Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-23 TranscriptionAugust 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 1 of 112 August 23, 1999 Council: Staff: Visitors: Council Work Session 5:00 PM Lehman, Champion, Kubby, Norton, O'Donnell, Thornberry, Vanderhoef Atkins, Craig, Dilkes, Fosse, Franklin, Karr, Kugler, Martin, Mitchell, Mollenhauer, Schoon, Treeblood Brian Clark, Brian Clark and Associates; Tony DeNicola, White Buffalo Inc.; Kevin Trom, Shive-Hattery; Nancy Seiberling, Project Green Library Board: Winston Barklay, Linda Dellsperger, Shaner Magalhaes, Mary McMurray, Lisa Parker, Jesse Singerman, Jim Swaim Tapes: 99-80 S2, 99-83 all; 99-84 all, 99-85 S1 A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office. Joint Meeting With Library Board 99-80 S2 Lehman: Thornberry: Norton: O'Donnell: Magalhaes: Barklay: Swaim: Parker: Singerman: McMurray: Champion: Kubby: Dellsperger: Vanderhoef: Okay, before we start, let's all introduce ourselves. I'm Emie Lehman, Mayor. Dean Thornberry. Dee Norton, Council. I'm Mike O'Donnell I'm Shaner Magalhaes with the Library Board. Winston Barklay. I'm the Library Board. Jim Swaim. I'm on the Library Board. Lisa Parker, Library Board. Jesse Singerman, Library Board. Mary McMurray, Library Board. Connie Champion, Council. Karen Kubby, Council. Linda Dellsperger, Library Board. Dee Vanderhoef, Council. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2 of 112 Martin: Mark Martin, Library Board. Lehman: Well, we're here to discuss a letter, I think, that you folks sent to us and whatever else may come up. Mark, if you'd like to start us out. Martin: Thank you, Ernie. I'm making an assumption that all the members of the Council received a memo that, was under my signature, came out on August 16th, requesting this meeting. We requested the meeting because we feel we're at a point where we need to move forward in our plans for expansion, and we had completed the survey that we spoke about when we met with you last, and that survey has shown strong support for library and for the library expansion, and a strong need for some of the improvements we wish to make in library services through that kind of expansion. And it's time to find out if we can proceed in directions we had previously discussed. So there are basically two items that we would like to discuss with the Council today and have your decision on. One relates to the use of the property on the 64-1A, which we would like very much to have as a site for a new standalone library. And secondly, whether we will be able to receive from you some funds to proceed with design, which will then allow us to tackle some of the issues surrounding that expansion project in a more concrete way and bring back to you a proposal that would be suitable for inclusion in a bond referendum at some point in the future. That's basically where we are. I don't want to retread .... Lehman: You sure made that simple. Kubby: It's pretty straightforward. Martin: It's pretty straightforward from our perspective. Champion: So what was the amount of money that you (can't hear). Martin: Sixty thousand is what we had asked for. And we also indicated that we have some designated girl funds that we would use to pay the reimbursable costs of the architect, which would be over and above the actual cost of the design work. Thornberry: So the maximum then that we'd be responsible for is for the 60,000? Martin: Right. Thomberry: Okay, because I see the additional meetings beyond the five are $1,000 a day per person, and 3,500 for a clear rendering, and all those other things. It'll take care of all those? Martin: We're at this bidding that we'll find ways to deal with that, yes. Norton: Does that 60,000 entail a commitment tacitly? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3 of 112 Martin: Champion: Martin: Craig: Kubby: Craig: Kubby: Norton: No. I don't believe so. I think, Dee, what the 60,000 includes is an opportunity to put together and present a project that makes sense, that you can evaluate on the basis of the things we've been talking about, particularly the efficiency of the project, its ability to lower our operating costs, its ability to meet the needs of the public as they have made them known to us, and, frankly, accessibility of parking have been shown to be as important as actual the square footage of expansion of the library in the public' s eyes. The public wants very much to have a library facility that is easily accessible, where they feel they can park and enter with the least amount of difficulty. And those things came out clearly in our survey. One of the questions that I had all along, and even though I'm definitely going to support this, is if somebody here in the past can tell me that the possibility of looking into reinforcing the building you have now to hold another floor and what those costs were. Because I think the public's going to have trouble with a new library when they consider that a new library. And so I think you need to have that option out there, that people are aware of what those costs would be and why it's not a possibility to do it--maybe it is a possibility. But I do think that's going to be hard to sell to the average voter--to build a whole new building when you have a twenty- year-old building. So, does anybody have any recollection of whether you had that looked into? Yes, we did. We had it completely costed out. Do you have those figures with?... The figures were about $11.8 million, and that was in 1994. So I assume that they've gone up. And that did not include the cost of relocating the library for some period of time. The reason that option was set aside by the Library Board initially was because it would require that we move out of the building because of the work that has to be done on the foundation. Some types of additional space could be added on without relocating--we'd just work around it the way they have done here at the Civic Center. But to do the fotmdation work to add the third floor would require that we leave the building. It was a close enough square footage to (can't hear) build new construction, wasn't it? Right. That wouldn't make sense financially. Yeah. We have, in other words, good figures on that, I think, that need to be updated because of inflation and perhaps some other factors. And I don't know--they included a lot of consideration of operating costs and things like that, but we certainly had pretty good figures in that earlier study, fight? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 4 of 112 Parker: We could get those updated alongside of doing this other thing, as long as the group is doing that at the same time. I don't think it would be a great deal of additional cost. Champion: Well, I think it would be a good idea to do anyway, to have those figures. Barklay: There's certainly some education of the public that needs to take place. I mean, there are explainable reasons for this and a history to be recounted. I mean, I think if everybody understands it, that that's part of what would be required. Norton: Yeah, we know, in other words, what it'll it cost to go up, we know what it'll cost to go westward in a certain sense, we know what it'll cost to go southward in a convoluted kind of way. What we don't know is what it'll cost to go freestanding on 64-1 A, right? Martin: Well, the early estimates we got indicate it's going to cost us between 15 million and 16.5, depending on how you put it together, but basically, the freestanding was between 15 million and 16 million, and that included the underground parking. Norton: Did it? Okay. Champion: And then what about just adding on the library going into 64-1A? Martin: Actually, that was a more expensive alternative. When they costed it out, the freestanding was closer to 15 million, and the expansion across was about 16.4. And the other thing that was key for us was that as they evaluated that expansion across, they had five or six major reasons why they would not recommend it, and it had to do with--I need to find a piece of.... [Several talking at once] Martin: It had to do with some definite difficulties that it created in terms of maintaining the building itself. Kubby: I mean the basic one is that it's inefficient in terms of heating and cooling, in terms of how staff uses their time traveling throughout the building, and people having services (can't hear). Martin: The detailed description's in a memo that Jesse sent to all of you in May before our last meeting, but it basically indicates that if we were to move south, the new building is far superior to that scenario because it'll be a more efficient layout, more flexibility in staff utilization, better time-distance ratios, costs less to keep them cool, much less (can't hear) roof form, suggesting that concentration will be less likely. Aesthetically, it would be better. The standalone has every advantage for success aesthetically over scenario B, which was moving south, because all aspects of interface with the mall, the parking garage and the streetscape can be controlled. And This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5 of 112 Champion: Martin: Swaim: O'Donnell: [7]: O'Donnell: Singerman: O'Donnell: Singerman: Norton: Craig: Singerman: Martin: This represents then they mention the cost of disruption of services to the library itself if we have to move south. And what they would have to do is basically gut and renovate all of the present first floor of the library, which would mean moving it somewhere else, so .... Well, you're still going to have disruptions of services no matter how you .... Yeah, one way or another. The advantage, of course, of building the standalone on 64-1A is you can obviously keep your operation going without any interruption, or minimal interruption, while you're in construction. And the standalone, even though you're fight, Connie, that there will be disruption whenever the move occurs, based on the experience of the last move, moving into a brand-new, standalone building can be done in a way that probably has the minimum disruption possible to library users. I've been up to the second floor of the library, and there's like this big vacant area up there. Is that approximately a thousand [?] square feet? Yes, that is. Why have we never looking expanding into that, or have we (can't hear)? We looked into expanding into that area like ten years ago? Well, whenever we started this whole process. And at that point it was too small, based on the information that we got from the experts that we consulted. So we went fight to looking at what is the amount of square footage that we need to provide library services into the future in Iowa City. It was too small when we began the whole process. But there's 8,000 square feet up there (can't hear). Is it 7, Susan, or 87 Seventy-two hundred--something like that. The architects--it's 8,000 real feet, but they always say 7,000 is what you'd be able to use by the time you built the walls and, you know. I mean, I wasn't there. It was more than six years ago or seven years ago, but I believe that was the first thing that the Library Board and the then-director looked at was can we just see what we planned on doing, expanded the second floor. And at that point, it was already too small. In our recent cost estimates of doing anything, we've looked at a lot of scenarios. The cost of expanding the second floor is actually higher than new construction. It's a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 6 of 112 about 140,000 square foot to expand the second floor against about 110 for new construction, and the estimates (can't hear). So that's another factor. Thornberry: How many square feet are in the meeting rooms? [Several talking at once] Swaim: In the proposed expansion or in the existing? Craig: I think it's about 2,000, but I could be wrong. That's about right. Liz is nodding her head over there, so .... Norton: Well, we have a detailed report that gives every square foot around somewhere of every piece of the whole scene. If we need it, I'm sure we can pull it out. Do you have a good list of what you want to give this person, the firm that you'd like to hire, in other words, for the elements you want to include? For example, does it include an ICN facility? [?]: Yes. Norton: What other?... Craig: We have a building program that was adopted in 1994, so it doesn't have the word "Internet" in it, for instance. But it alludes to and talks a great deal, for instance, about electronic information, which we knew was on the horizon in 1994. And the staff is in the process of going back and looking at the various components of that building program. But it's over a hundred-page document, and it details specifically the size that the Children's Room is now and what components are planned for in a new, improved Children's Room and the size that it should be. And so we're going back to look at, you know, what has happened since 1994. But, yes, there is a very detailed list of the new components in .... We did not call it an ICN room, but we did call for a training room, a room connected to a fiberoptics network. Norton: Does it include the mandate to minimize operating costs? I suppose that's always tacitly, but I mean, that' s more salient now than perhaps it was in the past. Martin: Yes. And as a matter of fact, the consultants who put together our quick estimates in terms of things we were just talking about made it clear that the new construction would give us opportunity to use all the current technology that's available to reduce staff time, to make the building and staff as efficient as possible. You know, self checkout is one of the areas that we could certainly reduce the supervision of staff if we had that available. So, when we met last, one of the reasons that I think the Board felt comfortable saying, "We will do this without increasing operating costs in that upcoming window of three years" is because we could do it efficiently and knock off enough to make that possible. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 O'Donnell: Champion: O'Donnell: Champion: Singerman: O'Donnell: [?]: Singerman: O'Donnell: [?]: O'Donndl: Singerman: 0'Donnell: Singerman: Norton: Singerman: Norton: Council Work Session Page 7 of 112 I've been thinking about another vacant building downtown. I'd like to see operating expenses addressed. We've never covered that, and now we have additional operating expenses for parking. We've got library expansion, parking area, we have, again, a vacant building. I'm just curious (can't hear). Well, I think we did address that at our last meeting--that they would be willing to help finance that. Am I wrong? For one year, I understand. Three. Are you talking about?... What vacant building are you referring to? The one you're moving out of. Well, that's a City building. It's a City building, I mean .... Exactly, and that's .... You can sell it, or, you know, whatever. I don't care who owns the building. It's going to be vacant. Yes. I don't see something that the Library Board is able to do anything about. What we talked about were the operating expenses for the new building. And we said that we would both minimize any new operating expenses by building design and use of staff, and we would absorb some of them ourselves with new monies we have from the state and other sources. And we would not ask you for anything additional in the budget that you had just passed at the time. (Can't hear) It was--aren't you on a three-year planning horizon7 Three-year plan, I think, yeah. It was for that period of time. Of course, what happens to that other building is up in the air. I mean, whether it stays a City building, whether it converts to some kind of commercial use. I don't know exactly who 's going to figure out how that plays out, but something .... It doesn't necessarily have to stay a public facility. Presumably it could be peddled. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 8 of 112 Lehman: Well, I think there's a number of questions that we really need to address. The proposal, your concept for block 64-1A, building a separate building, would that use the entire portion of that 64-1A? Norton: 37,000 square feet on that. [?]: Lehman: Okay. The last proposal we looked at with the combined use of the library cultural center, do I dare say that?--well, it was a multi-use son of facility .... Norton: Community center. [?]: Community events. Lehman: Yeah, and of course at that time we expressed some concerns about operating costs, and I don't think that--there's no question that if we build a bigger facility, sooner or later it's going to cost more money. It's also going to cost more money to stay in the building you're in fight now. I mean, over time, costs go up, whether you're paying for library services or police services or fire services, automatically things just go up. And I don't think there's any question that a larger library is eventually is going to cost more money. So, I mean that, to me, I guess that's not the biggest--it's a concern, but I guess the Council is going to have to address whether or not using block 64-1A, it's appropriate to use all of that for a public building, a separate library. We're going to have to look at what we envision and the time frame for convening the old building into something that we can either use ourselves for a public purpose or lease to someone else. I mean, I think these are some questions that need to be addressed before we go too far. I also think that the parking associated with the new building, obviously that could be, maybe should be, I have no idea, maybe that should be a part of the parking system. Maybe that portion of the building should be a parking-revenue-related item that's paid off parking revenue rather than library bonds. The cost of operating the new underground parking is significantly more than operating a regular parking ramp. Is this something the Library Board is going to come out of their budget? If so, there's no way in the world that you're going to stay within any kind of an operating budget, because it costs a lot more to operate an underground facility. Champion: They don't have to be manned necessarily. Lehman: No, no. But just the ventilation and whatever. Talk to the University about underground parking. It's much more expensive to build to start with. Also much more expensive to operate. If this is going to be one building, is it going to be built in such a fashion that additional floors can be added? Ifthat's true, who pays for the additional footings? Is that something the library picks up, or is that something the City wants to pick up. I think there's a lot of questions that we really need to address, This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 9 of 112 [?]: Lehman: Kubby: This represents and I agree that obviously the old library is a City building, and we can't expect the library board to tell, you know, come and say, "Hey, look, we've got a buyer for the building." But on the other hand, we've got to decide or have some idea of how we're going to market that building, and if that building takes a significant amount of remodeling or redoing, should that be part of the library bond issue? Because if it is not, and the cost is over $700,000, we could be required to have a bond issue to improve the old building. And if the public chose not to approve that bond issue, we'd be sitting with an old building that we can't improve. I think there are a lot of questions, I mean, I think that we need to be addressing all of these things together and moving along together. I do think there's some questions at least that I have, but I don't know if any of the other Council people do .... But I think, for example, we did have an inquiry last week on block 64-1A. And I'm sure all of you have read, there has been some talk--talk is real cheap--that there's been some interest and maybe some possibilities of development occurring, and I don't remember the block, but the block where the Rebel Motel is, where Ffieda Hieronymus is talking about her square, and there are some federal monies that may be coming into the system within, what? two or three years? (Can't hear) Well, a year. But, I mean, we're looking at a possibility of from $9-12 million that could be used for some development on that block. So I think there's a lot of things that Council is going to have to sit down and weigh and look at the various possibilities, not the least of which is 64-1A. Is it appropriate to use the entire block for another public building? I guess I'd be interested in comments from Council, and I think obviously you would like some direction. I don't know how comfortable I am in giving you any direction fight now, but I mean, I think these are questions that have got to be addressed. And I think that we've been trying to address these for not just a few years, but many years, getting close to two digits, getting close to ten years, talking about this. And I think that we need to, instead of saying "These are all these concerns we have," that maybe we can't really make a decision. But I want to turn it around the other way to say, "We need to make a commitment to downtown, a commitment to library services by saying 'yes' to 64-1A." It's a great use of the last urban-renewal parcel. And then to say, "What are these concerns?" is saying "yes" to the $60,000 to see what the specific project is. And saying maybe there' s some conditions on that use, that we need to figure these things out by this date or we need to say that parking needs need to be addressed within that direction that is given to the architect, which is obviously going to be there--the survey was clear, the community has been very clear, Council has been clear on that issue. So, I want to figure out how we can make this happen and make it happen without more changing of the rules of the game in terms of the potential of two or three years from now south of Burlington, the potential of this or the potential of that. Now is the time to put the library in the forefront of our action and our commitment to downtown and to library services. So, at this time I'm ready to say, "yes" as an individual Council member to all of 64-1A, because I think it's a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 10 of 112 Norton: Champion: Norton: Champion: Norton: Champion: Norton: Champion: Vanderhoefi This represents good for the community to use that space in that way. And to say "yes" to that 60,000, and then I'd love to have us--I'd like everyone to say "yes" to those two things, too, and then to start talking about those other things that (can't hear). I will second that. I'm for putting the library on 64-1A and getting that commitment and also getting the planning underway. But I would like to move promptly to suggest that I've all along felt that I'd hate to see that airspace not used for some other purpose. So, in the planning I'd sure like to see how the numbers play out for putting a base in there that will support that option of going up above the library at some future point. I'd hate--we built a two-story building before, you know, without even enough foundation to support the third floor, let alone anything more. And given our interest in some--I don't know where it says, suites hotel or condominium- type buildings, some kind of living downtown--that's a key place to put it. So I would not want to see that forgotten. But I would think we ought to start by saying we're willing to put the library on 64-1A. And I'd like to do it. We've tried a lot of different options. There is other land, too, for future development. For instance, Frieda's land and some more land along Court Street (can't hear). Oh yeah. There' s plenty of room. Oh, there's other options, oh yes. There's options on .... But I'm just talking about whether you want to keep that option of at least having in the plans an option for a base that supports more than just .... The block's been sitting empty for 25 years. I say we build on it. I still have some questions that need to be answered for me, one being the old building. And if it stays a public building, then I see additional costs that we have to put into running that building--we can't mothball it, obviously. And we're not clear whether it has a salability and certainly being a public entity, to continue to own that building and go into competition, perhaps, with other businesses or with other kinds of office space is not what would be my favorite kinds of things to do with that office space that's available downtown. So, selling the building is a real important key to me. Another key issue for me is to look at the total capital that is going out for the expenditure on this building, because, as I recall our conversations a year ago now, we did a capital improvements plan for the next three years, and we were very aggressive as a Council of the things that we saw that we needed. And those things, a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 11 of 112 Champion: Swaim: Thomberry: Swaim: Singerman: This represents when we got finished up, I think it worked out something like 13, 12 and 10 million per year for the three year, and then we had moved some things, obviously, at the end of the out years that are not programmed. And when we got around to doing budget in January, we looked at it, and we looked at the total tax bill and what we would be asking our citizens to pay, and we saw we didn't think that our citizens would (can't hear) approve of this. So we redid our capital improvements plan and brought it down to 10 million per year for three years. And even with that, we were slightly exceeding our self-imposed bonding limit for the City. So, I need to look at this whole bonding limit, because none of that $30 million was including anything for the library. So for me, it would mean that I would have to look at that whole capital budget and put it in perspective with the request for the capital in the terms of--say, if you're going 16.5 for a library, then we might be talking about 1.5, or something like that, for the existing building, and then operating costs, which is a whole different kind of budget. So I have some real questions on how we juggle the whole capital budget kind of thing. And I want some more discussion on that. But even if we approve this today, this is not be going up that quickly. So we're talking about a three-year plan--we're almost through that first year. (Can't hear) So you're going to be at least a year and a half along before this building starts to get built, I would think. The other thing is the voters ultimately will be giving you very direct feedback on whether they think it's an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, because it's going to require 60% of the voters to say "yes" to the library expansion. If they say "no," they've spoken with a clear voice. If they say "yes," they've spoken with a clear voice. I think what I'm frustrated as a Board member is we don't ever even get a chance, in my five years, to ask the voters directly on the library. We did it in sort of an indirect way with the sales tax, and I recognize that that was a good-faith effort, but we still have had no opportunity to actually hear what the voters have to say. And as one Board member, it sure would be nice, now that I'm up for another six years [laughter], to at least have the chance to have the voters say. Because part of the frustration is, in all the conversations, all of the five years, no one ever comes back and says, "Don't expand the space. You're going to have to make do with this space, or you're going to have to eliminate programming." And yet the consequence, if we don't deal with the space, is we are out of places for people to even sit down and read a newspaper in the library. (Can't hear) that there's no place for somebody to sit down?... Well, I just mean, if you go down there now and compare it to what it was like five years ago and compare it to what it was ten years ago, it's getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller because we're just running out of space. Each month there ' s .... One other thing relative to the bonding one that, I mean, I could remember this wrong, but I believe we've had three meetings since the sales tax failed, and in one of a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 12 of 112 the first meetings, Steve did a whole analysis about that very issue. And I believe that Steve's conclusion was the issue was not the capital cost in terms of the City' s financial resources; it was the operating costs. I believe that question has been asked and answered. When we were here last time, one of the points that we made is that we recognized that the current building has to have a plan, or the voters would justifiably say, "Well, what about the current building?" And we asked at that time if you would allocate City staff resources to help figure that out. And to my knowledge, to this date, nothing's been done. So now we're here--we're three months later, or I don't know, three weeks later, whatever it's been--and we're still in the same place, asking the same question. And now it's being raised as a barrier, which we brought to your attention and asked you to help us solve. Kubby: So what has been the, in terms of--because we did direct that staff look at (can't hear) a question for Steve, what has been done in terms of exploring .... [Several talking at once] Atkins: The question you had asked, in the event that we recommend a new building, would you be willing to assign staff to develop a plan for disposition. Kubby: So you think that that process should not start until we make decisions here? Atkins: Now we know what the library's recommendation is, then it's clear, if the recommendation is accepted by you, you will have to (can't hear) for the disposition of the building. We brainstormed and banged around ideas about it, but nothing (can't hear). Because the whole building has to have an evaluation (can't hear), and that's an expensive (can't hear).. Kubby: I guess I'd like to hear if there's at least a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh Council person who's interested in using 64 for this purpose and outlining the concerns that would (can't hear) that decision (can't hear). Norton: Yeah, where are we going to go here? Thornberry: I think that perhaps that if we could squeeze 10,000 square feet out of the current building, and it hasn't been done, and the need was seen ten years ago, as I understand it, that the space was not near enough, so it wasn't done ten years ago. Is that what you said? Singerman: I said at the beginning of the process it was looked at, because that had been the plan for the current building, and that point the Board decided it was inadequate, we didn't want to go to the voters twice with one referendum .... Thornberry: Well, I thought the (can't hear) ten years ago, no? It was a long time ago. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 13 of 112 Singerman: Martin: Kubby: Singerman: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thomberry: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: [?]: This represents Well, I you, whenever it was, seven years ago, whenever the whole thing started. When did we start? Ten years ago in library years. Ten years in library years! If you want an exact date, we can give it to you. No. I think that .... I think we've really got to, as they say, fish or cut bait here on whether we're going with the library on 64-1A, or are we going to fiddle around another five years. We can't just keep doing this. And I don't want to even plunge into this new study, in some ways, 60,000 plus whatever you guys have to put into it, you know, just to come up with options. It seems to me we're making a pretty substantial commitment to get that study not to help decide whether to go ahead but to get details about going ahead. My assumption is that we want to do something with the library, we got to decide what the general nature of that and where and then figure it out from there. Well, I'm all in favor of doing something for the library. It's a good library. It's a lot better than the old one. You want to move it or expand it? I would like to expand it. On the present site, you mean. That's correct. But within those sharp limitations of 8,000 square feet? Well, eight or ten. I think if they need the library space that they could use all the library space needed. I don't think that all the space in the current library has been utilized to the best that it could be. And once all of that space has been utilized for library space, that's the time to take a look and see what (can't hear) .... But what does that mean, Dean? Does that mean like cutting out the meeting rooms and stuff like that? Possibly cutting out the meeting rooms. If you need library space, and it means taking up a meeting room that sits vacant for more time that it's being utilized, then we ought to have more library space. Meeting rooms are a library use. a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 14 of 112 Vanderhoef: Thornberry: Swaim: Vanderhoef: Swaim: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Champion: I would really like to explore this idea of a community library in conjunction with Kirkwood. I don't know what could come out of that. It could be space, and one of the things that Mark offered to us fight away today was something that you recognize is that the public really wants accessibility and they want parking. So that is a possibility, sitting out there, that we've not explored completely. But do you really think the voters?... I'm just curious. Do you really think the?... I rarely second-guess the voters. Well, I just think, do you believe that the voters, who you don't believe want to vote for the expanded library, that you have questions about whether or not they'll vote for an expanded library on 64-1A, are going to vote to expand Kirkwood's library for Kirkwood's college, and then have us be a part of that? Do you really think the voters are going to go for that? I think there' s a percent of the voters would see that .... Sixty percent? In a package put together of the 8,000 square feet expansion of your present space, and I don't know what else is available, whether there' s any more bump-out space available on the second floor to meet the frontage of the other building .... On the south there? Yeah, I don't know about that. But that would be another question that I would like to explore, whether we could get another 2 or 3,000 square feet there. I don't know what that looks like. And I also know that I would like to get more questions answered and see what could be developed in the way of a community library with Kirkwood College. I thought we had talked about this long ago. I mean, we've been talking about this library, it seems like I've been on this Council for ten years now. You know, we talked about a branch library. I thought we eliminated that because all the problems contained with it. And it's hard for me to believe that a branch library, a real branch library--when I was a kid, I went to a branch library; it had, you know, a children's section, it had a fiction section, it had a nonfiction section, it had a small reference room on the side and brochures and things--and I would think that Kirkwood would need a much more academic library than we would consider building into a branch library. And so, to me it seems like we're back to the same old question: are we going to have two mediocre libraries or are we going to have one really good library? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 15 of 112 Thornberry: Well, I think the library we've got now is good. I'm not saying that we've got a mediocre library. Champion: No, I know it, but I'm saying that you dilute that. I don't think the town is big enough to support a library somewhere else. And the Board has already said they're going to address the parking and the accessibility issue in their new building, and I would encourage them to do that, to find some way to provide library parking only. Barklay: You know, a cooperative agreement with Kirkwood sometime in the future when it is time to think about a branch library is an interesting idea, but going into an arrangement like that with Kirkwood now would not solve the problems that the downtown library faces. Because, I mean one thing you're not going to do with a library is divide its services--put a children' s library one place and an adult library somewhere else, for example, or, you know, have an academic collection one place and a nonacademic question in another place. A branch library, basically, is a duplication or a small-scale duplication of existing services, so any kind of branch-- and this is an interesting idea down the line, maybe somewhere, as a way of cooperating with another institution and sharing operating costs at the point where a branch is called for, but I don't think that this proposal even deserves to be part of this discussion, because it doesn't address the needs of a downtown library. Swaim: You know, if it tums out Kirkwood has plans to build a college library and approaches the Library Board, if we gave you some space to have a small little satellite office within our Kirkwood Library, would you be interested? [?]: I'm sure. Swaim: But on the Library Board, we say, "Sure, we can explore ways to do that." But the notion of us building the library and then contracting out for the City' s library services to Kirkwood's staff, I mean you're creating a fairly interesting administrative challenge. IfI were in Susan's shoes, I'd be going, "So do I supervise those staff?. Do you supervise those staff?." [Several talking at once] Vanderhoef: (Can't hear) questions I'd like to explore just to see you thought. And I'd like to explore with the librarians so that they could look and see whether it is possible to put together a workable collection that doesn't duplicate a whole lot, doesn't cost a lot, and still offer something more to our community, our expanded community, because, you know, obviously we all pay tax bills for Kirkwood as well as for this. And we have opportunities here because we have our, any way we look at it, our students at the junior high, at the high school--they also could well use the materials perhaps that are already there at Kirkwood. Kubby: But, you know, even if we figured all that stuff out and it sounded like a good idea, it doesn't relieve the space needs of the main library. I mean, the Library Board has This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 16 of 112 looked into this in detail. I think we look for them to do, to give us advice about. And they have said that it's not going to relieve those needs of the main library, even with finishing off and getting 7,200 square feet, by finishing that off, that' s not going to relieve the space needs and the service needs of the main library. And so .... Thornberry: I think, Karen, that if there were another facility that some of the demands on the central library would be relieved. So perhaps .... Kubby: That's not how the industry works, though. Norton: Yeah, (can't hear), it didn't work that way, though. Kubby: That people would go to that other facility, but they would also use the main facility, so that doesn't relieve those needs at the main facility when you shuffle some of the services over, whether it's duplicated or not. I mean, that's just not how library systems work. Thomberry: I think perhaps that if there were not a Coralville Library, which I still call the Iowa City west branch, but if there were not a Coralville Library, you don't think that there would be more people visiting the Iowa City downtown library? Kubby: We have a lot of Coralville people coming to Iowa City Library. Thomberry: What you're saying is "no" or "yes"? Kubby: I think that the... Thornberry: If there were not a Coralvi lle Library, do you think the Iowa City Library would be busier? Several: Yes. Thornberry: Me too. Kubby: But there are some other issues here that don't make that apples and apples, Dean, because Coralville residents, to use Iowa City Library now, have to pay a fee .... [Several talking at once] Thornberry: You can go from Iowa City to use the Coralville Library, and it doesn't cost. Norton: No, we've gone over this time, hundred times. Martin: Let me try to refocus this for a minute. Frankly, the Library Board has no problem with exploring the issue of branches, once we've dealt with the issue of what to do downtown. The study that was done in 1993 and updated in 1996 was done by This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 17 of 112 persons who know more about libraries, frankly, than most of us arotmd this table, with the exception of Susan. They indicated to us that we need an expansion of 28,000 square feet to make us viable until the year 2010. And then they said, at that point you need to consider no longer expanding your central downtown facility but looking at the possibility of branches, because your population will have grown to that size, and it will be more beneficial for you to look at branches. Now, the Board is single-minded on this. And you need to understand this. We're not going to move offof it, we are not going to change our mind, we are not going to compromise the fact the downtown library needs additional space in the amount of 28,000 square feet. It doesn't help us to spend $4 million to fix up 7,200 square feet on the second floor, it doesn't help us to do as much as we can to make it look like we've maxed out that building. The fact is, if you take people on a tour through there, which we've been doing, they're very clear about the fact that we've maxed out that building. We are willing to consider alternatives, yes, and we are willing to work with you, yes, but the fact of the matter is no branch and no compromise is going to meet the needs of the downtown library. And no branch is going to duplicate what is done in downtown. You will have adult popular fiction and other popular nonfiction books, you will have a children's section, you will have some help available for homework for junior-high and senior-high levels, you will not have the reference material, you will not have reference librarians, you will not have many of the things that are most costly to duplicate. So it is not apples and oranges, and we are not talking simply about moving people to doing something closer to where they live, because a lot of what they need to do will still be at the downtown facility. Frankly, our frustration is that it seems like every time we come and have this discussion, we kind of talk like this, and then we go away, and we come back three months later and we talk like this again, and we never come to a point of being able together to move ahead on what is best for the community and for the library. We had a sort of group hug before the sales-tax thing, you may recall that. It was a touching moment. We were all here in this room .... Norton: Yeah. Committed, right. Martin:' Yeah, we committed together that we were going to pass the sales tax, because it was going to allow us to do the community events center, the new library--and we went out and we worked, I mean, we worked hard to make that happen, and it did not happen. That does not eliminate the need for the library, a need which has existed now, documented for the last seven years, a need that will continue to exist while you're trying to figure out all the answers to all the questions about all the possibilities and permutations that may take place. Now, we are not opposed to trying to find ways to compromise. We are not opposed to trying to find creative ways to use the old building, we are not opposed to virtually anything that will allow us to provide the 28,000 square feet and to maximize the efficiency of the library so that we can lower operating costs. The best alternative, This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 18 of 112 Thornberry: Dellsperger: Thornberry: Lehman: Lehman: This represents developed by people who know, because they do this every day of the week, is a standalone library on 64-1A. That is the best altemative. It's the one that saves the most money, in terms of construction, it's the one that saves the most money in the long run, it's the one that minimizes your operational costs because of modernizing your HVAC system, and utilizing other technologies. And we, as a Library Board, believe that our public trust that' s placed in us means that we need to do the best we can to produce the best product and services for the folk who are coming to that library. And we've consistently tried to come back to you with that information that will allow us to move ahead. Would you be opposed to?... I would agree to a public referendum on the library, on a standalone library on 64-1A, and you already know what it's going to cost to build the library. Why do we have to commit to the 60,000+ before the referendum? Because we've got to have something people. We've got to have a picture. We've got to have that. If we don't have that, what are they voting for? Well, a $60,000 picture is .... You know, I sense,.... The first thing I sense, first of all, I think that a referendum for a standalone library for 16 or $17 million is going to be a tough call. I believe that unless the Council is committed to this thing and really gets behind it, I think it has tough sledding, but I just think it's going to be a lot tougher if Council doesn't support it. I think we need to be on board or committed to this being a good concept. Now, I've got a couple of questions, Steve. I would like to know, and I don't know how much effort this is going to take to come up with some information to Council, but there are a lot of questions that I have; I think I have more questions than I think I have answers. Obviously, using all of 64-1A limits the options downtown. I do think, and you tended to agree that we need not limit our options there, that if something is done there (can't here). CHANGE TAPE TO 99-83 S 1 One of the biggest concerns expressed by the Library Board has been continually convenience in the way of parking. This removes the most convenient parking that there is for the library. On the other hand, there's 1,500 spaces within a block and a half. We need to look at the cost of underground parking, what it costs to operate that parking, who is going to be responsible for the financing of the parking building and also the cost of operation of that. And I don't think that we would be well advised to tell the Library Board to go ahead and build this building, including a 500-car ramp or whatever that should be, and then expect them to operate that out of their own funds, because I don't think that's going to fly. I mean, I think that the old building obviously is--and I realize that that's going to be strictly a matter of guessing or conjecture--but I do think we need some clue as to, at least some idea of how we would market that building, whether it be for private use or for some public purpose. a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 19 of 112 And I really would like some sort of--personally, I'd like some sort of--"answer" probably isn't the fight word, because I don't think any of those can be answered-- but some sort of indication from our staff as to, you know, what this really entails. And I think it goes--if we come up with answers on those things that are acceptable, then I don't have a problem with it. Champion: I don't think you're going to be able to determine the marketability of a building until you put it on the market. Lehman: Not totally, but I think that there are some things that we can--there are questions here that we can have answers to. We obviously cannot say, "This building will be sold to an accounting firm or legal firm, for $2,387,000 on July 1, 2003--can't say that. But I do think that libraries are designed as libraries. What does that do when it comes to remodeling a building for some other use? I mean, is that a big problem for an office use or whatever? Thomberry: Well, if the library can't come up with it, nobody could come up with it. [Several talking at once] Thomberry: Would a blank lot be better to market than a building that 's already built as a library. And it can't go up? I don't know. Craig: Dean, I believe that you could add a third floor if it was not a library. Thornberry: Why can't you put--if you went up a third floor, then, why couldn't you put all the offices and all of the meeting rooms on the third floor, and then expand--see what I mean? Craig: In fact, that was the plan that we looked at for the third floor. If the bookstacks are anywhere in the building, you can't have the third floor without doing the footings. If you take all the bookstacks out, and it was an office space or a retail space, you could add the third floor structurally, because the bookstacks would be gone. Vanderhoef: Could we check (can't hear) because I asked that question and was told "no." Because I was thinking (can't hear). Craig: I'll try to affirm that, but I believe that that is .... [?]: Well, I think any engineer, though, would say it kind of does depend on what you on the other two floors (can't hear). Vanderhoef: Oh, I agree the weight bearing is a big thing, which I understood, and that's why I asked the question to begin with, because I could see someone maybe wanting to buy that building and have some commercial, and then go apartments or whatever above, that there had more possibilities .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 20 of 112 Lehman: Steve, are those things that we could get some sort of response, or are things just so nebulous that you can't do anything? Atkins: I can give my best answer to all of these questions for you, Ernie, but they also ultimately all get down to the Council's decisions. Champion: I mean, are we just going to put this decision off again? These are the same questions we had last time exactly. Thomberry: No, we just say--it's not putting it off again, Connie. It would be a Council saying "Expand what you've got." (Can't hear). Swaim: I thought I heard you say that you did support, you would be willing to support, putting to the voters, putting 64-1A as a standalone library, and that you're ready to do that tonight. Thomberry: I could do that .... Swaim: Then the $60,000 part is the one you question using? Thomberry: (Can't hear) the voters have already told me that they didn't want to do it. [Several talking at once] Thornberry: I'm saying 50% of the sales tax was going to be going toward the library. 50%. Singerman: Our survey showed that 60% of the people who voted against it supported the expanded library. I mean, I really think it was other issues that sank that, including... [Several talking at once] Singerman: Thomberry: Singerman: Swaim: the sales tax and the community events center were the big things that sank us. Sixty percent of the voters that voted for it, is that what you said? Against it. No, 50% of the voters who voted against the sales taxes were supportive of expanding the library downtown. Thornberry: Expanding it where? A new library or expanding the current library? Lehman: Well, the vote told us absolutely nothing. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 21 of 112 Singerman: Well, our survey told us quite a bit. [Several talking at once] Norton: The survey is pretty convincing. We've all seen the same data, and this survey does suggest there's considerable support for the library downtown, and the question of whether it said "on a new site" or whether--because they didn't talk about expansion on the present site explicitly in that survey, did they? [?]: No. Norton: There was assumption of some kind of a new library wasn't there? [?]: Right. Thornberry: Well, when you start assuming a new site, I think you're (can't hear) trouble to begin with. Swaim: But again. We're just pointing out that those are the ones who voted against the sales tax, not including all of the people who did, in fact, vote for the sales tax. Barklay: If I could attempt again to summarize a point of view of the board, what we're looking for. One is an acknowledgment that the library has these needs, that the current facility is inadequate to meet the needs of the community and to have the emergence of a "can-do" attitude about this that says "How are we going to accomplish this?" rather than "What are all the obstacles that we should .... " Because, I mean, here is a good example of this: in the discussion tonight, I hear Council members say, "I can't decide on this until I know about the disposition of the old building." And I hear the City Manager say, "Well, we can't even look at that until you've decided." And so, you've come to a complete impasse at that point, and with barriers that you've created for yourselves. I mean, the question is: do you acknowledge that the library needs to be expanded, and if you acknowledge that, are you ready to sign on to figure out a way to do it? Norton: I think using the word "expanded" is a bad word, because, you see, that means the option that people can understand "expanded" within the second floor of the present building. You want to talk about a new library. And stop talking about expansion of the library, because you're talking about building a new structure. Barklay: Well, we're talking about expansion of facilities. (Can't hear). Norton: Okay, but I don't want to get that mixed up, expanding on the second floor. We agreed within the Council, we all got behind--almost all--got behind the library as a principle that we needed the library, recognized the need, because we were willing to put it on the last one. It was a matter of how to get it done and whether you liked the This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 22 of 112 Lehman: Norton: Barklay: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Swaim: Thornberry: Singerman: Thornberry: Singerman: local-option sales tax as a way to fund it. That and whether the other components that we still think, many of us, are still important. I still think meeting rooms are crucial in a facility downtown. So I thought we were all behind now. Now we've got a new ball, and we've got to get behind a different way of financing it, but that seems to me the only question. And the question that Ernie raised about, do you want a study now that will tell you with or without the foundations? How should that be handled? I mean, is that going to be part of the library bond issue. I think probably not. No, but I mean that we want to look at the options. What that entail (can't hear) you finance it, but could you leave out the parking now that we've got a new parking structure? And that changes the pattem of parking downtown some, but could you maybe finesse the underground parking and take more of the Dubuque Street ramp, for example, for library purposes, rather than go underground? So there are many options. But I still think the principle we already committed to is we need a new library. Yeah. I mean, I think the sense that we want to see is the sense that this is moving forward and not just spinning its wheels more and more. I'd agree. I'm ready to move forward. I think you jumped to a conclusion, Dee, that I have not jumped to. And that would be the fact that we need another new library downtown. Yeah. I'm not ready (can't hear). A central aspect of the downtown vitality, yes. So you don't want to put 64-1A before the voters? Now what I said was that if it didn't cost anything, and you wanted to know if the voters wanted a new library or not, put it before the voters, and I would be willing to do that. Now, if you say you needed a $60,000 picture, I don't think so. I think that (can't hear/several talking). So you would be our fourth vote for 64-1A if?. .... Pardon me? You would vote "yes" tonight to give us 64-1A if we can figure out how to get the money to finance our the architectural design? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 23 of 112 Thornberry: No. No, no, don't put words in my mouth. Norton: (Can't hear). Thornberry: What I said was this. Singerman: I thought that is what you said. Thornberry: If you want to put to the voters the need for a new library, I would support putting that on the ballot as a referendum without even .... Swaim: designating 64-1A. Thornberry: And I did not even mention 64-1A. Several: You did. Thornberry: All right. I would like to see the possibility of a new library downtown, in the downtown area. Now whether it's on the other side of Burlington, whether it's on 64-1A, whether it's on top of the parking ramp--I don't know. I think that it's a lot easier, whether it be completely wiping out the current library, tearing it down and rebuilding a library on the same space, I don't know. Do the people of Iowa City-- this is the question I've really got, and I represent the people (can't hear)--and I'm only a representative. Whether I want it or I don't want it, the people are going to tell us, okay? Whether they want a new library, a brand-new library downtown, and walk away from what we've got now, or not. And that's what I kind of would like to know. Champion: Is that the (Can't hear)? Singerman: Is there any way to know that until we put before them and ask? Thornberry: You know, I have no problem with that. Singerman: So, are you saying "yes," that you would vote to put a referendum on the ballot to build a new library. We do have to have a site. Thornberry: We do have to have a site? [Several talking at once] Kubby: Dean, you might agree to the concept of buying a new home or a new business, but would you be willing to say, "Tax me for it, I'm going to put the money down for it," unless you knew the location, and what it was going to entail--where the house was going to be, where the business was going to be, and what was going to happen inside of that. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 24 of 112 Thomberry: Kubby: Thornberry: Magalhaes: Thornberry: I just thought (can't hear) the concept. Do the people?... But the bond referendum is saying "yes" to the money, and frankly, I'm not going to put my money down on a used car unless I know where it's come from and what the space is like inside. Yeah, well I bought a car .... What you're suggesting basically is a survey, which we've already done. We've done a survey. Not of the people. Not of the voters. O'Donnell: Norton: O'Donnell: Kubby: [Several talking at once] Did the survey ask specifically about an expanded library or a new freestanding library? What was the question? Here it is. How was it asked? Council members read this I guess (can't hear). The question here is actually is in here. Actually, part of preparing to be able to speak about issues at this meeting is .... Singeman: "To fund building a new library," that's the language in here. O'Donnell: Building a new library. Lehman: Steve, how long would it take to get the answer or your responses to some of those questions? Atkins: The marketability of the current?... Lehman: Well, that's going to be strictly a guess. I don't expect .... Thornberry: Well, that's a big, that's a big .... Lehman: I know it is, but I don't there's an answer to it. Atkins: Emie, there still remains a variety of policy questions that you have to answer. I mean, the impact of the loss of parking, I don't know how to answer that, other than there's fewer spaces, okay? What it's going to mean--I don't have an answer for you on that. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 25 of 112 Champion: But that kind of three_hour parking is really new. Atkins: I understand. The cost of underground and financing to operate, yeah, we can put that together fairly quickly for you. As far as the old building is concerned, I'd need some guidelines. I mean, it's a 40,000-square-foot building, $100 a square foot, $4 million replacement value. Will that building sell for $4 million? I doubt it. But if we make the decision that we're not intending to recover its replacement value, that' s a policy question. If you want to convert its use to something private, then we have to talk that through, because that would affect the market, as if who would be interested in purchasing it. If you want to keep it in a public use, then we have certain the certain renovation costs that we have to have, plus we're going to have to operate it, so our operating costs thing doesn't go away. As far as putting a third floor on, I'd have to consult Susan; I'm not sure how that works. Apparently, we may be able to do that. I mean, I can answer these questions for you, Emie .... Kubby: We need to maybe work on some parallel tracks that we don't keep kind of, again, changing again changing the rules of the game or keep creating more barriers, but to figure out if there is support for 64-1A. And maybe there are a few votes that say as long as we can figure out, that we will strive to make those other issues work out, so that the Library Board can go forward and that we can get some of these answers to these questions so that we can keep some momentum rolling here. Lehman: Well, my concern, frankly, I think some of those questions are questions that until we have answers for, the voters won't support the bond issue, and that concerns me. I don't like losing. And I really think~bviously Library Board feels the same way-- if you put it on the ballot, you want to see a 60%, you want to see that dam thing win. And I think there are questions that have got to be answered to the satisfaction of the public or they're not going to vote for it. Barklay: To make it win. Lehman: Absolutely! And I also think it needs the support of the Council, and if we're sitting here not having answers to questions and not being comfortable, I don't think that Council's going to be as supportive as they have to be if we're going to pass it. Magalhaes: My quick question is: do we have to have every question answered before we can move forward on it. Lehman: No, obviously not. Swaim: And the question I have for you would be: do you support, as one of the potential four votes, putting 64-1A on the referendum tonight so that we can move forward with all these questions based on at least a majority of the Council is committed to this, and we know that we are putting on a referendum at a specific designated time. And so then we've got our work cut out, to get those things answered between now This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 26 of 112 and whenever that referendum is--in fact, between now and whenever we want to start the campaign. That's a lot easier than coming back every three months and going, well now here's the new questions we have to answer before we can even get the referendum on the (can't hear). And so if you're as one of potentially four voters, you know, I'd love you for the rest of your (can't hear/laughter). I mean, I appreciate everything you're saying--I firmly endorse all the questions that you identify as needing to be answered. Thornberry: It looks like you've got three votes, and you're looking for a fourth pretty hard. Swaim: Yes, we thought it was you, actually (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Lehman: I'm not saying that I won't support this at all, because I--but I really would like to.. ·. Frankly and personally, I would rather see us defer this and act on it on the next meeting which is the 13th of September and get some response or whatever we can from you, Steve. [?]: I agree. Lehman: If you can get us something by then. Atkins: I can get you some information. To be brutally candid .... Lehman: Be brutally candid. Arkins: It's just going to generate more questions· I think there, by the nature of your discussion over the last fifteen minutes, it seems to me that there is at least a collective feeling that you're not going to consider other options, that it's a downtown project. I think that I gathered that .... Atkins: That's what I'm hearing you say. Lehman: I think that the Library Board is telling us that. Atkins: No, (can't hear). I heard what the Library Boards said. I'm listening to the rest of you (can't hear). That the downtown project appears to be what you're committed to. Now, whether it's 8,000 square feet, 28,000 square feet, whether it's a free-- whatever what, it's downtown. That's what I heard you say. Thornberry: I would like to expand the current library to its fullest extent. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 27 of 112 Atkins: Thornberry: Atkins: Champion: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Norton: This represents That's okay. Yeah, that's okay. My point is that it's downtown. That's what you said. And then if they need more space .... And then, then if it's downtown, there seems to be for Council a series of questions that you might need to answer, the ones I jotted for myself. Will you permit the use of all of 64-1A, yes or no? Yes. Okay, and if you say "yes," then that means there is no expansion of the hotel, you have likely forever precluded a community events center--I mean, there's a constituency that wants that on that site. That you have--all of these are important issues (can't hear) .... Well, I feel like I'm going backwards on our discussion, because we have how long, with all these what-ifs, we will do that forever, if we allow your guidance with these questions to take us in that position. But there are ways to deal with those contingencies by, say, the City commits to doing footings to allow some expansion. Mm-hm. My point still remains is that if you make a policy decision, you've got to be fully aware of the consequences. Not unlike with the Library Board getting a decision on the downtown project. They are fully aware of the consequences. I just want you to make sure that if you don't support the project, I think, Karen, in your own words, that it's going to be very difficult for it to come together. These are not back-breakers, but this are just simply things that you need to know. But to say we preclude others .... But you honestly, you preclude other things .... But what am I to do? Wait till the hotel catches its breath to tell us they want to do something--we've been waiting and waiting--we haven't heard a thing in twenty years. (Can't hear) is called a decision. We have not talked about the policy of where we're going with our bonding limit for capital. We have looked at that. And what we're going to do for our tax bills. We're perfectly within our limits. a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Cotmcil Work Session Page 28 of 112 Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: That' s the one policy thing that we have not crossed. There are certain things that we can do for seven or eight million that we can handle very easily without a problem. We're well within our bonding limits. But when we get up into the 18 million, possibly more, depending on what happens to the old building, then that's a big policy question for me, and that's the one that I've not been able to cross over along with the added .... If we keep the old building, we have the added cost of operating that building, which the library folk (can't hear), and one of the reasons that you got pulled into the sales-tax issue was because of operating issues, that we could do a certain amount of bonding, and nobody disagrees that you need space. It's.just how much, how many dollars will our voters be willing to put out, and how do we balance, as a City Council, the things that we have to do with our capital funds? Now, yes, you have needs. We look around. We have needs in parks and recreation. We have needs for the public works campus, the things that need to be rebuilt. We have needs for other staffing that we did put into this budget. So these are the things that I look at, and how can we balance these things and still serve some of the needs of the library, serve some of the needs of the other groups that don't necessarily have a board that comes to us and says, "We need these things." When we find out that "these things" are needed is when people say, "Well, the road grader didn't come out or clean my snow" or whatever. But they don't know that we weren't able to work on it because the building where they are fixed maybe wasn't available or we didn't have the space. We have to balance a whole big budget here, and this is the question is there for me. I don't disagree with you at all that you need that library space. And I would like to give you as much of that budget as I can give and still balance the needs of all the other things that come to us in that budget. But we went over that budget, Dee, and we know that we can handle it within the financing. If what you're saying is true, then we ought to sit down and look at our money, look at the (can't hear)... That's what I've been saying all along and then tell the library, "Look, the best we can see is $8 million for the library. Figure out what you're going to do with it." That' s exactly what I want .... We could work backwards4o it that way. We should do public works the same way, we should do improvement of this building the same way. I can see a hundred of them where you can tell them in advance, "You're only going to get X dollars. Period. Don't bother us." (Can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 29 of 112 Norton: But we've asked them to tell us what's needed, and they've told us about 15-20 million is needed. We look at our tax burden, and we could certainly see where that can fit and still be not anywhere near the limits. No problem. There's going to be a squeeze on the operating. We all understand that. Vanderhoef: (Can't hear), though, and we were over our 25% limit when we got into that third year. Martin: It's not the bonding limit. It's the amount that we have voluntarily put on ourself for the repayment of the bond. Dellsperger: You mean, arbitrarily set? Martin: Right. No, that's right. That's exactly right. Singerman: Okay. One thing I would like to do tonight is to hear from .... Mike, we've heard from the other Council members that--it helps us to know, what are the barriers to you? I mean, we really need to--we're trying to figure out how to work with you on this and move this whole thing forward. I'd like to hear from you, Mike. O'Donnell: Oh, I'd be glad to. I'm not comfortable with having a vacant building. I'm not comfortable with--you said you'd work with operating expenses. We haven't addressed that. The last I heard it's $340,000 .... [Several talking at once] O'Donnell: of additional costs .... [Several talking at once] [?]: 150. O'Donnell: 150 and then more costs with the new parking ramp or parking sub-garage. I'm very uncomfortable until I know how we're going to address those expenses. Singeman: You know, one of the things that we're having a problem with is actually bringing you a project that would allow you to address those issues, because you've given us no guidance about where we should plan for this expansion. We can't bring you a plan until you answer some basic questions. O'Donnell: I guess I'm not ready at this time to commit that lot to library use. Singerman: Okay, so you don't want to use 64-1A for the library. You're concerned about the current building? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 30 of 112 O'Donnell: Singerman: O'Donnell: Singerman: O'Donnell: Parker: Singerman: Parker: Singerman: Swaim: Thornberry: Norton: Singerman: Thomberry: Not entirely. I believe it is last spot. We could get development money and increased tax base on it. And I'm just not ready to commit that whole lot. Okay. In the past you have also said that you understood the need for more library space in the downtown area. I am very supportive of the library. I always have been. I supported it during the local-option sales tax. I thought that would have been a wonderful tool to pay for this. We got beat on that. So, if we were able to find a way to get 28,000 square feet, for example, maybe in the current building, would that address your concem, such that you would be able to feel positively about it? It would address my concems. Yes it would. Well, could we talk about putting together, asking them to explore and put together a plan that would add a third floor at the same time that we look at a plan for 64-1A? We don't think it would be substantial additional cost for the architects to do that. Yes, or perhaps what we go to do now is to look again, if that is the big barrier here, ifthat's your barrier also, Emie--maybe we need to go back and look at, how can we get 28,000 square feet out of the current building. Even though it might be more expensive per square foot to do that. It's going to be more expensive per square foot, and it's going to probably cost more to operate, but, you know, at least it would answer some of your questions and address some of your concems. Yes, then we can go back and say, so if we can find, maybe Kirkwood will build a temporary building that we can move to for a year while we put the (can't hear). I don't think Kirkwood is going to be looking at building a building. You know, that' s not what they're about, and that's not what we've been talking about. Kirkwood isn't thinking about building a library. We were talking about building a branch library and have Kirkwood man [it]. And it's not a Kirkwood Library; it's a City library that Kirkwood would be manning with their people. But it doesn't change the downtown .... But it's a really complicated public-policy stuff, and it would have to all be thought through. Absolutely. There are questions obviously that would need to be answered. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 31 of 112 Singerman: Parker: Swaim: O'Donnell: Swaim: Norton: Kubby: Swaim: Norton: Swaim: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: I think the thing that we're saying is that we really have a critical need in the main library, and we need your help to figure out how to go forward. It's also true that our initial numbers included footings for building up above the air space. Isn't that fight? So that would be included in whatever you would look at with 64-1A. And just for the benefit of the historians, we did come forward with a plan to add 28,000 square feet moving west, at which point the City Council said, "Well, have you ever thought about 64-1A?" So, my wife's a[n] editor for the State Historical Society. I just want to note for the record. We had a plan .... How long ago was that? That was three years .... That was a $20-million plan, too, when you counted everything. So every time we get this close, the rules of the game .... That's what I mean. And I'm just trying to give you some context of why some of us on the Library Board are frustrated with the obstacles--some are sort of moving targets. And at the point that we have a plan that addresses the majority of the Council members' current targets for what the obstacles are, then the new set of obstacles come up. So, there is a way to expand 28,000 square feet, but at that time it talked about taking existing commercial property off the tax rolls, and people didn't want to do that .... Condemning it. Condemning it. We weren't sure about the site. There were a number of things that came up, and the bottom line of what I thought the Council said to us is, "Have you ever thought about 64-1A, and what about doing a shared facility?" And we went, "Okay, we're game, we'll try that, we'll run with that for a year or two or three." Well, let me suggest this. Obviously we haven't accomplished a great deal, except that I would ask the Council, certainly with the concurrence of the Library Board if possible, I would prefer to defer to this to the 13th rather than see it defeated tomorrow night. It will also give you guys a couple of weeks to pound on the Council folks who you suspect are not going to be in favor of it. Well, no, I think there are some answers, perhaps, that may make a difference. Is that acceptable? Is that to decide about the 60,000 commitment? Yeah. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 32 of 112 Thornberry: Lehman: Norton: Swaim: Lehman: Swaim: Lehman: Martin: It's acceptable to me. The problem I have is that I don't think, I don't want to see us defeat that $60,000. I don't want to see that thing go down. So I think there's some .... Yeah, I don't want to see it go down, but I don't think I want to spend it unless I see the basic commitment behind it, that's why I ask .... Well, no architect's going to take the job unless we tell them the site that they're designing. Oh, no, no. I'm well aware of that. Well, I mean there probably are some architects would take (can't hear). I don't think you want that .... Emie, I think it's important for us to have a little historical perspective. If we think back to the last library that was built in this city, it doesn't take too long to realize that we would not be having this discussion if people had not tried to cut comers and find the easiest way to end up doing what they needed to do. Now, is that what you want the public to look at again? Lehman: Absolutely not. Martin: Well, that's the direction we're headed, my friend; that's what's going to happen unless we take a look at what is the best long-term solution, okay? Now, that may involve the old building, but it is definitely going to involve expanding so that we don't have to worry about expanding again. Magalhaes: A major expansion. Martin: A major expansion. Lehman: I don't question that at all. But, for example, tell me, who's going to pay for operation of the parking lot? Is that in your budget? Martin: Not currently. Lehman: Do you have any idea what that's going to cost to operate an underground parking facility? Craig: Emie, the parking in the joint project was always considered to be paid for by parking revenues. It was not part of the money that was costed into the capital of that .... Lehman: Oh, so the 16.5 million estimate does not include parking? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 33 of 112 [?]: Craig: Atkins: Craig: Lehman: Atkins: Kubby: Thornberry: Craig: Thornberry: Craig: Kubby: Martin: Lehman: It includes construction. It includes construction of the parking, but it was parking revenue bonds that were going to pay for the construction of the parking portion. Not under the sales-tax proposal, Susan. We were going to finance everything, and then I thought that we were going to have the parking system operated for you. Okay. But the 16.5 includes parking underground? Which could possibly be financed by parking revenue bonds instead of by a bond issue on the library? So instead of 16.5 million, it could be 15 million? Let's not rush into parking revenue bonds (can't hear) made a big commitment .... Ernie, in terms of the sales-tax referendum, those questions were answered about how that would be done. So why can't we just say the rules of the game are the same in this instance? Well, I believe 10% of the sales tax is going to go for operations. Including the event center. Okay, that was included in that 10% of the sales-tax revenue? Right. The event center and the (can't hear). The rules of the game that are operable under the new rules. I mean, that can't be done in the bond referendum. (Can't hear) a piece of information you need to be aware of as a council. We are about to begin a feasibility study with the Friends Foundation that will allow us, hopefully, to raise money to help to pay for this expansion, or whatever you want to call it. That feasibility study is to begin in two weeks with questions being asked of persons in this community who are likely to support it. Having that feasibility study conducted at a time when everything is totally unclear, and we do not seem to have City support for what we had with is pretty problematic. I agree you with you, Mark. On a 4-3 vote, I don't think you've got a lot of support, either. And I think we need (can't hear) a commitment to that. I'm not sure where my compatriots are, but I guess I'm not convinced that the answers to some of the questions that we have might sway some people's minds. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 34 of 112 Champion: I just want to say one thing, and then I think we should, and then I'm leaving. Because I think we're getting nowhere. But I think what you're all trying to do, and I could be wrong, is you're trying to micromanage the City government. To me, if you support expansion of the library, you should give the Library Board a chance to see if this is going to pass with the public or not. And this $300,000 of operating expenses after four years, if it's how the parking's going to be run, how it's going to be paid for--to me that, I'm sorry, I thank that's the City Manager's job to come up how that's going to get implemented, and not ours. I don't think it's our job to sit here and say, "Well, how are we going to operate that parking ramp?" I think it's up to us to say to City Manager, "How are you going to operate this?" Because this is what we want done." And then if you have to find some other way to find more money, I think that's also (can't hear). And you're all micromanaging every little detail of it. And we're getting ourselves really hung up on a lot of decisions that really aren't going to be ultimately ours. So, I say, let them do it, let's put it to the voters, the problems will be solved as they go along, there's no way they're not going to be solved. And why are we hemming and hawing with every little detailSrives me crazy! [Several talking at once] Barklay: (Can't hear) what Mark said. Another thing that I see coming is, what we have learned in studying this is that, at this point, of the options that are out there, the 64-1A freestanding new library is the most cost-effective, can provide the greatest efficiencies in terms of operating expenses and efficiencies in running a modem library. If the availability of 64-1A is a barrier, and we look other plans, well those other plans are inevitably going to cost more, be less efficient, and cost more to run. And so I see us, you know, running up two blind alleys simultaneously. One, which is, you can't have the site, and the other is, these other options cost too much and are not efficient enough. And where does that leave us? Champion: And that lot isn't particularly beautiful. I think the library would make it beautiful, and then the old library would be marketable, by some really nice buildings. Swaim: Well, Mike, I understand your concern about a vacant building, but at the same time, you know, we've got this vacant lot that's sat there for twenty years. If we keep proposing what we think is a good, outstanding use for the people and also potentially an outstanding use to help with business development in downtown. And so, you know, I understand your concern about potentially having a new vacant building to worry about, but, boy, we'd be sure getting a lot of bang for the buck in the thing that we're trying to address with 64-1A. Lehman: Well, there's another thing, too. A new library sitting on block 64-1A is going to make the old building a hell of a lot more marketable than it is right now. [Several talking at once] This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 35 of 112 Swaim: And if you want some of us on the Library Board to start talking to some developers about, "Well, if this happened, what do you think?" well then, you know, I'd be happy to go (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Kubby: Thomberry: Kubby: Lehman: Norton: Kubby: Lehman: Thornberry: The Library Board has said that they can ask the architect to look at a freestanding building on 64-1A and looking at adding that amount of square feet on the current site. And so, we're committed to downtown. Those are the two most feasible options. Karen, just because you say that you don't support using 64-1A doesn't mean you're not committed to downtown. To a library downtown. No, no, no. But what Karen's saying is that you can have two .... Look at both options, fight. Why can't we go forward with the resolution tomorrow night? Because the architect can look at both of those options. And we can be moving forward. Well, now, wait a minute. Now, what she's saying is we would have the option of accepting a separate building on 64-1A or adding 28,000 square foot to the present building. I don't understand how you can say, out of hand, that a new library on 64-1A is going to make the current library building a lot more desirable. Kubby: That' s not the question (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Kubby: Lehman: Thornberry: Lehman: Kubby: That' s not what we're talking about right now. The question she proposed is, if we have a proposal that would give us the option of a library on 64-1A... Oh, I understand that. or adding the space to the present library. Why couldn't people--you know, Mike and Dee and Emie and Dean--why couldn't you support a resolution that included those two options? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 36 of 112 Thornberry: I thought they already had that study done, as to what it would cost to expand the current library to (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Kubby: (can't heard) updated numbers, it's been a couple ofyears--it's got to be updated. Norton: But they did a basic study .... Thomb erry: Other than the study that 's already been done, what do you say needs to be updated because it's three or four or five years old? The space hasn't changed, just the costs, and all you got to do is rebid from those costs, fight? Norton: They could probably do that pretty easily, yeah. Thomberry: They could rebid from, you know (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Lehman [?]: Is that an acceptable option? Singerman: Can you rephrase the option, that you're asking ifit's acceptable or not? [Several talking at once] Singerman: Get us a resolution and have us bring you back options for 64-1A, freestanding new library or current site, enough space. Kubby: Yes. Norton: Or expansion on the present site, yeah. Kubby: With enough space. And why couldn't Council support that kind of resolution tomorrow night? Norton: Those are the two (can't hear). Kubby: We say we're committed to the library, we say we're committed to a main library in the downtown area. Why couldn't we support that kind of resolution tomorrow night? Thornberry: I would suggest that they put those bids out to see what it would cost to expand the current facility. They've already got those plans done. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 37 of 112 Craig: Thornberry: Craig: Thomberry: Craig: Thomberry: Craig: Thomberry: Craig Norton: [?]: [Several talking at once] [7]: What a great idea! Norton: All fight. Lehman: [?]: [?]: Norton: No, Dean, we don't have building drawings or .... This was a preliminary design in order to do basic cost estimating, which is what we would be doing for the new site. So, it's not big documents. I asked how you came up with those figures for the expansion of the current facility. You said you that those plans done. They're preliminary plans, concept plans, no construction drawings. But engineering was done--engineers came and studied the footings. And, you know .... They could do the preliminary cost figure off of what you had. Yes. Okay, why can't you do that again with what you've got? We can update what we have... So you've already got it. but then we need to do the same thing if you want to have two options to look at--we need to do the same thing for 64-1A. So you have two alternatives. Here's what it costs over here, what's good and bad about it. Here's what it costs over here, what's good and bad about it. That' s fight. They need an update in that process--the conversion, the process is also difficult, isn't it. If you expand, you're dislocated. Well, that's one of the bad things. This is just a great idea. Let's do it! [Laughter] Nothing would please me more than to find seven people who'll agree with that. Well, how about four? Or five? To go ahead tomorrow night with the 60, you mean, yeah. Thornberry: With the option. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 38 of 112 Norton: Parker: O'Donnell: And they understand the option, too. That's a pretty good deal. Mike, (can't hear). Yes, no. You know, I think that if this Council okays $60,000, I believe they're giving this thing their blessing. Lehman: Which thing? They're talking about two things. O'Donnell: I know, Ernie, know. But we're talking that we do support that... Thornberry: 59,9 is for the (can't hear) O'Donnell: and I believe people are leaning, Ernie, to 64-A downtown. And I'm not. I can't do that. I .... Barklay: So a proposal that includes both options, you feel .... Thornberry: Well, 99% is for 64-1A, obviously, because you've already got the other stuff done. (Can't hear). [?]: We only have preliminary. We don't have a plan that shows where everything's going to go (can't hear). Thornberry: No, but you can get the bid from what you've got. That's what you just said. You can a bid from what you've got. [Several talking at once] Thornberry: A cost estimate from what you've got. [?]: But we need a design. Thomberry: So, $59,950 is going to be for 64-1A. Kubby: Let's clarify what we would get, and that the resolution would say 60,000, and any cost over that the Library Foundation or whoever would have to come up with. Okay, that's agreed. Okay Thornberry: We've already said that. Kubby: So, what would we get for 60,0007 Would we get preliminary design or would we get construction drawings... on both? [Several talking at once] This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 39 of 112 Craig: [?]: Norton: Kubby: Swaim: O'Donnell: Swaim: Thomberry: Swaim: Thornberry: Singerman: If we're talking very rough design, I mean--we aren't talking beautiful drawings, because they cost extra. I mean, we're talking the basics, enough of a design so you know that you can take the building program, it fits in the space you have, and that the spaces are sort of divided up four by four this way, and the engineers can cost it out in a very rough kind of way. Architects. Sixty thousand dollars is not a lot of money to an architect. Now, let me ask, what's the option if we do what Ernie said and defer? Would two weeks from now we make the same decision, Emie? We're going to be in the same place about some policy decisions that Steve's going to maybe give us a little more detailed information. We will know nothing more about what the use of the current library might be or how we would market it or the future of that building. And we're going to be in the same place. I think people need, we need to .... I mean, my question, Emie, if what you're saying, Mike, is that it's not likely--I don't want to you that you won't ever--but it's not likely that you're going to be supportive of a standalone library at 64-1A for the foreseeable future? That's fight. That's correct. And that's what Dean is saying. And Dee is saying, you're not going to be agreeable to it until a lot of questions that probably are going to take several months to answer, so then my question to you, Ernie, is we will not, three weeks from now, be any closer to having a five-, six- or seven-member Council doing it. Because, I mean, it does kind of boil down to what--if you're not comfortable with only four people moving ahead, then you're not going to change your mind two weeks from now, because these three people are not going to do that. And ifthat's the case, then tell us that now, and we'll go to our constituents and we'll go to the people that we're providing service to, and we'll say, "This is the dilemma the library's Board is in. We cannot expand the existing library. We've tried this, we've tried this, we've tried this, we've tried this, but that we're looking at is seven .... " You can't say that. You can't say that you can't expand the current existing library. We can say that we can expand it by 7,000 square feet. Okay. But shouldn't we just stick to the question that is at hand, which is "What are you going to do about the $60,000 and 64-1A?" That's what we came to talk about. And (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 40 of 112 Barklay: Thornberry: Barklay: Kubby: Thomberry: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: O'Donnell: [Several]: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: This represents I mean, if your point of view is that you're never going to be supportive to (can't hear) 64-1A no matter how much less it costs and more efficient it is, then that should be acknowledged. It's not just that, it's not just that at all. There's more to the equation than just: 64-1A is going to be more, it's going to be a lot better and it's got to be--no, there's a lot more questions, as Emie pointed out that .... What do we do with this old building? Just say, "You can have it." Thank you!" What are you going to do with the possibility that the library or somebody else would want that 64-1A? Now, that 64-1A really hasn't been marketed properly. But the point is, it really hasn't been. I think the point is, a lot of these questions can't be answered until you proceed and get some plans and see what you're really dealing with. It's how we make a commitment. You know, we're not going to get those answers made to us until we make a commitment. Karen, you're fight. And I think we should make a commitment. Well, I guess, personally, I have to feel that some of those questions are--if we're going to get, if we were given a proposal that gave both options, that there's certainly time to look at the answers to those questions. Does that mean you would support the resolution tomorrow night then? If it gave both options... I find it very difficult to say that we wouldn't support that, if we in fact are committed to a library. [Applause] And I'm not saying at all--I think we got some really rough times ahead (can't hear) for 64-1A, but I think it's very difficult for Council to say that we support a library and then not encourage you to at least come up with the option of expanding the present library. I mean, we are (can't hear). Are you saying the only way you can support a library is to build a new, freestanding library? Is that what you're saying. No. Two options. Either expanding the present library or building a new one. That's what .... What does that give us? Or expansion on the present site. When you say expansion on the present site, you mean literally on the present site? No, that's what we said. So, is that correct? a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 41 of 112 Magalhaes: I think to go back to the original point that was made when she started this an hour and a half ago or two hours ago or whatever, is that, in order for a new library to go through and be successful, I think we have to prove that we can't do what we need to do at the present library. And so we have to look the two options (can't hear). Thornberry: So you're going to prove that what we would like to have done isn't going to work? [Several talking at once] Magalhaes: Well, what some of the Council members want to have done won't work. Thornberry: It's still not going to give you 27,000 square feet or whatever you say you've got to have or (can't hear). Lehman: No, no, what they're saying is 27,000 square feet. Parker: We're talking about a third floor. We're going to look at what the cost of a third floor is. That will give us the amount of space that we need. Main: I think that we need to be honest about this. Dean, we looked at it, we rejected it. We had a couple of good reasons for rejecting it, and we came up with a westward expansion plan which was cheaper, was more efficient, and was our first choice for doing something that was the least disruptive. The Council didn't like it for a variety of reasons. [?]: Too much. Martin: (Can't hear) argue with that. But that doesn't change the fact that our initial understanding of what we would have if we put on a third floor did not meet all the criteria that we believe need to be met. Now, what I hear my fellow Board members doing here is saying "We'd be willing to compromise... [CHANGE TAPE TO 99-83 S2] best interests of the library in order to be able to be parmers with the Council in making move forward." That's what I'm hearing. And ifthat's where we stand, we will give you all possible options with all possible costs, and then we can talk together about what is going to be the best way for us to proceed. It may not be the absolutely best from the perspective of the Library Board. My guess is that all the things you do as a Council aren't necessarily the absolute best that you would like to do as a Council. The fact is, unless we get into some frame of mind that makes us partners in this, we're going to keep having these meetings until all of us are so sick of, and we're not going to come back. [?]: Let's not do that. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 42 of 112 Barklay: Oh, but we'll keep coming back. [Laughter] [Several talking at once] Martin: We have to try to find some way to work together, we do. Singerman: I mean, it sounds like, what I'm heating is the current building is an issue. What can we do? We know the amount of space that we need? Thornberry: I'm sorry. The what? Singerman: The current building, what would happen to it is an issue for a number of you, a serious one. We know how much space we need. Let us try to figure this out. We'll bring you back our best shot at what meets your concerns and our concerns. Martin: The other thing that would be very helpful, from my perspective, is if there was a way that we could work together in a constructive sense between these meetings. So that we were communicating on problems and things as they came up and trying to find answers so that we didn't end up, you know, having this massive dumpster unload every time, you know, we come with an idea. And, you know, that's all kinds of problems. I don't know whether it's through City staff, I don't know whether it's through, you know, having occasional meetings with a couple Board members and a couple of Council members, Ernie, but .... I mean, this process is not facilitating us coming to partnership and agreement on this stuff. Lehman: I agree. I mean, there are a number of issues that we've talked about tonight that could very well have been discussed prior to the meeting and at least all of us been brought up to speed with the same concems. Kubby: It sounds like we're on for the resolution tomorrow night, at least with a majority of us to look at both options. Dilkes: I just have one comment on that option. The way the services agreement currently reads, is they pick a preferred option, and then they do the cost estimates and the preliminary design on one, so .... But I just want to make sure that' s not going to increase the cost. Kubby: That's going to be up to the Library Board. [Several talking at once] Champion: We need a letter of understanding here. Dilkes: Okay. That's the way the current services agreement reads, and I'm assuming that's the way the architect is looking at the project. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 43 of 112 Kubby: So there'll have to be some communication work done tomorrow night. [?]: So that needs to be changed so that it reflects that we're bringing back two options. Lehman: That's right. Singerman: The two being 64-1A and the current building, correct? Several: Correct. Lehman: All right. Thank you. [Council Break] Review Zoning Items 99-83 S2 Lehman: Okay. Planning and Zoning items. Karin. a. Public hearing 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 the public hearing on Windsor Ridge, Part 13. And I thought I would go through the iterations of this so everybody's clear on what you are voting on. Lehman: Karin, is this the same one that we looked at when we first opened the public heating? Franklin: No, that's the next item. Lehman: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, go ahead. Franklin: This is the one that is the townhouse development, and it is proximate to the neighborhood commercial zoning in the town square that's planned for Windsor Ridge. [Points laser pointer towards overhead.] You see, it's outlined right here. This is from the concept plan from 1995, which was then used to have the general zoning designations, under which the developer was required to then come back with a planned development. And so what we're looking at is the planned development for this area right here, plus the town square. All of the versions comply with the concept plan from 1995, and I'm just going to show you the three different versions that the Planning and Zoning Commission had before them and what they finally voted on. The first submittal was for 28 units, which were in 6- and 8-unit groupings. This was with a drive coming in the back here to access the units, as well as a drive along the This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 44 of 112 town square and with landscaping to the rear of the units. After some concem by the Planning and Zoning Commission as to the bulk of these buildings, the 6- and 8-unit collections, the plan was changed to 24 units, a decrease in the number of units and a change from 6's and 8's to 4's. So these are townhouses which are four units apiece and, as you can see, there's some additional berming here from the original submittal, as well as landscaping in this area and to the rear. It maintains the drive in front of the units, which is also the drive that will access the commercial area and the town square. It includes parking along the town square, so that as people access this area from the neighborhood or even from outside the neighborhood, that they can park in these spaces. It's either visiting parking for the townhouses or, as this park is developed and the commercial area develops, parking for that area. This is what is called Plan A. It is what the Planning and Zoning Commission ultimately recommended to the City Council. This is Plan B, which is discussed in the P&Z minutes. The primary change is an elimination of one of the townhouses at the end, the inclusion of two duplexes, the elimination of the open-space berming and vegetation here where the duplexes are. This plan was submitted by the developer after having met with the neighborhood and was an effort to try to accommodate some of the neighborhood concerns. There did not appear to be clear consensus that this plan was something that was going to make everybody happy. The conclusion of the Commission, then, was to go back to Plan A, which they believed provided better transition in tenns of this area being open space and a bermed area with vegetation as opposed to the two duplex units. This is a front elevation of the townhouse, a rear elevation of the same, and remember that there--behind these garages there is the drive, and then there is screening to the south of here. Vanderhoef: Those are garage doors or what are we looking at down there? Franklin: These are garage doors, these are porches, and then the units. Vanderhoef: So the porch hangs out over where the garages are? Franklin: That's correct. Norton: There was some talk at some point about moving them north a little bit to reduce the looming of those trusses. Is that in here or not? Were they moved northward any? Franklin: No. The suggestion was to move them 100 feet north, which would have gone into the town square and would have eliminated the possibility of the town square. Let me just show you a relationship between the townhouses and the single-family dwellings that would be on Sheffield Place. This is to show you the relative heights of the two buildings, this being the single family on Sheffield, this the townhouse on Cardigan Lane. And it illustrates the change in topography that there is between these two areas and the fact that the outcome is that the townhouse is not directly level with the This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 45 of 112 Thomberry: Franklin: Thomberry: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Thornberry: Franklin: Thomberry: single family, but it also is not looming above the single family because of that change in topography that's occurring. This project is recommended by a vote of 6-0 from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is also recommended by the staff. Questions? The neighbors had a few letters. They were more in support of A than of B, as I understand it. The letters are in support of A--well, let's put it this way: they saw B as a step backward, but I think that in the ideal for them, they would have pushed this all quite a bit noah. So I can't say that they're in favor of A. No, I didn't mean that they were in favor of the project. Okay. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, I think that from the minutes, it appears as if most of the testimony was in favor of B. However, the letter- writers were not at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. So, it was balancing those two. The conclusion being there wasn't consensus on what was going to make everybody happy. Was there any consensus about access during construction? Is that now pretty well agreed? I think what we found from the counts on Taft Avenue that they did not show that there was an inordinate amount of construction traffic that was going to come on Taft. The other part of that is requiring that Huntington and Court be connected prior to the full development of this site. Was there any agreement about somehow to meet with the developer to discuss further development of that commercial area? I don't know who proposed that, again there are so many different figures in this pie, I'm not sure. In other words, we had a meeting with the developer somewhat late in this process, I'm afraid, but now with respect to the next development, which is a commercial--is there any commitment to that or is that going forward? I don't know that there's any conclusion to that right now. I think there's been a number of meetings. I don't know that there' s any commitment or conclusion that they are going to meet before the commercial is developed. As I understand it, Karin, they can do this, they can do multi-family building in this area without coming to us for anything. No. They can do an RS-8 development here. Clustering, meaning? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 46 of 112 Franklin: The clustering means that you have to go through the planned development. So by right, normally one could do duplexes. However, when it was zoned to the higher density of eight, it was required to have a planned development with it before any actual development took place. So when all of these rezonings were done in Windsor Ridge, to have any zoning other than RS-5, it was conditionally zoned requiring a planned development before any development could take place. So there was an agreement on a general increase in density, but agreement also that another step had to be taken that the precise design had to come back through Planning and Zoning and the Council. Norton: I sure hope that's generally understood that when you go to OPDH, you tacitly get into a slightly higher density. Because I think there wasn't exactly well understood in the history, fight? Thornberry: Yeah. Norton: I didn't understand it for sure. Vanderhoef: Karin, do you always figure the streets as a part of that open space when you're figuring the density? Franklin: The streets are deleted from the calculation, whether it's a private street or a public street. Is that what you're asking? Vanderhoef: Well you were, in the staff report, you were talking about a density of three_point - something if you took in the streets and the park and all that stuff, but then if you didn't, then it was in a density of seven-something. Franklin: Okay. Vanderhoef: And that was confusing to me, because I had never thought that we took into consideration the street part of it. Franklin: The streets. That's tight. Vanderhoef: Okay. Franklin: I frankly don't remember why that's in the report. Anything else on this one? b. Consider an ordinance conditionally changing the zoning designation of approximately 7.46 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and the approval of a preliminary OPDH Plan for 72 residential dwelling units within the Windsor Ridge subdivision located at the east terminus of Court Street. (REZ99-0006) Franklin: Okay, the next item is the first consideration of Windsor Ridge, Part 12. And to just refresh your memories, because we had the public heating on this back on the 29th. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 47 of 112 Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: That was when it was closed, June 291h. This is for the four 18-plexes. And when we closed the public hearing, there was a request to defer this indefinitely. The developers asked that this be put back on as it was originally designed. What happened in the meantime was that they looked at some variations on how to do this, looked at the possibility of duplexes on this site, looked at the possibility of a combination of duplexes and the 18-plex, trying to balance neighborhood concerns with market and what would possibly work on here, as well as the density that they were allowed to have, and concluded that that this plan was the best plan. Now, one thing that is noted on the plan, which they want you to be aware of and want the world to be aware of, is that this building right here--the community building, the community center--may not be built. This plan will approve this entire design. This may not be built if the economics for it don't work out. And they just wanted you to know that. What will happen to that area? It would then be an open space. They cannot put any other building configuration here or any other building on that site without coming back through, and they are aware o f that. So I thought with an OPDH, it gave the city and the neighbors some pretty firm knowledge about what is expected to happen. Is it because there's a note on the plat that we would be approving that says that that' s the out for them on that particular building? Yes. And I mean with any development project that you approve, we are giving to the property owner the right to do that particular project. And if something is built, that is what it will be. But it does not compel anyone to actually build it. I mean, you can get approval and never build it. So I don't see this as being anything different than that. They wouldn't have the option of coming back and asking for something else in there? Oh, yes, they could, but they would have to come back through the process, and we'd have notice and all that kind of thing. Was there some difficulty with the pond level there, and is this all consistent with the sensitive-areas ordinance, I take it? This design? Yes. What this design did is it pulled more of the development out of the sensitive areas. That's when we looked at duplexes or a combination of duplexes and 18's. What happened is it spread it out more. It encroached more into the stream corridor and the wetlands or the stream-bank area. And so this really takes more of the building outside of those sensitive areas. Okay? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 48 of 112 Kubby: Just out of curiosity, will these be starting kind of simultaneously, or will there be one of these Windsor Ridge projects started before the other. Do we have any knowledge (can't hear). Franklin: My understanding of their plans right now is to start with one of the 18' s and that the townhouses will be put off for a little bit. You will be seeing the rest of Windsor Ridge, Parts 10 through 14, final platting within the next month, I think. And one of the reasons is so everybody knows what's happening here. c. Consider 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, next item is first consideration of Virginia Drive. d. 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: Item d, second consideration on the adult-business amendment. e. Consider an ordinance mending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow off-street parking on a separate lot in a different zone under certain conditions. Franklin: E, the second consideration of parking on a separate lot. f. 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: F, the second consideration on the Kennedy Plaza rezoning. That has been through the Board of Adjustment, and the Board of Adjustment did grant the dwellings above and the yard exceptions--just for your information. g. 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) Franklin: Okay, item g is Scott Boulevard East, Part 4. We have approval on the grading plan and the tree-protection plan. This is for the 15-1ot residential subdivision, which includes Hummingbird Lane, which is in a T-intersection off of Scott Park Drive. This is the one that instigated our conversation about the 25-foot, 28-foot-wide streets that we're going to be doing the study on, which we won't get into with this project. We have agreed, we being Public Works and Planning, that the 25-foot will work on this, and as long as it's not precedent setting, Public Works is cool with that. One of the issues in Planning and Zoning was what happens when you go outside the city limits, which you do just noah of here. Hummingbird Lane, right now, is a private drive. It is owned by the owner of this property, but an easement of some sort has been granted to the property owners in the county who use that as access to their This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 49 of 112 Norton: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: This represents property. With the construction of Hummingbird Lane, obviously these folks will have access to it, and there' s also been an agreement between the developer and the owners of that property to share in the cost of Hummingbird Lane. Thus, some of the support from those property owners for the narrower width, at least by whatever logic they were using for that. The question was, what happens with this bit here, and, basically, it comes down to a judgment that the traffic that is going to be expected on that part should be fairly minimal, since it won't be an improved space. I mean, the paved Hummingbird Lane to Scott Park Drive is going to be the more attractive rome to take. And that if there are problems up here in the future, it may become an issue. The private-property owners in the county believe that they can handle it. I would estimate that at some point we're going to see development and annexation of this piece up here, and that's going to be improved as a public street, and Hummingbird Lane will be continued to Lower West Branch Road. In the minutes you would see that there was quite a bit of discussion about whether cul-de-sac Hummingbird Lane, and the staff s recommendation was that we not do that. We need to have the circulation through there for fire access, and it just is not consistent with the direction we're going in, in terms of providing good access to properties. So, that's that one. Questions? On this map, where is the T-intersection with Scott? Well, Scott Park comes about like that, and then T's off fight there. So that' s the care center, the double boxes there to the east? Clear up above? Yeah. For the assisted housing, the Masada project, that' s right there. The Sterling House is up. Iowa City Care Center. Oh, Iowa City Care Center. Oh, that's way up. It's off my map. So there' s no expectation to take it on up to Rochester or (can't hear). No, because the topography there would not... I mean it would be very difficult. There' s a ravine that comes right down. As Hummingbird Lane would hit Lower West Branch Road, it would be coming into an area where there' s a ravine that comes down through that property. And it just, it wouldn't make good sense for it to go through there to Rochester. Are there houses on both sides of Hummingbird all the way out to Lower Muscatine? You know, on the part you're talking about, are there houses on both sides? Um, there's a house over here, the Frank property, a single house that is between Hummingbird Lane and Scott and Lower West Branch. That's a pretty big piece. I'm trying to remember--Eleanor, you went out there overland, fight on the comer? a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 50 of 112 Atkins: There are two on that side there. Dilkes: (Can't hear) Franklin: Two here? Okay. So, there's two here and then these houses here. This is vacant, and these will be the new lots. Vanderhoef: Those would be the two lots that I was asking about that was on your other map. Franklin: Oh. Vanderhoef: I bet ya. Like farmhouses, or one is a farmhouse maybe. Yeah. Kubby: That one? Vanderhoef: No, the ones to the east--those. Franklin: Those are houses. Vanderhoef: Yeah. That's what I was .... Franklin: But that's not the care center. Is that what you? Vanderhoef: No. Franklin: Oh, okay. Anything else? i. Consider a resolution approving the extraterritorial final plat of Milder Meadows, a Resubdivision of Lot 1 of Milder's Subdivision and Auditor's Parcel B in the West ~ of Section 17-T79N-R5W of the 5th P.M., Johnson County, Iowa, a 47.69-acre, three-lot residential subdivision with one agricultural outlot located on the north side of American Legion Road one-half mile east of Taft Avenue. Franklin: Oh, Milder Meadow. Final plat. Last time. Any questions? Okay. Review Agenda Items 99-83 S2 Lehman: Okay. Agenda items. e. (1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY LANDFILL RECYCLING PROJECT, PHASE I, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE SAID PLANS ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. Kubby: I had a question on page 3, in the consent calendar, e.(1), for the landfill recycling project. I assume that before we do this we'll that we'll get to see those plans again? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 51 of 112 Atkins: This scale and the storage building--this is not the .... Yeah. Kubby: Oh. Thank you. e. (4) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 14 ON INTENT TO CONTINUE WITH A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE SOUTH SYCAMORE REGIONAL STORMWATER AND GREENSPACE PROJECT, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE DOCUMENTATION ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. e. (5) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 14 ON INTENT TO PROCEED WITH A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS, HIGHWAY 1 TO ABBEY LANE PROJECT, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE DOCUMENTATION ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. e. (6) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 14 ON INTENT TO PROCEED WITH A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE LONGFELLOW-TWAIN PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL PROJECT, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE DOCUMENTATION ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. Dilkes: While we're on those, I have a comment. Four, 5 and 6 there under e on the consent calendar are on because of House File 476, the new condemnation statute. So, they're setting a public hearing, and then the property owners who may be affected will get a 30-day notice about their chance to give input to you all at the public hearing. The date on 5 and 6 is wrong, on the item--the resolution is correct. We're setting that for the 28th of September, not the 14th. Norton: And what's the date for the others? Dilkes: The 14th on 4 is correct. On South Sycamore we only have a few more properties to acquire, and that project is well underway, but the other ones are still in the planning stages. Norton: Weren't property owners notified before in some general way, or is this specific mailings or what is (can't hear)? Dilkes: These are specific mailings required by that act. Norton: Not just a public announcement. These are specific certified mailings. Dilkes: No. We have to give 30 days' notice to the property owners whose property we may need to acquire and their opporttmity to give you public input prior to a final decision to proceed with the project. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 52 of 112 (AGENDA #7: PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE JOHNSON STREET SANITARY SEWER PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.) Lehman: On page 11, item 7, did we get a letter asking us to defer that? Vanderhoef: Yes, we did. Thornberry: I think there 's a letter in the packet that that 's a more extensive project than they thought. Norton: Which one? Lehman: Page 11, item 7--that's a deferral tomorrow night? Okay? Vanderhoef: And would that be deferred indefinitely? Or there will be an answer within two weeks. Karr: It's resetting a public hearing. Reset. Kubby: For September. Karr: 14th. Lehman: We just reset that. Do we open it and then continue it, or do we just reset it? Karr: Just reset. Lehman: Okay. Any other agenda items? Champion: I just want to clarify something, because I couldn't remember. When we passed the ordinance (can't hear) to allow free dumping of land waste (can't hear) at the landfill, is that in effect already? Atkins: Yes. Champion: Okay. Thank you. Urban Revitalization Plan 99-83 S2 Lehman: Okay. Urban Revitalization Plan. Schoon: On your agenda tomorrow night there are two items. The first one is the public hearing on the urban revitalization plan. The second item is first consideration of the This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 53 of 112 ordinance designating the urban revitalization area. On September 281h, on your Council agendas, if everything goes as planned, there will be the resolution approving the plan and then final consideration of the urban revitalization ordinance, which designates the area. When you set the public hearing last month, the Council had discussion regarding how to apply the economic-development guidelines to this plan designation and the projects that will follow. In the memo included in your packet staff outlines the difficulties in applying the guidelines to each specific project, both in terms of who to apply the guidelines to, the developer of the project or the businesses locating in the project. The developer will be the entity applying for the abatement, but it's really the businesses locating in the projects that will be providing the economic activity that occurs in those buildings. Also, there's the timing issue of when a building may be constructed and when it's occupied, so that abatement may be applied for and starting to be received prior to the building being fully leased. Also there's the issue of multi tenants in downtown buildings, and the timing and the multi-tenant issue makes it a little more difficult to apply the guidelines. So what staff is suggesting is that you review the guidelines when considering whether to designate the area an urban revitalization area. And in your packet we've included a review of those guidelines and comments associated with each of those economic-development guidelines. Kubby: (Can't hear) Schoon: Can I just then--just one more issue? Also in your packet is a memo from the Historic Preservation Commission, and they're asking that you look at what you define as historical or architecturally significant. How the plan is presently worded, it would only apply to those that have been designated such. The Historic Preservation Commission has concerns that we provide a public benefit to projects that may potentially remove a historic or architecturally significant building or alter it in a way that' s not appropriate. I'm trying to do my best here to summarize it--you have a couple-of-page memo in your packet. The idea is that if we're going to provide a public benefit, that the public should not be providing an incentive to tear down buildings that are potentially historic. We tend to have I believe a policy in the City that we don't designate properties landmark properties if the property owner is in opposition. In this instance, what we would do is not provide a public benefit or tax abatement to a project that's eligible, though it may not be designated as a historic property. Champion: With the survey of the downtown area now, though, by the Historic Preservation Commission, aren't they proposing to designate that a historic district, or are they just looking for individual properties? Schoon: That'll be determined through the survey, whether or not there is justification to designate the whole downtown as a historic district. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 54 of 112 Champion: Schoon: Champion: Schoon: Kugler: Norton: Kubby: Norton: Schoon: Norton: Schoon: Lehman: Schoon: Thornberry: Schoon: Champion: Norton: If it is designated historic district, then that comes into play, anyway--you can't just tear down a building in a historic district without prior approval. Correct. So it has different guidelines. That's correct. Scott, correct me if I'm wrong here. Yeah, that's a possibility. More likely, downtown, we're probably looking at a series of landmark designations rather than a district, but that district is a possibility. I'm not clear what we actually are doing now. Even if, let's say we agree the memo from Historic Preservation, that we don't want this economic revitalization to facilitate the destruction of a reasonably historic building, so how are we going to implement that? Put it in the plan. Do you have a statement of the plan? And that talks about eligible .... But is that in with anything we're acting on? In the memo from the Historic Preservation Commission, they recommend that you replace a paragraph in the plan with another paragraph which would include eligible properties, not just designated properties. So we have to amend something to get that in there? Yes, you would need to amend the plan. Is that staffs recommendation? Staff would recommend that. Scott, what if a building bumed down. If it were designated or eligible to be designated, would they have to rebuild that similar to what it was? No, I don't believe so. Even if it's a historic district, it wouldn't have to be built to specifications. It'd be like the house on Summit Street. It has to blend in with the area (can't hear) criteria. Well, who's making that amendment? Do we understand where it's going and all that--the mechanics for this? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 55 of 112 Lehman: Schoon: Lehman: Schoon: Norton: Schoon: Champion: Lehman: Schoon: Thornberry: Dilkes: Norton: Vanderhoef: Schoon: Vanderhoef: Schoon: Kubby: Vanderhoef: Dilkes: Vanderhoef: That amendment needs to be made tomorrow night? Pardon? That amendment needs to be made tomorrow night? Yes. Because we're taking action. We're not just having a public hearing, but we're taking action, are we not? The action won't come until September 281h. It's a public hearing. Well, it can be mentioned next time, or tomorrow night? I believe you would need to amend the plan before you close the public heating tomorrow night. I would think so. Probably, yeah. Yeah. In other words, that ought to be incorporated at the time of the public hearing. Before it actually begins, that amendment should be put in there. So it hasn't been published that way, so it would seem as though if we were going to consider this, that we would keep the public heating open for the two weeks until it comes back with the approval. I don't believe you would be required to keep the public heating opened if you made an amendment tomorrow. Because this hasn't been published, though, with the plan for public scrutiny. I'm going to have to defer to Eleanor. (Can't hear) That's what I'm saying, is that we should (can't hear). I'm sorry. Ask me the question again. That if we were to amend this even in the discussion tomorrow night, that we would need to keep the public heating continued to the next meeting so that the potential This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 56 of 112 owners who were out there that didn't know about it would have an opportunity still to comment at the next meeting. Dilkes: Normally when we're making a substantive change, we continue the public hearing so (can't hear). Schoon: So that' s policy; it would not be a requirement. Dilkes: Well, no I think that probably is required. Because, in other words, you're not having a public hearing on the part that you're adding. And you've not followed the requirement. Norton: So we should amend it tomorrow night and continue that public hearing? Vanderhoef: I think so. Kubby: Does that prevent us from acting on item 13 in any way? Dilkes: Which one is item 137 Kubby: On designating the area. Dilkes: I don't think so, because this is on the plan, isn't it? Schoon: Correct. Dilkes: The amendment is on the plan. Kubby: So things can still move forward. It doesn't stop .... Norton: On 13, yes. Vanderhoef: We can designate the area, but what we do in the area will be with the next vote. Lehman: David, from the staffs report, it seems that staff feels that the economic guidelines that that we have set down are very difficult to apply in this area. Is that a reasonable paraphrase? Schoon: More difficult to apply, given the types of development that we'll see in the downtown--multi-tenant buildings. In the past, we've dealt with projects in which the property owner and the tenant are one, so that's much easier to use the guidelines the review. The NCS project, for an example, the abatement that we're providing out there. So that's much easier to use the guidelines to review versus multi-tenant buildings in the downtown and the timing of occupancy on those buildings. Also, the incentive is--the focus here is on encouraging capital investment in the downtown, not necessarily job creation. And a good portion of our economic-development This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 57 of 112 Kubby: Vanderhoef: Champion: guidelines are focused on job creation. And so there's a slight difference there, though I still think the biggest issue is applying the guidelines to multi-tenant buildings that could begin to be occupied at different times by different tenants. (Can't hear) want to talk about a little this assumption that it would have to apply to the tenants, because .... And what helped me is looking at our policies, reviewing our policies, and saying that with this whole urban revitalization, what policy, in this document, does this fulfill? And definitely Policy 3, strategy b, "encourage commercial activity to take place in existing core areas or neighborhood commercial centers and discouraging the proliferation of new major commercial areas." And isn't this something that helps us fulfill that policy, as well as strategy c, "continue and enhance downtown revitalization"? And then I go to the policy about the guidelines, and it says "Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above objectives," which are the other five policies. So, to me, that says we're fulfilling an objective that's stated earlier, then the following incentives and programs apply to those, and part of that is the criteria. And so, just because it may be difficult to do, doesn't mean we shouldn't do them. And that, for me, I would say that the business that we are helping out by (can't hear) bringing back to downtown through this form of public assistance is the business of having a building to rent. And that that's the project that should have to meet the guidelines--the rehab project that's being done, not the tenants who will benefit from it, but the rehab project itself. It takes care of all those issues about "Who does it apply to?" It takes care of the issue of the timing of things, it takes care of the issue of the multiple tenants. And it fulfills the way our policies are written. I think the guidelines have to be applied (can't hear). Now, not every guideline may be appropriate to that particular kind of project, and we know that, but that's okay, because with NCS, maybe not every policy criteria apply to that particular business. And so there's some that are appropriate and some that are not. That's why people wanted this to be a guide and not a fast-and-hard rule. We need to figure out how to fulfill this policy and making the criteria work with this on it. I think we have to figure out a way to make it (can't hear). For me there's still a little--I had a question in here--separating what was going to the building to the building project, because I agree that the building project is the revitalization of town and having this available to rent. However, when we get into wages and guidelines in that respect, then we have noted very plainly that there are certain kinds of businesses that do not meet our guidelines for wages. And this is where the conflict comes in for me, and I don't know how we can resolve that when we already know that we are not probably going to meet that guideline, because sometimes there are numbers of part-time employees that will not have all the benefits of health and those kinds of benefits that we looked at in our policy. So how do we resolve that, David? That' s what Karen is saying. (Can't hear) she says that it applies, economic guidelines are applied to the actual construction phase, and not (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 58 of 112 Kubby: (Can't hear). And how does it meet those criteria? And maybe it doesn't meet it very well, so we can say :"no" to that particular (can't hear). That' s at our discretion. Each one has to go through that process, just like NCS as an entity and Moore Business Forms as an entity. Vanderhoef: So you're saying that if the building is going to be revitalized, that you know that it's going to be a restaurant where the majority of the jobs may be part time and may not be .... Kubby: No, I mean looking at the function of the rehab, the labor for the rehab. Lehman: The contractor in other words? Vanderhoef: The contractor. Kubby: Right. Not the businesses that would go into it. Because the business is, the person who owns the building, that's my business. I rehab the building, and I'm going to be a landlord for commercial entities. The business is the sh~ll, not what' s happening inside the shell. Norton: Which paragraph are you suggesting (can't hear). Thornberry: So you saying then that the contractor would need to meet all those requirements. Kubby: No, I'm saying that we would evaluate how the rehab of the building would meet the criteria, and we would make an evaluation on a case-by-case basis, just like with any other thing that comes to us asking for public assistance. Lehman: Now, wait a minute though. You're saying that the contractor .... [CHANGE TO TAPE 99-84 S1] Lehman: (can't hear). We don't do that with anyplace else. We don't do that with NCS. We've never done that with contractors. Why would we do it downtown? Kubby: Because the business that we're giving the public assistance to is the building, the rehab of the building. That's what we're giving public assistance to. [Murmurs of dissent] Kubby: We're not giving public assistance to that restaurant coming in. We're giving it to the property owner whose business it is to rent property. Lehman: Well, that' s not entirely true, because rents are a function of taxes. I mean, you pay taxes in your rent. If the taxes are abated, it's reasonable to assume that would have some influence on what you pay in rent. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 59 of 112 Kubby: Well, your choices in this case are to give it to the developer or give it to the businesses inside. Norton: But the literal benefit is going to the developer. The first benefit's going to the redeveloper, isn't it? Lehman: I think there's so much difficulty involved in trying to apply those rules that it almost isn't worth (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Lehman: This is totally different from anything we've done before. The whole idea is to create incentive in investment in the downtown. It has nothing to do with job creation. It's to increase the tax base. Kubby: Well, I guess I would like to... right here where it says that these criteria, these incentives in the policy only relate to job creation. I don't see it in there, but maybe I'm misreading it. And so .... Franklin: It wasn't, I don't think it was just the issue of job creation. It also had to do, as we looked at the different guidelines, how they would apply in particular situations and, as you looked at them, for instance the greater percentage of contribution by the assisted business, because the schedule is the same for everyone, or the choice of schedules is the same for everyone, there's no distinction. Short abate payback period. There's no distinction, because it's set up in what you are adopting at this point. And so that's why we're suggesting looking at the whole of what you're thinking of doing at this point in time. What it leaves out totally is the issue of wages and benefits and the job quality. And, I don't know--Karen, when you're suggesting that we evaluate the contractors, why wouldn't you be evaluating the property owners? The company that has hired the contractor, not the contractor? Which may be a couple of individuals or two or three individuals who are investing in the property. That is basically--the essence of their partnership is to invest in this property. What are we evaluating, then? Those three people and that particular partnership or that limited partnership? I mean, it makes it very hard--I think almost impossible--to take these guidelines and have them make any sense. But it did seem to make some sense to look at the whole thing that we're trying to do here .... Kubby: Except, and I laughed because when we were talking about the Scott Six project, and I made the argument that we should be, because we're giving this assistance to the developer, and we should have the criteria apply to the developer, and staff was saying, "No, because that's the overall project, it's not the individual business." Franklin: But in that case we have individual lots that are going to be owned and developed by individual entities that are going to bring businesses in there that are going to occupy those buildings, that we can evaluate by these guidelines. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 60 of 112 Kubby: Well, then let's do the same thing here. Then why not?... Franklin: Because it's a different beast. Because we're not going to have, well, at least it has not been the profile of downtown that we have people go in and build buildings and run the business that' s in that building, and continue to have any particular stake in that building, other than collecting the rent. And so, I don't know what--I think it's much harder and much muddier in terms of what you are evaluating there. Kubby: And it may be because it's a different beast. And I think we need to clarify the mud, then; instead of just saying, "Let's not deal with these criteria," let's figure out a way to follow that. Franklin: But we are not suggesting that you not follow the guidelines. What we are suggesting is that you apply the criteria of these guidelines to your decision about whether to adopt this urban revitalization plan--whether to provide this opportunity at all. And to use the guidelines then. We're not saying ignore the guidelines by any means. Kubby: But because everything is the same in terms of all that, it really has no... Franklin: It is for the individuals, but if you say, in your judgment, that a ten-year payback period for tax abatement is too long of a period, you can make a judgment that "I'm not going to do this because that' s too long of a period." Kubby: Okay. (can't hear) shorter period, then the rules apply to everybody. Franklin: Right, right. Because the jobs that are likely to occur from this are more retail jobs, you could say that, despite the revitalization that may occur, I don't want to provide financial assistance to these types of jobs, because they are not industry and technology. That that's all we're going to provide financial assistance for. Now, that's not what we are recommending to you or what we would judge, but that could be your decision in the context of these guidelines. Thornberry: It shouldn't be... that shouldn't happen. Franklin: What shouldn't happen? Thornberry: It should not be just specific types of jobs only. Franklin: Well, that's your judgment. That's how come you're sitting there. [Several talking at once] Kubby: (can't hear) the industries that we wanted to focus our economic-development attention to. And I think part of our policy .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 61 of 112 Thomberry: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Champion: Several: Champion: Kubby: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Kubby: Things change. You can't have that policy for very long, because .... Ten years ago they didn't have half the jobs they've got now. I mean, it's... Suppose somebody wants to put a mini-warehouse downtown. You might decide that' s not exactly you had in mind, right? Right. And you wouldn't extend the benefits, I take it. This benefit, this urban revitalization plan is supported by the economic development of Iowa City, and it doesn't follow any of the industrial guidelines. That' s right. So it's a totally appropriate issue. Well, that' s a matter of opinion and public policy as to whether you think it's appropriate or not. We get a chance to look at each one, but most of them are going to be a mixture of things. It's going to be very difficult, I think, sometimes. Well, I think the question is: what is the purpose of offering the tax abatement in this particular area, and what we're trying to accomplish? If we want to try (can't hear) development, we all understand that, but somebody said not at any cost, Ernie. Oh, I think that's probably right. But I think the market's going be .... You see, a warehouse's going to come downtown, the market's not going to let them. That's fight. Precisely. But, the thing that we're trying to do, I mean, the purpose in my mind of local govemment is to intervene when the market isn't doing what the overall community needs or saying that we need, okay. And we're already putting huge amounts of public money, coming from different areas, $12 million into parking facilities, $3 million into the ped mall, another, what, $3 million into Iowa Avenue--huge amounts of public investment to spur private investment. Why are we also going to do this unless the community' s getting these jobs that really help people sustain themselves? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 62 of 112 Champion: Kubby: Champion: Well, there is supply and demand, and I don't think you'll find too many businesses downtown paying minimum wage, I'll tell you that. Because they're not going to get employees. True. The other thing... but I just want to correct you when you say we're putting $12 million of the public's money into parking ramps. I just want to clarify that parking ramps are paid for by parking revenues. [Several talking at once] Kubby: But that is money that comes into this public entity that we decide how to spend, it is public money and our policies on how .... Norton: We don't disagree, but the question is, is this a reasonable way to look at each of these that come seeking this benefit? We have to decide, right, on a case-by-case basis, right? Lehman: I think there's a certain merit to that. If we make it too difficult, nobody's going to mess with it. Norton: Yeah. Champion: Right. Well, I'm going to vote for the waiver. Kubby: Well, part of the reason for providing incentives is to make something happen that wouldn't happen otherwise. Lehman: Or to speed it up. Kubby: And why do we think that these multimillion dollars that we're spending on downtown, infusing into downtown, isn't going to create that incentive? Private sector should make their own investments, do it on their own .... Norton: That's going to help. Lehman: No question about it. Kubby: Well, why are we going to do the double thing if we think?... Norton: Why not? Champion: Because we have a wonderful opportunity to do this now. Norton: It doesn't seem to me a very .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 63 of 112 Champion: Kubby: Champion: Kubby: Norton: Kubby: Norton: Kubby: Thornberry: Kubby: Schoon: Kubby: Thornberry: Norton: This represents (can't hear) the Whiteway Building. It could help facilitate the rebuilding for that. But this is a bigger thing. Right, it is bigger. And I'm hesitant to support this because of some of this conversation. I'm willing to support something for the Whiteway property, because that is a totally different thing, an unexpected event, that I want to ensure has the (can't hear) back to where it was, and not something smaller scale. I think that's good for downtown. But my charge here is to look at this whole area and not just that one property, because we have decided. Moens didn't ask us to do this "big picture" thing downtown. We decided to .... Well, we were trying to set a pattern so we could deal with it in a broader way. What I'm concemed about is I'm not sure exactly where your particular objections are, which element of this, or the effort altogether, or particular parts of it. I think any business that gets public assistance from the city should have to meet some kind of guidelines, and for me, some of the wage and benefit guidelines and the environmental factors are real important ones. And they're not going to be... because our revitalization plan doesn't speak to those issues, they're not going to be addressed, things that are most important to me .... Yeah, because we don't know what business, precisely, is going to necessarily occupy some of these revitalized .... I was saying any business on our targeted-industry list, which will change over time as the market changes and as we revise (can't hear). Some of the industry that we targeted is not appropriate for this area. The CB-10 zone, it just doesn't belong downtown, wouldn't go downtown. Well, then they won't get the assistance. And the Whiteway Building would not get assistance then under that criteria. Right. I would do a completely different thing for the Whiteway Building. I would do an individual one-shot thing for particular project. But that's not where we're at, so I'm not talking about that. Well, we're trying to revitalize the whole downtown area, not just one building. How did we get into this broader picture then? Was that our idea or the staffs idea-- to get into the broader picture here? a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 64 of 112 Kubby: Norton: Kubby: Franklin: Lehman: Schoon: Norton: Kubby: Schoon: Norton: Kubby: Schoon: Kubby: Norton: Schoon: Norton: Staff brought it to us, and the majority said "yes" to broaden it. So we're having second thoughts? No~ I am. It wasn't just an aberration. We found that we could not, by state law, do it on just one property, and so then the decision was: well, where are the boundaries? What makes sense? And because we have this whole downtown strategy thing, we recommended to you that we apply it broadly, because the rationale for doing it at the Whiteway Building or beyond in some boundary was a rationale that you could extrapolate to the entire downtown. Well, it seems to me that in the CBD zone, that the economic guidelines absolutely are so difficult to apply that they probably shouldn't be considered, if we really want this to work. We're not saying that they should not be considered. I mean, it was trying to find a way to still use them. That's what we tried to do, and that's what we outlined, is that when you're considering designating it, based on the guidelines we have, does this meet the general intent of the guidelines? I don't think staff is saying you should not use them. We're just using them differently than how we've used them in the past. That seems to be reasonable. So will we be voting on the plan on the 14th? On the 281h. If you recall, we have to allow 30 days for a second public hearing to be called. But you have "action" down here on this, don't you? That is for designating the boundary? That's for designating the boundary. That' s what we're doing tomorrow night. Oh, it is tomorrow night. So you're just giving first consideration. It gets second consideration on the 14th and then pass and adopt on the 281h. But item 12 we can take action on, right? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 65 of 112 Kubby: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Kubby: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Schoon: Dilkes: Schoon: Champion: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Schoon: Norton: Schoon: O'Donnell: [?]: It's a public hearing. Well, it's a public hearing, but there's an "action" word there on 12. On 12 we're going to continue that because we're going to amend it. Okay .... But what will be the action when we get there? On item 127 We'll reopen the public hearing, close the public hearing, and we'll have first consideration. We're going to continue the public heating, because we're adding historic preservation (can't hear) .... Yeah, but I said, when we get there, it'll be an ordinance, tight? It said on the 13th. On the 13th we'll reopen the public heating, close it, and have first consideration. Yeah, we'll have (can't hear). You'll have second consideration of the ordinance on the 14th. Second consideration of the ordinance .... The public hearing is on the plan. The ordinance does not require a public hearing. (can't hear) first consideration tomorrow night (can't hear) Well, I'm still confused. Why does it say "public hearing" and "action," then, if?.... It always says that. Almost always. But there' s no action to be taken! That's fight. Normally there isn't. [Laughter] The action could be to close the public heating. Oh, I see. Closing the public heating. Any other questions? No, I think it's a great plan. Yes. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 66 of 112 [?]: It is. Highway 6 Corridor Improvements 99-84 S1 Lehman: Okay. Highway 6. Fosse: Well, what we want to do tonight is give you an update on the Highway 6 project and then seek some direction from you. We've got the cost estimate on this pinned down somewhere between 3.75 million and $6 million, depending on what direction we go on some of the elements of this project. And so what we need from you tonight is some help on focusing on those elements. With me tonight to help out is Kevin Trom with Shive-Hattery and Brian Clark with Brian Clark and Associates. And he's a subconsultant to Shive-Hattery to help out with the landscape aspect of this. Also represented tonight is our unpaid consultant, Project Green, Nancy Seiberling is here as well. So be sure to pipe up if you have anything to add, Nancy. A quick project description is that it begins at the Iowa River Corridor Trail by the Iowa River and extends east to Sycamore Street. It's our east-west link that'll get us from the Iowa River Corridor Trail and eventually down to the South Sycamore Regional Stormwater Facility and Greenspace Project. To put the trail in, we're going to need to enclose the ditch on the south side of the highway, and we will also be looking at some capacity improvements that we can do in that corridor as well. And right now, it looks like most of our focus will be at Sycamore Street and also some focus at Gilbert Street. Now the trick with Gilbert Street is where do we stop-- you know, is there anything we can do as part of this project without getting into a whole another project by itself there. And then, of course, there'll be the aesthetic components of this, the plantings and other things. Now, this project had its beginnings back in '94 when we did a study with Amentia Engineering [?], and from that study, we ended up putting $3 million into capital programs spread over three years to build this project, which seemed an awful lot of money at the time. Since then we've been able to get 994,000 in a Surface Transportation Act grant, and we were able to reduce our local commitment to $2 million because of that. And if you recall, last spring when we were looking at getting all our capital programs within $10 million each year, we took another half million out this, thinking that we still had enough left to do the project. Well, as we got into the design on it, what we found for the storm-sewer component is going to be a bigger task that what we'd anticipated. Originally we'd hoped to fill in pieces, the ditches, in between the existing pipes out there. What we learned is by doing that, we would leave the businesses along there too vulnerable to flooding for our comfort. They probably experience flooding about once every 15 to 20 years. So we're going to need to do an upgrade to the existing storm sewers that are out there, and that added significantly to the project cost, and that's why we're back up at that 3.75 million as a minimum project cost. As I said, Shive's working on the storm-sewer component, and Brian's working on the landscaping. At this point, I'll turn it over to Kevin so he can talk a little bit about the storm sewer This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 67 of 112 and also some about the edge treatments for the roadway. That's one of the areas where we need some direction. Do we want to leave the edges of the roads as they are with the gravel shoulders? Do we want to pave the shoulders? Do we want to put some curbs on there? All those could affect the cost of the project. Kevin? Trom: (can't hear) the handout. It's probably not the best thing to read. The storm-sewer system here starts down river and goes .... First, there's two legs, both on the south side. The first leg's about .4 miles, and it varies in size from 72 inch to 16 inch, all the way up to Boyrum Street. And the south parallel system with that goes from the Iowa River all the way up to Hollywood Boulevard. And we had estimated costs there of about 3 million for the storm sewer, and along with that is how we're going to handle the treatment of the roadway edge, whether that's going to be curb and gutter or a paved shoulder. If we added curb and gutter, that would significantly increase the cost. Because of the curb-and-gutter cost and also because of the number of intakes in the additional storm sewer, we'd estimate about $1 million with curb and gutter the entire way. The 3.75 million, that would include a certain amount of curb and gutter from Hollywood to Sycamore Street to allow for a clear zone for the trail, put it closer to the road--the road drops off pretty good there. And then there' s also some allowance for curb and gutter at the intersections where the trail would come in, to provide safety for crossing the roads. Norton: You mean just on the south side then? Trom: Yes. Up to Sycamore. Champion: So except for those small areas, someone on the trail's going to be safe from rocks flying off the road .... Trom: Yeah, there's a lot of room out there without curb and gutter. You still have plenty of room to meet all of the clear-zone requirements. So right now it is just the gravel shoulders, and it's somewhat of a eyesore/maintenance problem. Thornberry: You couldn't put just those water basins out there--you know, the old roads, the old two-lane roads with the little curbs on them (can't hear)? Every now and then they had a little water thing going out to the side. Why couldn't you do that as opposed to?... Trom: Oh, a flume? It's that cut in a curb. Thornberry: Could you that instead of having gutters and?... Trom: That would be a possibility. Thomberry: You'd still have curbs and flumes as opposed to curb and gutter. Norton: Are you talking a roll curb? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 68 of 112 Thornberry: Norton: Thomberry: Kubby: Norton: Thornberry: Fosse: Norton: Fosse: Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Fosse: Atkins: Fosse: Atkins: Fosse: Well, some kind of curb. You know, the rock edges don't lend, you know, very aesthetic, you know, along the whole side of Highway 6, Dee. Yeah, I understand. But I also don't quite understand curbs along there. It doesn't seem to me .... As opposed to what? It's only in those certain areas where there's a safety hazard. Well, I understand that they're talking about one stretch, but why not just blacktop the shoulders or something like that? How far over? That' s one of the alternatives that we have is just blacktopping those areas that don't require curbs. Some areas will require curb because .... Is that because of washing? No, it's because where the hill starts to go up around the curb there, we've got to scooch the trail in there closer to the roadway, and because of that we've got to put curb on so we reach that clear zone. Ernie, can I ask a question? Yes. Rick, did you say anything about the curbs on the median. The price that we put together for the curbs includes curbings on medians, so it would .... So if we did not do that, the medians would remain the way they are? That' s fight. And the most unsightly median fight now is that stretch in front of the old Hy-Vee store and by Burger King there. And there's a lot of cut-through traffic while people are waiting for trains. And in about a year we'll know better if people are still doing that, after we get the interchange built out in Iowa County. If you go with either asphalt or gravel on the shoulders, how does that affect the sidewalk? It really won't have any effect on the sidewalk. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 69 of 112 Atkins: Fosse: Vanderhoef: Several: Atkins: Thomberry: Fosse: Thomberry: It's far enough away that? .... Yes, there's plenty of room. But there's still grass between whatever we put there for shoulder before we get over to the sidewalk. Yes. If I could follow up what Dee said, there would be roadway, gravel, grass and then sidewalk. Now that gravel and grass, I've got to believe in time is going to disappear .... Isn't that what you were saying about blacktopping? Yes. That'd be the pave .... Then you'd have roadway, then blacktop, then grass, then side .... [Several talking at once] Fosse: Let's finish up with the background, and then we'll talk about some of the decisions we make tonight. Norton: Before we start redesigning it. Fosse: Yeah. I'll turn it over to Kevin [Brian] at this time. Clark: From an aesthetic standpoint, I want to first of all thank Project Green for the nice job they've done on the north side of that corridor. My initial thoughts are that they've established a nice park-like parkway through this one-mile stretch. And my thoughts as a landscape architect is to enhance what they have done and respect what they have done. On the south side of the street, there's more businesses, more commercial. As we head to the east, then it gets back into the residential land use. And I think--I don't think we need to curb it all, but curb it at key intersections, locations, to protect the safety of the pedestrians. The asphalt shoulder I think is aesthetically a good idea, but what I want to get out of you guys tonight is that park-like feel, I think we want to keep that going, but I'm concemed about visibility to the business signage that occurs on the south side. So conceptually, you might treat the landscape a little different on that south edge, to allow views through the signage, maybe give it a more repetitious feel there, but still respect that park-like effect through there. Kubby: You're saying it's going to have to be clustered so that there are openings (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 70 of 112 Clark: Norton: Clark: Thornberry: Clark: Thomberry: Clark: Vanderhoef: Clark: Fosse: We don't know exactly, but I want to make sure, I want to put the business owners' minds at ease that we're not going to put a dense forest down this corridor. We want to maintain views to their business fronts, and so they're not impacted. We'll get your comments here in a minute or so. But there also is, by the way, DOT programs available for funding of the tree component, as well as Trees Forever has a grant program for highway tree dollars. So there's public monies available, not just from Iowa City but other entities as well. Rather than curb the median, is there any possibility of planting in the median? I can't tell you--you drive miles of Califomia with oleander down the middle of this thing, and precludes all the lights in your eyes, and it softens the whole scene. Why is that impossible? It's not impossible. There's some low--the key thing with the DOT is visibility, and I think with the DOT on city is maintenance. So ideally you'd have a low ground cover that I mean flowered or provided year-round color. So, there are plants that meet their height requirements, do provide some interest--I mean, just off the top of my head, there' s some lower varieties of day lilies that would--you can't kill them. Do they like salt? They love everything, so .... Okay. Those kind of plants that, not only, they multiply .... They still require weeding and maintenance, and this is a big concern .... Yes, and that's part of the decision tonight. I want to take from you guys what goals you've got for the corridor as well as what concerns you have for the corridor. That'll help us design what your vision is for that corridor. Some of the decisions we need out of you this evening, or would like out of you this evening, is regarding the edge treatment for the roadway, are we on track with the landscaping? We've not envisioned anything overly fancy with lights and banners and all. Lights alone we think would add about 300,000 to this corridor. One thing that we can do is put in some conduits under the areas that we pave or repave to make it easier to retrofit lights later if the desire strikes. And something else we're looking at for the corridor is putting the overhead electrical underground. This might be an opportunity where we can make that happen. Because looking at the corridor there, most of the businesses have underground services already, and that is an obstacle. When they have overhead services, that tends to be an obstacle to getting the electrical underground. So that opportunity may present itself. Dean? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 71 of 112 Thomberry: I still would like the idea of approaching the businesses along there for some financial assistance for doing this, and maybe they would even consider putting lights along the sidewalk like the Coralville strip, for example, 's got I think too many, but... lights here and there along this trail that I would support (can't hear/laughter) .... People could walk and ride their bikes on this trail in the evenings. [Can't hear/laughter] Thornberry: But I thought, to hell, at least as nice as Coralville (can't hear) maybe not as many trees, but lights along there, I don't know. And are there sidewalks on both sides? Fosse: No, just the south side. And I should note that we're also working with the DOT for some additional funding on the storm sewer. So far we have a commitment that they'll pay a portion ofit~ould be in the 2 to $300,000 range. We probably won't be able to pin that down until we're further along in the design, because they're quite specific on what they will and will not pay for. As Brian indicated, we're going to look for some outside funding sources for some of the plantings, and we're going to see what else we can scare up out there. Norton: I want to reiterate something that (can't hear): this is, and was recognized to be by Project Green many years ago, a major entrance. That is just where the action is, let's face it: it's wall-to-wall cars all day long. And I think we've really got to, as you say, honor that park-like concept with reasonable accuracy like they did on the north, do the best we can on the south. I think it's a future possibility, for God's sake, let's put the conduit in, even if we can't drag the wires through it for the moment. Fosse: For the lighting? Norton: Yeah. Fosse: Okay. To give you an idea on the edge treatment, the differences in costs that we're talking about. The minimum amount of curbing, and then leaving the rest of the shoulders as they are today, the project costs would be around $3.75 million. If we add the paved shoulders, we're going to be around 4.1, 4.2 million, in there. And if we go for the full-blown curbs, for the whole works, we're looking at about 5.2 million there. The big jump is that storm-sewer component. And right now, that's set up so that it slopes to the median, the inside lanes slope to the median, so we've got to put storm sewer on both sides of both lanes, and that' s an expensive proposition. Do you guys have a feel for where you want to go with it? Thomberry: When we put in Boyrum, (can't hear) putting storm sewer all the way from Boyram down to that creek. So that's already there. Kubby: We're talking the other side of the street. Fosse: Yep. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 72 of 112 Lehman: Fosse: Lehman: Fosse: Thornberry: Fosse: Lehman: Fosse: Lehman: Norton: Vanderhoef: Thornberry: Fosse: Vanderhoef: Fosse: This represents What's the difference in maintenance costs? Obviously it costs more money to asphalt the shoulders (can't hear) rock from the way they are now. But from a maintenance standpoint, what's the advantage of the asphalt, how long would it last compared to the stone? Asphalt, I would hope that we get a 15- to 25-year life out of that. And for maintenance costs for us, there's no difference, because the DOT maintains those shoulders now. Will they pay for the difference? .... That' s one of the things we'll be sitting down to the table with them about. I mean, there's a significant savings to them by having that asphalt put in. Yeah. And so far we've been fishing with them on that. They're not coming forward and saying, "Yeah, we'd like to help you put curbs on or pave the shoulders," so we're going to try harder there. But the big difference from our perspective is the visual aspects of the corridor. The DOT will realize some benefits as well. I definitely think the asphalt would be preferable if there' s some way that we can get some shared cost on it. Okay. So .... It'd cost us (can't hear) more money, but it'd certainly be better .... If you put gravel there, it's going to go fight back to the way it is. The thing that I would like to know is, what' s your experience with DOT maintaining those shoulders when they are rock, and how soon are we going to see the grass growing up, and then wait two years for them to put rock down? Well, they do it now. They don't worry about the grass growing up through the rock. That's not a problem for them. It's the edge ruts that they don't like. And one of the down sides to the paved shoulders are is that people tend to treat those like right-tum lanes, so we'd need to design so that doesn't occur--that is, that we don't make it as wide as a lane or perhaps put a texture in it that would not encourage that sort of thing. Rumble strip? Well, along the interstate they've got a roller that puts the buzz in there. So do we have a consensus to go with the paved shoulders and pursue some funding?... a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 73 of 112 Norton: Fosse: Thornberry: Fosse: Thornberry: Champion: Thornberry: Fosse: Thornberry: Fosse: Kubby: Fosse: Thomberry: Fosse: Vanderhoef: Fosse: Norton: Fosse: Vanderhoef: Fosse: When you say paved, you mean asphalt? Asphalt, yes. I think so. And what again are you going to do in the center? The center would remain as--it's inverted right now, it acts like a ditch in the middle, and it's got smaller shoulders. I mean, where the shoulders are in the middle, I mean the raised part in the center of the road.. (can't hear) That they have to mow periodically. Right. I mean, they're covered with asphalt, they're curbed asphalt, and the center island, then you have to mow. Okay. We can go back and look at things that we can do to keep those weeds down in there. It might be getting that old asphalt out of there and putting fresh in .... (can't hear) I think Dean's talking about that stretch where it's only like three feet wide, yeah, and we just get volunteer weeds in the cracks. And they--a lot of volunteers. Yeah. And I'm concerned about maintenance .... Yeah. (can't hear) curbs on the medians, did you? The only medians that are curbed now are near the intersection of Gilbert and on to the river. The rest are shaped more like a ditch, and they function like a ditch. And that's where people drive through? Mm-hm. Are we on track with the landscaping from your perspective? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 74 of 112 [General assent] Fosse: Okay. And perhaps put in conduits so it'll make it easier to put in lighting later if we choose, but not necessarily put in conduit for the whole length--just under the paved areas. Lehman: That's not a huge expense, is it? Fosse: No, it's not. Thornberry: Didn't they put that in when they put the sidewalk in? Fosse: They can, but it's a different operation. And .... Thornberry: Don't they just come through with one of those spreaders or?... Fosse: Mm-hm. Thornberry: It doesn't really dig up the ground, it just kind of puts a groove in there .... Fosse: Right. And that's why I say we can do that part of it at any point in the future, but putting it under the paving is more difficult. Let's see. Got the paving, the lighting. Want us to pursue the electrical as well and come back to you with some costs on that once we know? Norton: Well, I think some kind of lighting would be lovely. Fosse: Okay. Norton: I know it's huge, but it's one of the entrances that one of our long-range goals would be .... Thornberry: If you're going to make it nice, make it nice. Lehman: But if we put the conduit in, at least we have the capability of going back and doing lights. Fosse: Mm-hm. Yeah. Have I missed anything? .... Norton: Will Project Green continue to be involved? Fosse: Yes. They will continue to be involved. We had some meetings with them early on, and I wanted to bring Brian in on the team, because this corridor does have a little different flavor on the south side because of the businesses, and I want to make sure that we're sensitive to that. And I think that's where Brian can really help out there. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 75 of 112 Where we go from is, on September 14th, we'll set the public heating for the easement-acquisition portion of it. September 281h we'll hold the public heating, and pass an intent to proceed with the project. And you'll probably hear at that public hearing, what we've been heating from some of the property owners near Sycamore Street on the noah side, there' s some runoff from the highway there that' s causing some grief for them. That's one of the things that we're going to learn more about, working with the property owners at the pre-design meeting, and that's something that we want to work with the DOT to address. We're going to explore additional funding sources. And expect three contracts on this. We'll probably do the contract next year for the pipe, which will be the biggest one, for the big pipe in the ditch. Follow that up with a contract for the paving for the trail, for the curbs and shoulders, that sort of thing. And then finally a landscaping contract. For those of you that sit on the JCCOG board, Wednesday night what we'll be doing is voting from a JCCOG perspective, narrow the scope of this project to only the drainage, so that we can spend all that money on one contract and do that efficiently. But what we need to do is be committed to the trail portion of the project as well, because this project would not have received that STP money without the trail. Lehman: You've got it. [Laughter] Fosse: Anything else? Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, guys. We're going to take five. [Council Break] Deer Management Plan 99-84 S1 Lehman: Dearly beloved, shall we start? Let's talk about the deer-management plan. Lisa. Mollenhauer: Thank you. First, I would like to recognize the Committee members that are with us this evening: Jan Ashman, Doug Jones, Loren Forbes, Nancy Seibe~ing, Misha Goodman-Herbst and me. Tim certainly gave us a lot of advice and counsel from the DNR. Norton: We ought to give them a round of applause is what we ought to give them. Thornberry: Or money. I think they'd take money. Mollenhauer: The mayor asked me to give just a brief history of what this committee has gone through the past 3.5 year. We started meeting in 1997 upon your appointment. We did approve a plan very similar to what you have in front of you today at that time. We did have to run through the channels of receiving DNR authorization to allow us to sharpshoot in Iowa City. Of course, that drug out through the winter season, and This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 76 of 112 so we lost our window of opportunity that first year. Last year we recommended again a very similar plan, began implementation of that plan, and then we were stopped on a federal level--USDA was stopped, due to a temporary restraining order, and again we lost the window of opportunity. Typically, the DNR will allow you to conduct a shooting program through March, and the temporary restraining order went past that. We started meeting again in April of this year. We met very regularly. I know some of you attend our meetings and read our minutes, and you know how much discussion and thought has gone into this plan. Again, it's not significantly different. Unfortunate[ly], we don't have many new options, and our situation is getting any better. In fact, we're having to recommend to you a number we're not very proud of. As one of our committee members stated, this is getting to be a more severe problem every year. So that's where we are right now. Lelunan: Tomorrow night I would like you to explain that before we start public discussion. And also, there's one thing that you didn't mention: was this recommendation unanimous? Mollenhauer: It was, yes. Lehman: It's extremely important that you point that out tomorrow night. Mollenhauer: And our committee worked very hard... Lehman: I know you do. Mollenhauer: at having a unanimous decision. This is something that we want to feeldeverybody compromises a little something in this plan, and there's a great deal of respect and consideration for everyone involved, and we hope that represents this community. Lehman: Okay. Mollenhauer: Let me just run through briefly for you the highlights of this year's recommendation. Changed just a couple of things. We will continue to accumulate educational material. We're trying to figure out the most cost-effective and effective way of distributing that information to folks that need it. We did have a "Living with Deer" series that ran three different deer-management articles in the Press-Citizen. It's about $600 a time, and we're not sure that we're reaching the folks that really can use the help, because they have to be looking for it that particular day. We would like to see that information put in the brochure that would be available to our residents upon request, and we would have those available at the City Civic Center and the Library for folks to pick up, and we will certainly mail that to them upon request. Something else that we would like to see, as far as educational material, is utilizing government channel 4 to the best of our ability with some of these nonlethal methods. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 77 of 112 Lehman: Mollenhauer: Also the City's web page. You know we're hiring a web developer, that hopefully we can get that information to our residents that way. The other is a video to be produced, summarizing Iowa City's plan. Tony DeNicola did mention to us there's a wonderful video that goes through deer management in general, that there's a very expensive, very high-quality that we will take a look at that may be something we can use immediately in Iowa City. So we'll take a look at that. Education is number one for a reason. I think this Committee wants to stress that our residents learn to build a tolerance of living with deer. We do not want to see them eradicated. If we have three deer, people are going to have to learn how to live with them, so that's very important. We would like to see the installation of additional warning signs and reflectors, kind of expand the Dubuque a little bit south, and then in conjunction with all of our reflector systems, we would like in each directional bound lane a deer-warning sign. We have a lot of folks in this community who are from out of state or out of town that come through to visit people at the hospital or athletic events. They don't know where the deer cross, and so, in conjunction with the reflectors, we would like to see one sign in each directional bound lane. We also would like to see reflectors along Rochester, so that would be an additional location. We are requesting that White Buffalo assess the feasibility of a contraception study for Iowa City. Tony has worked with other communities and contraception studies. He can certainly let us know if we have the correct situation in town to go ahead and try to get involved in a contraception study. We are recommending that the City of Iowa City apply immediately for permits from the State Department of Natural Resources for no more than 733 permits to kill that many deer. I know that's an alarming number. Again, that's your maximum. We in no way anticipate killing that many deer. And again, we will continue to compile data. One of the benefits of being able to conduct a sharpshooting program is that we can get site-specific information on Iowa City's deer herd health and their reproductive rates and those kinds of things that can only be done under a program like we are recommending. And so that will be one benefit that we will gain from this program. Again, the meat is to be processed and distributed by the Salvation Army to agencies in town. So that's it in a nutshell. And if you have any questions about sharpshooting, we do have Tony DeNicola here from White Buffalo, and he will be happy to address any concerns that you may have, or I can certainly try to help you. Would it be helpful tomorrow night for him to give us a short explanation of what he does, and is this being the benefit of the discussion? I find it very interesting, and I think it lays a foundation for much of the reason why the Committee suggested his agency to begin with, because he does have a philosophy. He's not just someone that comes in and kills deer. He wants to work This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 78 of 112 with you to manage your deer problem using many different components, and I think that' s a bonus this time around in using White Buffalo. Kubby: I think it's good for the community to hear from the person that we'll contract with, so they can get a sense of what their business is about, what they do, how they do it, and a sense of the person (can't hear). Lehman: I also think it would be beneficial prior to the public discussion if the public knows a little bit more about how he's going to operate. And it may answer questions that might otherwise come up at the meeting. Kubby: Especially that sound issue, since last month our agenda items (can't hear). Mollenhauer: Absolutely. And I know that Tony had talked about this, and he wants the community to feel comfortable with him personally and be able to address any concerns that they may have, so that would be good. O'Donnell: I think we ought to recognize this Deer Committee tomorrow night during this meeting. Lehman: Oh, there's no question. O'Donnell: (Can't hear) tremendous job on a very difficult subject, and they went through very similar what we go through (can't hear). I just think they should be recognized. Norton: A question arises to me always about precisely the state of the bow hunting. Because, you know, the paper is always concerned with a backup plan, and I say "No, it's not a backup plan," personally, to me, but I'm not quite clear even though you don't recommend it--but in your Committee conclusions in this area about bow hunting, it sotrods to me like there's a little bit of equivocation. And I'm not quite sure whether it is or isn't a backup, or how do you say--there's no backup plan, right? Mollenhauer: We have no backup plan in our recommendation to you. Actually, the DNR is recommending against bow-and-arrow hunting being utilized as a backup plan. It's just too late in the season to recruit and appropriately train. What you do, and these are At Farris's words, are that you set your bow-hunting program up to fail. And if you start it that late, you are going to end up in a situation where you're going to kill 20 or 25 deer, and it's not going to be a (can't hear) .... (Can't hear) hunting could do in an appropriate setting. Not that we want that here; it's just that it's not, you're setting it up at too late of a date in order for it to be effective, and the controversy that would arise out of trying to implement something that late .... O'Donnell: I think that looking more in terms of maintenance, not, you know, down the road .... Mollenhauer: With the numbers that we need to remove from Iowa City, the Committee did not feel that bow hunting would be effective in reducing those large numbers. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 79 of 112 Thomberry: No, what I think he 's saying is say, for example, we get the herd trimmed down in a year or two to a manageable level, could we keep it there through bow hunting? Mollenhauer: If it receives community acceptance. It's a safe method .... Thornberry: I think we would then have the opportunity of getting the training. Now, would the DNR do the training, or?... Mollenhauer: They would assist us in certainly trying to set up a program. Thornberry: Okay. Mollenhauer: Again, though, I think your big issue is more at the maintenance level of community acceptance, and that people want to see that in this town. And that's something that you folks need to determine. Our Committee at this point did not feel that we were willing to give up on what we believe is the most humane, effective method. We want to see this at least, let it try one more time. We feel like we used the best governmental agency last year that we could. We feel we're using the best private agency this year that we can. So we would like to see you try to give us one more shot, at least. Thornberry: Well, this is going to be an ongoing thing. It's not going to be a one-time deal. Lehman: No, but we would have to adjust the bow hunting next year. If this works, then bow hunting would be addressed, as you said, early in the season. We'd have to know that. And we're talking about sharpshooting now. A year from right now's when we'll be talking about bow hunting so it could be set up. Kubby: Well, it might be a couple of years .... Norton: We're just making our decision for this year. [Several talking at once] Vanderhoef: Our plan is always is written that it will be updated annually, so we have to look at the figures every year and then go through the idea of what we want in our plan for the coming year. Thomberry: Well, what I was suggesting was, if there were large parcels of private property in Iowa City with many deer .... For example, the Elks Club's a private, and say they wanted to reduce the number of deer, and the City was not willing to take out more deer, could they then hire or acquire bow hunters, for example, who could get a permit from the state, to eliminate more deer on private property? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 80 of 112 Mollenhauer: Norton: Kubby: Thornberry: Lehman: Mollenhauer: Thornberry: Norton: Mollenhauer: That would be something you'd have to approve, but you need also be concerned about what you're educating your deer. It's very interesting having Tony in town and listening to him talk. It's not just as easy as sending a btmch of hunters out do their work and clean it up with sharpshooting or vice versa. You start to educate the deer in a way you don't want them educated, and it makes your major reduction program, or your more effective reduction program, less effective and cost prohibitive. And so it's not just a matter of going out and killing deer in a certain area. The deer become educated, and it's not as simple as it may sound. When and how do we decide on .... I don't want to set a precedent of us allowing private entities to be in charge of a little bit of bow hunting over here on their property, a little bow hunting .... We need to have safe control over any kind of (can't hear). Well, say for example the Elks Club has, we take, you know, 600 deer off the Elks Club. And there's like 400 left or something. They've got a lot of deer. And we've said, "Well we thinned the deer herd enough so that it is manageable." Well, manageable perhaps not on one property. How do those people on the one property thin a little bit more on their property than others, for example? Wouldn't that have to be a recommendation from the Committee? Yes, and again, when we get to that point, that will be something the Committee will look through as they formulate their plan. This will change every year depending on what the situation is. I didn't mean to single out the Elks Club, you know, that's just an example. I'm not saying that the Elks .... When and how do we decide on the numbers? You've got a minimum (can't hear)?... Oh, that's an interesting one. The Committee members are all smirking. We went with a very simple formula of the DNR's thought that you have a 30% increase each year. We did not take into account natural death, we did not take into account a lot of different factors. What we gave you, the minimum number, when you look at the areas with over 35 deer per square mile, would be our view of what you need to kill in order to just maintain a population. In other words, take out the new birth. The recommended number that the Committee is forwarding to you is a number to do that, plus make a little bit of headway on trying to get the numbers down. The DNR number is the maximum number, and that would be to, in one year, get you down to 30 deer per square mile, which would give you a little bit of leeway. We would prefer, the Committee is preferring that this community not use a target number, because then you start to measure the success or failure of your program based on This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 81 of 112 that, and there are so many factors involved. We want to stay away from that, and so we're telling Cotmcil anywhere in this range, you're going to make some headway. Norton: When do we decide is what I'm trying to?... Mollenhauer: Much of that will have to do with access, weather conditions--it may not be something that you can detem~ine. You can certainly set a cap. Norton: I see, you don't set a policy fight now we're going after "X." [Several talking at once] Norton: Well, come on, "X" is such a broad range now. Mollenhauer: It is, and we recognize that .... Kubby: (Can't hear) Norton: Well, I mean I don't want to piddle around just and beat down the current growth; I want to make some progress, we're not getting anywhere. Thornberry: Well, it depends on--if we don't get any snow this year, and .... Norton: Well, I assume it depends on how much we budget for the thing and one thing and another. I think we need to make serious progress in heading off the birth rate. I mean, we're getting more multiple births, too, are we not? Mollenhauer: Yes. We have a very high reproduction rate in town. Kubby: I have a couple of questions that are off the legal portion of the plan (can't hear). On the educational part of it. The two questions kind of go together. One, would the Committee stay intact and work on some of the educational parts of this? Mollenhauer: We've had some volunteers who have always offered to help. Jan is certainly one of them. And I know any of them if we asked them would be glad to help us. In fact, if we do produce the video, the University of Iowa Animal Rights coalition has agreed to come on board with us on that project, and it would be voiceovers or, you know, help us demonstrate some of the nonlethal methods you can use to manage. Kubby: (Can't hear) to do that. Cause one of the target places I think some education would be very effective is in new developments in these areas where there are higher deer numbers per acre, where we know people are going to be investing in landscaping, and if we can do education before they invest instead of their second investment, it really, that prevention would be worth the time. Right. a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. Mollenhauer: This represents WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 82 of 112 Kubby: So I hope that's where the Committee will put some energy. Mollenhauer: Sure. Kubby: (Can't hear). Because when people call me and are concemed that the hostas were eaten, and I say, "Well, what did you plant hostas?" And then they're mad at me, they're mad at the City .... Mollenhauer: Really, though, there's very little that they won't eat. They will eat plants that are toxic to them or, you know, and when they are hungry, you literally have to encase these plants in some kind of very strong fencing. Thornberry: It 's the first year that I've (can't hear) ....They're just eating things more all the time. They never ate (can't hear) before. O'Donnell: Is this educational process?... It's going to be more effective, obviously, after we've reached the target number of deer, 35, because we can put up all the reflectors we want, and we've still got so many deer in Iowa City. Mollenhauer: There is no foolproof method. Obviously, reflectors are effective at night after dark, and so that's not an answer to your deer-vehicle accidents. Telling people to slow down, you're just going to have laws you can't enforce. If(can't hear), and he spoke with us about signs, and you can do all of this to the nth degree, but whether it's effective or not, education is a very difficult thing. You find, though, if you go up to Bristol, you go up to some of these areas, people have educated themselves quite well. Everything's covered. We want to do what we can. O'Donnell: And I was wondering also, the contraception in here. Does that in any way affect the meat of the deer? Do we know that? Mollenhauer: Tony, would you like to address that since you've been involved in contraception studies? Lehman: Yes. Tony, why don't you come up front so we can all get a good look at you? [Several talking, laughing at once] DeNicola: Briefly, contraceptive technology's still in the experimental phase. It has to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for your experimental protocol. All the animals that are treated with experimental agent must be tagged appropriately and labeled and identifiable by the lay public--if it's hit by car, harvested during hunting season--so that animal will not be consumed. So technically, any animal treated with contraceptive agent is not fit for consumption. If you gave a deer an aspirin, because it's not one of the labeled uses, technically you have to go through a special investigative process in order to apply that agent. So any agent, whether it's benign This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 83 of 112 Lehman: DeNicola: Lehman: DeNicola: Lehman: DeNicola: Lehman: DeNicola: Vanderhoef: DeNicola: Lehman: DeNicola: Lehman: or not, if it's not labeled for use on an animal, it's considered experimental. So it doesn't just apply to contraceptives, but you would not be able to consume it. Thank you. Any other questions for Tony? I don't want to take over the program, but if there's other specific questions related to contraception, or... I don't want to digress or take away fi'om the flow of your meeting at this time, so it's up to you how you want to handle my involvement. Well, tomorrow night we would like a brief synopsis from you to the Council-- obviously the public will hear this--prior to the public discussion, immediately following Lisa's comments. Okay. And there may be, although during public discussion we tended in the past not to try to answer questions, because so many times so many questions come up, but there may be specific questions that we may ask for answers to. Okay. I mean, obviously it can't be a question-and-answer period tomorrow night or it'll last all night. But there may be some specific questions that are easy that we may ask you to respond to. That's fine. There's something that I would like to cover very carefully, and that is the use of suppressors, and how you have your federal permit for it, and what our Iowa law is, whether you address it or Lisa addresses it, so that our folks know why and why not we use suppressors, because for me, I would like this Council then to move forward towards making the request somehow or another for the State Legislature to look at this and change our law. Do you want that summarized now or tomorrow night? Tomorrow night would be best, but we also .... Okay. I think you need to point out to the Council, as well as the public, what effect suppressors have on your ability to harvest deer. Because I think--you know, I discussed that with you earlier--I think your answer was surprising to me, but I think it's very important that the public know how you are handicapped or not handicapped by not being able to use a suppressor. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 84 of 112 DeNicola: Lehman: DeNicola: Thomberry: DeNicola: Thornberry: DeNicola: Norton: Several: Norton: Several: Dilkes: Mitchell: Lehman: Mitchell: Okay. Would you prefer that I incorporate that in my introduction, or that I (can't hear) for question? Sure. Okay, you could make a list of frequently asked questions and/or I can give my general intro and any specific other aspects that you want me to incorporate. And I can to try to include all that so it minimizes how much back-and-forth question/answer goes on, so we maybe work .... (Can't hear) think we have five specific things, such as suppression, contraception, and other issues, or other related activities that we're involved in, you know, I can address those as well. Well, last year the public knew that we were to harvest deer, and it was going to be through the night goggles and scopes, and noise suppression. I don't know if all of them know about the non-noise suppression and the noise that might occur in areas of town and why. Okay. And why we can't use noise suppression. Are there other states that do use noise suppression? Yeah, 37 of 50 states allow suppression if you have federal authorization. Are we or are we not using suppressors? We're not. Well then we just like the sound? State law. Why don't you let Dennis address that. Yeah, just real briefly. There are certain exceptions in Iowa for people that can use suppressors. For instance, (can't hear) police officers were doing it, they would be able to use suppressors. Federal agents, such as the USDA, they could do it. But, unfortunately, we've worked with the State on this, there's no avenue for us fight now to be able to allow a private contractor, such as Tony, to be able to use the suppressors. Can we deputize him? Well, that wouldn't work for the State. We discussed altematives, and it was made very clear to us that under no circumstances would Tony be able to do that. But This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 85 of 112 Norton: O'Donnell: DeNicola: Norton: DeNicola: again, that's something we can maybe work on for next year, trying to work with some of our local legislators, and see if we can't get the law changed on that. I have another question for Tony. At some point will you comment, if appropriate, on the fact that other critters also become problems in many contexts? For example, a lot of people wonder, "Well, why do we really have a deer problem?" They look at the motor-vehicle accidents, and they don't see--now, I don't know what's enough for them--when do you have a problem? But this comes up with other species. I don't know whether you've taken geese somewhere, but they're certainly a problem in many places. Doesn't this happen with various critters in various places? Wild pigs, for example? That's in here, what he's taken. He's taken feral pigs and all kinds of.... In brief summary, it's a pretty straightforward answer. We have created ideal habitat. The habitat that we enjoy is the same habitat that these adaptive species enjoy, from raccoons to geese to deer to fox to coyote, and so we've created habitat, and therefore wildlife will fill that niche. And, in turn, as they do not self-regulate their population, they may create conflicts. So it's the very selection of our habitat that creates the problem. And that's more of a landscape-level design issue than it is an individual species-management issue. Are the numbers per square mile rationally arrived at? How does that 35 or 30-- where did we come by that number? There's no magic number. You're going to see considerable variability and tolerance within your community. And what I recommend is you begin your program, let people be comfortable or not comfortable with whatever procedure you select, and then adjust your harvest according to zone. And whether it's zone two and three or five or six or fifteen on the west side, you need to .... You know, we can tailor the program, address road kills area, vegetational impacts in others or throughout, and you will sense from complaints, from your vehicle-kill data, if you do vegetational monitoring, you know, when you're actually achieving your tolerable densities. And I strongly believe you will see differences throughout, which makes it easier to adjust your program and slow down your harvest in one areaqyou maybe only have to harvest deer every other year in some zones. So, you'll have a great deal of flexibility once you get to that point. So, there's no magic number. I think it makes people more at ease if you have--everyone wants to know how many deer you have out there. Your estimate may be fairly accurate. It's obviously a bare minimum based on the numbers you have. It may be only half the actual numbers that are out there. Deer estimates are notoriously misleading, and so to rely on those numbers exclusively in any scenario, I think, is a mistake. So you really have to manage your population based on what type of interaction there is with the community. And that's somethingbY year three, you'll know where you need to be, where you need to back off. People will let you know, and your data will let you know that. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 86 of 112 Lehman: Interesting discussion. Other questions for Lisa? Vanderhoef: Just one other thing, that, Lisa, you and I talked about a little bit the other day, and that was the use of the reflectors and how they become inefficient if they are not properly maintained. Would you address that please? Mollenhauer: Misha's folks kind of go through this all the time. You can put a lot of reflectors out there, but if you don't maintain them, clean them, make sure they're aligned correctly, they're not going to be effective. And so she's right now working with the Streets Department. They're numbering each of them so they can identify where one is misaligned, or ifthere's been an accident, it will more specifically tell us where that accident happened--we can say it was near reflector two. But maintenance is a big issue. Vanderhoef: And was there some thought about adopt the reflectors, sort of like the "Adopt the Street"?... Mollenhauer: "Adopt a Highway" program, adept a reflector row: people would go out and clean them off every now and then in the wintertime. We're looking into that probably next year. We thought maybe this year it would be a much more of a bureaucratic, paperwork kind of situation than we'd get with a return, but once we get these additional systems installed, then we'll look into how to maintain on a regular basis. But it is a high-maintenance item. The other thing I wanted to mention briefly that you and I had talked about, and I did talk about with RJ, is the Police Department is very willing, after a deer-vehicle accident, for us to get more accurate information about that accident. Records will send a follow-up survey to them: "Please tell us exactly what your dollar damage was? What were the weather conditions at the time of the accident?" So that we can be more specific with our deer-vehicle accident data. We will ask them many questions, and typically I find that when people are involved in an accident, they're willing to help you with your data question, because it becomes an issue for them. Vanderhoef: Well, I like the postcard idea. There's (can't hear) that information partly because of the level that you indicated that the $900 .... Mollenhauer: We might be underestimating our property damage. Our police officers are not trained auto-body estimators, and so our accident-property .... It's very difficult to stay under 1,000. So, we're going to keep improving those collection services in town. So, we leam as we go. Lehman: Thank you. Thornberry: I, too, would like to thank the Deer Committee for their hours and hours and hours over the last two or three years, and they all volunteered to do it again this last year, and it was a volunteer job, and it's not pleasant, and you've all been very animated This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 87 of 112 Lehman: [7]: Lehman: Thornberry: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: Champion: Norton: and you all know where each of you stand, and all of the different walks of life and different perspectives that you had of this whole thing. You've worked miracles, and I thank you very much, and we all do. Tomorrow night when we have this public discussion--this is not a public hearing, it's just public discussion. (Can't hear) I think the public hearing is a legal requirement, and the public discussion is ones we do by courtesy. They're all going to talk anyway. [Laughter] Well, that's what I want to bring up. This public discussion could become somewhat lengthy. I guess my feeling, if it's okay with you, is to start the discussion out prior to Lisa's comments and whatever, that this discussion will be limited to a certain amount of time. And I think if we have--I mean, I certainly respect everybody's opinion, but if they're coming to tell us they don't want us to shoot the deer, and we have 50 people that don't want us to shoot deer, that's fine. I also think that if they have suggestions that might be particularly interesting to the Deer Committee or whatever, we certainly want to hear those, but I think that we really, in the interest of time, need to restrict some of the comments to new ideas. In other words, if you're going to get up and tell us the same thing that the previous twenty people said, I don't know that I'm interested in heating that all night. See, I think we should request that. But it becomes fairness that because of whatever factor you can't get up to the podium, because other people get up there before you to speak, and the time runs out, that (can't hear) democracy thing, you gotta listen, you gotta provide opportunity, so I think you have in your comments requesting people have self-discipline about that issue. It should be a firm request, and then I'm ready to sit and listen to whatever .... Well, let me say this, then. If we reach the point where we have been receiving basically the same comment time after time after time, I will have a recess and tell folks that we will take another five minutes, because I don't think that it's fair to the public or to the Council to sit there and listen to the same thing over and over and over. I have no problem with re-reminding people about your request for self-discipline. Ernie, what about limiting people to three minutes and being strict about that? How about five? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 88 of 112 Lehman: Kubby: Thomberry: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: Norton: Lehman: Kubby: Our policy's five. I don't know that we could change it without telling people ahem of time. But I think we do have to be strict on that. If you're going to do it, you have to be strict with everyone, and not just based upon what they're saying or what they look like or whatever. (Can't hear). (Can't hear) But there are times when people that are known to us get more time than people that maybe aren't known to us. Well, basically we've not restricted any people since I've been Mayor. Right. And I'm just saying that if you're going to change that strategy for this particular public discussion, I would request that you do that fairly. Well, you know what, Emie? If it gets to be dragging and repetitious, you could call a break and ask the people who are still wanting to speak to get together and see if they couldn't identify four or five people that might get the job done and wind it up. All right. Well just so that we're all on the same sheet of music. I certainly don't want to restrict public comment. At the same time, I don't really think it's in the best interest of the project or the Council or the public to drag this thing on all night, hearing the same thing over and over and over again. Except that this is the only time the public gets to speak to us when this is on the agenda. It's the only opportunity that the public (can't hear) to express themselves. [Several talking at once] Kubby: Lehman: Norton: Norton: Vanderhoef: Norton: City Park Rides 99-83 S2 Lehman: Yeah, okay. I understand that. But (can't hear) it's on the agenda for public discussion Well, in any event, I'm not going to let it go on all night. Do your best. Thank you, Committee. Thank you, Lisa. Thanks, Tony, for coming in. Okay, next item: City Park rides This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 89 of 112 Trueblood: Well, I guess in view of the previous discussion, I should let you there is one deer on the carousel at City Park. Vanderhoef: Oh, oh. Don't shoot it. Trueblood: And should we obtain that, I would just as soon not have it shot. But that's your choice. [Several talking at once] Trueblood: To my knowledge the train has never run over it either. But maybe it's got those devices on it. I'm not sure. Some information for you with regard to the amusement rides in City Park. Some of it you already know about, and I'll try to refresh your memory anyway. As you know, we have concentrated mainly on the possibility of acquiring the train and the carousel. The Drollingers' asking price for the train and the tracks is $40,000, and if we want the small maintenance building to go along with add, add a 1,000. The carousel is also an asking price of $40,000, and if we want to retain the zebra, add $1,000 to that. [?]: Zebra? Trueblood: There is a zebra there. I can fill you in later, but the zebra's an extra 1,000 bucks if we want the zebra. [Several talking at once] Champion: It's an exotic animal. Trueblood: So, we're talking about 80-$82,000 in their asking price. I think, with respect to other up-front costs, we're talking in the neighborhood of probably 15-$25,000. This is just a preliminary estimate on my part. In putting up some required fencing and in sprucing up the area and doing some extra landscaping and that kind of thing to make it look nice. So, really, we're talking plus or minus $100,000 proposition up front. I've had discussions with three what I would call experts in the field, getting two over-the-phone appraisals, if you will, on the carousel and two on the train, and all three of these individuals--although, keep in mind what they had to go on was the make and model and year and that sort of thing, and whether they'd give me a cost, well if it's in nominal condition or if it's in good condition, you know that kind of thing--but all three of them indicated to me that the asking price is not out of .line, that they felt it was a fair asking price. They varied a little bit; for example, one gentleman--and these were in San Diego and New York and Kansas, so we went coast to coast seeking advice on this--but the one gentleman told me the train itself is probably 30-$35,000, but then if you got the tracks with it, a good rule of thumb about $10/foot installed. There's 800 feet, so that's another $8,000 for the track. So at any rate, their asking price appears not to be out of line. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 90 of 112 Norton: Trueblood: The other rides that they have out there, I know we've just talked about the two of them for the most part, but if we were interested in the others, they're asking $7,500 for the Fen-is wheel and $5,000 each for the other, I believe it's five small rides. Mr. Drollinger just recommended that if we want to consider any of the other ones, his recommendation would be the small airplane ride for $5,000. And he says that based on the fact that it's fairly popular, it's the lowest maintenance and the lowest liability among the rides. Insurance and liability is still a question. Unfortunately, our insurance-carrier representative will not be able to inspect the rides until tomorrow--tomorrow morning, to be exact--and we'll be looking at them and then after that can give some thoughts on what the insurance rates might be and any thoughts or concerns he might have. I can tell you that the current insurance rates for them were 8-$9,000 .... To the Drollingers, you mean? To the Drollingers, that's tight. So I would suspect the insurance cost to us if we didn't go the self-insured route, should be considerably less, because we're talking about fewer rides, primarily. On funding the acquisition, I did have a meeting with the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Foundation, and they are willing to lead a fundraising campaign for the acquisition, and possibly some type of endowment fund for future maintenance and capital costs, not for operating expenses. But they would like the City Council to consider the possibility of funding one half of the acquisition costs or a match, if you will. They're not demanding that, certainly, or not trying to dictate that, but they would like you to consider that. The other concern is, at the same time they were asked if they'd be willing to lead a fundraising campaign, if necessary, for the City Park Riverside Festival Stage. So they do have some concerns about two fundraising campaigns at once--although that one may not be necessary. One of the big questions is operations. I don't have for you fight now a specific operating plan. I don't have specific operating-cost estimates. You know, the plan could range anywhere from the City, us--Parks and Recreation Department operating it--through the use of temporary personnel and maintenance assistance from full-time staff, and so forth, to my preference, which would be entering into some sort of agreement with one or more of our nonprofit agencies or service organizations in the community to operate. I did try to put some preliminary figures together: if we did obtain this and then if it were necessary for us to operate it in house, and please don't hold me to this at this time, but I think we're talking in the 40-$60,000 range of operating expenses if we were to operate it ourselves. That would cover temporary staff, it would cover insurance, a certain amount of maintenance each year, some contracting--like, for example, with Guy Drollinger possibly just to train some of our people and maybe do some annual maintenance, that sort of thing. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 91 of 112 Lehman: Trueblood: Lehman: Thomberry: Trueblood: Lehman: Trueblood: Norton: Trueblood: Norton: Champion: Thornberry: Trueblood: Norton: Thornberry: Trueblood: O'Donnell: Trueblood: What kind of revenue will it generate? Don't know, Ernie, fight now, because .... You know, I can tell you, based on our percentage in the past, that evidently they've brought in $60,000 a year, plus or minus. For everything? Is that net or is that gross? That's gross. For all of them. Yes, that's my understanding. We've never requested to check their account ledgers or anything like that, you know. And I know they do some things, like with personnel out there, for example, some things that we likely wouldn't be able to do. And that's, you know, they have the concession stand, so they'll--as part of what they pay some of their folkswthey'll let them eat flee of charge, and, you know, that kind of thing, in lieu of some of the wages. The big unknown right now is we could say, "Well, okay, if they bring in $60,000 or if they bring in $100,000 or whatever, we should be able to do the same thing." But that wouldn't be the case, because we're talking about operating two rides as opposed to seven, and my .... Why? Why? Why is that an assumption? Because we're not buying all of them. Because we're buying two tides. That's what we've been talking about all along, but .... (Can't hear) Ferris wheel? I'm a big Ferris wheel fan. So am I, but that's an accident waiting to happen. That's your decision, but it is his highest-maintenance and highest-liability item. Is that concession trailer for sale out there? We have not talked about buying the concessions. That might be another option. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 92 of 112 O'Donnell: Because that's such a nice (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Thornberry: What happened to the Neighborhood Association idea that was (can't hear) a little bit, and I saw it in your memo. Was the Neighborhood Association?... Norton: No, that was Neighborhood (can't head or something. Treeblood: Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. That's what I was referring to about possibly contracting with another agency, that kind of thing. Vanderhoef: How would our liability look if another agency were going to take over the operation? Trueblood: That's a question I would have to ask the gentleman tomorrow. Vanderhoef: Yeah, that's one that would concem me, that I'd want clarified. Champion: Oh, but we still be doing the maintenance, right, which I think is important for insurance? Trueblood: Oh, yeah. I'm assuming, unless an agreement is waiting around the comer that I'm not aware of, that the maintenance is going to be ours. Kubby: Do we know a price estimate on maintenance? Trueblood: I'm guessing annual maintenance of 5-$10,000 a year. Now, if the locomotive blows up, it could be a lot higher. But that's the kind of thing I'm talking about, that the Foundation just briefly talked about the possibility of (can't hear) fundraising for an endowment for that kind of thing. Not routine maintenance, but for the kind of thingbif an engine has to be replaced, or, you know, something of that nature. Kubby: (Can't hear) in terms of the theater in combination with this, and since they're both in City Park, it seems like they could be combined in some nice package, that if they could be seen as one thing. I don't know how feasible that is, but in terms of marketing that to the public, since they're City Park improvements .... Trueblood: Right. The other complication with that, and our Foundation has had me get word back to the Riverside Theatre, that they would prefer to wrap those two fundraisersb not the City Park tides, but, you know, the Theatre is doing a fundraiser for furnishing and equipping and so forth our Foundation would like that combined into one, so that there's one fundraiser for that going on and not two different ones. Although there would be a delineation between what they're getting for equipment and what's going toward the actual construction. Again, ifthat's needed, we won't know until we know the failure or success of the grant submissions. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 93 of 112 Lehman: Trueblood: Lehman: Trueblood: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Trueblood: This represents Back to the question on the revenue. If we are talking about two tides versus their seven tides, of course then, how do you factor that in? Plus the fact that they operate basically twelve hours a day seven days a week for about six months, six-and-a-half months, seven months out of the year. If we were operating it, I would be proposing that we operate it no more than six months, like mid-Aptil to mid-October at the outside, and also just maybe something like weekday evenings and maybe all day on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. So we would be cutting way back on the hours, which would make it very difficult to come up with a revenue estimate in relation to how they've been doing. But that would also be sort of flexible. If we found that there was (can't hear) demands, those hours would get adjusted (can't hear). Yeah. How does the Commission feel about this? The Commission is in favor of us acquiring. I was out there a week ago last Sunday, and I overheard a number of people talking about the tides leaving and the possibility of the City owning them. I did not identify myself. But the comments--I went on the Ferris wheel with my twins, and there were probably fifteen of us on the Fertis wheel at that time and probably twenty people waiting to get on. (Can't hear). Were they pleased with that idea? The people out there're terribly, terribly concerned that it wasn't going to stay they. They really think that' s an important part of the park. It's our family, I mean, part of our family history. I think what we should do, then .... We've got to do everything we can to maintain .... I agree. And I would certainly support us... If the Foundation wants us to fund 50% (can't hear), I would jump at the opportunity. What do you need from us? Well, the big thing is tight now is the Drollingers need a commitment from the City as to whether or not we are, pending the outcome of the insurance meeting, as to whether or not we, the City, are committed to purchasing the tides from them. And if so, which tides? Because they need to begin marketing, and they may have already done so. But they need to market their tides in season--and in fairness to them, I can a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 94 of 112 Kubby: Lehman: Champion: Vanderhoef: Norton: understand that, but in season--so any prospective buyers can come and see the rides up and running. The reality check here is the operating costs (can't hear). The carousel and the train... and the airplanes. I like the airplane idea. So do I. [Several talking at once] O'Donnell: (Can't hear) those little cars, though. Kids love those little cars. Norton: Yeah, I know. I'm tom because I would keep the whole slew. Kubby: So how do people propose--I mean, because I like this idea, too. But if we're talking even $30,000/year for operations, we need to understand that that means some cuts in current services somewhere or something in our operating budget, because it's going to be a while until there'll be some kind of endowment; and we're having discussions about library, discussions about (can't hear), discussions that .... People need to understand that reality of what, that might mean saying "no" to something else. O'Donnell: Well, these are going to generate an income. Norton: We've got to get some income out of this. [Several talking at once] Vanderhoef: That would be part of my conversation with anyone who would run it is to get a certain percent that goes towards the maintenance of the rides. Lehman: Well, the Neighborhood Council is--did I read that wrong?--that they were offering to donate their time to run it. Trueblood: No, that's not Neighborhood Councils; it's Neighborhood Services of Johnson County. And we haven't talked with them in any detail, but my understanding is what they would want to do is operate the rides and take the income from the operation. Champion: This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 95 of 112 Vanderhoef: Yeah, It 's a fundraiser for them, and if they have no maintenance expense, then I would expect us to have a percent of their take for maintenance. Trueblood: Of course, it would be your decision, but, yeah, that's what I would think, too. I mean, if we would enter an agreement with somebody, we're going to have to get at least enough money to cover our expenses, I would think. And if we operate it, you know, our goal would be to make it self-supporting. We certainly wouldn't be in it to make money. I mean, frankly, that's why the Drollingers are getting out of it, because they're not making much money. Champion: But a charity (can't hear) could use volunteers to run it, and they would make money. [Several talking at once] Lehman: Realistic (can't hear), if we ran that and we paid for the cost of the operating and we paid for the maintenance, the chances of us breaking even on that would be very, very remote, I think. Trueblood: I don't know, Ernie. I just don't know right now, but I .... Kubby: So what's our time frame? Trueblood: Based on some preliminary thinking that we've kicked around a little bit at the staff level, you know, we think it's possible, you know. But I certainly can't stand up here and guarantee it. Lehman: Do you think it's possible to come close to breaking even? Trueblood: Mm-hm. [Several talking at once} Norton: We ought to also, the fundraising (can't hear) getting some kind of an endowment that--I understand this could be a long time, but given the passion what I hear of people's response to the rides over considerable generations, and, Lord knows I represent many ofthem--this would be one of the easier fundraisers. If I had to go out to pass the hat, this would be one of the easier ones. Lehman: I agree. Norton: To establish a kitty whereby, a maintenance kitty or something like that, so you wouldn't be digging into .... But there's the short-term problem, I mean, there's doing to be a gap, probably, before all these mechanisms can get set up. But it's a landmark of the City; if we have any symbol, it's the City Park rides. O'Donnell: I would like a price also on the concession trailer. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 96 of 112 Champion: I think that's a really good idea. Because when you're out there with your kids during the daytime, it's nice to have some place to get some refreshments. (Can't hear). Thornberry:: There's nothing. Terry, would you run it with people like you'd hire to the swimming pool, or (can't hear). Trueblood: Temporary staff. That's correct. Thornberry: Temporary staff for summers. Trueblood: Right. O'Donnell: Maybe we could have all the retired Cotmcil people run it. Norton: Hey, there you go! Vanderhoef: You'd have fun being the engineer, wouldn't you? Thornberry: Would you want to (can't hear) box and put it in--the engine, or whatever? Do you need that maintenance thing? Trueblood: (Can't hear) old shed. No, it's basically a little tool shed. Norton: We've got to give Drollinger some word here about .... Are we interested in the train? Are we interested in the carousel? Are we interested in the airplane fide? Atkins: What I'd like to hear from you is you want us to keep the rides, get with the Drollingers, and put together a fair financial package for them. And that'll allow Terry to put together the budget, operate it, so forth. Lehman: Do we want all the rides? Is that what you're saying? Atkins: Well, I think I would like to have Terry look at all the rides, but I don't think that's practical. Kubby: He needs to see what the insurance person says about that. Ifit's only a little bit more for all of them, is that, to generate that much more income to make it (can't hear). O'Donnell: How could you turn down one of these rides (can't hear)? Norton: Yeah, I was going to say, the airplane fide and the carstthey're neat in their own fight. Champion: They have motorcycles on there, too. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. W8082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 97 of 112 O'Donnell: Norton: Vanderhoef: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Trueblood: Thomberry: Norton: O'Donnell: [?]: Trueblood: I mean, to go out and replace it, you'd spend a considerable .... Yeah, people have to put them on their porch, right? Well, when you say 5,000 apiece for these, I have no clue for what they sell for new. So whether when they say 5,000, is that because that they're near the end of their lifetime... Oh, yes. or what we have here. Some of the rides have been there for nearly 50 years. [Several talking at once] You'll spend a bunch of money just for bearings on those cars. But we could have a contest and let each person paint a horse on the carousel or whatever, you know. I think in general there's interest enough to do it, fight? (Can't hear) on all of them. I did not get any kind of so-called appraisal for anything except the train and the carousel, because that's what we had been talking about primarily. O'Donnell: (Can't hear). Trueblood: And he does have an offer on the airplanes, as I understand it, for $5,000. Champion: Oh, we do like the airplanes. Vanderhoef: I agree. I want the airplanes. Champion: We want the airplanes (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Lehman: Would it be fair to ask Terry to look at those and?... Kubby: I mean, just talk to the insurance person about how much more is it for these. Ifit's only 10% more, that's different than saying it's four times what you'd be talking about with just those three. To know the answer to that., the guy's, the person--I This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 98 of 112 don't know if it's a man or a woman--the person's going to be here, but that's the question. Thornberry: You know, the maintenance on different rides, Terry--you're going to have to comfortable with. If they don't get much ridership, and the maintenance is extreme, I don't know if we want to .... Champion: The airplane just goes around (can't hear). [Several talking at once} Lehman: All fight. What's your pleasure? We'll tell Terry to move forward. We're interested in at least the train and the carousel... {Several talking at once] Lehman: and probably airplanes, but try to leave it to your discretion. You look at those, talk to the insurance company .... Trueblood: Well, he's the pilot. Ask him what he thinks about the airplane. [Several talking at once] Norton: You guys given up on the Ferris wheel. Pretty soon you're going to buy a new one. Thornberry: I've given up on the Ferris wheel. That 's an accident waiting to happen. [Several talking at once] Lehman: How soon does he need an answer? Vanderhoef: Soon. Trueblood: Like tomorrow. Lehman: Yeah, I think you can give a definite answer on the train and the carousel, maybe the airplanes. But you're going to have to come to some decision on whatever else. Trueblood: The think I want you to keep in mind is: the more we buy, the higher the cost, because we .... Lehman: And also the more maintenance. Trueblood: Well, that's what I'm talking about partly, you know .... Norton: And the more income! This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 99 of 112 Trueblood: More income, but I think that the cost in terms of having to have operators, ticket takers .... [CHANGE TAPE TO 99-85 S1] Trueblood: I didn't ask about the concession stand, and he didn't even bring it up, Mike, but I will ask him. But my guess is he might already have another use for that or might have sold it, I don't know, because he didn't even ask if we were interested in that. [Several talking at once] Lehman: They're going to tide just as many tides if there's seven as if there's four, so you just want to keep the four busy. In other words, if I take my twins out there, we're going to fide five times. We're going to fide five times on the train and the carousel if that's all there is there. Trueblood: Mmohm. Lehman: So we're just spreading--you're tight. If you get to five and six and seven tides, you're probably spreading the same number of tides and not increasing the number, but just spreading the ones you have over a larger base. Thornberry: Well, it's not that they're not going to go out just because there isn't something there. I mean, if they can ride some and not the others and they're not there, (can't hear). Lehman: You've got a go. You've got a "yes" from us, that's wonderful. Trueblood: Okay. I'm not sure what the "yes" was, but I'll tell him "yes." [Several talking at once] Atkins: We'll talk tomorrow. Trueblood: Good. Thank you. November/December Meeting Schedule 99-85 S1 Lehman: Okay. Matian, November-December meeting schedule. Very quickly, you made some adjustments to your September and October schedule to accommodate a number of meetings and also the possibility of a ptimary election. No changes were made in November. We are still meeting November 2nd, election night. There are a couple of possibilities. Number one, I'd like to point out that your November schedule has three meeting dates in it, and a possibility might be dropping to two, rather than three, in November, and you could either just simply potentially drop the 2nd and maintain the 16th and 30th, or you could move to the 9th and 23rd. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 100 of 112 Vanderhoef: Norton: Karr: Lehman: Kubby: Karr: I would like to consider the 9th and the 23rd because that late-November one conflicts with the National League of Cities in Los Angeles. And with Thanksgiving, yes, indeed. Yes it does. Ninth and 23rd, is that okay? The 23rd is pretty close to Thanksgiving. Well, may I point out that on that one, it is very close, but on the other side of that, there would have to be a packet go out the 241h to meet your meeting on the 30th because of Thanksgiving holidays too. Champion: But it doesn't affect us, Marian. Karr: No, no. [Laughter.] I'm just pointing out--well, yes it would. Yes it would (can't hear). [Several talking at once] You're not getting it early. Yeah, that would be the point. You're not getting it early. Dilkes: Karr: [Several talking at once] Lehman: Norton: Karr: Kubby: All fight. The 9th and 23rd, is that okay? The 23rd is in the week of Thanksgiving, is that right? Yes it is. It's the Tuesday of Thanksgiving week. Ninth and 23rd it is? I think we should make sure that we reduce the number of public hearings that we have on the 23rd, because a lot of people will already (can't hear). Karr: Well, we will do all we can, and that's the advantage of getting to staff early. But there are also some last-minute year-end things that'll just going to be out of our control that we may have to .... Norton: I'd like to say I gotta check some schedules at home before I .... Or I want to get the idea that we can confirm tomorrow night maybe. Karr: Okay. Why don't you call .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Cotmcil Work Session Page 101 of 112 Norton: Karr: Kubby: Karr: Lehman: Thomberry: Norton: Thornberry: Karr: Thornberry: Karr: Thornberry: Karr: Thomberry: Karr: Kubby: Lehman: You're proposing fight now the 9th and the 23rd? Right. Why don't you call me rather than taking time up--we could just know ahead of time. Could we also look at December? Right now we're scheduled for 14 and 28. Twenty-eight is .... Typically, we take a look on whether we canceled that one between the holidays. (Can't hear) just stay the 14th and that's it. Just stay it at 14th. Okay, so we've made the adjustments: 9, 23, and December 14th. That's it. All fight. Would somebody review for me, and I've got one calendar all right here, review for me the next meetings. I've got one .... 13th and 14th. September 14th .... and 281h; October 12th .... and 28th--wait a minute--28th .... And October 12th and 19th. October 12th and the 19th. And then November 9 and 23. 9 and 23. And December 14th. I've changed my mind. I think we should have a meeting on Election night. It's all fight with me. I don't care. [Several talking at once] Norton: (Can't hear) something November 2nd? Karr: And then I'd just likePsince the calendars are out, we might want to note, Dee, the Legislative Night November 10th. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 102 of 112 Vanderhoef: Norton: Karr: Lehman: Thornberry: Lehman: Karr: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Norton: Lehman: O'Donnell: Lehman: Champion: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Yes. Legislative Night here? Yes, it's our turn. Okay. (Can't hear) I don't know. It's on the 10th. November here. That's all I have. Here, okay. It's when our local legislative folk come and talk to us about what we would like to see them do come January. Yeah, right. Okay. What time is that? Probably 7 o'clock. (Can't hear) trying to scare meq7:00 in the morning? Night. This is where we invite all of the mayors and councilors from all the cities and counties and so forth. City Council Appointments 99-85 S1 Lehman: Norton: Champion: Norton: Champion: Okay. City Council Appointments, Public Art Advisory Committee. I move Emily Vermillion. Yeah, I want to nominate Emily. I'll second that--I just did. (Can't hear) you just did? I'm sorry. I think she would be (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 103 of 112 Lehman: Kubby: Norton: Vanderhoef: Kubby: Norton: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Lehman: Are there--do we all agree with Emily? I have no problem with that. I think Loret would be great, too. They're both good. She has a lot to offer .... She's worked on a lot of boards, community boards, so she understands how groups work. They're both good. Yeah, Emily'll be fine. All right. Emily Vermillion. Riverfront Natural Areas Commission. We don't have any applications, do we? Well, we have the county one... The second name Kevin Kacena, to confirm. And that's Kevin Kacena. Okay. City Council Information 99-85 S1 Lehman: Okay, City Council Information. Kubby: We got a letter in our packet about someone inquiring about the building code including front locks on the doors? Lehman: Steven brought that. I think that should--Doug Boothroy, it should be referred to his department and just see what their comment is. Kubby: Well, I think do we understand what the, I understand this person's concern. I'm not sure what are the other issues associated with making such a change--what are the pros and cons. If Doug could outline that for us .... Thomberry: If someone were to get .... As a landlord, for example, and someone said, "Hey, I get special-delivery mail or UPS stuff, and he can't get in the front door, and I don't know he's there"---so on and so forth. Champion: You give them keys. You get combinations and you give them .... Thornberry: How in the world do you (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 104 of 112 Champion: Thomberry: O'Donnell: Lehman: [.9]: Lehman: Champion: Those downtown apartments--they all have keys (can't hear). The LIPS people all have keys--they have keys to my store. They all have keys. They don't have keys to my store. They don't have keys to mine either. You would have to have an exterior device to people for people to ring for visitors to come. Right. There's a lot of things involved in that. I would like Doug's comment on it. (Can't hear) [Several talking at once] Thomberry: Norton: Kubby: Thornberry: Lehman: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Norton: Kubby: Champion: Connie, that's absolutely right, and I'm not sure fire codes or anything like that. I think there's more involved than just--I want the front door locked. (Can't hear) Doug's report to. (Can't hear) I traderstand the motivation of this who person feels at risk. Physical assault is not an easy thing to live with. But if they have their from door locked, and they can't get in, well .... Doug will give us a[n] update. I had two other quick items. One is on (can't hear) Sturgis Ferry parking. I know that I asked about this, but I can't remember if I got an answer or .... Sidewalk. Yes, sidewalk in the parking lot. We are doing that? Where the beaten path is now, because that tells you where people go, fight? Mm-hm. Where is this? Sturgis Ferry Park. We're going do that to have a sidewalk along Riverside. (Can't hear) people walk. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 105 of 112 Kubby: Arkins: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Lehman: Norton: Kubby: Thornberry: Norton: Kubby: Norton: When I see people who walk down to Regency, especially people in wheelchairs (can't hear) are being pushed alongside that road, makes me very nervous. The other issue was I asked about getting some information about how we deal with transit riders with disabilities on a fixed route and how it's different in Coralville, and we got that memo that kind of talked about how some things are a little bit different-- some things tare the same, some things are different. And I'd still be interested in directing staff to talk with the Coralville staff about how to make things more consistent between the two. I thought they did. (Can't hear) I'll check for you. I'm pretty sure that's what I asked them to do (can't hear) .... Oh, okay. I thought we just got the information, but that's still coming about .... I'll check for you, Because if there can be adjustments made, it would just make life easier for people, that consistent rule. Okay. Anybody else tonight? Well, I have one that I should have brought up earlier. It has to do with an item on the agenda, the microchipping. And I spoke to Misha about this. And it seems to me that an animal that's picked up with a tag ought not to be automatically microchipped. If this animal is tagged, and Misha agreed with this, they call the owner, the owner comes down to reclaim the beast, and at that point can ask to have it microchipped and pay the 10 bucks or whatever or can decline. But it seemed to me there ought to be a difference between that and an animal that' s picked up without identification, which is automatically microchipped. I agree. I think that's a good point. And I will talk about proper wording with--ifthere's consensus .... ¥eah. 'Cause Misha says she's comfortable with it, too. And it makes it look a little less bureaucratically heavy-handed to go around storeping your beast. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 106 of 112 Kubby: Norton: Thomberry: Lehman: Thomberry: Norton: Kubby: Norton: O'Donnell: Norton: O'Donnell: Norton: O'Donnell: Norton: Thornberry: O'Donnell: Thornberry: Because our big thing was we wanted--because there was that higher return rate to owners and the decreased euthanasia rate because of that, but when they're tagged, they have that information. Yes, someone is manifestly kind to live by the law, the other person has manifestly ignored it, so there ought to be a differentiation. All fight, we'll come with an amendment tomorrow. What did you say then, Dee, that what should, what? You don't microchip an animal that has a collar and tag. The literature provided by the manufacturer of the identification microchips stated that microchips do not pass through or out of the body. However, an incidental finding on this x-ray was a microchip lateral to the humerus. Thus, the authors feel, of the microchip, that it is important to bring to the attention that the fact that the microchips may migrate within the body. And through the scanning for identification may require a more thorough examination than a quick scan between the scapula. Oh, that's a whole another--but that's another good reason for going my way. If you've got a tag on it, you can decline microchipping. Just have a little more discretion about it. Yeah. But, you know, even if you do have a dog with collar and a tag on and it's on a leash, and it pulls its head through the collar and gets loose .... Well then there's some identification on it. No, if it pulls the collar off. Then when it's picked up it wouldn't have any .... Well, that's right. But then you just zap this microchip at them, and .... They're going to get zapped if they get in there without a tag. I will not vote to automatically microchip an animal without the owner's permission. Not the first time. I will not. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 107 of 112 Norton: Kubby: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Dilkes: Well, wait a minute. We're getting into a whole different thing, because fight now if she picks up an animal that has no identification .... She's doing it now. She's going to get microchipped, I mean the animal. And I'll tell you what. There is a state law, and I hope that there's somebody on the Animal Control thing, and there's a state law that says this can only be done by a licensed veterinarian or a licensed veterinary technician. Period. Please, let me talk with Misha tomorrow, because if what you're saying is true, that brings a while bigger issue, and this ought to be deferred. There may be a licensed veterinary technician there. I don't know. But that's required of the state. But everybody would agree that if, we ought to check it out, and if what you're saying is true and the legal, these people tell us that, we ought to defer--there's no hurry about putting this thing in. We don't want to do it, and certainly we ought not to do it with people who .... I think she already is doing it fight now unless there's a license (can't hear). I think we just need to clarify with her, because I think that when she says they're doing it, that we don't know who is doing it. I mean, they have vets who do a number of things down there, so they very may well be having a vet or a vet technician doing it. [Several talking at once] Norton: O'Donnell: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Well, let's clarify (can't hear) be prepared either for a deferral or a change, if that seems appropriate. But anybody would support this ifit's going to stop the euthanasia rate down there. Yeah. No, sir, I will not. Well, we want don't want to get in legal problems. I will not support someone sticking something into my animal without my permission. O'Donnell: I can see that. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 108 of 112 Norton: Okay, well let's find out. Thornberry: I've got a show dog, and I don't want it done. O'Donnell: Yes. I agree. Norton: We'll be careful. Now, the other thing I want to bring up and this one I'll talk with Steve, but I wanted you guys to be aware--I got a call about cigarette-permitting process. Where each person that serves cigarettes or works in a tavern has to go through every year, training and an affidavit. And it turns out to be a hug process for our people as well as for the people at, say, K-Mart or somewhere, Wal-Mart, where there can be 1,500 people who sell cigarettes. And this person had a number of employees, and the question was: would it be possible, as we do with other licenses, for the owner or manager to certify each year that all employees have had this briefing? Champion: Sure. Norton: And then the person wouldn't have to come in with--how many licenses do you have, Marian? Karr: We have over a hundred different establishments, and each employee of each establishment has to have an affidavit. Norton: And it's an awful lot of (can't hear), and we could simplify it because the requirement is that person has to sign an affidavit that they've had a briefing. Now, I thought that the owner or manager could come in and do that, and that we might explore that. It'd be a way to modify or improve our process--and to our benefit, too, because it takes a lot of time and (can't hear). [Several talking at once] Kubby: Except that, for the--well, I guess it could be the same thing. Because for enforcement purposes, ideally what we do is once in a while we go in and say, "Karen, you're selling cigarettes. I would like to see your signed affidavits so that I know that you understand the law." Champion: Right. Kubby: And that affidavit should be on--they have to be on site too. I don't know what .... They have to be on site. I don't know that Dee is talking about changing that part. I think he's simply talking about .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 109 of 112 Norton: KalT: Norton: Champion: Karr: Norton: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Is there some way for the owner or manager to be responsible for having seen that his people have been briefed7 And I don't think .... Just like we do in the bars, I think. Isn't that the case now? Don't you have to sign that they've had TIPS training or something like that? Sure. I don't think you're talking about necessarily changing the fact that they wouldn't be on file or that the inspections would chm~ge. Correct? I just don't want to have tObhe has to line up and get the guy in there for an affidavit. It's a big to-do until they get everybody done every year. Let's change the process. Does this change then the liability, because part of the question on licensing all the way along, is do you cite the person who sold the cigarettes or do you cite the person who owns the business? And .... Champion: Norton: Karr: [Several talking at once] Norton: I think you cite those who buy them. I don't know how that .... That wouldn't be effective. Let me put it this way rather than solve it here (can't hear) .... We might be able to simplify this. Let Marian and the legal staff work out whatever seems a plausible altemative, huh? It might be a nice way to be a little bit more reasonable. The other thing that bothered me a little bit was a note in the Board of Appeals about who do they appeal to. And can somebody clarify that? Does the Board of Appeals come to the Council? And the Board of Adjustment go to the Court? [Several talking at once] Norton: Which--wait a minute. Board of Adjustment goes to the court. Does Board of Appeals? Dilkes: Board of Appeals goes to the court. Norton: Also. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 110 of 112 Lehman: Cannot go to Council. Norton: They neither one go to Council. So, that ought to be understood by the Board. They didn't know--it seemed to me in their minutes, they weren't sure where their appeals went. And the nursery sale thing. Is that fair, the Earl May letter? The question--six months seemed an awful long time for somebody to put fly-by-night stuff in their parking lot. [Several talking at once] Vanderhoef: Oh, I agree that there is some unsightly ones in parking lots around that get pretty (can't hear). Norton: Well, I didn't know, but it seemed to me when I looked at the requirement, six months seems an awful long temporary. Thornberry: North Dodge Hy-Vee has had plantings and cement blocks and fertilizer available in their parking lot for the last two years without exception--I mean, every month of the year. O'Donnell: What is the difference in that and going downtown and having these vending carts compete with restaurants? Norton: Well, it's an issue. Several: They pay. Seven hundred fifty a year. Lehman: Well, but I think you're talking about--you're talking about complaining about competition. You've got Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Jacks and Paul's, Osco Drug, grocery stores--they're all in the plant business in the spring. And they have been for years and years. Now we are careful about how we issue permits in the parking--they can only take a certain percentage of the lot, they can't use handicapped parking or whatever .... Norton: So you mean it's under control? Lehman: Well, it seems to me that--and I don't totally disagree. IfI were Earl May, I'd feel the same way. But on the other hand, it appears to be me that they're trying in some respect to limit competition. Norton: Yeah, I understand that, but .... Lehman: And I'm not sure that that's our place to do that. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 111 of 112 Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Kubby: Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Vanderhoef: Kubby: Vanderhoef: Norton: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Thornberry: Norton: Vanderhoef: I'll reiterate my point. Hy-Vee has had stuff in their parking lot for the last two years straight. Well, maybe it's a matter of enforcement. Month after month, twelve months of the year for the last twenty-four months. Well, let's check on enforcement. That would be the issue, then. Well, nobody's complaining. As you said in your letter, it's not on a complaint basis. (Can't hear). Well, I don't know, but .... But it's been there for the last twenty-four months .... Let Steve look into what the inspection--maybe they aren't checking often enough. Right, okay. My question would be then also while you're checking, when the Rochester-First Avenue was a Hy-Vee store, they took their tent down, and everything was cleared off of the lot. There have been no plants up there that it is Drug Town for the last several weeks, and they're still tenting, and everything is shoved up along that fence line, and it's not very attractive. Yes, I agree. That is a difference (can't hear), though. Yeah. I'm--I'll hold the rest of my list. Thank you. Anything else for Council time? Folks, at some point in time, I'd like to give you a legislative update, and I think we're all too tired for it tonight. So, I don't know whether tomorrow night or whether I hold it off for two weeks. Anybody want to know anything about it, give me a call--I'll talk to you when I'm awake. You might want to put something in the next packet, too. (Can't hear) (Can't hear) little briefing. Use e-mail. Dee, do you still have those that were sent out?... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399 August 23, 1999 Council Work Session Page 112 of 112 Norton: They come from the state. Every now and then we used to get ones that were (can't hear). Vanderhoef: Well, this is the early ones, and I've written all over mine because I used them at meetings, and .... Norton: But doesn't the League of Cities send us the little briefing once in awhile? Vanderhoef: It'll be later on, but what I want right now is some input from you folk on .... Norton: Well, if you need specifics, why don't you put a little e-mail together? And then we could answer you. [Several talking at once] Kubby: So are we done? Lehman: Yeah. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of August 23, 1999. WS082399