'.
Visitors:
Tapes:
Council Work Session
Champion, Kubby, Norton, O'Donnell, Thornberry, Vanderhoef
Lehman
Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Goodman-Herbst, Helling, Karr, Trueblood
99-78 all; 99-79 all, 99-80 Side 1
A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office.
Review Zoning Items 99-78 S1
d. Amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow off-street parking on a separate lot in a
different zone under certain conditions.
Thornberry: First item is off-street parking amendment with the Planning and Zoning
Commission. And I understand that the Planning and Zoning Commission said
there's no need to meet with us.
Franklin:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Mm-hm. They declined your invitation for consultation.
Right.
You mean they don't mind if we disagree with them.
That's right.
Okay.
Which looks like we're going to do--you know, rezoning.
[All talking at once]
Thornberry:
Franklin:
Thornberry:
Atkins:
6:30 PM
So, this off-street parking, is that okay?
Well, yeah, unless you want to have some discussion when we get to the item on
the P and Z items.
We can do that.
Karin, in order to stay with the agenda, can we do the item "d" right now?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2 of 105
Thornberry:
Franklin:
Kubby:
Norton:
Kubby:
Champion:
Norton:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Could.
Could. I could since there's a couple people here to deal with that. This is the
amendment to allow off-street parking on a lot that is zoned differently from the
zone of the principal use. You've had your public hearing, and it was continued,
and you have first consideration on your agenda for tomorrow night.
Kind of on a practical level for a couple of things that are half-baked. I have
some concerns about . .. future situations that we can't think of that might fall
under the ordinance that we would not be ....
I don't think we can handle the kind of situations that--you'd have to
conceptualize a situation in which it would be ugly to have this happen for you as
an RM . .. I . .. too, because I certainly don't want to set a weird precedent.
Well, why do we want to allow random use just for parking instead of for
commercial or industrial activity or for residences in town, instead of having
activity happening there that's more liable than parking? Why would we want to
· .. the people from having more parking ....
Well, if you don't have parking, you wouldn't worry about ....
But she said this is the excess parking, beyond required.
This can only be used in excess ....
Right. This is for non-required off-street parking. One of the provisions that the
Board of Adjustment must look at is the need for the additional off-street parking.
So that's a factor that we're including in the code now which has not been
included previously.
Meaning that there are other places on the street or a public ramp near there that
might be a factor that would become? . ..
Or demonstration of need. You know, that it's clearly thought out that there is a
need for this additional parking. So, particularly .... This is all for existing uses,
so it's not as if a business enterprise could go in and develop on a commercial lot
that is on the boundary of a zone and immediately have parking in that other zone
and have more than the required parking. So ....
So the past experience toward it documented ....
That's correct.
The document goes in with . ..
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3 of 105
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Yes, on their own lot.
These two that have been brought to our attention have demonstrated . ..
the need ....
that they needed all the code requirements .... And you've never seen an
example of where you think it might not work? Because I was trying to figure
out ....
Yes. I think maybe if you had--some larger stores might prefer to have much
more parking than is required by our code. And if they were to request that, and
say it were abutting an industrial zone--because when it's commercial-to-
commercial, I don't think it's going to make much difference any way--but say
commercial-to-industrial, and that the parking that they would be taking out of the
industrial piece would be significant, such that it would preclude development of
that property for any significant industrial development. I think we would
hesitate then to say that that was a good idea.
But would the Board of Adjustment look at that issue and say, "this may form an
unviable industrial ....
Yes, potentially, yes.
Well, do we have any of this in the MCI case? I'm curious about how or why or
how frequently we go beyond--people want to go beyond the required parking.
Are our~o we have to review our parking requirements? In other words, it
seems weird that people--for example, in the MCI case, it looks like they're
gonna have--they have more . ..
Yeah.
need than is required, or something like that.
I'm trying to remember now what that building was originally constructed for.
Well, I think it was for telemarketing that it was originally constructed. But I
suppose it would have been calculated on an office usage of one per 200 square
feet. And although I haven't been in there, but I would assume that in
telemarketing you probably squeeze quite a few people in an area where you
would not normally in an office have that many people sitting right next to each
other. And so maybe we should have a parking requirement for telemarketing, if
it's something that's here to stay.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 4 of 105
Norton:
But it does seem to me that needs to be looked at, the required parking for
different uses. Now they're lined up like hatchery trout in there. [Laughter]
Franklin:
That's why we're going to miss you, Dee. [Laughter]. Anything else on that?
Vanderhoef:
So we could ask you to take a look at a couple of these .... For instance .... for
senior housing kinds of things ....
Franklin:
Mm-hm. Because of a kind of an evolution in housing for seniors.
Vanderhoef:
Franklin.
Right, right. Yeah, I mean as we see circumstances like that, we can look at what
our basic parking requirements are, which then would mean when someone was
constructing such an establishment, they'd have to look at it on their lot.
Norton:
And there'd be less pressure for the kind of thing we're facing here.
Vanderhoef:
And what it would give for me, at least, then is that have looked at it and
recognized that there is certain other kinds of needs, so then if we are in the
retrofit and the Board of Adjustment is looking at a new standard and how we got
to those standards ....
Franklin:
Mm-hm, fight, right. And the Board has over the years, when they have run
across a number of cases that have some similarities, it seems like there ought to
be a code change, they have made recommendations to the Commission and the
Council to make those changes. So that is one way we get ordinance amendments
done.
Kubby:
Do you see us getting in any practical trouble... ?
Franklin:
I don't have anything that comes to mind. That's one reason we did it through the
special exception, is cause it has that extra level of scrutiny for compatibility and
design buffering and need and all of that stuff that we need to look at.
Thornberry:
Okay. Planning and Zoning Items.
a. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for August 24 on an ordinance conditionally
changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to
Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8), and approving a preliminary Planned
Development Housing Overlay plan for 24 townhouse-style dwelling units for approximately
7.72 acres located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive.
(REZ99-0007)
Franklin: Okay. The first item is to set a public hearing for August 241h on a rezoning.
This is for Windsor Ridge, part 13 for 24 townhouse-style dwelling units. You'll
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5 of 105
Norton:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Thomberry:
get that in full before your August meeting. This does have some controversy
surrounding it.
The Windsor Ridge. What do we got? Parts 13, 14 and 15 all kind of pending in
different ways?
No, you have 12, which is the four 18-plexes, that's how it was presented to you,
right on Court Street. And you have 13, which is this townhouse development,
which is between the single-family residential and the town square or the square
in commercial area.
Do we have a map that shows the town square and? . ..
Yeah.
Do you have it with you?
I don't have it with me, no. I can bring the whole concept map when we talk
about this on the 24th.
I thought there are three items pending ....
No, we have been working with the developer on part 15, I think he calls it ....
Is that commercial?
No, that's the--it's a higher-density development across Court Street, across from
the four 18's. But that's all been at a staff level.
Didn't we have townhouses and then the four 18' s?
No, that came in--I don't think it ever came in as townhouses. It always came in
as the 18 's, and then that is the one where they have deferred indefinitely. You
had the public hearing the tall ones, that was the tall buildings, and you ....
Seventy-two units or something?
Right, right. You had the public hearing which was closed and then the first
consideration's been deferred indefinitely. And they've been working back and
forth as to exactly what they want to do with that in the context of both what
they've heard from the neighborhood and the market. And then this one is off of
Barrington and Huntington. Huntington is just partially paved now to the very
end of whole end of the subdivision.
This is what they weren't--until that's completed?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 6 of 105
Franklin:
Exactly when they build it, I don't know at this point, Dean. It's been back and
forth. Oh, yes, until Huntington is up to Court and Court is extended, yes, that's
one of the conditions. Right, fight.
[?]
It's hard to keep them straight.
Vanderhoef: But they're also concerned about the truck traffic.
Norton:
Yeah, the construction traffic.
Franklin: Well ....
Thornberry:
They said that that wasn't really a concern, it wasn't going to be that big a deal,
and when they got the roads completed, the trucks and things that were going to
be used for the building were going to have to be used, but the staff didn't see a
problem.
Franklin:
I mean, we don't have any empirical evidence that there's any kind of
construction traffic that you wouldn't expect there for any subdivision. I mean,
when you move into a place and it's developing, there's going to be construction
traffic. It's inevitable. And with Court Street extended, and when Arlington is
extended noah, then they can use Court to come in to do the remainder of the
single-family, as well as anything else there.
Notion:
But you'll tell them to come in from the west. It's not going to connect over to
Taft.
Franklin:
No, Court will not connect to Taft at this point, because Taft is--well, there's a
ridge line where Court intersects with Taft, and when Taft is actually improved
and those two streets are connected, we're going to have to slice off the top of that
hill for sight distance. And so we wouldn't want them to be coming in there or,
you know, anybody really to be using it at this point. So we'll get into that more
on the 23rd.
b. Public hearing on an ordinance vacating an approximate 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)
Franklin: Okay, the next item is an ordinance vacating a portion of Virginia Drive, and in
your packets is the description of that. Basically, this a situation where the
abutting property owner requested vacation of this portion of Virginia Drive years
and years ago, and there were objections to it at the time fi'om an abutting
property owner, but ownership patterns have changed since then, and now much
of the surrounding property is in a reserve that's owned by the Johnson County
Heritage Trust. And so we have recommended approval of this vacation, and the
Planning and Zoning Commission has also.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 7 of 105
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Franklin:
Do you have a map on that? . ..
You know, I don't have that, Dee, I'm sorry. I thought I was given all of the
overheads, but I don't see one for that.
Are we going to need that tomorrow night?
I could bring it tomorrow night if you want to stop up to the office. Do all of you
have questions about this one?
Just trying to . .. where it is?
I don't really have questions. I was just curious how it all fits in there ....
You mean in terms of who owns what around it?
I think Planning and Zoning really looked at this and played with it and voted 7-0
and recommended to .... Kind of their purview .... question finding.
[?] doesn't value that ....
Dee, I'll have John Yapp or Melody give you a call tomorrow, okay? Okay,
sorry.
c. Consider 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: Okay, the next item then is your first consideration on the ordinance amendment
for adult businesses. Any questions on that?
Vandcrhocf: Definition on the massage parlors.
Thornberry: How flexible you are. [Laughter]
Franklin: Well, that's one of the reasons that we made the change, is because "massage
parlor" was referenced in the old code reference to it with little other definition
other than the reference to nude dancers. And so, what is really defining in this
definition of adult businesses is the reference to the obscenity code. And because
we have that linkage, it would not cover clinical massage parlors, and we wanted
to make that distinction, and that distinction is made by the reference to the
obscenity code.
Champion: And under the reference to clothes on?
[Several talking at once]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 8 of 105
Franklin:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Franklin:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
That's out of it, I mean basically ....
There's a massage parlor on Summit Street that is really pretty good, and ....
Where? Where?
The Champions house, wasn't it?
[ ] therapeutic massage.
It is.
[Several talking at once]
Kubby: Most therapeutic massage folk do not call theirselves massage parlors.
Thornberry: That's true.
Franklin: Yeah. For exactly that reason.
Vanderhoef: Massage something or another, but ....
Norton: Well, I have a concern with this. For example, you notice that as usual all the
areas where this can happen is in the good old south side, but I'm worded about
the airport . .. noah commercial area, you see, which is in red.
Franklin: That would be a potential site, yes.
Norton: Well, what would that do to the science museum, suppose it were there or
something like that? Is that a place where children congregate?
Franklin: Well, that's interesting. As the plat is now, or as the Airport Commission has
approached this, there is space that is reserved for the Science Center.
Right in the middle of this red area, as far as I can ....
Which would . .. be adult business located within 600 feet ....
Norton:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Norton:
Norton:
Kubby:
Right.
She says it depends on who's first. This is what bothers me.
This is the point I think that Karin ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 9 of 105
Franklin:
Kubby:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Franklin:
Champion:
Norton:
Franklin:
Norton:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
[?]:
Franklin:
Kubby:
of reserving it
Maybe it is there now ....
Ooh, boy, somebody'd better show an interest.
Could a massage parlor, for example, or an adult business reserve a spot
someplace and not go in until they ....
No, that's why I'm not sure that the Science Center reserving the space does
anything.
Doesn't the airport catch overflow?
Well, it seems to me we need to look at that. I tried to think of how to go over
this and think of all the possible future conflicts that ....
Whenever you have a distance requirement, you're going to have that potential
problem.
Well.
When's the last time an adult business started up . .. it's been a long time.
Not since I've been here.
Now, wait a minute ....
Well, no, I take that back. On Kirkwood, the Touch of Mink, no---A Little Bit
Different. And frankly that was under the old code, but I remember when that
came in as a building permit. And I believe that it was reviewed as retail.
Really? [Laughter]
Well, when it came in, it was unclear exactly what--I mean, it was presented to
us as a certain square footage of retail with dressing rooms. Well, the dressing
rooms are something other than--so I understand. [Laughter]
Keep going, Karin.
That's all I know is what I'm told.
Do you know what you looked like for just a second? The Church Lady.
[Laughter]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 10 of 105
Thomberry:
O'Donnell:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Norton:
I believe the phrase, Karin, is "so they tell me."
My whole problem with this is having a cluster of these is what we said initially,
but we've got them all on the south side. I like the concept of keeping some
separation between the two. But I really don't see how it's possible.
First, we have not had a proliferation of adult businesses in Iowa City. I mean,
it's not like they're coming all the time. But who's to say--next week, you know,
we could have ten looking for a location. We've got the separation requirement
of 500 feet. The only thing that you can do to get away from it being
concentrated, as you're seeing it as being concentrated, is to allow it in a number
of other zones.
Yeah.
Allow it in any commercial zone? No, we don't want residential zones.
But what I had envisioned was more industry looking at putting day-care in their
facility to accommodate their employees' children and so forth. And I wondered
if this would be a conflict because of some of the areas on the south side ....
If the day-care is there first, and it is within 500 feet, you couldn't have the adult
business there. Understand, you cannot preclude adult businesses totally from the
community. Then you're going to get into a issue.
But you can confine them where you can just have a separation requirement.
Right. And so this is what we have done is we have separation requirements that
seem to be reasonable. Any time you have separation from any other use, you
always have the potential of that use coming in later and not being able to locate
within that distance requirement. And that's sort of the chance you take.
That's about a block . .. or so? . ..
Yes, a block is about 325.
I found difficult down there by HACAP--Waterfront and looks to me like
that's ....
Well, HACAP is there; you could not have an adult business within 500 feet.
But as I look at the map it's hard to .... I understand your point, Karin, and I
realize there's no out: we've got to do something. I just am trying to think of
cases that might be difficult, and the Science Center struck me as one, HACAP
struck me as another, but maybe it's already creating the separation.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 11 of 105
Franklin:
But HACAP exists does not? Yeah. The Science Center may be a sticky issue. I
don't know.
Kubby:
Won't the Airport Commission have control over who goes into that commercial
area?
Franklin:
Because it's all leased.
Kubby:
We can just remind them about the separation and the importance of making a
deal with the Science Center before they would happen to make a deal with an
adult business. A little note to them would take care of that.
Norton:
We've got another . .. of Science.
Thornberry:
Let me ask this, Karin: What if all of these areas that are in red--which aren't too
many left outside--what if they get built up with things for HACAP, for
children's things, and then there isn't a zone for adult businesses to come in?
Then would it be a legal question as to whether Iowa City wouldn't allow any
adult businesses in?
Dilkes:
We'd have to look at that specifically, but I think that could be problematic. It
would not have been our intent to exclude them. It just would have been
something that happened. So, not necessarily, but I think we'd have to look at it.
Franklin:
If you deliberately designed it in such a way, then I think clearly that--but to say
that you would never have an opportunity at all. I mean, it's a small map, but
there's quite a bit of area there that's CI-1. That you couldn't find one spot in all
of that area to put in ....
Thornberry:
If it's available. I mean, there might be a spot, but it may not be available ....
Franklin:
But that's temporal. I mean, that's at any point in time. So, some other point in
time, there may be a spot available, so it's just a matter of the circumstances of
the market at the moment.
Thornberry:
That'd probably be a legal question at the time.
Norton:
Well, we can't ....
Dilkes:
It sounds to me like the likelihood that I'll be looking at that issue in my lifetime
is probably pretty slim. Given that we don't have a big influx of adult business.
[All talking at once]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 12 of 105
Norton:
There must be many cities that have faced this issue, and I, obviously New York
and places like that have done so, but is this a customary thing, a 500-foot
separation from, the particular ones that you're mentioning, and so forth?
Franklin: Yup.
Norton:
This is lived with in many cases, I think.
Franklin:
Yeah, I mean there's basically two ways to do it. You have that kind of
separation requirement or you put them all in one spot. Okay?
e. Consider 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: Okay, we already covered the off-street parking on a separate lot. Item e is the
rezoning for Kem~edy Plaza for first consideration. You have a letter in your
packet which--I don't know about your copy, but I could only read the
signature--well, what that said was they'd like to have this expedited, for
expedited consideration.
Kubby:
Did they say why?
Karr: I've got it.
Kubby:
This is such an odd thing.
Norton: Yeah, really.
Franklin:
Did you go over and look at the site and ....
Kubby:
It is not as odd as I'd had it in my mind, but . .. I think it looks different if you
come from the top than if you come from the bottom, but it's still a very odd
development.
Franklin:
It is, because it's going to have that kind of a little ravine thing in between up at
the top, and then the railroad tracks and the distance from the tracks. It's not what
it appears to be as you're going down the street in terms of where the property
lines are.
Kubby:
And in terms of the desirability of that area, parking for other than the residential
and commercial folks of that new building.
Franklin:
Say that again?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 13 of 105
Kubby:
I mean, I thought part of the rationale for doing it was that some of the overflow
parking from the current residential--but it's pretty far away from most people's
taste in terms of residential parking.
Franklin:
It may be for employee parking. You know, that would be one way to deal with
that.
Norton:
I thought it was parking for those apartments that are up above the Kennedy
Plaza.
Thornberry:: Yeah, it is.
Franklin:
Mm-hm. That's what she's saying, that it's too far for ....
Norton:
It isn't all that far for them, is it?
Franklin:
Well, not really. But people's tastes that can't walk ....
Norton:
Well, my concern is what the border is between that and the residential area. And
I found it strange on P and Z there were some people, who shall be nameless, said
that this is a big separation or dividing line from residential and others worded
that it wasn't a sufficient separation. What is the actual dividing line--the
railroad? The transition--what is a good transition, just the railroad, from RS-8
to CI-I?
Franklin:
Well, at this point that's debatable. The comp plan shows that this area generally,
basically from the railroad tracks to Gilbert Street and down to wherever the
commercial zoning starts, which is probably Benton Street, would become
commercial. But the east boundary of it is nebulous. Because the railroad tracks
go down the street, and we don't know what the future of the railroad tracks is
going to be. You know, whether you make that boundary on the west side of the
railroad tracks, but you've got your properties on the east side of the street there
facing the railroad tracks, so how viable are those for continuing residential use?
And what it's going to take is for us to--you know, as part of a planning
process--look at that whole area, what is the logical transition line, and what it is
I don't know at this point.
Norton:
That whole section down there has never managed to carry its weight in some
ways over many years. That used to be the adult business region. I guess it still
is.
Franklin:
Well, there's two on Kirkwood, yeah. But there's also a very nice, moderately
priced residential area there that provides very good homes. Yes, yes.
[Several talking at once]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 14 of 105
Franklin:
So it's how you deal with that and not threaten that neighborhood.
Norton: True.
Franklin:
Anything else on that one?
f. 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 one is pass and adopt on the changes for freestanding signs.
g. Consider an ordinance vacating a 10-foot wide right-of-way located along the west line of
property located at 1033 E. Washington Street. (VAC99-0002)
Franklin: Then pass and adopt on the vacation of the fight-of-way off of Washington Street.
h. Consider a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Scott Boulevard East, Part 4, a 7.36
acre, 15-lot residential subdivision located east of Scott Boulevard at Washington Street.
(SUB99-0015)
i. Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Scott Boulevard East, Part 3, a 9.5 acre,
three-lot residential subdivision located east of Scott Boulevard at Washington Street.
(SUB99-0016)
Franklin: Item h and i will be deferred: item h because we won't have the legal papers in
time for tomorrow night' s meeting.
Thornberry:
It'll go to August, what is it, the 241h?
Franklin:
Yeah, August 241h.
Dilkes:
Item i because we don't have the legal papers yet.
Franklin:
Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Item h needs to go to the Parks and Recreation Commission
for consideration of the open space, and we thought we should get that cleaned up
first. And i is for the legal papers, so both of those would be deferred to August
241h.
Norton:
Will they resolve the street width too?
Franklin:
The street width we have resolved for Hummingbird Lane and in terms of
Planning and Public Works. And what we have decided to do is to--we're going
to jointly, the two departments4o a study of speed on 28-foot-wide and 25-foot-
wide streets. We're also going to look at the factors which affect speed other than
width of the street, because you can't make a direct correlation, there's other
factors that come into play. And then look at the design standards in the context
of whether it makes sense to have certain circumstances in which we would look
at a 25-foot-wide street with criteria that are based on the factors that affect
people's speed. And we're going to get this resolved within this year.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 15 of 105
Kubby:
I think it's a great plan .... Instead of saying, "We think this, and you think that,
and you policy-makers decide .... "Information upon which we ....
Franklin:
Yeah, well, the thing is--yes, absolutely. And it still may come down to a
decision for you all to make ifthere's different philosophies about it, but it's got
to be based on something, yes.
Norton:
But it depends on which day you look at, and .... That's the thing at 26 1/2
spicing it up ....
Vanderhoef:
Well, I was disappointed that it was put forth as a project before we had all of this
discussion. We had kept saying we're going to talk it, and then to have this come
forward in a plan already before us and have the customer, meaning our
developer, be sitting in the middle of this controversy after all this ....
Franklin:
Yes. Well, I agree with you, Dee. We had the plat come in with the proposal for
the 25-foot-wide street, and the choice was either require the 28-foot wide or have
the debate now because we hadn't had it yet, but we need to resolve it. And we
need to resolve it on empirical local data.
Vanderhoef:
Well, as long as our standard still sits at 28, to change it without having that
discussion I think is not a good idea.
Franklin:
Well, that can be a position that you take.
Kubby:
Well, that's not an option ....
Vanderhoef:
We recommended approval of the 25, and our standard is 28, so this is what
bothered me, that we hadn't had this discussion at all, and then we make a
recommendation that we go with the 25 without having that conversation is
not ....
Norton:
But haven't we done some 25's before?
Franklin: Yeah.
Vanderhoef:
Not for 30 years we haven't.
Norton:
Village Green to [?].
Franklin:
Those were private streets.
Vanderhoef: Those were all way back in history, and we haven't done any ....
Franklin:
Yeah, I'm not sure, but, yeah ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 16 of 105
Thornberry:
Franklin:
Thornberry:
Franklin:
Norton:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Didn't they say they'd go ahead with the project, not based on the width of the
street but based on the project--the project was okay?
Yes. As far as Hummingbird Lane is concerned, we have resolved that. This is a
road that is not going to get much traffic, and it's going to have very little on-
street parking. And Public Works agrees that as long as those travel lanes are
maintained, that they can agree with the 25 foot for this particular street, but not
as a standard change. But we need to address the standard.
But they didn't want to hold this project up because of this street ....
No, nobody did.
What' s happened to the noah end issue of Hummingbird Lane, where it runs into
Lower Muscatine? I never quite understood the resolution of that issue.
Well, that is in the county. It is an easement that is granted to the properties in the
county that are already developed there. At some point, as that area is annexed or
possibly even before then, there may be a need to look at upgrading that to Lower
West Branch Road. At this point with this plat, what we're talking about is the
pavement of the street for a distance of 800+ feet, and then it will go into this
lane. The people who live on Hummingbird Lane now are accepting of that. I
think that as we look at this, we're going to have to be prepared that at some time
in the future, I don't know exactly when, that we may have requests to upgrade
that stretch between where it ends in the city and where it is on Lower West
Branch Road. And at that point, we'll just have to make that decision whether
you think it's an obligation of the City or not to do that. But it's also conceivable
that we could have development of the property to the noah of there an
annexation, and it would all become very clear.
What about the land that lies on the north side of Lower West Branch Road that is
now presently in the county? That is in our developable goal area.
It's in our growth area, as is the property just north of here, of course, to Lower
West Branch.
So when we say that this will not carry much traffic, I don't know how you can
say that when we don't know what that development is going to look to the north
of there.
Well, you can't go straight noah with Hummingbird Lane, because there's a
ravine that is across from it. So you would not logically continue Hummingbird
Lane like to Rochester Avenue, because of the topography. There' s a ravine that
runs diagonally through that property. Just on the other side of the ravine is the
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 17 of 105
lagoon for the Iowa City Care Center. So it's not like there's a good straight shot
north.
Vanderhoef:
So the closest access you're saying would probably be then to the east of Iowa
City Care Center.
Franklin:
Yeah, likely. Mm-hm, mm-hm. And then Scott Boulevard to the west. Okay?
j. Consider a resolution approving a final plat of ABCO First Addition, a Resubdivision of
Portions of W.B. Development, an 8.81 acre, 5-lot commercial subdivision located on the east
side of Naples Avenue at Sierra Court. (REZ99-0017)
Franklin: The next item is item j, considering a final plat for ABCO First Addition. This is
the commercial subdivision offof Naples, and this is ready to go except for the
possibility of the legal papers' not getting in tomorrow, but I think that they will,
because the attorney really wants this to get going. Any questions on this one?
k. Consider a resolution approving a preliminary plat of Galway Hills, Part Six, a 4.82 acre,
13-lot residential subdivision located at Melrose Avenue West and the south side of Kearney
Lane. (REZ99-0018)
Franklin: Item k is a preliminary plat for Galway Hills, Paa Six, 13-1ot subdivision. This is
kind of a fill-in subdivision between the housing for the elderly that you approved
some time ago on Melrose Avenue and the Galway subdivision that's already
there. Okay, it's a fairly simple one.
[See discussion under item l.l
!. Consider a resolution approving an extraterritorial preliminary plat of Westcott Heights,
Part 2, a 24.99-acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located in Johnson County at the west termini
of Westcott Drive and Rose Bluff Circle. (SUB99-0012)
Franklin: All right, the last one is a preliminary plat for Westcolt Heights, Part 2. This is a
county subdivision. Recommending approval of this by Planning and Zoning
Commission and the staff. This is off of prairie du Chien.
Noaon:
I want back up just for a quick question about item k.
Franklin: All fight.
Norton:
When we were looking at the plat for the senior housing addition there, we were
looking at this, and I forgot to look when I had all the details in front of me. Are
we okay on the road, so that we're not going to throw fast traffic onto Shannon?
Franklin:
Yes. This subdivision is quite a bit noah of Shannon.
Norton:
Okay. It's up the hill toward the [?].
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 18 of 105
Franklin
Yes. It's basically right offofMelrose here, and see Dublin, which is the one that
abuts the Melrose project for the elderly, that ends fight here. So the circulation
in the short term is going to be through here, and we'll have to go quite a bit south
before we connect with Shannon.
Norton:
So there'll be another time when we'll look at the south, okay.
Franklin:
Yes. That's when we look at access to West High and all that. Okay? I'm done.
Review Agenda Items 99-78 S1
Thornberry: Agenda items.
1. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes ]July 8, 1999]
Champion: I just want to talk a little bit about Historic Preservation Commission Minutes.
Because I really get contrary when I see that we've hired some folks from outside
of Iowa City instead of hiring a taxpayer that lives here in our community,
especially when they like underbid some out-of-state development company by
25,000 .... But I was looking at the bids for the downtown survey, and they're
really quite varied in the amount, but again, a local person who is qualified to do
this did not get the contract. We're talking about a difference of at least $8,000.
And I guess some time or other I'd like an explanation of that. That's a lot of
money, and I don't understand why we keep going outside the community for this
service.
Thornberry:
The Historic Preservation Commission is the one that spent that money, aren't
they?
Champion:
No, we've authorized 20,000.
Vanderhoefi
Authorized that, however we're asking, they're going to come and ask us for
more to hire someone from outside, and they were talking in the minutes also
about the additional cost that it is to bring somebody in from outside for all the
travel and the overnight stay. So then I was thinking, okay, it seems like we
aren't . .. travel in the state ....
Kubby:
Although in that particular case .... I feel comfortable saying this because it's
part of the public record is that in another application that that bidder had made
about Emma Harvat's house, but they failed to mention that she was mayor of
Iowa City. And that's the kind of the glitch . .. that would have me question
some other things about this.
Norton:
I would just have great trouble going--I mean, I thought from reading the minutes
of this, that they agonized over this particular issue enough. They recognized the
difficulty of doing what they were doing--the apparent difficulty--and I thought
they had gone some length to consider that possibility. And I think we ought to
respect their judgment in this matter, unless we want to say, you gotta take low
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 19 of 105
bids--something like that. But I think you have to look at the quality, and I think
that the quality was manifestly there when they showed.
Thornberry:
Well, Dee, the library at one time wanted to fix their roof not that long ago, and
they went out and got a bid and were going to start fixing their roof, and we said,
"Hey, wait a minute, folks. Reconsider this." And we got a lower bid with I
think a better roof than they originally ....
Norton:
Was it a different style? I think we changed it to measure the cover ....
Thornberry:
Well, maybe they hadn't looked at everything. And we said, hey, take another
look at this ....
Norton:
We certainly can. If I thought they had done a superficial job reviewing the
altematives I would support Connie's objection ....
Thornberry:
Well, it might not be a bad idea to just ask that Commission ....
Norton
Come in and talk about it?
Thornberry:
You bet.
Franklin:
Could I provide some input on this?
Thornberry:
Sure.
Franklin:
One of the issues with this particular survey is the ability to work with the people
who own the properties, the citizen participation part of it is extremely important
in this downtown survey. And one of the judgments that the Commission was
making was based upon the qualifications of these various people to carry that off
and do it well. And so that's one of the quality points that they were looking at.
Thornberry:
So the rapport that person might have had with the people involved, is that what
you're saying?
Franklin:
Yeah.
Vanderhoefi
And they acknowledged another bidder for working well with towns all over the
state who are doing downtowns and working with the folks, and then they didn't
like the reporting part of that ....
Franklin:
Yeah, it's just I wanted you to be aware that that was one of the factors that they
were looking at was that citizen participation factor.
Kubby:
So what we need to do is .... Because we're probably going to be doing a lot of
different surveys over the years, is we need to make sure we're developing local
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 20 of 105
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Kubby:
Norton:
Champion:
Kubby:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Atkins:
Champion:
Atkins:
Kubby:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Kubby:
people who are thorough and competent and can do the reporting the way we
want it and do the public interest a little ....
Well, if we never give them a chance to do it, how are we ever going to get them
trained?
This would be an opportunity ....
Maybe they could partner ....
Well, I don't think that there's never been a chance. I think there've been other
opportunities.
The last time I brought this up, the reason I was given that we didn't use the local
person was because they didn't think a local person should be doing the
neighborhood they lived in.
Or that they felt there was a conflict.
So . .. have them come and talk to us briefly about it.
It's a good idea.
Do I understand that you do not want me to sign this contract until they've spoken
with you? I mean, normally what would have happened is the contract would
have gone through Karin's office, she would have run it down to me. It's a
budgeted item.
But it's not what we budgeted.
Well, it depends on how far, though. (Can't hear) would have brought it to you.
If it was a smaller amount, I would have likely signed it and it would have
gone ....
I ....
Me too.
You okay with it?
I'd like to hear from them, really.
Before the contract's signed?
We don't need ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 21 of 105
Atkins:
I just want you to understand that that was where I was going.
Kubby:
The downtown survey's an important thing to get moved on before another
building goes down.
Atkins:
Now, we have a proposal, and we have a cost--I don't recollect what the dollar
figures were--but I'm assuming it's already signed, so it'd come down to me.
Thornberry:
Well, I don't know if it needs four people to approve it or four people to not
approve it.
Kubby:
I guess the normal standard would be that it goes to Steve.
Norton:
Yeah.
Thornberry:
Right.
Atkins:
This is a little unusual because the Commission came directly to you. The
Commission is, in effect, your folks advising you. Again, routinely . .. I would
have signed off on these. I'm assuming it was at or about what the budget was.
There's enough to obviously raise concern.
Thornberry:
There's three people said that they're not interested in doing anything, so it would
only be three people maximum that would, so I think it's, go ahead and sign her.
Atkins:
Okay, we'll just follow our routine procedures then.
2. (Agenda #6: PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATE OF
COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE FESTIVAL STAGE IN CITY PARK,
ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID,
DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING
TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.)
Norton:
Are we looking at other agenda items? I have ...maybe a concern about the
Riverside Festival Stage. And this may raise questions beyond what you want to
digeug~ tonight, beeause I'm certainly interested in proceeding with it. But I
haven't quite understood who actually is going to be responsible for scheduling
that facility over time. I mean, the Riverside people are involved for a month a
year or something like that, but the rest of the time is up to Parks and Rec?
Atkins:
I'll just say, Terry can go to the microphone and answer. The bottom line is, the
public facility responsible to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and I'm sure
we'll ... Terry ....
Norton:
When you talk about equipment: they buy lights. Do they buy general lighting or
just performance lighting?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 22 of 105
Thornberry:
Norton:
Trueblood:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Atkins:
Norton:
Atkins:
Thornberry:
Performance lighting.
Is that there for anybody else to use or for them to take it out? So everybody else
has to be responsible for their own performance lighting. All those details are
under .... And I'm kind of worried/nervous that parking will be difficult. He's
going to have to beg and borrow, park over at Hancher or some place in addition
to in the park, fight? But I ....
I can fight [?] to that. Let me chase the people out of Hancher. How about ....
We'll have to shuttle them in. You know what I said, I don't want to see any
white elephants in the park.
Yeah, what about parking on the grass? ....
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-78 SIDE 2
I just wanted toqI think Ron mentioned when he was here that this is not a
Riverside project per se. This is a City project with their cooperation, and they're
scheduling part of it, but they're not responsible for the whole ball of wax. I hope
that's ....
The way I envisioned this is that this is a City-owned facility. Owned and
operated by the City government. We happen to have a unique arrangement with
Riverside Theatre in that they get some special pfivilege in--the first three years,
Terry?--the first three years where we the City will not put a competing theatrical
company in there for a specific block of time. Once the time has expired . .. the
three years, we can program it as we see fit.
Well, I'm just expressing the concern that this is going to be another demand on
personnel or wisdom or volunteer groups or somebody to see to it that this thing is
efficiently used. I've just been to the one up at Spring Green, and there's a lot of
mechanics to these affairs, you know.
We expect that there's the likelihood of some obviously additional expense,
particularly operating expenses turning the lights on recovery action fight now is
that's not going to be overwhelming, not to the point we would encourage you not
to pursue the project.
Well, the original construction costs were 120,000, and we've said "okay" to this
project, which is now 340,000. We don't have money coming out of our ears here
and even out of all of our pockets. Where is all this money going to come from?
Geo bonds or decrease the budget of Parks and Rec--we can't do that too much.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 23 of 105
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
The short answer is Terry and I met with representatives of Riverside Theatre a
week ago, and we went through trying to develop a financial plan because of the
fact that news had changed . .. the original budget proposal was. We do not have
the details for that, but we have identified a number of state grants for which we
can pursue, but I'd be less than candid--the bottom line is that it could require
substantial City monies to bring the project to completion. We would encourage
you to go ahead and bid it. We still have some time to begin working on it. The
project still appears to me ...with great reason . .. We've talked to the Arts
Council and a bunch of folks who'd like to see it get done. But we do not have
the final financing in place.
Okay, when you say that we would have to finance it, would that be taking away
from future Park and Recreation budget?
Said she.
Anyway, what I was going to say I'll make that a policy decision on your part.
[Laughter]
Thank you very much.
I think certainly you will have to weigh that.
To pay back if we borrow ....
That's where we annually review the capital projects, you know. We've had
some projects coming in under .... Again, we have sufficient debt capacity to
cover these operations without a lot difficulty. How you arrive at how we're
going to finance it, ultimately I don't have the answer, because I don't have
anything to give you right now, other than I can promise you we'll go out for
grants, GEO appears to be a possibility. Can we make some amendments in other
Parks and Recreation projects? Sure. That's one of many options.
Okay. The other thing that I would like clarified--as I understand it, gifting for
this project is going through Parks and Recreation Foundation, and that includes
the gifting to Riverside Theatre. Is that correct?
No.
They are not running theirs through ....
No, not that I know of.
Okay. Then that clarifies what I want. So, the option still is out there for people
to girl to a charitable foundation of the Parks and Recreation . ..
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Thornberry:
Council Work Session
Page 24 of 105
Absolutely.
for the capital project of building this theater.
Yes, certainly.
And it wouldn't be any different than people gi~ing for the Scanlon Gym and
those kinds of things.
That's correct.
So, there are two ways that you can gift for this project.
That' s correct.
And I think we need to let that be known.
We need to give you a better idea of the capital financing .... And I assume you
don't want to hold this up, because as was raised with the last meeting, we won't
get this project finished, even if you were to get it approved, unless you go fight
now.
Well, we can go ahead and consider this resolution . .. and keep working on
where we're going to get his money. I mean, we've said, "Yes, we'd like this
project," but we need an additional 220,000 off it. If it comes down to a trail or
lobby ....
[?] or an airport
Thornberry: or a hanger!
[Several talking/laughing at once.]
Vanderhoef:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thornberry:
[Several talking at once]
Norton: It's a tough decision.
right.
Thank you, thank you.
Which, by the way, is going to be repaid.
I understand. Right! And the historical building?
I bet not. [Laughter]
Starting this fall, I'm coming and going ahead in January,
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 25 of 105
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thomberry:
Vanderhoef:
Thornberry:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
O'Donnell:
Atkins:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Thornberry:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Thornberry:
The terminal building is already an existing building.
It's going to force some more choices. That's the name of the game, there's no
doubt about it.
Yes it is. Yes it will. In the tune 220,000 over what we anticipated it costing.
220?
Yeah, it was originally 120; now it's 340.
Well, I was going to give us all ....
But what did that get the 375 figure?
What was that again? That was floating around at one point ....
That 375 was floating around out there at some point, too.
What 375?
Grants and design money ....
You know, we could do this thing with orange crates and soap boxes.
Yeah, fight.
We don't want to--it seems to make sense to do it fight and get done once and
keep down yearly maintenance ....
Just dig a little deeper.
I believe once this is out, this is a very good project for Iowa City, and I think
we'll get a lot of support, and I'd just like to do the project.
We just don't want to do it at the expense of the Ferds wheel or anything like that,
right?
Okay, any other agenda items?
3. (Agenda #11: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-57
AND APPROVING A CALL TO ARTISTS FOR SCULPTURES IN THE DOWNTOWN
PEDESTRIAN MALL.)
Norton: Well, I suppose somebody's going to explain what happened with the call to
artists for the sculptures downtown. I got lost in the mechanics there as to what
happened.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 26 of 105
Franklin:
Thomberry:
Franklin:
[?]
[?]
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
Vanderhoef:
Franklin:
We put out a call this spring, trying to get sculptures for the two pads in what was
the Blackhawk Mini Park by Artsfest. Well, we were not successful in getting
any submittals that were appropriate, so the group went back and rethought it and
decided to pursue sculptures for all five pads that will be in the pedestrian mall.
And the call was put together--Nancy Purington did a lot of work on putting the
call together--and that' s going to go out, assuming that you approve it tomorrow
night, in mid-August, and then it will be due in December. We're giving a longer
time frame to enable more people to respond. And there' s also, there' s the option
this time of either having an existing piece or commissioning a piece, whereas
before we were looking for existing sculpture. And one thing that we learned
from all of this is that sculptors typically do not have an inventory of sculpture,
because it's too expensive, and, you know, duh, it makes sense. So we're trying
again.
Some of these prices were kind of exciting. If it was a long-distance call, why
didn't you reverse the charges or something?
Cute! It's a range in order for us to have quite a bit of latitude in what we get, but
it all comes down to, and I have to applaud the Committee in their decision with
what they received before, because they looked at it very carefully and were very
deliberative about going through this and looking at what was submitted to them
and making the choice to say, "No. These are not the things that we want for
Iowa City."
Good.
I like that.
I appreciate that, I think that was ....
Rather than just buying something.
Feel real good about that Committee.
Good!
Thornberry:
Dee, I've been bent around your idea about the sculpture for the Water Plant with
the big spigot, to be able to be seen from the .... That's an interesting--will that
be paid for then by the Art Committee or by rate payers, or that' s why I was
jumping ....
[Several talking at once]
Kubby:
Yeah, we're making a transition.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 27 of 105
Thomberry: Transition. Art to art.
4. (Agenda #18: 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 SHIVE-HATTERY
& ASSOCIATES, TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE
DESIGN OF THE U.S. HIGHWAY 6 CORRIDOR SIDEWALK/DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.)
Dilkes: I've got one agenda item I just want to comment on. On number 18, the Highway
6 project. Just to alert you to something. I think in one of my recent memos I
told you that the new condemnation law requires that we give this notice of intent
to proceed with a project, the intent being prior to substantial investment of public
funds in the project. So, likely what we will do with this project and some of the
others that we've already got the design going with is to--after the preliminary
design phase, when we have identified the property owners involved--we will
give that notice, and we'll have to stop with the design at that point, go through
that process, and then, if you authorize it, after that we'll proceed with the design.
Thornberry:
We'll find out if there is any condemnation proceedings that would need to go on
that were not friendly?
Dilkes:
In the preliminary design phase, we will identify what property owners we may
need property from.
Thomberry: Okay.
Dilkes:
They will get this notice, and they will have an opportunity to give their input on
the project to you before you proceed further.
Thornberry:
So you want us to defer this?
Dilkes:
No, I'm just alerting you to the fact that there will be sort of two separate stages.
We'll do the preliminary design, then we'll stop, do that notice, then we'll
proceed with the project or with the design.
Thornberry:
192,5 [00] to design?
Atkins:
It's a $45 million project .... This is big doings. This is a major commitment to
press ahead with this thing.
Thornberry:
Any other agenda items? Dee? . ..
Public Art Funding of Water Plant Art 99-78 S2
Thornberry: All right, let's move on to well, that art, Dee, that, for the water plant. That's an
agenda item. As an art project or as a water-plant project? Or?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 28 of 105
Norton:
Atkins:
I don't know. I don't know how to think about that, except that I'm trying . ..
Norton
Thornberry:
Atkins:
Thomberry:
Several:
Atkins:
Kubby:
Norton:
Atkins:
get something significant in this operation.
I don't think the rate payers should be paying for art necessarily.
Before you get to opinions, we--the collective we amongst the staff--had
understood that designing the water plant, you wanted it to be an attractive
building. I think we have that.
Building.
Building.
And in designing that building, we had understood--the collective we, your
staff--that some sort of fountain or art feature, public art, whatever you want to
call it, was to incorporated into the design. Something to call attention to the
plant and building. We had assumed that that feature, being part of the building,
was to be financed by the same revenues that financed the building--that is, water
revenue. Some time ago, a couple of you approached me about that particular
feature, that fountain/public-art feature. That you were of the opinion that should
not be water-revenue financed, but financed from some other City source, making
the assumption of general obligation. I'm assuming this thing would be
reasonably expensive. Project planning was somewhat shifted over to---Karin,
correct me--to the Public Art Advisory Committee, which was created to advise
on these kinds of issues. It's my opinion that the financing of this particular
fountain/art feature is not particularly critical to the Advisory Committee unless
you choose to reduce the amount of monies that we have annually set aside for
public art. That this project was in addition to. That's sort of where it is. We
need to know ....
You mean with additional funds.
This would be over and above, yeah. This would not be high on their hierarchy, if
they were looking at it ....
Well, they have enough on their plate fight now, and that's how I understood this
issue to date. So I think the question is, are we going to have a fountain and a
public-art feature there, yes or no, and how do you intend to pay for it one way or
another, and do you wish to continue having the advisory committee pursue the
thing. I think that's the issue.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 29 of 105
Champion:
Well, I think that we ought to have a fountain, but I don't think I'm willing to pay
for it with water rates. I mean, that's pretty hard to tell somebody whose water
bill is $200 a month and has four kids that now we're going to buy art with it.
Vanderhoef:
My original understanding, and I was one of them that went to Steve, and I said
I'm reading in the Art Committee's minutes that they're talking about two pots of
money here, and I said that was never my intention. And that was why I had
suggested way back when that if the downtown fountain could be revamped, that
it might be an appropriate piece to put in a small park area out at the water plant.
But I had never, ever intended to have any money go towards art via the citizens
paying for it with their water bills.
Atkins:
Moving the gutlines of the former downtown fountain out to that project is
certainly a possibility. But you still incur the capital cost of building it. You
know, folks, you could . ..
Kubby:
Well, we've already made a decision about that fountain.
Norton:
I was looking for some way to incorporate something both artistic and functional.
I know that may be impossible, but, you know, I took the case of a bridge, and
you make a nice railing and a place for people to sit looking at the railing, and
that's not being taken out of public art, but it is just more of a design and good
engineering. Now, I'm sure it costs something--nothing's flee in this world--but
I, you know, given aeration and all the process, and I thought you know some
kind of a way of kind of advertising what that place is about, and also, you know,
it's quite a major reference to the City. It would be kind of nice to have
something there other than just a sprinkler or something, but I don't know how it,
either, unless we got a couple of angels--but that's also a possibility. So, on the
other hand, if it were partly functional . ..
Thornberry:
It's going to be.
Norton:
then I would be I could be justified in using some of the revenues if it were part of
the recirculation system. After all, aeration is a big ....
Kubby:
Not enough . .. would move there in a day unlesg it were a hell of a feature.
[Several talking at once]
Vanderhoef:
Well, I think we should have something awesome out there, but my intention
always was that the 100,000 that we were putting into the art fund was going to
go towards this project, and that it might well take more than one year's allocation
to accumulate, so . ..
Norton:
They might have to accumulate, I don't know. Then it would be up to them to
decide what their priorities are, yeah.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 30 of 105
Vanderhoef:
Kubby:
Several:
Vanderhoef:
Kubby:
Norton:
Atkins:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Atkins:
Thornberry:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Champion:
Atkins:
We always gave them that opportunity to accumulate for our art projects.
What did we end up at the bottom line on the language? Did we end up with
"minimum" of 100,000.
Yes.
Yes. That was on a fourth read.
So, I'd be interested for this investment to go above and beyond that amount.
And to not have it be from water rates. I'm okay with doing that, not have it be
with water rates. But ....
You might be an exception, you mean.
Can I ask a couple of questions? First of all, is there an agreement that a
fountain/public-art feature will be incorporated into the budget? That's a "yes" or
"no ."
Yes.
No. [Several talking at once]
It depends on how you ask the question. If it itsmyou know, what we said was
yes, we want a nice looking--not a Taj Mahal, it's a water plant. It's a functional
water-plant facility that can look nice exterior but still be functional on the inside.
It doesn't necessarily have to have a large artwork outside. That is not an integral
part of the building.
Exterior lighting and landscaping are all planned to make this an attractive
building.
That's right.
But that's another question.
That' s another question. If you'll remember, one of the components of the project
plan is a community room.
Right.
We are deliberately designing this thing to cause people to come out to that plant.
We are doing things that the Art Advisory Committee wishes to do, not unlike
we're doing at the airport terminal. We're trying to create circumstances where
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 31 of 105
people can go out to these facilities, use them for some public purpose or
community purpose.
Thornberry:
However, isn't that room not being paid for by water-rate payers?
Atkins:
No, that's all incorporated into it.
Thornberry:
Into the plan?
Atkins:
Yeah. That's been part of the plan.
Thornberry:
Well, I don't think we need any more for the rate payers to say ....
Kubby:
But that's not . .. let's stick to the bottom-line question, which is do you want
something out there? Not how you're going to pay for it, we haven't gotten to
that ....
Franklin:
I don't know that that's even a question that you all need to decide tonight.
Because if your decision is that this whatever is not going to be paid for with
water revenues, then it is going to be a public-art allocation, whether it's one of
the 100,000 per year or something more--a special allocation. At that point, it
then puts it into the basket of things that the Public Art Advisory Committee deals
with and the priorities that they come and bring to you as suggestions for how to
expend the money at a particular point in time.
Kubby:
Are there some timing issues in terms of while things are torn up to know,
sighting issues, making up the specific what it looks like but doing any electrical
or water lines that go out there?
Franklin:
We talked to Chuck about that. It is possible, because this building is going to
have water services out just for fire protection to have those facilities in place
where you could hook in, in order to do a water feature. For instance, if you
wanted to do it between the plant and Dubuque Street, that there would be
probably some kind of connection for water that's coming out to that east wall.
Kubby:
Right. But what I don't want to have happen is we put a new drive in there, and
put new sod in, and six months later we're digging trenches. Now that's
inefficient and not good face for the City.
Franklin:
Well, then maybe what needs to happen is that, knowing that the funding would
come out of public art money, that the group, who is meeting next week, can talk
about this in terms of priorities. The priorities that have been set as far as they're
concerned for next year is do the five pads on the pedestrian mall and then the
Iowa Avenue streetscape project, whatever component there would be in the Iowa
Avenue project. And that's the priority for fiscal year 2000. So, it may mean that
we just, instead of trying to get something decided by October, which was the
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 32 of 105
Atkins:
Franklin:
Atkins:
Kubby:
Franklin:
Atkins:
Norton:
Atkins:
Thornberry:
deadline that Chuck gave us, we'll have a little bit longer, but we need to work it
through with the construction schedules and so forth for the plan.
I'm not so sure I agree with you on that.
Okay. You're the boss. [Laughter]
The Public Art Advisory Committee can continue to do their work made upon the
assumption that there' s $100,000 a year set aside for the purpose of public art.
And that' s their current job. This art feature can be financed by monies other than
water revenue, separate and independent of those decisions. That's--I need to
hear that from you .....
I mean, we could direct the Public Art Advisory Committee that we want a water
feature there, and even just knowing a location for it by late October, whatever the
day is ....
Well, I guess I'd like some clarification then. Are we talking about this coming
out of the $100,0007 . ..
That's my point, Karin, was that the current job involves $ l O0,O00-a-year budget.
This is another job, another responsibility, that may involve a different source of
monies. If Council rejects water, then they'll send this somewhere else to figure
out how to pay for that . .. and I find them, they're very separate issues ....
You certainly could make the decision that you wish to draw upon that $100,000
a year to pay for this, but that's not what I understood, that it was separate
from ....
I think it would be sweeping the cost at least one year or so to try to do something
out there. We need to what the range would be ....
My concern is that we have a good bit of momentum created for the purposes of
public art. That's moving along, call to artists, etc. We now have somewhat
thrust upon us a decision that we're not going to use water revenue. We've asked
for your advice on this project. We have to find a funding source, and I'll have to,
you know, come back and recommend something to you that I assume it will be
involved in an obligation debt. But it's two separate issues, two separate sources
of financing. A second job for you.
And remembering that, how many GEO. bonds are we going to buy here with,
you know, with the art thing here and the Shakespeare theater in the park, and
this? . ..
[Several talking at once]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 33 of 105
Atkins: I certainly understand that. But Karin, the Committee needs to understand what
their responsibilities are.
Champion: But we were just talking about, what year would this be? This art project is not
going to be this year?
Several: No.
Franklin: No, but the bids are to be let on the plant in October or November.
Atkins: We will bid the jobs in--at the first of the year. Construction begins in the
spring ....
Champion: And then if we look again at our--what's that awful book we look at?--with all
the ....
Atkins: The awful book will come later on, Connie.
Vanderhoef: And the awful book might say that for the next two years, the $100,000 is going
to be . .. for water plant.
Norton: We're talking about sweetening the pot, is that ....
Atkins: That's exactly what I've heard today.
Vanderhoef: Well, you may or you may not ....
Norton: We're trying to, anyhow, we're trying to encourage you to sweeten the pot ....
Just open your pockets a little bit more.
Vanderhoef: We're trying to . .. when you look at the revenue ....
Thornberry: Talk to the taxpayer.
Norton: All right.
Thornberry: Okay, that's part of the ....
Atkins: The Public Art Advisory Committee has two jobs. Their current responsibility is
to begin the preparation of an art fountain--whatever--feature for the water plant,
to be funded by something other than water revenues. That's what I heard you
tell us.
Thornberry: I think I hear the desire to have a public . ..
Atkins: Is that a yes?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 34 of 105
Thornberry:
art thing at the water plant . ..
Atkins:
The public art thing is okay ....
Thornberry
whatever it may be.
Atkins:
Do the public art thing at the water plant.
Willow Creek Trail 99-78 S2
Thornberry: Okay. Willow Creek Trail.
Atkins:
Terry' s here to take you through quickly on the bids. We just put this on
tomorrow night because you have a reconsideration. You don't have to make a
decision on the trail. Remember, we did split it out. If you move to reconsider
and it passes, then you have the ability to award the alternate. If it does not pass,
it stays the way it is, and you can't award the alternate. Okay?
Trueblood:
Okay.
Atkins:
Thank you.
Trueblood:
Can I sit down now?
Atkins:
No, you can't sit down.
Trueblood:
Just to give you a quick refresher, this was the entire project as bid originally with
the orange line over here on Mormon Trek coming down a sidewalk across
Benton and cutting through Willow Creek Park, all the way to Willow Creek
Drive. Eight foot wide on the sidewalks, 10-foot trail through the park. Then this
blue line represents what we call the Bm-ry-Teg connection. Teg Drive over here,
Burry over here, which, the way it was originally bid, was spec'd to go eight feed
wide all the way up to this point where it goes between two houses and then it
narrows down to six feet wide. The green line represents the existing trail, which
ranges from 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet in width, and those places where it follows the
existing trail would be torn out and widened. The green that you can see, other
than on this side of the creek, would just be left there to utilize if they wish.
The yellow line was one of two alternates that were bid. This is one that never
did generate a lot of discussion, and that was simply if it was affordable to widen
the sidewalk on Benton Street all the way to Teg, instead of just cutting off right
here where it goes to the trail. Okay, so that was alternate one in the bids.
Alternate two, what you had decided before was to go ahead and bid the project in
its entirety, except for this portion going from the pedestrian footbridge over the
creek over to Burry. And at the time, after you decided to take that out, we made
a decision, let's go ahead and bid it as an alternate. The plans and specs were all
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 35 of 105
developed. It was as simple as just putting out an addendum saying, you know,
what would this cost us to do it? At the very least we would have a cost on it and
also, you know, for what eventually did happen, if there was some
reconsideration, then we'd be able to go either way with it.
So, tomorrow night, you really have two issues. One is your reconsideration and
the other one is the approval of the contract. What our resolution, and, by the
way, you know because the agenda had to be put out early this past week, it had
to come out after the fact. I mean, it was on the agenda, but the memorandum that
you got showing the compilation of the bids. And what we're recommending is
the acceptance of the low bidder, Peterson Contractors, with the base bid and
alternates one and two, which came in at a little under the engineer's estimate and
under budget. But if you decide with your reconsideration that you decide not to
reconsider, then we would recommend the base bid and alternate one, in which
case the resolution would have to be amended, I believe--is that correct?
O'Donnell
Was your alternate, Terry, an eight-foot trail--ten-foot trail going through the
park and eight foot going up to Burry.
Trueblood:
Well, yeah, that was bid that way from the very beginning.
O'Donnell:
As eight.
Trueblood:
Ten feet, the main Willow Creek trail, the orange line going down, that's a ten-
foot-wide trail, but the blue line, what I would call the interpark trail, is eight feet
wide up till we get to the houses, and then it narrowed to six feet. And that was as
it was originally spec'd.
O'Donnell:
Terry, when that goes through the houses and then becomes eight feet, your
straightening that point.
Trueblood:
That's fight. Here's where it did go down here, and here's the proposed new
route.
O'Donnell:
You're going to be taking out trees and stuff then, huh?
Trueblood:
Well, nothing big. It's going to go fight through a clump of vegetation, but no big
trees.
Thomberry:
Why straighten that even? I mean, what's the reasoning behind it.
Trueblood:
ADA compliance.
Norton:
Terry, what's the point of the . .. I've never heard much about alternate one.
Champion: Me either.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 36 of 105
Norton:
Trueblood:
Kubby:
Norton:
Trueblood:
Vanderhoef:
Trueblood:
Champion:
Norton:
Champion:
Norton:
Champion:
Trueblood:
Norton:
Where is that going? What is the purpose of that wide sidewalk beyond the Teg
· .. and beyond the Willow Creek up to Teg.
The purpose of it is so we would have a wide sidewalk all the way from Mormon
Trek to Teg to better serve as a multi-use trail and sidewalk combination. That
request originally came from our Parks and Recreation Commission.
Well, it's consistent with how we build new arterials.
Does it have to be eight foot beyond Teg then someday? All the way up to
Sunset?
Well, that would be the ideal solution, yeah, but...
At the other end of Benton Street, whenever we do Benton Street, we'll end up
putting in, in fact we're putting in at least at that ....It's on the south side down
by the Miller Orchard.
I wouldn't foresee anything coming forth unless there's a street project that it can
go along with. We don't have any proposals for simply new, wide sidewalks.
I've got two ideas. I'm not in favor of alternate one. That sidewalk's in good
shape. I can't imagine why we would rip it up and make it bigger. I don't think
that's part of the trail system. Seems like it's a time when we don't need to spend
$50,000. And then I like old path that's there, but it's in terrible repair. And I
don't know why we just couldn't do a five-foot asphalt driveway there--I mean, a
path, because it's kind of maintains the character of the area, which is heavily
shaded, heavy growth, and to put us on white concrete through there I think just
really kind of ....
You mean concrete on the same trail, on the same path?
Yeah.
So it gets under water and has too much grade for ADA, doesn't it?
Well, I don't care if we grade it for ADA, but I'd like to see it kept to five foot
and asphalt rather than concrete.
It is asphalt.
You do have to meet ADA standards gradewise, and that's why they cut left after
they went past the houses and along the brow of the hill to keep a) out of the
water b) reduce the grade, wasn't it?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 37 of 105
Trueblood:
Yes, correct. And it is asphalt. All the trail is asphalt except for the sidewalk
portions.
O'Donnell:
I think what has to be determined, Terry, is we're looking at a path which was
clearly never designed to be part of our trail system.
Norton:
Of the big trail system.
O'Donnell:
This is a neighborhood access to a park--that's very key--neighborhood access.
It comes off a four-foot sidewalk, and it goes into a five, and we're going to make
it an eight. I think it has character, I agree with Connie. We save everything in
Iowa City from the parks to SEATS to everything else. I'd like to see this path
saved. I think it adds some very unique character.
Trueblood:
I can appreciate your point of view on it, certainly. One of the things that I have
to keep reminding myself is that twenty-one, twenty-two years ago when that was
put in there, walking and jogging were not "in" like they are today for fitness.
Bicycling certainly wasn't used nearly as much as a mode of transportation back
then, and I'm not sure in-line skates had been developed or been invented then.
Back then clipped the ones onto your shoes.
Norton:
I'm confused by your comments a little . .. because it's one thing to say you
want to preserve the trail. I don't think you can meet ADA by following the
present route . ..
Thornberry:
You can't because of the grade.
Norton:
because of the grade. You'd have bear left pretty soon after you leave the
properties. You'd have to bear left along the brow, would you not, Terry.
Trueblood:
That's correct.
Norton:
So, if you're--you're not talking about maintaining the present trail, you're
talking about replacing it. I agree it's a neighborhood trail. And I do agree that
maybe eight feet is excessive, but I guess I finally decided that you can't in good
conscience leave a trail there that's a neighborhood trail--right?--that is not
appropriate to disabled neighbors. The spirit of the ADA says that better be
accessible. If you're going to abandon that other trail, okay ....
Champion:
But I'm saying five feet but asphalt and not concrete ....
Norton:
I understand. I don't care about eight feet, and I don't mind it's asphalt, but I
don't think you can follow the present route. It's got to go where they're planning
it.
Kubby:
So the current specs are asphalt.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 38 of 105
Trueblood: That's correct, except for the sidewalk along Mormon Trek and Benton. Those
are concrete.
Vanderhoef: So it isn't as stark as ....
O'Donnell: I think we make a big mistake when we go into a new development with park, and
we schedule a twenty-foot slash of ground right between two houses. You lose
your privacy in the back yard, and I don't care what house it goes by, I think it
always should be at the end of a block where you don't disrupt two families.
Trueblood: Well, I understand, and that's not our ideal solution either.
Kubby: That is . .. when we allow cul-de-sacs and we have green space in the middle and
we want connectivity, that's really the only way to do it, and that we have it there
before people choose to buy there so that they understand that there' s a public
sidewalk there and that they will have those issues to deal with.
O'Donnell: A neighborhood access to a park is what it is. It's not part of the bicycle-trail
system or a trail system. This is a neighborhood access. That's very clear.
Vanderhoef: And we are, on our agenda ....
Kubby: So . .. different for me because of that. I mean, I hear that and I understand that
fully, but how does that help the argument? About not having connectivity in
between two houses?
O'Donnell: What connectivity are you talking--what's this connect to?
Kubby: To connect the neighborhood . ..
Norton: To the park
Kubby: with the park and the neighborhood to the rest of the community ....
O'Donnell: It's done very efficiently the way it is . .. and it has been for twenty years.
Kubby: If you don't have a disability and if you can go through the mud and . ..
Norton: And water . ..
Kubby: And if neighbors might pass each other on that trail and maybe five foot isn't
adequate, maybe that extra foot just .... You know, I might be willing to make it
go, to go down to the five-foot ....
Norton: I would too. I'd go down to five feet.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 39 of 105
Kubby:
But ADA also says that some door frames should be a certain width when
functionally that doesn't serve people well. And so we might as well do
something that's functional for the neighbors in that area. God forbid I might
want to bike or walk to visit someone who lives there.
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Champion:
[Several talking at once]
Norton:
Kubby:
Norton:
Kubby:
Norton:
Kubby:
Norton:
Champion:
Norton:
[Several talking at
But if you can't do that on a five-foot sidewalk, you have a problem.
But maybe there's someone who's come ....
ADA says that five feet is acceptable ....
Mike, she's not arguing about the five feet.
She buys five feet.
No, I would prefer six. That's the compromise . ..
I like six, too.
we came to make it go, to get Connie's vote. In that section, I'd be willing to go
to five and have it go wider later. Ifthat's how to get the fourth vote, I'm willing
to go to five. In that small section ....
But it'd be a new connection. It wouldn't follow the present route because of the
problems with the grade.
Right. Twenty's not disputed.
Okay, I can buy that, too. And I think that recognizes that it's not a nature trail, it
is a neighborhood trail, and I think it ought to be fairly modest and not try to
invite a lot of heavy-duty traffic, and if people have to make a little leeway to let
somebody go by, so be it.
Right, because it's not going to be--how often are you even going to run into
somebody?
But I don't want to butcher the ....
once]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 40 of 105
Vanderhoef: Well, I think this is something we really are needing to look at, because on our
agenda for tomorrow night on the consent calendar we are accepting a huge
amount ofparkland and trails, and all of the entrances to that parkland and trail
are between houses.
O'Donnell: The houses aren't there yet, though.
Vanderhoef: Yes they are.
Norton: Oh, they are there?
O'Donnell: They're all there?
Vanderhoef: They're all there. Windsor Ridge. Every one of them.
O'Donnell: That's a new area, yeah.
Vanderhoef: But the houses are already there.
O'Donnell: I thought it was a new part ....
Champion: But the trail was ....
Vanderhoef: The trail, it was part of the original plan. We had another plan sitting in our
agenda for tomorrow, which happened to be deferred, that is showing right on the
plat that the access is between two houses, lot 79 and 78.
[Several talking at once]
Norton: This brings up a really interesting point, though, because ....
O'Donnell: Whose . .. wait a minute. Whose problem?
Vanderhoef: I thought you were objecting to this because it goes between the houses.
O'Donnell The trail is already between the houses.
Several: Right.
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry: I'm not opposing that it not go between the houses ....
Vanderhoef: It's Mike.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 41 of 105
Thornberry:
O'Donnell:
Several:
Kubby:
Norton:
Several:
Kubby:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
O'Donnell:
No, it's not really either. I thought it was, I thought you were liking that trail
going between the two houses for neighborhood access.
Neighborhood access is wonderful, Dean. An eight-foot path I don't support
going between two houses.
I don't either.
So it sounds like we're at least agreeing to alternate two that has an amendment to
it that says . .. where it currently says six foot it should say five foot.
Oh, wait a minute. Where it says eight foot it should say something else.
No.
It's only in that section that is currently . .. houses--just between the houses it'll
go from six to five.
Okay, I got--I don't know why it's eight foot out in the rest of the area either.
I'd go give.
Well, pretty soon the whole park's going to be concrete.
Norton:
Champion:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Atkins [?]:
Champion:
[Several talking at once]
I don't see why the dang trail is eight feet.
Okay, I got to get this little map now and make myself perfectly clear.
Why is the main trail eight feet, I mean, out there after you leave the houses?
Nobody knows why.
Okay, this is
Or would you rather have this one. This is the part that's in question.
Where is the trail that go between the two houses. Right here, right. So the
.sidewalk that's between the two houses will stay the way it is, right?
Vanderhoef: At five feet.
Norton: No, it'll be bigger.
Champion: Five feet.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 42 of 105
Atkins:
Champion.
Thornberry:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Vanderhoef:
Kubby:
Champion:
Kubby:
Champion:
Kubby:
Champion:
Norton:
Kubby:
Norton:
Champion:
Norton:
Connie, talk into the mic there.
Oh, okay.
I see what your question is, Connie. How wide is that existing sidewalk?.
Right. How wide is that?
Because that's in good shape.
But it doesn't meet ADA.
So need to meet ADA. So we can do the rest of the trail, we need to have the
ADA . .. on the spot.
Five.
We need to do that.
This needs to be five--it can be five, this can all be five foot. And asphalt.
You're saying the whole thing should be five foot?
Well, I don't think you need eight foot either.
The whole thing should be a neighborhood trail. I think if it were upgraded
through the houses to five feet and then the rest of it is also five feet as it goes on
down and winds around, it would save two thirds or, what, five eighths of the
asphalt, I guess, fight?
That' s not the big expense.
No, it's not the big expense, but I still think it's kind of over-built to eight feet all
the way through there.
I do too.
It's an interesting issue we're bringing up here up about access through housing.
Because historically, donated open space used to be almost always in back of
somebody's house--around the Court Hill Park or wherever, and it relates to the
new northeast plan about single-loading streets, so you don't get into this bind of
having to slide between two houses and a trail, you know, that' s invisible. And
you go to either coast, you know, like the Santa Cruz and you're trying to surf,
you've got to go between houses to get there, and the neighbors don't exactly
enjoy that. And the east coast, you can't find those public accesses. It really has
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 43 of 105
Champion:
Norton:
Trueblood:
Champion:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Trueblood:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
to be careful about keepingqthat's why single loading seems to be extremely
important when you're talking about open space.
I don't think people are going to flock and use this entrance, because there's no
place to park, really. There's a major entrance a block away. That's the entrance
people are going to use to that park. The other thing I wanted to ask is, is there
room to widen that sidewalk to five feet without getting at that driveway
situation?
Yeah, yeah.
There's room to widen that to twelve feet without doing that, if you want to.
I don't want to do that.
No problem.
Is this going to involve a curb cut, Terry?
Depending on what you decide to do, yeah. I mean, if you decide to do that
portion of the trail, then yes, it will involve a curb cut.
See, and I wonder if you purchased this lot twenty years ago, Terry, with the
intention of a neighborhood access to be going through there, and a four-foot
sidewalk has been there for all these years, now we come and double this
thing ....
No, we're not doubling it.
Well, that's what was proposed.
That's not what we're doing.
But I mean, that's what was proposed, and I think to go to a property owner that's
been there for twenty years and say we are going to double the sidewalk, we are
going to take out your parking, we are going to take our your hedges ....
It's on our property.
I know that, Karen, but . ..
They encroached upon a public land.
you should be wanting to save this bush, not tear it down.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 44 of 105
Norton:
Thornberry:
Trueblood:
Thornberry:
Trueblood:
?
Thornberry:
Trueblood:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Thornberry:
Trueblood:
Norton:
Several:
Thornberry:
No, no, no, no, no, they . .. all kinds of encroachment. We can't--they bought
houses knowing full well that there was twenty feet of property there, come on.
I have a hard time believing that that little trail through there is four feet wide. It
doesn't seem that wide.
The sidewalk?
No, not the sidewalk--the little trail.
The little trail isn't.
It is.
What?
The little trail is not. The little is as narrow as two-and-a-half feet wide in some
places.
It's broken off over the years.
Let's get home. If we'd all agree that the sidewalk between the houses maybe
clear out to the street is going to be--what?--five feet? Is that back . .. at that
point it cuts off and follows the new route, and it's asphalt, and I don't know why
it's going to be eight feet, that's what I didn't understand. Why couldn't it be
more modest than that and still accomplish its neighborhood purpose?
Another question: If you do that five feet from the sidewalk all the way through,
and it's five feet, how high are you going to have to bring it up to alleviate
flooding?
They show the line.
They're going to move it.
It's going to move the whole trail to keep it ....
That's correct.
It moves up over the hill.
Yeah.
Boy, I'd really like to secure this route that it now travels. I mean, is this kind of
a ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 45 of 105
Trueblood:
Champion:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
Trueblood:
Norton:
Kubby:
Champion:
Trueblood:
Champion:
Trueblood:
O'Donnell:
Trueblood:
Thomberry:
Trueblood:
Thornberry:
Trueblood:
Thornberry:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
That'll still be there.
· .. and keep it.
We're not going to grade over the path that people are currently taking. We
talked about that before, so that if people want to take that route, and they'll have
a foot path.
We're going to have two paths paralleling each other all the way through?
Just two portions.
One of them will gradually deteriorate.
It's not costing anything. It's just leaving the . .. the way that people walk now
there, but it makes ....
But people own natural path if that 's what they want.
And we've got some of those, too.
Right.
I did want to clarify one thing that really from almost day one with the two
neighbors out there, I have told them that we're not going to be removing their
hedges, we're not going to be removing their driveway or any other plantings.
That's good.
So that was never a consideration, really.
So we don't have a bid then for this alternate, is that correct, Terry?
For which alternate?
For alternates three, which is a ....
That should narrow it.
Which is a . .. that's not on there.
Alternate two, that's five foot.
That's not five foot.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 46 of 105
Trueblood:
Dilkes:
Norton:
Champion:
Several:
Norton:
Kubby:
Trueblood:
No, you're correct in that we don't have a bid for that right now, and it would be a
question for legal staff as to whether or not we can do that without substantially
changing the bid and having to rebid to do that.
Mike, I think probably what we'll do is, you'll have to award alternate two, and
then we'll probably do it by change order, reducing it. And my gut reaction is
that doesn't really change the scope of the project we would have to require rebid.
· .. to five, or are we unreasonable there? Should this stay at six? I mean, I
understand there' s different--the minimum ADA is five feet?
I'm not going to raise it to six . ..
I'm not either.
Okay, you guys want to stay with five. I'll be happy with five.
And you're talking five the whole way.
Just so you understand. What five feet will certainly do is provide a wide enough
sidewalk, if you will, albeit asphalt· It can provide the accessibility so meet ADA,
yet won't meet any multipurpose trail standards. I just want you to understand
that.
Champion: It's not part of a multi ....
Kubby: It is a multipurpose trail. It's not the main trail, that's why it was never thought of
being ten foot. That's why it's eight foot, because it's the neighborhood trail
connection to the trail, both of which are multipurpose.
O'Donnell: What did they call this twenty years ago?
Champion: If it becomes so much traffic on that trail, if there is so much traffic that
somebody tiding a bike can't ever tide down it, you know, I'll pay to widen it
myself. I mean I just think that it's not going to be, it's not going to have fifty
people on it a minute. It's not going to be a major highway.
Thornberry: It's not going to have fifty a week.
Champion: Well, it will have fifty a week.
Thornberry: Well, not according ....
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-79 SIDE 1
Champion: Well, when you go somewhere it will when it's safe to use a bicycle on it.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 47 of 105
O'Donnell:
Well, it already is.
Thornberry:
It's safe to use it. Have you seen ....
Norton:
Let's go with it. We've got to ....
O'Donnell:
Let's go with it. We're not going to get anywhere here.
Kubby:
Okay, so we haven't really .... There was some question about alternate one as
well, as to whether or not we should do that sidewalk up to Teg.
Champion:
I don't think we should do it. We've spent enough money. That's my economy
for the week.
Norton:
Is there any rush to do that at this point? I can't see it. In other words, is it access
to Horn School or something like that? Then I would be very interested, but I
don't think it is that, is it? You're on the wrong side of the street.
Trueblood:
Well, you know the "rush," to use your word, to do it right now would be that it's
part of a project for which we got good bids. That's the only thing. And it does
make sense to widen it from Mormon Teg to Treg to Teg rather than simply
having eight foot go to the middle of the block and then narrow down to four feet
for the rest of the block.
Norton:
I see.
Kubby:
Yeah. I think alternative one makes sense to do.
Norton:
You like alternative one?
Kubby:
You have a lot of pedestrian traffic along Benton going towards that commercial
area on Benton/Mormon Trek.
Champion:
There are sidewalks on both sides of the street there.
Kubby:
There are, but our standards for arterials are eight foot on one side and four foot
on another when we're redoing a street, and so I think when we can meet that
standard when we're doing a project we should do so. Cause then one side
becomes that multipurpose lane and the other side doesn't.
Norton:
Have we finished thinking about how that works later when you were talking
about Benton Street being fixed later, will the wide sidewalk be on the south side,
ultimately, of an improved Benton Street?
Trueblood:
That I can't answer.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 48 of 105
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Kubby:
Trueblood:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
Kubby:
Norton:
Kubby:
Norton:
Champion:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Atkins:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Thornberry:
Atkins:
We were thinking about Benton Street not so long ago. Where was the four--
where was the big sidewalk? Well it can't be on the school side, can it?
Uh-uh. I thought it had to be on the south side.
Well, I guess I'd go ahead and try to widen it too. It will like kind of funny if the
sidewalk is suddenly pinched down at that particular point.
Do we have to tear it up to widen it, or do you add on to it?
No, they tear it up and rebuild it.
So where are we on--I could go for one, alternate one.
You what?
I could go for alternate one. I'm trying to see where we're ....
I can go for alternate one although I'm not deeply committed.
And Connie said no . .. okay? So it looks like we're out on alternate one but
we're doing alternate at five foot the full thing.
How'd we get out on alternate one?
Do you know, I think we have some sidewalks in town that need replacing, and if
we want to spend $50,000 on sidewalks, I think we should do those.
What'd she say?
There might be some sidewalks that we need to replace more than we need to
widen . .. because it's already a pretty decent sidewalk. Anything else on this
subject? Just think of it as a decent compromise, anyway.
Just so I understand that your intent tomorrow night is to approve the base bid but
not approve altemate one and approve a modified version of alternate two, down
to five feet.
Alternate two with the understanding that there' ll be a work change order.
Right.
No, just approve that with the understanding ....
Okay, with that understanding, yes.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 49 of 105
Kubby: I have a logistic question for Eleanor. There was a move to reconsider at the last
meeting and seconded. For this motion, does it have to be someone on the
prevailing side, because we've already taken that vote. This is a new . .. so
anyone can move this ....
[Several talking at once]
Norton: I want to be sure we get straight on what we're moving ....
Atkins: I understand, no I understand. Got it.
Champion: We can just approve altemate two, and the staff will follow through with that.
Dilkes: No, these are two different issues. The resolution that appears at item 15 will be
exactly as written.
Thornberry: That's correct. And I don't' want to bother ....
Champion: Don't we have to vote it down?
Dilkes: No, that's the resolution to add that portion back into the plans and specs that you
took out.
Thornberry: Fifteen is as advertised, and sixteen---oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Dilkes: And fight. And sixteen is to award the contract with alternate two.
Thornberry: With the understanding, but that's not a motion.
Dilkes: No.
Thornberry: That's not an amendment.
Dilkes: Right.
Norton: What are we going to do? Vote yes on fifteen? Tell me how to vote quick.
[Several] Yes.
Norton: Okay.
Thornberry: Yes on both, actually ....
Kubby: In sixteen, though, the resolution is written with alternate one and two, so we do
need to ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 50 of 105
Dilkes:
Vanderhoef.'
Dilkes:
Several:
Norton:
Champion:
Dilkes:
Several:
Thornberry:
Champion:
Thomberry:
[Council Break]
We'll have to change that.
Have to amend.
We'll just it. You don't have to do an amendment.
Okay.
So it's just vote yes.
The amended motion will, what we talked about . .. five foot ....
No, it will award--technically, it will award alternate two. We can only award
what was bid. And then we'll do it by change order.
Okay.
And I've been asked by a couple of members for a five-minute break.
Right.
So, before we get to animal microchipping ....
Animal Microchipping 99-79 S1
Thornberry: Okay, is Misha around. Misha? We're ready.
Kubby: Misha's getting her coffee.
Goodman-Herbst: You can go ahead and discuss it without me.
Thornberry: We'll wait for Misha.
Animal microchipping. Dee?
Goodman-Herbst: What do you want to know about microchipping, folks? Did everybody get the
memo that was just handed out? Actually, it was supposed to be in your packets a
long time ago, as you can see. I tried to answer all the questions in that that you
might have.
Kubby:
Has the Animal Control Advisory Committee looked at the all the circus-rodeo
and the microchipping, and then changed to animal-control ordinance issues?
Goodman-Herbst: Yes, many, many times.
Kubby:
And these are their recommendations? They agree?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 51 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: Yeah. They agree.
Norton: We're talking about two or three issues at once or just microchipping at this point.
Goodman-Herbst: Whatever way you guys want to do it. I think we should go one at a time. It'd be
a lot less confusing, probably.
Thornberry: What does it cost to adopt a animal now?
Goodman-Herbst: Ten dollars more.
Thornberry: How much does it cost to adopt an animal now?
Goodman-Herbst: The exact price of a dog, instead of 25 is now $35. And a cat instead of 15 is 25.
Thornberry: Right now.
Vanderhoef: So up 10.
Thornberry: I said what does it cost to adopt an animal now ....
Vanderhoef: Twenty-five for a dog and ....
Goodman-Herbst: Dee, we're already .... Wait, wait. Time out. We're already microchipping
adopted animals. Okay. Already doing it.
Thornberry: I don't know ifit's okay or not, but ....
Goodman-Herbst: Well, it was a policy change. It doesn't have to be an ordinance change. It's a
policy change at the facility. We're microchipping all adopted animals. We've
been doing it since June the 1st. We've chipped over a hundred animals already,
have had had only positive results from the public.
Champion: But what if I don't want .... Why would you want it?
[?] She said adopted animals ....
Goodman-Herbst: Adopted animals. There's a difference between animals we adopt out and
animals that are reclaimed by their owners. Tonight--I know that includes, I
guess it includes both in this memo because it's so old--but we're talking about
reclaimed animals. Your animal gets lost, you come to the shelter to reclaim it.
O'Donnell: I know. But what ifI don't want the chip in?
Kubby: This ordinance would not give you that choice.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 52 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: Wouldn't give you the choice.
Champion:
I have a question. Fencing for the confinement of animals. You not allowing,
you don't want to allow electric fences for that. You're talking about a dog that
you say has to be confined because he's bit somebody or ....
Goodman-Herbst:
No, why don't we--I really think we should stick on one thing first, because it's
going to get very confusing otherwise. Why don't we start with the
microchipping. Let me answer all your questions, all your concerns. And then
we can go on to the fencing issue.
Champion:
So what are the problems with microchipping?
Goodman-Herbst: None.
Kubby:
Well, one of them that Mike just brought up is the owner having, once the dog or
animal is yours, having some control over whether or not they're microchipped,
and if you pass this ordinance, if your dog or cat gets out, or iguana or whatever,
gets out and Animal Control picks them up, they will automatically be
microchipped with or you won't have any choice about that.
Goodman-Herbst: Currently we're only going to chip dogs and cats.
Norton:
Will they be microchipped even if they have identification on them or only if they
have no identification?
Goodman-Herbst: Yes.
Norton:
In either case.
Goodman-Herbst: Yes.
Norton:
Like you get my cat every now and then, Misha ....
Goodman-Herbst: That's fight. It would have a microchip now.
Thornberry:
What happens, Misha, if something happens and it gets infected or something like
this through no fault of the owners.
Goodman-Herbst:
In thirty years that these chips have been used--they probably have been used
over thirty years in zoos, in research labs, you could talk to Dr. Cooper at the
University about these things, they've been used nationally and globally, they
started in Europe over thirty years ago. There has not been one case of infection
from these. The only problems that they had with microchips very early on in
their development was that they moved through the body. They have since dealt
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 53 of 105
with that situation, and they've added into the chip and I don't know what they
call it--but it's a device that allows the chip to set into scar tissue under the skin
in the muscle tissue so that it won't move. I can tell you that I had a cat that I
brought here from the shelter in Califomia that was chipped over twelve years
ago. The cat was adopted two years ago, it died at Dr. Cowles' in Coralville
about six months ago. He scanned it--the chip was still there. And it was an
Infopet chip, which is old now.
Vanderhoef:
The question I had is that you are putting the owner' s name and address, as I
understand it, or how do we update these because of the mobile part of our
community?
Goodman-Herbst:
It's up to the owner to update it, just as it would be up to a new owner to update
their license. If you come and you get a license at the shelter for your dog, and
you give the dog away six months later, it's up to either you or the new party to
update that license. We would already have the chip in the system. It would just
be updated to the new person' s name. There' s also a national registry, actually
global registry, for microchips where people can be registered globally, and an
animal can be scanned anywhere in this country or another country to get it back
to the owner.
Norton:
What' s the advantage of having--if they have proper identification on them, why
do you need the microchip. I should think if they didn't have identification,
clearly you'd want that.
Goodman-Herbst:
I'll tell you why. Because we sometimes see animals come in with identification.
Then the second time they come in they don't have it. Okay. So, they lose tags,
they lose collars--you know, it's this huge business to try and figure out how to
keep identification on animals. And one of the reasons why shelters get such a
good deal on microchips and the cost ofmicrochips is because this company,
Avid, developed specifically for using cats, because the reclaim rate on cats is so
poor nationally--it's under 13% of cats are reclaimed from shelters--and the
euthanasia rate is huge for cats. People just think, you know, well, my cat got out,
I'll just get another one. Fifty percent of the dogs are reclaimed, but that's not the
case with cats. And so they developed it specifically initially for cats, and they
saw that reclaim rate rise dramatically and their euthanasia rates go down. This
isn't new. This has been used nationally all over the place for a lot of years. I
started doing this in LA over fourteen years ago in the shelters.
Norton:
Would you recommend, then, that people have their cat microchipped the next
time they go to the vet, why not?
Goodman-Herbst:
Yes. We recommend it all the time. And the reason why we're not, the City isn't
choosing at this time or recommending to do private pets--you know, have
people come in and get it done--we don't want to take that business away from
the vets. We're not interested in that.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 54 of 105
Norton:
Goodman-Herbst:
Vanderhoef:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Champion:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
You are recommending that people have it done for their animal, then they
wouldn't have to worry it losing a collar.
Yes. And I have met, I have had meetings with the Vet Association, all those
involved in that association locally, to get them to do more chipping.
Would you allow them, animals not to be wearing tags, as long as they're
chipped?
We could discuss changing the ordinance--there are some cities that have done
that. The thought in animal-control agencies is the more identification the better.
Yeah, I could say not, because I know there, a couple times living here where a
dog has gotten loose and come and visited my house, because I had a dog. And I,
they had identification on, and I could just call the owner, instead of going to the
shelter, and they pay a fine.
Right.
I just call my neighbor, or it has an address, and I put the dog on a leash and we
take a walk and take the dog home. So it allows me to not burden the shelter or
burden the party with a fine.
And a lot of them have a vet tag on them number, you can call the vet and find out
who it belongs to.
And I like that their rabies are up to date before they're going to be roughhousing
around.
Yeah. You also need to know it's becoming much more common with
veterinarians and they're reducing their rates of costs for tags, they're not putting
their names on their tags any more. All they're required to do is issue a tag.
That's it. They're not required to put their name on it, a phone number, nothing.
What is the process of inserting this chip into an animal and how big is it?
How big is it? It's as big as a grain office, okay, if you can imagine that. And
I'll take this one out. That's the needle.
We'll chip you fight here fight now.
I don't know if you can hear me if I'm not on the microphone. I can---don't touch
this, this is very, very sharp-you can see the chip, that's the end of the chip in
there, and actually this is the portion that connects itself to the tissue.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 55 of 105
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thomberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
How long is it? It's short.
It's short--it only goes up to like there. It's equal on the other end that you can't
see that ....
Does it cause a lump in the animal?
No.
Where is it located in the animal?
It's located between the shoulder blades, in the soft tissue fight between the
shoulder blades. I don't know if you can feel that on yourself. It is injected into
the muscle tissue there. The injection--this needle looks big, but it's extremely
sharp. We have injected five-week-old kittens, and they don't even notice, they
just don't notice. And I know it seems, believe me, when I started using these
things I though, there's no way .... I mean, I can barely get a leash on some of
these animals, let alone do something like this. They notice this less than the
vaccines we give them.
If you felt an animal that had a chip in it and just to see if it did have one, could
you feel it?
No, you can't feel it--you can't feel it at all.
So on a show animal, it wouldn't affect the showing of the animal, is that ....
No, not at all. And in fact, American Kennel Club ....
That is one of the two things that they recommend.
That is.
The other one being ....
Because they are co-owners, I think of Schefing-Plough, that produces the
Destron chip, the Home-Again chip.
I was familiar with the arguments for and against that for the AKC because before
that all they recommended, in fact approved, was the tattoo.
Well, I think that one of the reasons they started doing that, too, was to help their
own organization, because they were having so many problems with backyard
breeders and things like that--they wanted to help themselves get a little bit more
professional.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 56 of 105
Thornberry:
The only problem I have with this is doing it without the owner's consent. That's
the only thing that I have a problem with.
Norton:
Yeah.
O'Donnell:
You know that was my problem too ....
Thomberry:
I mean, charge them, increase the fee to show that you ....
Goodman-Herbst:
Can I--I just want to say a couple things. If your animal comes into the shelter
and doesn't have identification on, we hold it for five days--four days--it goes
up for adoption on the fifth day. During that four days your animal can be
vaccinated, can be wormed. If it comes down with some sort of infection, it's
given medications. Those are much more severe kinds of treatments than this is.
But, you know, there's this whole mystique about, oh, we're putting this chip in
an animal. But folks, you know, you have to make a decision when the animal
gets loose and it comes to the shelter, effectively it's the property of the City at
that point when it has no identification on.
Norton:
But you're going to chip it even if it has identification on.
Goodman-Herbst: State law .... Right. Then, we got an owner, then it's a whole different story.
O'Donnell:
I initially was against this, because I don't think you should do anything to
anybody's animal, period, unless you have their permission ....
Goodman-Herbst: You know, I think if we're talking about spaying and neutering, it's a different
thing.
O'Donnell:
Let me stop you and finish here. If this is going to stop the number of animals
that are going to be euthanized, then I think it has a great deal of merit.
Thomberry:
Well, just because you chip an animal, or just because an animal comes to you,
you chip it immediately, or do you chip it when they come to get their animal,
or ....
Goodman-Herbst: No, we chip it when they come to get it. We don't want to waste chips.
Thornberry:
That's what I was going to ....
Goodman-Herbst: And the chip has to be identified with a person, so it would make a difference if
the animal's being adopted later or reclaimed or ....
Norton:
What if the person objected strenuously?
Goodman-Herbst: What if they objected to the reclaim fee?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 57 of 105
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Champion:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thomberry:
Champion:
Thomberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Several:
Well, I suppose they could go to court or something.
That's a good question. What if they do object?
It's part of the ordinance.
It's part of the ordinance, yeah.
They can't reclaim dog or cat until it's chipped, because it's part of the ordinance.
¥eah.
Well, I've had--so many animals I've had, I would have loved to have a chip in
them.
I'll give you guys a story, I mean this is really weird, that happened the other day.
But on the 19th of July, we had a woman from a local trailer park bring a dog in
that had been dumped at her house. A guy she didn't know very well was staying
with her and had left the dog there and took off. And she said, "I know it doesn't
belong to him. He said he took it from somebody." She didn't have a clue as to
where this animal belonged. We scanned the dog--it had a chip. The dog
belonged to Virginia Malloy in New Sharon, Iowa. She got it back three hours
later. She's an elderly woman. Her friends came to pick it up from her. Free
reclaim, because it had an identification. The dog had been stolen from her by
this guy, who was living with her for awhile, and he brought it here. This dog
wouldn't have gotten back home had it not had a chip. And she said to me, she
said, "You read the chip, you read the chip!" She was very excited that it had
worked for her. And I recommended that she call the company, because they try
and keep track of those things.
Any more questions on chips?
I don't have any problems with chips.
What about fencing?
First of all, does everybody understand what I'm talking about when I say an
"invisible fence system."
I don't ....
Just a, wait one second, everybody okay with chips?
Yes.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 58 of 105
Kubby:
Well, I understand the issue. I haven't decided how I come down on it, but
that's ....
[Several talking at once]
Norton:
We don't have to act on chips quite yet.
Thornberry:
Right. But it's going to be in this policy change thing that's going to be going in,
so, okay.
O'Donnell:
I think the main point is it's going to stop the number of animals being
euthanized.
[Several talking at once]
Goodman-Herbst: Yeah. For reclaims, it will be an ordinance change.
O'Donnell:
You keep--what if you can't locate the owner? Like, say the owner has moved
from Iowa City, they've graduated and they've moved or whatever, for one reason
or another they ....
Goodman-Herbst:
We make every effort on a national level to, just as we would with any other type
of traceable ID, we send certified letters to the last known address--everything
we can to find them.
O'Donnell:
Is there a national registry for chips?
Goodman-Herbst: Yeah.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Kubby:
There' s an international one, so if your dog gets on a boat and goes to France.
Goodman-Herbst: To Hawaii, as you said earlier
[?]
If it goes to Hawaii, it's not out of the [country]. [Laughter]
Goodman-Herbst:
Okay, so invisible fences. I'll give you a little history on this. This came up
this started to become a problem, oh, I'd say in the last two years. And what we
found is there were a lot of new, very expensive homes going in, in certain areas,
and as part of the home price, or included in the home, the contractor would put in
an invisible fence system. And the only problem with that was that there wasn't a
lot of education and training that went with that. It just was kind of was included
in the home, like any other fence might be. And we started having problems with,
not only animals getting out of these systems because they hadn't been trained in
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 59 of 105
Champion:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Champion:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
any way to remain within them, but we also started having a lot of complaints
from our local water department--our meter readers, from our postal carriers,
Mid-Amefica--where their workers need to go on properties to read meters--you
know, contact a person, whatever. They walk on a property, not having any idea
that there' s any kind of fence there or an animal--the dog's in the back or
something. And there's a fence that's supposed to contain that dog within the
perimeter of the property. They walk in, and they get attacked by this dog. And
we were getting complaints over and over with this kind of thing happening, and
we said, "Well, what are we going to do about this?" You know, it's a fence, but
we know--in fact, I've had conversations with the Invisible Fence Company,
which is actually a brand name, there are a lot of different systems. I've had
conversations with the owner, and he says, "I don't claim that they keep every
animal in, I never said that .... "Huh?
It's a tool, I said.
It's a tool, fight.
It works the other way in the case of people reading the meter to, coming onto the
property.
Yeah, opposite.
They don't know there's a fence there. They're crossing the fence without
knowing it. So ....
Exactly. Then they're in the animal's territory, and the animal goes after them.
They also don't know that the animal's going to stop at the fence. And at least
once a month we get an animal into the shelter that has the color on which is
commonly used with these things. The animal just went fight through it. It
happens all the time. You get some animals that react great to these things and
some animals who don't care one way or the other. You know, you get kind of
the dumb dog that just runs fight through it. And then, the other problem you
have is, maybe the dog runs through it, but it doesn't want to go back in, because
it'll get shocked going back in, too. And so--I'm not doing that again. And so
then you have the dog that won't go back on its property either. So, we didn't
want to say "You can't have 'em," but all we wanted to say was that it's not
appropriate confinement for a dog in the city.
It's not confinement.
And the important part here is that our pet-at-large definition includes on your
private property. Your dog is supposed to be on a leash, on a tether, or in . ..
an enclosed . ..
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 60 of 105
Kubby: a fenced area at all times . ..
Goodman-Herbst: piece of property
Kubby: even in, on your property.
Champion: It's my understanding that these fences, these invisible fences, are a tool to dog
training and to reinforce dog training. They're really not a barrier.
Thornberry: Yeah, they're--they can be a barrier.
Kubby: With the fight training.
Thornberry: Yeah, it's not just a training ....
Goodman-Herbst: They work great for some dogs.
Several: Yeah.
Goodman-Herbst: They really do. It's just you never know.
O'Donnell: How expensive are they?
Goodman-Herbst: Oh, they range from $40 all the way up to 2,000. And you can get them at Paul's
for nothing. And that's the other thing: it depends on what kind of system is
being put in . ..
Thornberry: Yeah
Goodman-Herbst: As to how effective they're going to be, too.
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Goodman-Herbst: Mm-hm.
Champion: So, what's the problem?
this? . ..
Well, presumably this comes before the .... Will there be a heating or anything
to hear people who are into this business?
We'll have to, won't we?
Yeah, yeah.
tZlut your--animal-control people have talked about it?
What are you trying to correct here? Tell em what
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 61 of 105
Goodman-Herbst:
O'Donnell:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Goodman-Herbst:
What we're trying to correct is people using these as a sole means of confining
their dog on their property.
So they have to have this plus a leash or another fence or something.
Yeah, I mean, to tell you the truth, I don't know why somebody would have one
of these, unless that was what they were trying to do. There' s no other real reason
to have one. It's just that they're not a very secure means of either keeping the
dog in or telling somebody that's coming from the outside--I mean, a child could
walk onto somebody's property. We've had five different properties where the
line was fight at the sidewalk. So, I mean, a kid could step right inside that line,
not knowing that they're within that fence, and the dog's there.
Well, the dogs don't stop fight at the fence. There's a warning in their collar
before they get there to ....
Yeah, it's not .... What I'm saying is the child could step on the property not
knowing there's anything there.
I understand .... Before the dog gets to--they don't go up to that fence and stop.
No.
It puts out an emission from the wire, and the dog, if they're very, very sensitive,
it might be they'll stop ten feet away from the wire.
Yeah. It depends on, it's actually, that has more to do with the training of the
dog. They actually don't start to feel it until they're right about a foot from the
wire. And again, it depends on the system and how strong it is.
That's fight. You get a good system, and they're going to stop well before the
fence.
I kind of agree with the intent here, but it looks to me like basically this is putting
the, within Iowa City, putting the electric fence, or electronic fence, people out of
business. Because it's telling them, no matter what you got, you gotta have
physical restraint as well.
Actually, there are other reasons to have these, though. If you have a yard, and
you have a play area for your children, the yard's enclosed by a regular fence, you
have a play area for your children, I've seen people use them to maintain their dog
in another portion of the yard--away from that area where the kids play. So it
can be used in other ways.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 62 of 105
Kubby: Well, I might want to play frisbee in my yard with my dog and not have them on a
leash, so for those few moments, the electric fence--well, you're that that would
still not, with this ordinance, that still would not ....
Norton: I don't know, it just seems to me ....
Goodman-Herbst: I don't know. If you were out with your dog, I don't think we'd bother you,
but ....
Vanderhoef: Then we'd be in trouble.
O'Donnell: Doesn't the ordinance read now that the dog's outside it has to be on a leash,
period?
Kubby: Or in an enclosed area or on a tether.
O'Donnell: So you can no longer throw a stick to Spot.
Kubby: That's how it is now.
Champion: I mean, the thing of it is if the dog attacks somebody, then the dog is not
confined ....
Goodman-Herbst: Right. I mean, we don't drive down the street saying, throwing a stick at
your ....
Champion: If you're with, you know, they don't do that.
Kubby: But that's the way it's written fight now.
Norton: Right now how does it stand, right now, the present wording with respect to ....
Goodman-Herbst: Present wording, it stands that your dog cannot be on your front lawn if it is not
on a tether, a leash, or in an enclosed piece of property. And that was written to
prevent people who were going down the sidewalk, using the sidewalks, using the
streets, from being molested or charged by dogs that are not contained.
Champion: Which happens all the time.
Thornberry: And they're saying that a buried electric fence is a containment now, without the
redoing of the wording?
Goodman-Herbst: It doesn't say anything. It's not mentioned anywhere in the code, but that's what
the citizens believe.
Norton: This is trying remind people that does not constitute control.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 63 of 105
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Goodman-Herbst:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Kubby:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Goodman-Herbst:
Champion:
Goodman-Herbst:
Champion:
I mean, people call the Water Department. They say, "I have a fence. My dog is
in a fence." Because they think it is.
Right. I mean, that's what they're saying now, and that' s how they're getting
around the bugs of the fence ordinance, really.
But this is just a clarification or emphasis of the fence ordinance, really.
Then again, we wrote this as a request from the Water Department, because they
have had just tremendous amount of problems with these things all of a sudden.
Because they're becoming more popular.
But Dee brought a very good point. You're not going to be able to sell this type
of confinement, fence anymore.
I expect we'll hear from that segment of society.
Well, there may well be more people who end up doing dog runs because the cost
of fencing is so expensive.
And that's okay, too.
Well, they're free to use it. It just doesn't free from the requirements of the
ordinance, and this makes that clear ....
It's not okay for the greyhound, but ....
But you know, it's so . .. because if you have a well-trained dog .... I mean, for
instance, my brother has well-trained dogs. They would never leave his yard
under any circumstances. They would be chasing a squirrel, and they would stop
at the sidewalk. I mean, yeah, I know that ....
Connie, all I can say is "Never say never." I have citizens come in every day, and
say, "My dog is so well trained. Watch this!" And they'll do a million different
things. They don't understand why they left.
But I mean he's never . .. he actually has a fence in the back yard where are dogs
are 99% of the time. But, the dogqHumane Society people, do not go around
arresting pets who are laying on their front porch.
No. And the point is that more dogs are not well trained than are well trained.
I've never had a well-trained dog. [Laughter]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 64 of 105
Norton: The point is now, I understand, that where we're at now, is to get this thing in
serious ordinance form, and then there'll be a public hearing, won't there?
Goodman-Herbst: It's already written in ordinance form.
Dilkes: There won't be a public hearing unless you want a public hearing. There's no
public-heating requirement on this ordinance change that I'm aware of.
Goodman-Herbst: I don't think there is.
Dilkes: No. There'll be three readings.
Norton: Oh, except for themwhether it will have a series of readings, so we'll hear from
the traffic.
Kubby: So when will this be ....
Goodman-Herbst: Is there one required on the microchips?
Kubby: When would this come before us for a first reading, then?
Norton: August.
Dilkes August 241h, I think, is what we're thinking.
Kubby: Unless we want to have a public discussion.
Vanderhoef: Well, they always can have a discussion at every reading, too, you know. We're
open to that ....
Kubby: I know, but having an announcement--"We want public input"mI think it's
better to announce it specifically that it's an item on the agenda that we're
announcing setting a public discussion or public hearing, so that people know that
we're inviting that input. People don't always know that we'll take input ....
Thornberry: We could do this at the Council meeting on Council time or whatever. But I'm
not sure ifit's very fair to change a policy when so many people are not in town
right now. I don't know how many readings and what the progression would be.
About the time we get to third reading ....
Kubby: Well, we maybe . .. to set a public discussion on it in August and then the first
reading.
Several: No.
Thornberry: Public discussion--I don't know how many people are going to be here to ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 65 of 105
Norton: Well, I don't know how--you know how it is: whenever you touch anything that
has to do with animals, you hear from everybody but the kitchen sink. [Laughter]
So I wondered if . .. I don't want to belabor this, because the Animal Control
Advisory Committee presumably, but we'd better have some for people to speak
their piece here.
[?]: Agreed.
Vanderhoef: Could we do the public hearing and first reading on the 241h?
Thomberry: Public hearing on the 241h and then ....
Norton: and first readings ....
Champion: Well, that would be the next meeting anyway.
Thomberry: And we wouldn't--you know, we could maybe have the first reading the
following meeting to delay the thing enough so that people might be around.
Norton: But you could, well, if you have first reading, then the second reading would be
after ....
Thomberry: Because I don't know how many people are going to be here for our public
heating on ....
Norton: August 241h, a lot of people are back because school starts. I think it'd be safe.
That would give them ....
Kubby: A number of years ago, well Steve gave us this great cartoon. And we'll probably
live this out. Where the first panel was: budget hearing, nobody's there. Leash
law discussion .... [Laughter] So, I think it is important to put it out.
Vanderhoef: I think the public hearing is fine, and I would be okay with having first reading
that same night.
Kubby: Because we can always defer if we hear things that we want to think about and
make some changes due to input we get.
Norton: Now, will that, it cover microchipping as well as the fencing?
Several: [murmurs of assent]
Kubby:: All this stuff, tight?
Norton: Now we're ready to ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 66 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: Doesn't have to.
Norton: Doesn't have to. I circuses and rodeos brings up some more heavy-duty stuff
that we've already had the straw hats in the audience, you remember. So, that
seemed to me different than these two that have to do specifically with the
ordinary kinds of pets.
Kubby: Well, we already have ordinance changes, or we havelwe're not changing
ordinances, what the thing about circus and rodeos isIApril 19th [?]--the
specifics of, when someone comes in to get that permit, that we already had
public hearings and voted on it. What does it mean to get the permit? So, we
usually don't have public hearings about those things.
Norton: Well, I just want to be clear what this public hearing is going to be about, because
if you get . ..
Vanderhoef: The microchipping and the fencing.
Norton: the microchipping and the fencing. You see, that is specific, and we ought not
entangle the two or we're going to get nowhere.
Kubby: They're just ordinance changes.
Thornberry: We're going to spit that, then? You want to split the chipping and the fencing?
Goodman-Herbst: Could I ask you guys something?
Norton: I think chipping and fencing could both be the focal point of the ....
Goodman-Herbst: No, never mind.
Vanderhoef: I do, too, because they're going to come down in the same ordinance.
O'Donnell: How many dogs a year do you pick up that have these collars on and walk
through thig fence?
Goodman-Herbst: One or two a month.
O'Donnell: Oh really?
Goodman-Herbst: Yeah.
O'Donnell: Same ones?
Goodman-Herbst: Not always. Sometimes.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 67 of 105
[?]:
Goodman-Herbst: Well, the fact is it's not that huge a shock.
Thornberry: Not Mike, but maybe somebody.
Goodman-Herbst: I mean, but you could ....
Champion: He doesn't wear the right collar.
O'Donnell: I do so. [Laughter].
[Several talking at once]
Dilkes:
Thomberry:
I mean, you could walk through it.
So, as I understand it, you want to do a public discussion and first reading on the
microchipping and the fencing on the 241h.
That's correct. In the same ordinance on the 241h.
Circuses and Rodeos 99-79 S1
Norton: Now, the circus and rodeo thing is massive. I still have some, I think the circus
thing seems to me pretty clear, and I can understand your special concerns with
elephants. You talk about a lot of caging. Let's talk about the circus thing on the
caging. You don't say anything about a number of classes of critters that are in
circuses at some times.
Goodman-Herbst: What do you mean?
Well, like seals. Again, I just get worried that seals and amphibians--suppose we
got a performing alligator or something?
Norton:
Goodman-Herbst: You know, most circuses don't have marine life any more. [Laughter] A lot of
marine life is protected now. It's very, very hard to get ahold of.
Does yours cover if they're just on display, you know, like some circuses have the
cages on display--like the reptiles and so forth? Would that be covered in your
special thing there? . ..
Norton:
I think you're talking about an animal act or exhibition, and that' s covered in the
permanent ordinance already. Circus is a different thing. I mean, circus has a
specific meaning, it's for entertainment ....
Goodman-Herbst:
Some of them used to have, you know, rows of cages where you'd walk by and
see all these exotic animals ....
Norton:
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 68 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: It would be part of a circus, and we would, you know, inspect them as part of the
circus. You need to remember, and some of you may not know this, but the
permit ordinance already has rules and regulations standard set up for all the
animals involved in just about anything.
Champion: Do you have another one of these [7/23/99 Mitchell memorandum, "Animal
Control Work Session Items"]?
Goodman-Herbst: Is that the whole thing?
Champion: No, work-session items.
Goodman-Herbst: Not except mine.
Thornberry: I did not get that.
Kubby: It was loose ....
Norton: It was loose in the packet, yeah.
Goodman-Herbst: Does anybody have one of those?
Champion: We can share it ....
Goodman-Herbst: "July 23rd, 1999" is on the top.
Norton: I think the circus thing seems under control, but I'm curious about the rodeo
thing .....
Kubby: Well, let's finish what other people might have.
Norton: Oh, you want to finish circus. Do the rodeo, do the circus then, now.
Thornberry: Okay, now circuses: if they were to come to town by rail, could they go from the
rail car to the circus grounds untethered, these elephants. You said, you know,
opposite legs and this and that, as far as tethering is concemed--can they walk
trunk-to-tail from the rail car to the circus grounds.
Goodman-Herbst: You really this is going to happen, don't you. [Laughter]
Thornberry: Can they do that?
Goodman-Herbst: Did anybody go to the circus in Coralville, by the way? Were you there?
Thornberry: Answer, answer this. I want to see dad and mom and little baby trunk to tail
walking from--they won't be able to do it, will they?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 69 of 105
Goo dman-Herb st:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thomberry:
Norton:
Goodman-Herbst:
O'Donnell:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thomberry:
To be honest, to move an elephant from one place to another place is almost
impossible. You can't~ven though they may have chains on their legs--you
stop to pick those chains up and move the elephant. They don't have rolling
cages big enough to contain them. You know, it's not like all the little-kid toys
that have the circus train, and the animals' heads are sticking out the top.
I don't know if that answers my question.
The answer is, they would have to move them that way. There's no other way to
move effectively without having some kind of fencing system set up.
I've seen this, you know, I've seen this in, actually in Iowa City.
How many years ago? Thirty years ago.
In Iowa City... elephants have changed that much in forty years, where they
can't walk down the street to the circus grounds any more.? They are just unable
to do, they're dumber now than they were ....
Dean, she showed us that movie ....
I didn't watch the movie . ..
He didn't want to see the move.
But I saw what I saw when I was a kid, and it really impressed me.
Well, that was one of those that one of the compelling things is . .. the key issue
was they get away from ....
You know what? I went to the circus in Coralville. And it really impressed me,
too, that they had two fifteen-year-old elephants contained in an area that had, you
know, four posts and string~ord--thinner than that cord that holds up those
blinds. It was yellow in color, and it went around right about at their head level.
And that was it. The only other thing they had was a little teeny like kiddy fence
that I actually saw the elephants playing with in the morning. They were pushing
the thing over and flipping it back. I was very impressed that the handlers were
able to keep them maintained in that area. Was it safe? No.
They probably had on one of those electric collars.
No, they had no collars on them. I mean, the animals were very well trained.
And chipped.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session
Goodman-Herbst: But had they--they could have gotten out of there in ....
Thornberry: How many people in Coralville were injured during this thing?
Goodman-Herbst: I don't know.
Thomberry:
O'Donnell:
[Several]:
Page 70 of 105
I'm just saying ....
We don't want to be too restrictive. Nobody wants to see an animal abused,
but ....
Where are the changes?
Goodman-Herbst: I can tell you folks that I am no more restrictive in these requirements than USDA
is in their requirements. The difference is--and we went through this when we
passed the permanent for pet shops--we have one USDA inspector for five
counties in Iowa to handle every single animal-related facility, including the
University's research labs, the animal shelters--everything. His name is Wayne
Greer, and he laughs. He said, "There's no way I can do this."
O'Donnell: Would the Coralville circus have been allowed to perform in Iowa City?
Goodman-Herbst: Would they have?
O'Donnell: Yes. The way they were.
Goodman-Herbst: They met some of the requirements and they didn't meet others.
O'Donnell: So the answer is "no."
Goodman-Herbst: Right. Actually, they weren't allowed to come to Iowa City, because the airport
said no.
O'Donnell: That's not what I ....
Goodman-Herbst: Actually, they thought they were in Iowa City, though. That was the funny thing
about it. The tickets even said "Iowa City." I think Coralville was probably
really mad at that. [Laughter]
O'Donnell: But this . .. the circus could not have set up and performed in Iowa City.
Champion: But you don't know that. They might have met the requirements.
[Several talking at once]
Goodman-Herbst: You want to know what requirements they did not meet?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 71 of 105
Several:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
O'Donnell:
Goodman-Herbst:
O'Donnell:
Goodman-Herbst:
O'Donnell:
Goodman-Herbst:
O'Donnell:
Goodman-Herbst:
Yes.
They did not have water available to their elephants. Their elephants were not
contained in an appropriate confinement area that was safe to the public. And
they didn't rest their pony ride--the ponies in their pony ride--they didn't rest
them frequently enough or give them water frequently enough. That was really it.
They had their lion confined in an appropriate cage, you know, and the kind of
cages I talk about in here are commonly used for animals of that sort. You know,
their animals were in good shape. They didn't have a problem with their animals.
But the other issue that I had, Mike, was that when the airport said "no" to these
folks, the next day Coralville said "yes." And so I got on a horn with USDA, and
I said I need to find out about this circus, I want to know more about them. And
they said, okay, these are the hoops that you have to fly through to get that
information. And I'm from a, you know, an animal-control agency. I had to fax
this and fax that. That was in December. I still haven't heard back from them.
So the information that I got on this circus, I ended up getting from the Humane
Society of the United States who pushed and pulled and got this information. But
it's not easy to get. You know, when Coralville said, "Well, we researched, and
they've had no problems .... "They called a couple cities that the circus was in,
and they didn't have any problems. But what they didn't know was the history of
the circus. And they had had major problems in the past.
So what this means is that it would give us some local control implementing the
federal regulations.
Yeah, exactly! Just like the pet shops.
I think Coralville did do a little bit more than that, Misha. I think they researched
that. And I was out there, and the elephants appeared to have water to me.
Where?
They were watered before the, where they were kept.
They were sprayed down, yeah, earlier in the day.
There were big buckets ....
Yeah, but they weren't open.
Well, maybe not when you were there.
I was there in the morning, and I was there for five hours in the afternoon and
evening.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 72 of 105
O'Donnell:
Goo dman-Herb st:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Norton:
Kubby:
Thomberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thomberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
How often do you have to rest a pony, and does that vary with temperatures?
It does, and again, it's written into the USDA requirements how often these
animals have to be rested. And I mean that the elephants werefine--they weren't
mistreated. You know, they were kind of relaxed, just hanging out in their pen.
They didn't do a whole lot of performing. They performed for maybe five
minutes. You know, it wasn't a big deal. The point is generally just to insure the
safety of the public and to make the animals are being cared for, just like you
would anywhere. We already do that.
I don't have any problems .... I think animals should be confined when they're
not performing, and they should be confined in a safe ....
Well, you know, horses could buck, and they could throw their heels back and
hurt somebody.
They don't weigh ten tons, either.
Well, I know, but elephants can't do that. They have four knees, by the way, you
know that. Only animal that has four knees ....
If you folks want to go through these requirements and point out specific things
that you have problems with, then maybe we can make some changes to it. But, I
mean, realistically, I have already amended these drastically from the original that
you read.
Yes, right.
So we could start with the cages.
Well, why don't we have USDA, or whatever the regulations are, period? Why
do we need to be any more restrictive than the ....
You don't have to, but I think you need a local ordinance that says more than your
local agents will enforce USDA requirements.
And these requirements are ....
I mean, if that were the case, you wouldn't have to have any local animal-control
ordinances at all, except for saying, well, they'll do the same thing the state says.
Well, they're still written down. I mean, it says what they have to do.
I know.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 73 of 105
[Several talking at once]
Thornberry:
What I've got a problem with, Misha, is this: if Coralville can do something and
Iowa City can't, we are known as the can't-do city. You can't do it because of
these ordinances, you can't do it because of those ordinances, you can't come in
here and do business, you can't have a circus, you can't have ....
Goodman-Herbst:
But that's not the case. The circus could have come here very easily. They had to
do a few minor adjustments, and they could have come here. That was it,
according to this.
Thomberry:
I don't mind not giving the elephant water--they should have water. And the
horses should be rested. I understand that--the welfare of the animals. But to
require this travelling circus thing to have--I don't know what one of this big
cages for elephants would cost--but it's got to be considerable if the bars have to
be 2 3/4 inches in diameter whatever.
Goodman-Herbst: It's really just livestock fencing. That's all it is.
Thomberry: It's what?
Goodman-Herbst: It's livestock fencing. It's what they already keep their horses in generally.
Thornberry:
You don't think an elephant can get out of livestock fencing?
Goodman-Herbst:
Yeah, I do. The difference is, Dean, is that it's not a little piece of string
maintaining the animal. You know, the animal that got loose in Hawaii got
through, I don't know, five different types of confinement. If it wants to get out,
it's going to get out. The point is to make it safer for the public.
Thornberry:
I understand. You can find one case, you know, but look at all of the circuses that
nothing has ever happened. Like, for instance, in Coralville. And if Coralville
can do it, we can't do it?
Goodman-Herbst: Okay. So make your choices, and if you choose not to have a fence around the
elephant ....
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-79 SIDE 2
Goodman-Herbst:
I think that generally if you're going to have specific requirements for pet shops,
specific requirements for breeders--which we already have, and I thought those
were important--I think the same is very important for circuses and rodeos.
Norton:
Well, let me ask some specific ones about provisions. "While in performance, the
public shall be protected from the large camivores and omnivores and elephants
by a steel mesh cage or fence that must extend 13 feet high."
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 74 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: Mm-hm. This is what Barnum and Bailey does.
Norton:
Now that's one of the things that was not present out there, I take it.
Goodman-Herbst: Right. No, they didn't have it.
Vanderhoef:
Okay, and how do we know on the care of elephants, this four hours of unchained
time and, when they're travelling also, then they shall not be, chained shall not
exceed the fourteen days. Those two things seem to be in contradiction to each
other. Because one says you've got to leave them unchained for four hours per
day, and then down, "Constant chaining shall not exceed 14 days without
[written] justification from a veterinarian."
Goodman-Herbst: There are some cases when a veterinarian needs to confine an animal for its own
well-being. And so ....
Vanderhoef:
For the 14 days?
Goodman-Herbst: Or for more. And so they may require that. We're not going to argue with what a
vet's requirement is.
Kubby:
And you would know that through, they'd have to keep a log about chaining
and ....
Goodman-Herbst: Sure. And they would have veterinary records and a recommendation of that type
o f confinement.
Vanderhoef:
I'm not sure that that's the way this reads. I understand it when you say it, but
"Constant chaining shall not exceed 14 days without written justification ~'om a
veterinarian." Which to me says, okay, I'm the circus owner, and I can do this for
up to 14 days before I have to get permission.
Goodman-Herbst:
No. When I say "constant chains," it doesn't mean that the chains aren't rotated.
We talk about rotating chains. The animal's still in chains, okay? But the animal
won't remain in chains, even if they're rotated, for more than 14 days without a
veterinarian's authorization.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
O'Donnell:
Is that a national requirement?
Goodman-Herbst: Yeah. It's just what's done.
Vanderhoef:
So, but then the contradiction is just above that, where they have to be unchained
for four hours per each 24-hour period. That' s up in number 3 just above that. So
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 75 of 105
it seems like what you said to me about the constant chaining is a veterinarian
kind of treatment time, but certainly does not apply when you are travelling with
your circus, as long as you have this other requirement of four hours without any
chain.
Goodman-Herbst: Mm-hm.
Vanderhoef:
And that to me just isn't clear down there in number 7. Okay? Can we do
something with that?
Goodman-Herbst: I will if we're going to keep it.
Norton:
Okay. Now, what I want to get--I've gotta get something straight that's related
to what has been said earlier. Misha, when a circus applies to you, and they see
these particular requirement sets, which I take it are now more specific than those
that are applied by the USDA or somebody else ....
Goodman-Herbst: Not really, Dee.
Norton:
Well, what I want to be sure is that doesn't look so heavy duty as to say this is
tacitly a way preclude circuses from coming to Iowa City.
Goodman-Herbst: Mm-hm.
Norton:
Because of these hoops that you have to jump through, if you'll pardon the
analogy.
Thornberry:
The Coralville circus, then, would have had to go out and buy a sixteen- or
seventeen-foot steel mesh fence in order to perform in Iowa City.
[Several talking at once]
Norton:
Well, they might have had to do something that maybe, in her judgment, would
that--and presumably in ours, if we bless thisqthe protection that was offered
was inadequate. That's what she said.
Kubby:
And it may be that they had that, since the community that they previously were
in, they had to use it because they have requirements, and they just didn't choose
to take the time and energy to put it up because it wasn't required.
Goodman-Herbst: Right.
O'Donnell:
The financial requirements in the seventeen- to eighteen-foot fence.
Goodman-Herbst: In some places that's used. It depends on the city, it depends on where it's being
held. You know, I had four different contracts from Barnum and Bailey for four
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 76 of 105
different cities, and each city had different requirements. Some of them didn't
allow elephants, so they didn't take elephants there. Some of them required the
animals be in certain types of caging, so they did that. Circuses change
sometimes from place to place.
The other thing that you have to remember is that the elephants at this circus were
not owned by the circus. They were privately-owned elephants, coming out of a
company in California, Pads, Califomia--it's a elephant farm--and that guy is in
change of his elephants. The guys involved in the movie industry in California, in
commercials and television and so on and so forth--he does the elephants. You
know, it's more common that the circus doesn't own their own animals. They
rent out other people' s animals, and they come in. And so then you have a
problem with who' s responsible for what, you know, when there're issues with
problems with the animals. Because USDA issues a license to an individual--not
to the business--they issue it to an individual. So, you know, Sterling Brother,
whatever his name is, will have a license for a circus. The elephant guy is going
to have a license for, as an exhibitor or as some other kind of training or
entertainment license.
Vanderhoef:
So is that part of the ....
Thornberry:
This doesn't address that.
Goodman-Herbst:
No, no, because I'm not interested in who holds the license particular. I'm just
interested that the animals are being cared for by whoever is responsible for that
animal.
Vanderhoe~
So, would that require two different contracts with the City?
Goodman-Herbst: No. We permit the circus itself--the owner of the circus.
Vanderhoe~ And the circus has to contract . ..
Thornberry:
Subcontract.
Goodman-Herbst: Yeah, they have subcontractors.
Vanderhoef:
with the elephant owners and be responsible for telling them what the rules are to
bring their animals in.
Goodman-Herbst: Yeah!
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Champion:
I'm not ready to pass judgment on this yet, and I'd appreciate your answering
questions. I may have to call you about a few things.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 77 of 105
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Norton:
[Several talking at
[7]:
Norton:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Goodman-Herbst:
Kubby:
Sure. And again, I'm not saying that we can't amend parts of this if you folks
have problems with certain parts of it. I don't have a problem with that, but I
think it's important that you understand that . .. these are simple animal-care
requirements. This is not a big deal.
You know how it would be made user friendly, if there was a symbol on each
paragraph that meant current USDA standards and something that's different than
that.
How much more restrictive, yeah.
once]
What I'd like to see ....
That would be helpful to us, yes.
So that people, not only that we know that, but that the circuses who want to get a
permit to come to town ....
Is it that simple?
It's not that simple.
Will you explain to us why it's not that simple.
Well, it's not that simple because USDA bases a lot of their things on each
individual animal, too, and specific circumstances, just as we would. So it's ....
And even . .. this location they want to perform in?
Not so much the location, but a lot oftheir--just as we have, you know, earlier on
we say, "Large carnivore animals shall be housed individually in cages
appropriate to the size of the animal, allowing adequate exercise .... "It's kind
of vague depending on the animal. And that's what USDA does a lot. You know,
a lot of these requirements, too, canoe out of what circuses are already doing, what
zoos are already doing to maintain animals properly. So, you know, I drew from
a variety of different sources to come up with these requirements.
But having the appropriate size cage for the animal--that general statement is part
of the USDA, and then depending on the animal, you can go to the USDA to
understand the specific dimensions for that creature.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 78 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: Only some. You can go for dimensions of primates, dogs, guinea pigs, mice.
They do not have specific dimensions for exotics at all.
Thornberry: What about elephants?
Goodman-Herbst: Those dimensions are only mentioned in transportation of animals, so the
transport of elephants or the transport of exotics, it's mentioned in there. But their
other caging requirements or tether requirements came directly from zoos and
circuses.
Norton: Well, it is common ....
Goodman~Herbst: Okay. So in some ways it's more specific than USDA . ..
Norton: Hard to say what we're going to do.
Goodman-Herbst: but I don't know what you guys ....
Norton: The places with the least restrictive, so there's no doubt about it, that if you have
this set here, it's going to tend to eliminate circuses. They're going to go
where ....
Champion: When did we last have a circus in town?
Norton: the path of least resistance ....
Kubby: But wouldn't the good thing to do because our shelter is the Iowa City/Coralville
Animal Shelter to approach Coralville to say that we recommend that we do this
simultaneously?
Who will approve that circus, though?
That's just the thing I was wondering over. How would they do that?
Thornberry::
Norton:
Thornberry::
Kubby:
Champion:
Thornberry:
I don't know.
But they have different . ..
We didn't disapprove it.
Well, it wouldn't have been allowed ....
Goodman-Herbst: Coralville isn't interested in ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 79 of 105
Kubby:
That's fight. But it doesn't mean it wouldn't have come here if there was a site
approved for it to be at, because they may have had the appropriate things that our
policy ....
O'Donnell:
No, but I asked specifically the way it was set up, if it would have been approved
in Iowa City, and your answer was "no."
Goodman-Herbst: That's fight. Under these requirements, no.
O'Donnell:
Coralville, [?] must have approved this, because ....
Kubby:
They don't have an animal shelter.
O'Donnell:
Yes they do. They've got a ....
GoodmanoHerbst:
They've got an animal control officer, but they don't have an animal shelter.
They also don't have a lot of the laws that we have pertaining to animals that are
pretty important. Like a vicious dog law.
Kubby:
And they didn't have a discussion for rental property and found that over time
when their rental property was getting older, that it wasn't being kept up, and they
decided to use our ordinance as a model. County didn't have a sensitive-areas
ordinance and they're looking to us as a model.
O'Donnell:
Karen, I'd like to stick to the elephants.
Thornberry:
Getting back to circuses. Had they asked you Misha if they could come to Iowa
City before they got here, and you showed them this, and they set up, you would
then inspect them on a periodic basis. I imagine you'd be out there all day, cause
you love 'em, fight?
Goodman-Herbst: No. Usually what happens is we'll go to each show ....
Thornberry:
Would they have been permitted to come into Iowa City and do this if they said
they could live by these regulations?
Goodman-Herbst: By me, but there were other individuals involved that made a decision not to
allow them to go to the different properties in Iowa City. It was the airport ....
Thomberry:
No, if the location was acceptable, would you have said "yes."
Goodman-Herbst:
Yeah. I think I would have said first, and they wanted an answer the next day. I
would have said, "I need to get your inspection reports." And I think that's very
valid.
Norton: Then what?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 80 of 105
Thornberry: Then you look at the inspection reports, and you found a violation eighteen years
ago.
Goodman-Herbst: Then it's not a problem.
Thornberry: I mean, eighteen weeks ago.
Goodman-Herbst: And in fact, some of the violations this circus had weren't important because they
had a different owner when they happened. Some of the violations had to do with
subcontractors, so you have to be careful. You know, it's great for the animal-
rights folks to say "This circus did that," but that isn't always the case. There are
a variety of people involved in these things. It's not just one person.
O'Donnell: Did this circus want to come to Iowa City first?
Goodman-Herbst: Yes, they wanted to go to the airport property.
Champion: I thought they were in Iowa City.
O'Donnell: They left ....
Goodman-Herbst: They were in Iowa City
Kubby: The Airport Commission said "no."
O'Donnell: But, then they went to Coralville, and we still went through the procedure and
checked their ....
Goodman-Herbst: No, no. Their animal control officer went out there because they knew there was
going to be a protest, and they wanted to make sure that things were okay.
O'Donnell But you said ....
Goodman-Herbst: They don't have any laws that have anything to do with exotics, circuses, horses,
anything.
O'Donnell: But didn't you say that you called and checked their violations and so forth?
Kubby: It's public record.
Goodman-Herbst: It's public record through USDA.
O'Donnell: But you did check.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 81 of 105
Goodman-Herbst:
I did check, but I never got 'em. I didn't get them until the day before, but they
didn't come from USD--I mean, they did, but they came through Humane
Society of the United States. I couldn't get them from them. It's a huge
organization, folks. USDA covers a lot of things. Circus is just a little teeny,
minute thing that they cover.
Vanderhoef'.
And I'm really impressed with the amount of knowledge you have about this, not
having had circuses in all these years.
Thomberry:
Well, maybe in the last--maybe in California ....
Goodman-Herbst:
Yeah, I've inspected a ton of circuses. I mean we, myself and my officer, sat out
there for five hours talking to elephant folks, to the camel folks. I mean--and
they're all different trainers and handlers. And I in fact knew the elephant guy. I
knew him from Los Angeles, so ....
Champion:
The elephant guy?
Goodman-Herbst: The elephant guy.
Vanderhoef:
The elephant man, huh?
Kubby:
So, are there specific things in the circus regulations that people want Misha to
double check . .. or that you feel uncomfortable with?
Champion:
I have to go through it.
O'Donnell:
I do too. But I don't want to be any more restricting .... I would like to have
our young people have an opportunity to see a circus in Iowa City sometime in
their lifetime. I don't want this thing to be so restrictive ....
Norton:
Well, she says it's not, so ....
Goodman-Herbst: Okay. You guys decide, read through it, see if you find things that you feel are
too restrictive, and we'll see if we can amend the. How's that?
[Several talking at once]
O'Donnell:
We don't know a lot about elephants. It says in here that you have to walk your
elephant every four hours or something . .. somewhere in here, doesn't it? I
mean, didn't I read that ....
Goodman-Herbst:
Yeah, but Mike, I don't make those things up randomly. These are just general
guidelines. You know what? If you want to change it to "Animals need to be
exercised as appropriate for the species of animal," you can do that. And then
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 82 of 105
when I go out there, I say, "You gotta walk this elephant every four hours. It's
fine with me. [Laughter]
O'Donnell: It seems to me like that would read better than "Elephants shall be provided flee
of chains." Where you going to exercise your elephant? I mean ....
[Laughter/Several talking at once]
O'Donnell: Are these--take Roman numeral I, II and III ....
Goodman-Herbst: I tell you what ....
O'Donnell: Are they national standards?
Goodman-Herbst: Where are we?
[Several talking at once]
Champion: We need to postpone this. We need to have another ten minutes at our next work
session . ..
Norton: Well, we've got ten.
Champion: fifteen, but tonight ....
Goodman-Herbst: I'll tell you what I'll do, Mike. I'll tell you what I'll do. I will rewrite these so
that they are vague enough that ....
O'Donnell: No, no, no, I asked a specific question: are Roman numeral I, II and III national
standards?
Goodman-Herbst: I, yes. II, yes. III I have to check.
O'Donnell: All fight. That's the only three I have. Because I'm not really sure about this
exceeding 14 days--"All encounters [sic] must be maintained in such a way that
all lights and other objects and obstacles must be kept outside the reach of the
elephant." Why?
Goodman-Herbst: Seems like common sense, doesn't it?
O'Donnell: Well, it really does ....
Kubby: It also sets up an expectation. Like if we had the vague thing, and then they come
here, and we get specific with them in living out the vague thing, it's not really
fair, so it's better if we know . ..
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 83 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: that they know...
Kubby: that something's going to get implemented, it's more fair to have it written out,
just like other ordinances that we have.
Goodman-Herbst: And hopefully most of them are going to with .... That's nothing. That's easy.
That's easy. No big deal. We already do that.
Norton: It'd still be helpful to know ....
O'Donnell: I just want to be more restrictive . ..
Goodman-Herbst: I understand.
O'Donnell: than Coralville and our other surrounding communities.
[Several talking at once]
Goodman-Herbst: We're already more restrictive than Coralville.
Thornberry: Let's go into rodeos.
Goodman-Herbst: Let's go into rodeos, okay. You wanted to know does USDA cover rodeos. No,
they don't at all. The only thing that they cover is transportation of livestock.
They don't cover rodeos in any other way. Okay, so ....
Norton: Well . .. I want to cite one problem and that is with paragraph 4, which
precludes--I don't know whether or not--does it preclude calf roping in every
one of those circumstances?
Goodman-Herbst: Yes.
Norton: One of those . .. precludes bareback bronc riding. Are those two events that I
take it are standard in most ....
Goodman-Herbst: If you want to put bareback bronc riding in there, you can--I don't care.
Thomberry:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Thornberry:
Well, they're point events.
What's wrong with calf roping?
But they say there's no sanctioned rodeo that doesn't include those things.
Right. Well, they're not--they don't have point events.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 84 of 105
Norton: But they are noti"No other events may take place without [prior] approval."
Now, I assume they could take place were you to approve the inclusion.
Goodman-Herbst: These are pretty standard. If they wanted to do bareback bronc riding, it would be
approved. The events that were taken out and were not approved are events that
hurt the animals. Are events where animals get injured commonly, and it's
inhumane. I mean, it's as simple as that. I don't know any other way to put it.
Norton: Calf roping and what else?
Goodman-Herbst: Pig wrestling. That actually isn't a part of any rodeo anyway.
Thornberry: I mean, that's what little kidslit's in every rodeo I've ever been to.
Goodman-Herbst: It's not an event.
Thornberry: No, it's not an event. It's a happening for the kids. It's something to get the kids
involved in the rodeo days, whether it be in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Bozeman,
Montana.
Goodman-Herbst: Some places do goat roping instead of calf roping.
Norton: Now, I want to know--what are the standard events. As I understand it, one of
the standard events of PCRA or whatever it is . ..
Goodman-Herbst: PCRB.
Norton: event, fight, includes calf roping.
Goodman-Herbst: That is correct. You're absolutely correct. But PCRB isn't the only type of
rodeo, and you don't have to have calf roping to have a rodeo.
Norton:
Thornberry: No, but it's like having a golf event and not having all eighteen holes.
Goodman-Herbst: That is not true. I have an employee who does rodeos all the time. I talked to her
about this. She said there're rodeos that take place without certain events all the
time.
Thornberry: But it's a point event. It's an event where you get points ....
Goodman-Herbst: When was the last time Iowa City held a professional rodeo for points?
[Several talking at once]
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 85 of 105
Norton:
Champion:
Norton:
Well, they just had one in Cedar Rapids. Just had one in Cedar Rapids last week.
Oh, but Cedar Rapids ....
And Muscatine. What I'm trying to get at is, it seems to me this paragraph
essentially says we're not gonna have rodeos in Iowa City.
Goodman-Herbst: No, it says you're going to have rodeos with certain types of events, which
actually take place. When they had the rodeo at the Fair Grounds--what was it,
six months ago?--they did not have calf roping. They didn't have it.
Thornberry: I know. They couldn't.
Goodman-Herbst: What do you mean they couldn't?
Thornberry: We wouldn't let them.
Champion: No.
Norton: It wasn't in Iowa City.
Goodman-Herbst: We don't cover that.
O'Donnell: It would never get approved in Iowa City.
Goodman-Herbst: You're fight.
[Several talking at once]
Champion: That's county.
Norton: What about Cedar Rapids? Did they have calf roping?
O'Donnell: You mean the supervisors let them ....
Goodman-Herbst: Some probably do, some probably don't. I don't know.
O'Donnell: They did, they did, they did.
Goodman-Herbst: You guys, it's up to you, but you know what? If you want to send a calf out of a
chute going 40 miles an hour, have a guy roping on a horse that stops on a dime
and pull the thing over so that it flips upside down and breaks its neck or its legs,
it's fine with me. You know, but ....
Thornberry: You lose your points, then.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 86 of 105
O 'Donnell:
Goodman-Herbst:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Thornberry:
Goodman-Herbst:
Vanderhoef:
Goodman-Herbst:
Norton:
How do they brand cattle? Don't they go out and rope them and tie them up and
brand them ....
They do, and it's called farming.
It's different then.
It's called ranching.
It's not entertainment.
Pig wrestling is. That's entertainment, I'll tell you that. I used to pig
wrestling ....
Did you win?
Little kids .... I'll tell you what, I have to admit: I didn't get the pig. But
running after a greased pig--I know they have it in Hills, and those kids have a
blast. And it's fun ....
But Misha's saying it's hard on the pig.
Do you know what, in Iowa City it would be illegal to grease a pig fight now
anyway.
Pardon me?
It would be illegal to grease a pig in Iowa City at this point in time.
Misha, can you have a rodeo for points that you don't have all the events? In
other words, could you have one come and exclude the calf roping but still allow
them to accumulate points for all the other ....
I don't know. I'd have to check, and you have to remember that there are
different associations and they all have different rules. So, depending on what
their rules are ....I don't know. I'd have to check. There are a lot of rodeo
associations.
I got out my folder of the last time that we battled this ground, and it had a letter
from the World Cup of Rodeo . .. and another one we had from the Intemational
Rodeo Association, another one from half a dozen different, and all of them made
the same point. Now, you know what I mean, you've seen all this
correspondence.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 87 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: What was their point?
Norton:
But they made the same point, that we were trying to have something, and we had
no rodeo. And it was a rule that would preclude a rodeo. This rule would allow
only rodeos sanctioned--hey, this rule was not ....
Goodman-Herbst: Well, we changed that, Dee. Only rodeos sanctioned by the PCRB. We changed
that. We took that out, realizing that although they're the biggest association,
they're not the only one. In fact, that the rodeo up in North Liberty complained
about that, because they weren't part of the PCRB, and out in the lobby here the
PCRB was saying, "Don't listen to them, cause they don't know what they're
doing."
Thornberry:
Well, John Watson's is coming up on that. [Laughter] That's the Police Citizen
Review Board, right?
PCRB. I hate initials.
Norton: No, no, PRCA we're talking about ....
Goodman-Herbst: PRCA, excuse me. Thanks. Now why didn't you say something before?
[Laughter] What's wrong with you people? [Laughter]
Champion: This is getting foolish. I'm going home.
Goodman-Herbst: You guys have other things to do, you know?
Thornberry: Rodeos, rodeos . .. I have a little problem with the more restricted things with the
rodeos. I just have a little problem with that.
Norton: Well, what are we going to do about it?
Goodman-Herbst: You know, I put back in for you guys bronc riding, because I had simply left it
out.
Thornberry: Dull spurs, fight?
Goodman-Herbst: Excuse me?
Thornberry: Dull spurs or something.
Goodman-Herbst: Well, they can't use them anyway.
Thornberry: No.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
Goodman-Herbst: Huh?
Thornberry:
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 88 of 105
Goodman-Herbst: I mean, they're . .. yeah.
Norton: I think bareback bronc riding's in there, and I think it's dissembling not to say,
here are the lists of the standard events that we're no longer going to ....
Because bareback riding is one that requires ....
Goodman-Herbst: Okay. Let's put it in there. Let's put in bareback riding.
Norton: Well, and calf roping. If you're going to have a rodeo, have calf roping.
O'Donnell: I agree with Dee.
Thornberry: That's correct. I agree too.
Norton: Either that, or it ain't no rodeo.
Goodman-Herbst: I don't know how you folks expect me to simply enforce the cruelty law of the
State and of the City by allowing calf roping. It's a contradiction ....
Thomberry: In South Dakota--and they're citing cities about all these other things--they have
plants where they dispatch the animals to make food. And it seems to me a
broken neck, to me, is not as inhumane as some of the things that I saw out there
at some of those ....
Goodman-Herbst: For entertainment?
O'Donnell: I think you're talking a rarity there also.
Thornberry: I do too. Not every calf that's roped is going to have a broken neck.
Goodman-Herbst: I didn't say that.
Thornberry: What's the percentage of broken-necked calfs [sic].
Goodman-Herbst: I don't know. Do I need to research this to find out?
O'Donnell: Are we the only city in Iowa where you can't rope a calf?.
Goodman-Herbst: I don't know.
O'Donnell: Well, that's what I want to know, Misha.
Norton: We certainly will be.
O'Donnell: We would be ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 89 of 105
Norton:
The people came down and told us that--and, of course, they don't want to see
this happen in Iowa City, because their profession begins to be undermined if this
begins to .... And I understand, in the great future of the world, maybe we
should be so humane that we don't have any of these grisly things happening.
The question is, where are we right now as a city? Do we want to be way out in
front here and not have ....
Champion:
But we don't outlaw gymnastics, and how many gymnasts have broken their
necks? A lot of them.
Thornberry:
Hey, we're going to be shooting deer this fall.
Goodman-Herbst: But the gymnasts choose to do gynmastics. There's a difference.
Norton: I see.
Thornberry:
Yeah, but we're going to be shooting deer, and not every one is dead on the first
shot.
O'Donnell:
Yes they are.
Thornberry:
Oh, every one? That's not instantaneous death, Mike.
Goodman-Herbst: It's also not for entertainment, guys. I mean, there's a huge difference between
doing something for entertainment purposes ....
Kubby:
[?] lots of entertainment that doesn't have the inhumane aspect to it. And so
maybe the question to ask is can you look at the top five associations--the largest
five rodeo associations--and do they allow events for points that do not include
calf roping?
Goodman-Herbst: I can also find out how many of the professional rodeo cowboys or cowgirls over
the last ten years have gotten their points in Iowa.
Thornberry:
No, that isn't the point. What you're saying is everywhere else, but not in Iowa
City. I don't think it's how many rodeos there've been in Iowa City or in Iowa--
Iowa's not a real big rodeo state. Not a real big, compared to Montana and
Wyoming, the only two states I'm that familiar with that have rodeos a lot.
Goodman-Herbst: I'll check. Top five.
Thornberry:
You know, but just not in Iowa City.
Norton:
It says here the PRCA rodeos must have saddle broncs, bareback, bull riding, calf
roping and steer wresting.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 90 of 105
Thornberry:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
[7]:
That's fight. It is.
So we've left two of those out--bareback riding and calf roping.
And she said we could put back in bareback.
But she doesn't like that.
Goodman-Herbst: Well, I don't care. You can have bareback in there.
[?]: I know. I'm--we're talking about calfs and pigs.
Goodman-Herbst: Pigs are not mentioned anywhere, I guarantee you.
[?] I agree about the pig wrestling--the pig catching.
Norton: I don't know what to do.
[Several talking at once]
Goodman-Herbst: Okay.
Champion: Thank you very much.
Norton: That would be okay if we could have rodeos in some fashion.
Thornberry: Moving tight along, is there anything else, Misha?
Goodman-Herbst: God, I hope not.
Appointments: Housing and Community Development Commission, Police Citizens Review
Board 99-79 S2
Thomberry:
Kubby:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Kubby:
Thornberry:
Okay. Appointments, Housing and Community Development Commission.
There are three vacancies and there are three applications.
I'll nominate all those three.
Yeah, they're all good
I second that.
And if they have served more than one complete term, that's ....
Okay.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 91 of 105
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Thornberry:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Kubby:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Several:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
Norton:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
And they've been good members.
And they've been good members, absolutely.
And that's Denita Gadsen and Kathleen Renquist and William Stewart.
And there is one vacancy on the PCRB.
I'll nominate Jeff Gillitzer.
Second him.
I nominate John Watson.
I'll second.
[?] reappoint John.
John's spent a lot of time, and two years is just the beginning ....
I would like to see some . .. voices heard on here, though.
Well, Jeff is on the Riverfront ....
Which he's willing to resign from.
Oh. I hate to not--if we reappoint, we're--reappointments are really sticky, but I
think this is one where the history is pretty important. We just added a new
person ....
Yes.
If we do that, though, Dee, we will never not reappoint anybody, because people
on these commissions are presumably twenty years.
Well, I understand that it's tricky ....
I agree with you that if there are qualified applicants and the current holder of the
seat has had many terms, I think it's very important for us to have new blood. I
think on the particular commission when a person has contributed wonderfully
and has been one there for two years, the reappointment is very appropriate for
this particular ....
I have nominated Jeff, and it's been seconded.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 92 of 105
[Several talking at once]
Vanderhoef:
Kubby:
Champion:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Champion:
Norton:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Kubby:
I think it's pretty unbelievable the number of meetings that those folks have had,
and the absences are just almost nil. There have been something like 74 meetings
in the last two years, and maybe 3 times or 4 times, so certainly being attentive to
business is a trait that I think is positive for John.
I kind of have the feeling that we need to rotate this commission, but I think I just,
I didn't really stop to think that it's only been two years. And the first year was
really bent, you know, on getting it started. So, I can support either candidate on
this commission for that reason. It's really only been two years. But I think it's
the kind of commission that you really need to rotate people on.
I agree.
In principle.
And because it is a new commission, those appointments will remain specifically
two-year, three-year, and four-year terms for those people to get them on the
rotation, and John ....
So now this'd be a four-year appointment for him?
Yep.
Which?
Which was envisioned ....
Conceivably they way they operate, if he applies again, it will be four-year. We
will never have anybody new on this commission.
Not true. There are resignations and there are other people coming up and ....
Well, the only way we'd ever replace anybody on this commission is with
resignation.
Oh, that's not true.
Well that's the way it looks.
This is the beginning of a new commission, and this person has only served two
years, and so it's not an outlandish decision.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 93 of 105
Norton:
Kubby:
Champion:
Thornberry:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Thomberry:
Champion:
Kubby:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Thornberry:
Norton:
Well, here we go. Let's see what we got.
So, John ....
Dean, what do you want to do?
What is your decision?
Oh, come on.
What is your decision on?
You have a decision here.
Well, you started, so I'll let you finish.
Well, I'm thinking about--what's his name?
John Watson.
I think that because it's only been two years, I could go for it. I would not be
unhappy if he was reappointed.
I wouldn't be unhappy either. I just wanted new blood on that.
You know, what I'd like to see is a resolution or an understanding of two terms on
any board or commission . ..
Well, I think we should get ....
[Several talking at once]
Kubby: Yes, Council members as well.
Norton: We could do that.
Thomberry: . .. appointed type thing. You know, there've been some really good people on
for three or four times. I remember Planning and Zoning had some people that
were on there forever.
Norton: We ought to have some rule about--I would be happy to see some kind of
systematic rule that ....
Vanderhoef: I would like to put this on for discussion at some point in time. This is one of the
things that I asked about a couple of years ago.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 94 of 105
Kubby:
So where are we at? So do we have four votes for John?
O'Donnell:
Oh, I don't think we have any against John. I wanted some different ....
Kubby:
So, Connie, are you okay with John?
Champion: Yes.
Kubby:
Then John' s ....
[?]: All right.
Norton: Next.
Council Time 99-79 S2
Thomberry: Okay, Council time. Anybody want to start?
Kubby:
We got a memo from Steve and talking about how to deal with a request from an
employee to look at how we, what is included in domestic-partnership benefits.
And it was basically that we really should talk about this in executive session, so
I'd like to request that at the August24th meeting, that we set up an executive
session for the purposes of talking about this issue.
Several:
I'm okay with that.
Kubby:
And then any kind of information we need ahead of time will be supplied to us.
We got a note from Steve about the new household hazardous waste building.
And I know that we, and I brought this groovy picture from .... We thought that
this--this was the building that was proposed to us, and we looked at the cost and
said it was a little too much and we were going to go back. But what it's gone to
is from this to this rectangular-shape building.
Vanderhoef:
A pole building.
Kubby:
Well, this is kind of a pole building anyway, but it may or may not have some of
the recycled feature materials. It's certainly just going to be a rectangular
building and not much else, and it's not for sure what kind of alternative energy
components yet. And so what I want to bring up tonight, is I talked to Dan Scott,
and we're having the architect redo this, but he's redoing it as a square pole
building, because that's what's been directed. But I'm not sure that we wanted to
go that big of a jump backwards, and so if we had not been talking about that big
of a jump backwards, we could decide it before he really designs it, and then we
have to pay him again to redesign it a third time. Because of things we changed
about it. So, I mean and I don't have any specific thing. I don't want this,
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 95 of 105
because I think the money's too high. But I don't want just a rectangular
building. I want something ....
Norton: I agree with you. I thought he was going to try to do more than that.
Kubby: Well, that's not that's my understanding after talking with Dan about what's
happening, and he said if the Council can give some direction before John spends
his other redesign money, then that would be good.
Atkins:: It' s a pretty utilitarian building, Karen ....
Norton: Pretty utilitarian ....
Kubby: I'm wanting us to go just a couple of notches up. I'm not quite sure what that
means, but I don't want it to just ....
Champion: Well, we could do some alterations of the facade to make it look not so square.
Atkins: Some architectural features can be added, so we can do that.
Champion: Right.
Vanderhoef: So what kinds of costs did we see on specific things that were in the original
building that maybe we can't even be considering. I guess maybe if we had a
little bit of a breakdown on that, it could lead me to how we might put some . ..
on it.
Atkins: Well, if you'd like some nicer architectural features, that in itself is direction.
Secondly, to the fullest extent practical, we intend to incorporate the recycling
components for use into the building. But, of course, there may be things we
can't .... Dee, I don't have those numbers, but I understand that they give you
breakdown into pieces, if I can get that.
Vanderhoef: A little bit might help us ....
[Several talking at once}
Kubby: Mike, if we wait until the 241h, things will already have been designed, and then
we'll have to pay a fee.
Atkins: Well, the architectural features I think I can direction from you right now ....
Norton: Well, I would like some. I know it doesn't matter, but money, I mean, here we
are.
Atkins: Well ...it is a landfill.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 96 of 105
Thornberry: You know, I don't want a Taj Mahal at the dump, but I don't want a tent either.
Norton: That's right. Well, that's what I say ....
Kubby: We're not facilitating people coming out there because of the .... People will
come out to the household hazards waste facility.
Thornberry: Well, I don't think, Karen, that a very nice-looking facility is going to draw
people to the landfill. I think they're going to go to the landfill because they need
to go to the landfill for a reason.
Norton: Are we going to get something, is anything like the Parks and Rec building--now
that I'd call a pretty utilitarian-looking building.
Atkins: Yes. Well, we'll dress that up with a little brick ....
Norton: With the brick facing, yeah.
Atkins: But it's a pretty basic building ....
Norton: It's pretty dum basic.
Thornberry: I don't think it needs to be much more than what's going on at the park.
Norton: Well, I say that we put that thing down there for Parks and Rec, right? We
certainly aren't going to put anything a lot fancier than that at the dump, are we?
· .. Land fill, sorry.
Atkins: Well, do I hear architectural features are acceptable?
Thornberry: Within modest, within easy.
Atkins: Okay.
Champion: It doesn't take a lot sometimes to make something not look like such a hot box.
Atkins: And I've always understood that we are to incorporate to the maximum extent
recycled/reused.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: Anything else?
Kubby: I have two other issues. The way, there are so many people who use both the
Coralville and Iowa City bus systems that we tried really hard--I mean, our
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 97 of 105
Atkins:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Thornberry:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Norton:
Kubby:
Atkins:
Kubby:
transfers go back and forth--but how we do disabled passes are different. And I
couldn't get full answers about how Coralville does--what the qualifications are
to get a disabled pass. And if you're a Coralville resident, you get on the bus, you
flash your disabled card. In Coralville you get a transfer to go to Towncrest, say.
But then you get on Iowa City's bus, you have to have an Iowa City pass, but you
can't get one because you're not a resident, and it gets really complicated. So I'm
not quite sure what people are doing, because there' s a lot of medical stuff and
social stuff and book stuff going back and forth.
I can summarize that for you now.
So I think what I'm asking for is a--I don't want to make it harder for Coralville
residents, surely, but if there's a way for us to be consistent so the systems are
very compatible for people with disabilities in terms of when you have to pay a
fee or not, and how you qualify, and how long the certification lasts. Those are
the three issues I'd be most interested in.
Can you say those again, Karen?
Mm-hm. When you pay or don't pay to use it,
Okay.
How you get certified--what the criteria for certification are . ..
Okay.
In Iowa City.
And Coralville, and seeing if we can make them consistent.
Okay.
And how long the certification lasts.
Okay. I'll talk with ....
These are for disabled now?
Right. And it would be great if we could figure out a way to make it very ....
I understand.
Does that make sense to people to try to rig that?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 98 of 105
And my last thing is kind of continuing discussion. I called Dave Baculis just to
follow up with him about [?] and all that stuff. And we were talking a little bit,
because I'm biking out to the fair tomorrow and take Riverside to really look, but
he, because I haven't been out there since we redid the road after we redid the
sewer line, saying that there aren't shoulders out there. Now, I know you and
Ernie went out. Did you notice that they were? . ..
Thornberry: There were not shoulders.
Kubby: Okay, and is that a problem?
Norton: Where are you talking about?
Kubby: On South Riverside Drive down by the Budget Shop and Baculis.
O'Donnell: As you're driving out there on your bicycle ....
Kubby: What's that? I'm sorry.
O'Donnell: As you're driving that white [?] bicycle, about--I would say--50 yards up from
Dave's main entrance, you can see where a car has fallen off. And I think it's a
dangerous situation, because I think it's going to pull them fight into the ditch.
Well, I, there's no gr--it goes off like this and then just drops ....
Atkins: I don't remember it that way at all. I'll go back and look at that.
Kubby: Can we double check that? Because if the lane ends and then it drops, I think
that's a safety issue.
Atkins: That' s a problem.
Kubby: And the other issue out there Dave was saying that speed-limit signs that were
there were not replaced when the road was rehabbed. So if we could just double
check that, too, that would be good.
Atkins: Take care of this, okay.
Norton: Yeah, I just, a couple of~ne .... Steve, I've had a couple of inquiries about
low-income policy, because I mentioned to somebody who had asked that we had
a low-income policy for utilities, and then I got to wondering, have we really got
a consolidated low-income policy that' s common for difference? Remember
Recreation and so on and on, and I think we had agreed to try to do so, but I'm
not quite sure where we are.
Vanderhoef: Parks and Rec used the same one as the school system used for free lunches
for ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 99 of 105
Norton:
Well, we had a whole bunch of them, and I've got back the notes about it. We
were looking at a whole variety of them to be the same, but I'm just not quite sure
we're there when I've made a few checks, I'm not quite sure we're there. I'd just
like to be reassured that we're ....
Kubby:
And we might not ever totally there, because some of their programs may have
federal rules that don't allow localities to make it different.
Norton:
But the person who I was talking to said, for example, that they are not--this
person was implying that they were not, a lot of people weren't aware there were
low-income utility policies. Yet, that's brought to their notice in the utility bill
periodically, fight?
Atkins:
We're going to prepare a report. Dee asked about this the other day, and Dale and
I spoke about it.
Norton:
I just kind of want to get updated on it.
Atkins:
Transit. We have Parks and Recreation, Housing, and Finance and Utilities. And
we understood the goal was to start bringing them .... Our position was
something to the effect that to the fullest extent practical, someone would know
their maximum eligibility for low-income programs. That was the goal.
Norton:
And I think that policy was pretty clear, yeah.
Atkins:
We do too. We'll prepare something that will summarize that.
Norton:
Now, I'm obliged to bring to your attention a couple of items that the county, you
know, it was in the paper, that Jonathan called me with these things. Nutrition
Program has talked about the construction of the new parking structure, and they
were interested in more shuttle arrangements to Chauncey Swan at the noon hours
on Saturdays and Sundays, which I talked to Steve and Joe about these things, and
somebody said well, if the county wants to haul people up there, they can
certainly . ..
Vanderhoef:
That was me, when I bragged to several people about that.
Norton:
arrange that, and that they need more reserved parking spots at (can't hear) on
weekends. Now I don't know how that stands precisely in terms of their reserved
spots.
Atkins:
Well, I've been trying to figure that out and really not getting anywhere up here
because I .... If the county wants additional parking . ..
Several: Yes.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 100 of 105
Atkins: Okay.
Vanderhoef: For their program.
Atkins: For your program. Okay. We'll charge you, we'll send you a bill for it, we can
prepare that.
Norton: Well, that's what I thought. So I knew we needed to get some more details on
what, why they're not ....
Atkins: And I'll be candid with you. I hear it, but there's never anything specifically ....
Norton: I never see any money either, and they're also interfering with pick-ups in the
alley, because they alley's been there--oh, they say it's very difficult to deliver
there.
Champion: Oh, then they have to get a life.
Norton: They need some space so they can get into the alley now that (can't hear) is
narrowed ....
Kubby: Couldn't you just call the county and say "How many spaces do you want and
how would you like to be billed?"
Norton: Yeah, that's right. Because that's my feeling, too.
[Several talking at once]
Vanderhoef: On Saturdays we've got a problem there at the noon hour because of the Farmer's
Market. So we might have to look at the second floor or something.
Norton: I mentioned that too, that some of those could go to the second floor. I don't
think they'd ever heard of the second floor at Chauncey Swan.
Vanderhoef: And if they want to run their own shuttle . ..
Norton: No problem.
Vanderhoef: they certainly have their vehicles and drivers that they could do a lunch-hour
shuttle.
Norton: Well, the question of pick-up space, I don't know.
Atkins: I have received nothing official at all, nothing.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 101 of 105
Norton:
[7]
Norton:
Atkins:
Norton:
Atkins:
Norton:
[?]
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Well I will talk to them with Mike and try to clarify that I'm . .. and make sure
that Phil and those guys'll work it out. I'm not offering them anything. I'm just
obliged to report to you the phone call I got that listed these three items, and that's
all I know about it, and I say, my God, these are things the staff can either work
out and bring a proposal to us or not, I don't know. But something ought to be
done about enabling them to pick up their lunches, you know, when they deliver
'em out, and they go through the alley--it's kind of squeezed now because of the
construction, so we should accommodate them as much as we can there. But I
don't see that we are responsible for hauling people, though, endlessly.
We're doing it five days a week, that's ....
The other think I'm still concerned about, Steve, it relates to Housing and
Inspection Services in general, but you know, I mentioned a couple of
addresses--I won't cite them again. But one on Muscatine and others that ....
And I was reading the minutes of the thing about 431 South Lucas~how can we
get into such a tangle with some of these inspections over the years of being told
different stories and so many facts. Somebody said, I mean I found the Board of
Adjustment discussion of that ....
Could you call me? . ..
The other one . .. but they just sit there, the problems just sit there and don't
seem to ever get resolved. I don't know if it's the court or what is the problem.
I think there is a committee [?]. If you'll recall, the fire up here on Washington
Street . .. example. We had a ruling, but we didn't have anything official. That
was over a year old.
It is so frustrating, because in the meantime I see a neighborhood being basically
being kind of chewed up by the presence of this disaster area, and nothing
happens. Okay, I think that's it, although I want to say that the park tour was very
useful, and we also went down the new trail down the back side from Benton
Street to Highway 1.
Six.
Six. All the way down. And not only did we get to see the back end of some
businesses, you know, but you put a trail there .... Oh, I tell you, some of the
stuff down there I don't want to mention.
Well, looking across the river isn't always pleasant either.
But you talk about throwing a pop can out. They throw out those drums, you
know, that cement trucks carry. Some of those are thrown out there like they
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 102 of 105
Kubby:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
were pop cans, and I said, "Oh, boy, when you start to get along the river and you
look back, there's some work to be done to clean up."
And even with that it's pretty pleasant.
Oh, it's very pleasant, but it's grisly, though.
Oh, the path is wonderful.
The path is wonderful.
Okay, the bus pass in the Add Sheet .... [Vanderhoef referred to item IP4, an
Iowa City Transit memorandum announcing that a pass good for free bus rides
from August 23-28 will be included in the Add Sheet that will be distributed
August 18-20, 1999. She wanted to be assured that coupons would be readily
available to University of Iowa students.]
CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-80 SIDE 1
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Vanderhoef:
Atkins:
Trueblood:
Vanderhoef:
We have a transit employee that goes down to registration that is part of the
Orientation ....
To the orientation in the summer.
Yeah.
But this bus pass that we're giving, the flee one do we have them someplace?-
where they go get their ID cards or something where they can get their hands on
them a little easier, because they may not be attuned to the Add Sheet yet, and I'd
certainly like to get as many students started, and giving them a week of free
rides ....
That's generally been Joe and Ron's desire to get them .... I'll check that for
you.
That's one, okay. The add on costs that seem to be coming with the Airport
Terminal Building with the asbestos abatement. How much more are we adding
on... ?
We're still invest ....
Actually, that's on budget schedule
It's still on budget, even with the abatement.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 103 of 105
Atkins:
That's correct.
Vanderhoef:
Okay. That's good to hear. I just needed an update on that.
Champion:
It was in a memo we got.
Thornberry:
The last paragraph.
Vanderhoef:
Okay, and Karin said we've got the, on the work list in the policy issue of the 25-
foot versus 28-foot, so that was one. And on the P and Z list that you gave us
probably three or four weeks ago, and a lot of things had been taken off, and I
started looking at those again, and the review of the flood-plain management
ordinance--we haven't seen anything about that, and that seems to have been--it
says "that are currently being reviewed," so I presume those are coming. And we
did add back on the communication towers, I believe, that, well they were pulling
it off, and the question I had on the awnings was what do we need to have in the
ordinance to prevent the same thing happening again, even though the initial
problem one is gone--the Pizza Hut awning is gone, but how do we word our
ordinance to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Atkins:
I would also--but I think I put that back to all of, because there was a kind of a
diversity of opinion on whether the Pizza Hut sign was all that bad.
Vanderhoef:
Well, it was--it had to do with awnings rather than signs, and it turned up then, I
think that they were taking it as a sign.
Norton:
I thought that was straightened out too.
[7]:
So did I.
Kubby:
Yeah, I think we qualified our ....
Atkins:
I thought that was taken care of.
Vanderhoef:
Okay. I missed that if that was taken care of. Okay, because then I'm also on to
signs. I've been sort of looking around downtown, and someone brought it to my
attention that in some of the downtown area, we have sign pollution that is of our
own making. It has nothing to do with businesses. It has do with you can't do
this here, you can't do that there, the "no parking" and "no parking from here to
corner" and then we have added "share the road" and the bike trails, and
"downtown this direction" and it's--yeah, "watch your speed," that's another
one--bike trail, and it's getting looking kind of tacky, I think, because we have so
many signs and so many poles, and I'd like to just take a look at that and put it on
a work session and see if there's something that we can to consolidate some of
these things somehow or another. I know we can't do things about the speed
signs and ....
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 104 of 105
Kubby:
Norton:
Vanderhoef:
Take a walking tour.
On your block, they did improve it, that block particularly, they did improve it
quite a bit.
Some places they have. Take a look at Linn Street from Chauncey Swan up to the
ped mall--not Linn, College, excuse me.
Norton: Okay, yeah.
Vanderhoef: In that area, there's a bunch over on Iowa Avenue that are ....
[Several talking at once]
O'Donnell:
Isn't it a lot easier to have signs on the road than one conglomeration where you
have to stop and be stating at all these signs on here? Isn't that a safety factor?
Vanderhoef:
Well, they're so close in some places, I guess that I'm not sure that you do see
them.
O'Donnell:
Well, if they're not effective ....
Vanderhoef:
You know, if we're growing posies with signs on the end of them ....
Norton:
We've made some improvements, because they've gone to that one sign, you
know, the "prohibited" sign, skateboarding and so forth. I thought that was kind
of an improvement that took three out and got one. So has been some good things
happen, too.
Vanderhoef:
Absolutely, there are. And there are some other things that, you know, maybe just
putting two signs on the same post and taking down the post would help a lot.
Thornberry:
Maybe they could have the round thing around the skateboarder--you know,
having a dog on a leash or something, combining "no dogs" and "no .... "
Kubby:
We don't want to get too specific, because I could say, "Hey, I'm not on a
skateboard. I can have my dog."
Thornberry:
Yeah, yeah, that's true. Or "I've got a cat." "My dog doesn't look like that."
Vanderhoef: I think that's it.
O'Donnell:
I had something, but I've forgotten.
Thornberry: Connie?
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699
July 26, 1999 Council Work Session Page 105 of 105
Champion:
Thornberry:
Atkins:
Karr:
[?]
Karr:
Thornberry:
Karr:
Kubby:
Karr:
Thornberry:
Kubby/Karr:
Thornberry:
Karr:
Thornberry:
Atkins:
Thornberry:
Oh, you know, I was going to make general statement, and I don't want anybody
to get offended, but I think if this had been televised with Misha tonight, we
would all be really embarrassed. I think we treated her very badly, I think we
were very foolish. I think we really need to think about how we treat people who
bring us something we don't agree with. You can make a point and then be quiet,
move on that I don't think we treated her very well, and I just personally feel that.
And I'm . .. glad that it wasn't televised.
Steve?
Not a thing.
One thing. Can we go ahead and reschedule the joint the meeting for September
30th? Remember, we sent you a memo? It didn't work out for July 22nd. We
left you some options--there were Thursdays in September. The Board of
Supervisors really prefers the 30th.
Is it a Thursday?
It is a Thursday--they were all Thursdays.
You say you can do Thursdays?
I'm sorry.
So 30th works best for them.
That's their first choice, yes.
It was September what?
30th.
I don't even have a book that goes that far, so I guess that's fine.
September 30th. We'll do it probably 4:00 in the afternoon. We'll get back to
you on that. Okay? Thanks.
Okay. Everybody okay with that?
Good night all.
Good night, Steve.
This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of July 26, 1999.
WS072699