Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-06 TranscriptionDecember 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 1 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session 6:40 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, Kubby, Norton, O'Donnell, Thomberry, Vanderhoe~ Staff: Atkins, Helling, Dilkes, Karr, Franklin, Schmadeke, Elias, Matthews, Craig, O'Neil, Boothroy, Osborne, Black, Green, Trueblood, Grosvenor. Tapes: 99-110 Side 2, Review Zoning Items 99-110 Side 2 a. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for January 18 on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density Single family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12/ll.79 acres) and (OPDH-8/l.47 acres) and approving a preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan for Windsor Ridge, Part 15, a proposed 98-unit residential development located north of Court Street at its eastern terminus. (REZ99-0011) b. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for January 18 on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas Overlay- Low Density Residential (OSA-5) and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for three four-unit buildings on a 2.72 acre property located north of Rohret Road, west of Highway 218. (REZ99-0012). c. Consider a motion setting a public hearing for January 18 on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-PRM) and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for approximately .28 acres located at 522 S. Dubuque Street. (REZ99-0013). d. Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Windsor Ridge, Part Ten, a 19.40 acre, 32-1ot residential subdivision with three outiots located at the north terminus of Arlington Drive. e. Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Windsor Ridge, Part Eleven, a 12.58 acre, 34-1ot residential subdivision with two outlots located at the north terminus of Arlington Drive. f. Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Windsor Ridge, Part Twelve, a 16.30 acre, one-lot residential subdivision with one outlot located at the east terminus of Court Street. g. Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Windsor Ridge, Part Thirteen, a 6.61 acre, one-lot residential subdivision with one outlot located at the northeast corner of Huntington Drive and Barrington Road. h. Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Windsor Ridge, Part Fourteen, a 7.35 acre, one-lot commercial subdivision at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Court Street extended. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2 Franklin: The first three items are setting public hearings for January 18. The first being on a part of Windsor Ridge, part 15, which is on the north side of Court Street for 98 residential units. The next one is for 3 four-unit buildings at the comer of Rohret Road and Duck Creek. Duck Creek, yeah, Drive. And then the third is a sensitive areas overlay for 522 South Dubuque Street. Next we have the Windsor Ridge Part 10-14. We are expecting that the legal papers on this will be in tomorrow. Basically what has changed is that the lots have been renumbered. I am looking to see if the developer is here. Okay. Gary Watts is supposed to be here along with someone from MMS to deal with the pond stream issue. Chris! Okay. Steffan: I can't help with the numbering issue. Franklin: Okay, just come on down. Basically, in terms of the changes in the plats, the pond issue aside for the moment, this was about eliminating three lots in Part 11. The consequence of that was having to do some shifting in the other parts and renumbering. Okay. The pond. I think, Chris, what people want to hear from you is the dynamics of how this pond works in the midst of a stream. What will be the consequences downstream? Lehman: You'll have to state your name and speak in the mic please. Steffan: Chris Steffan. MMS Consultants. I looked at it quickly, I haven't been directly involved in the design of this particular thing but the processes are familiar to me. The low water level of this pond is probably an area that is about an acre and a half or something like that and so- Ralston Creek in this area flows directly through this particular basin. The downstream side of this basin is a 12 by 12 box culvert underneath Arlington Drive. So the invert or the bottom of that box culvert will fix the elevation of the pond and control it. All of the area, and I don't have numbers in terms of how many acres is upstream, it is a good portion of the Ralston- that south branch- we're above the south branch dam. I am going to guess 600 acres or maybe more. The impact of this basin will be that most of the water will flow directly through this. There will be some ponding in this basin to the extent that whatever the capacity this culvert is, it will tend to rise and create a head on the upstream side of this culvert and drive the flow through the culvert so we will in effect be having some ponding storage. You can call it storm water storage in the upper reach. It isn't going to be significant that there will be some storage up there in addition to the storage that was planned in the south branch dam when it was constructed a number of years ago. Let's see, the other thing that it will do is as development continues upstream from this particular basin, it will tend to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3 act as a sediment collector. Just by the mere fact that we do have some quiescent conditions that happen as water flows into the basin carrying sediment. It will tend to settle out which should further enhance the stream and basin down below so that we won't be carrying sediment past this. That is not to say that we are going to catch every little bit that happens but it will tend to help collect that. Lehman: During dry periods of time the pond will have, I would assume, little or no effect on streams? Steffan: Very little. To the extent that we have created about an acre and a half of area, water will come into this. If it gets really dry- I happen to live, my backyard is Scott Park- so I am somewhat familiar with that stream that is out there. It tends to flow most of the year but there are times when it does dry up. So, I don't see this basin having a major impact on that. What I was leading up to with my area thing is that because we do have an open expanse of water there is some potential for some evaporation to occur there that would- so that water doesn't go downstream. But you also have that area from the Lindeman Track which is 200 acres+ that drains into this [and] that does not come to this basin. It actually flows in through the arboretum area downstream which will help supplement flows. Kubby: What is the purpose of the pond? Is it part of the neighborhood feedback about trying to connect the other section of Windsor Ridge visually with this section? Steffan: I guess- can you answer that? Franklin: I asked Gary that question specifically and he said there were two things. One, it was an amenity for the development. But the other factor was that this was something that came up during the neighborhood meetings on Parts 10-14. A desire to kind of balance out the two ends of the development and mark the two ends of the development, I guess, was the thinking in having a pond at the noah end that was- it doesn't duplicate, obviously, the one at the south end because the one at the south end is much larger. Kubby: So what was the first one and then how is that first one different from the second one? Franklin: Oh, maybe it is not. The amenity from a developer's perspective as opposed to from a neighborhood perspective. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 4 Kubby: Aesthetics that might increase property values.. Franklin: Ponds seem to be popular. Norton: It wasn't the flow control problem or something like that? Franklin: Uh-hum. Some. Norton: Considering they got- it used to flow below the ### Steffan: The initial basin in the south part was a creation of storm water control. But it has turned out to be well received by that neighborhood and so, hence the desire to create another one, I think. Franklin: The homeowner's association will maintain it. That was one part that we were quite adamant about [and] it was not accepting this as dedicated land to the City. Kubby: The association needs to understand that part of what will happen is that it will fill up with sediment. And they better have a little pond fund. A dredge fund. And then the question will be, you know a lot of times when we talk about dredging the river or dredging something else that the soil that comes out of that is deemed hazardous because of the chemicals in it that is very expensive. I mean, I don't know that in this that would happen, but what are we setting up problems for that then we will end up having to deal with because the homeowners will come to us saying "We don't know what to do. We don't know how to do it. And we can't afford to do it". I don't know. Champion: So then what happens Karen, do you know, if you just decide to do nothing? Kubby: I don't know, what would happen? What if it does... Steffan: The only response I have to that is what occurred in the basin on the west side subdivision that John Moreland was involved with. And as part of the dredging of that operation, we put the spoils in Park West to raise some of the lots on the west and the south side of Teg Drive so that they were made suitable building sites and I can see the same sort of thing happening because the- Kubby: As the original creation of the space you mean? Steffan: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS 120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5 Kubby: Where the water would go. Steffan: Right. Kubby: I think we were talking about what if that starts to fill- Steffan: No, I meant afterwards. After the fact. When the west side basin filled in and really the west end of that- Kubby: It already filled in? Steffan: No, no. It had previous to the apartment buildings way at the north end there and so part of enhancing that amenity in order to put the aerators and everything in there and create some depth for fish and that sort of thing they actually dredged out probably one third of that basin and created more volume and pumped the dredged spoil over into Park West and really just let it settle and it really became fill rather than doing it by scraper. And I can sort of see the same sort of thing happening here. We will have some things occurring up above and, you know, places can be set aside to put or deal with those kinds of things. Norton: Well sedimentation would be dropping in the creek otherwise. Remember sedimentation when development happened on Scott and that sand and other stuff started running down the streets down there into Shamrock. Remember? Lehman: Right. Norton: It started to block that one and somebody had to- they did come to the City and if there weren't a pond there they would presumably be coming to the city to dredge Ralston Creek at some point. It is hard to- you are going to get the sedimentation one way or another. Vanderhoef: At some point. What is the volume that you expect in the pond during the dry season then? Steffan: I don't have a number for that. I know that the pond area at low, or you know, what they are trying to maintain as the area of the pond is probably around an acre and a half maybe. An acre and two-tenths. Vanderhoef: Okay. So, are we expecting it to go down to 6 inches deep, 12 inches deep? How much are we holding back here? I guess, that is what I am trying to... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 6 Steffan: I'm really holding back none. Once the pond is full it goes through. Vanderhoef: Right, but in the dry season when it is not filling again, how much is going to stay in the pond that isn't going to go on down? Steffan: I can't answer that because I don't know what kind of flow is- what flows are up above the pond that comes into it. O'Donnell: What is the depth of the pond? Franklin: Theoretically it would dry up. Steffan: Right, yeah... Franklin: Theoretically. This has- Vanderhoef: This is my concern: Is it going to get so dry that we are going to end up with a mosquito hollow kind of problem in there? Franklin: If it dries up there won't be a mosquito problem. Now- Vanderho ef: If it dries completely. Franklin: Yeah. Lehman: Drying up is something that you have absolutely no control over. Either it rains or it doesn't. Vanderhoef: I understand. Steffan: And I am not sure where the ground water level is out there. The pond will tend to follow wherever the ground water level is and we supplement the pond that level with whatever the flowing stream is. So, to the extent that the ground water level is the same level as the culvert, any flow that comes in goes straight out. And when it begins to drop below that level other areas are starting to dry up as well. Kubby: And it is pretty moist fight in there. I mean, it doesn't take much rain to make it very soggy. Steffan: And the found mostly sand as I recall. Is that not fight, Gary? I don't know, I have not been out there to see how much water is there at this point. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 7 Kubby: I have to remember that this is an administrative decision with all of this conversation. Lehman: Right. Kubby: So, it is important to think... Franklin: Well, I think, you know, the fact that maintenance of this is going to be on the private property owners. And, yes, people may come to you as the people in Village Green have come to you and asked you to take over the green spaces in Village Green and maintain those- or they have come to past councils- and the answer to that has been "No". And, I mean, that is kind of what the Council at the time has to decide. O'Donnell: But it will be clear in the covenants of the subdivision that the property owners are responsible for making this a pond? Franklin: It will be owned by the homeowner's association. Yeah. Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: Okay? Thank you. i.) Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Westcott Heights Part Two, a 24.99 acre, four-lot residential subdivision located in Johnson County at the west end of Westcott Drive NE and Rose Bluff Circle NE. (SUB99-0024). Franklin: Okay. Item I, if there is nothing more on the Windsor Ridge projects- if we don't have the legal papers for any reason tomorrow then we will just defer them again but I am expecting that to be all taken care of. Um- Item I is the final plat for Westcott Heights Part Two. This is a four-lot residential subdivision in the county off of Prairie Du Chien. Any questions about this one? This is ready to go? j.) Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Wild Prairie Estates Part 3, a 49.31 acre, 30-lot residential subdivision with one outlot property located at the north ends of Goldenrod Drive and Wild Prairie Drive. (SUB99-0026). Franklin: Item J, final plat of Wild Prairie Estates Part 3. We are going to ask you to defer this to January 18. Chris? Did you want to say something? Steffan: Yeah, may I speak? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 8 Franklin: You may speak but you've got to come up here again. Steffan: I apologize but I- some issues came up, I believe, at the P&Z meetings- is that fight Kafin? Franklin: Yes. Steffan: And maybe, I don't know, if you want to share those. And that might preview what I am- particularly with regards to the- Franklin: Okay. Since I don't know what you are going to say, yeah. Steffan: With regards to that berm that is out there. One concern of that owner that it stay there. I guess- Franklin: Okay. Let me get them some background. Lehman: Are we talking about the item that is going to be deferred? Franklin: Yes, and why it is going to be deferred because you may have someone come to your meeting tomorrow night. I don't know. Last Thursday at the Planning and Zoning commission meeting when this was going through the commission an issue was raised by a neighboring property owner who was not in Wild, this section of Wild Prairie Estates but is in a previous section just to the south. During the grading of this ground for- after the preliminary plat was approved- the grading affected the flow of water to the extent that it was flowing onto this neighboring property owner's lot. His lot has a natural drainage way on it which had been modified somewhat by the construction on his lot. But as this- excuse me- as this part of Wild Prairie Estates was being grated the grade was modified such that more water was flowing onto this person's lot. The solution to that was to build a berm around the southwest boundary of this section of Wild Prairie Estates. What we need to do in the legal papers and on the plat is assure that there is a requirement that that berm stay in place and that it be maintained. And that is what we are working through and why we wish to have a deferral. Lehman: Okay. Steffan: I have had some discussions with the owner. This item came up Thursday night? Franklin: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 9 Steffan: Yeah. I talked with Jerry Hilgenburg and Dick Kennedy this evening and they are in agreement with regard to control and providing some sort of an easement so that the adjacent property owner doesn't lose this berm. And their suggestions- they would like not to defer this and what they would like to do is to actually grant easements to the owners that are concerned about this berm being removed. Grant them easements on the property that we are developing so that the easement is in their name and goes to that property or that particular lot so that the adjacent owner can't do any grading that would be to the detriment or the removal of that particular berm. So, I am not sure how that plays into what we are doing but they would really like to continue this rather than defer. Franklin: I think we will need to consider that one of the issues is the maintenance of the berm and who that burden is placed upon. Steffan: Okay. I think, you know, we would like to talk about this tomorrow and certainly if there- and things are still developing at this point. Franklin: If we can get it done by tomorrow. Lehman: We will leave that with you, Karin. We will- unless we hear otherwise from you this will be deferred tomorrow night. Franklin: Okay. Steffan: Okay. Champion: But we don't have another meeting until- Franklin: The 18th of January. That is one of the concerns about deferral is that there is a month in here. Steffan: Thank you for your time. Lehman: Sure. Steffan: I appreciate that. Kubby: But it would be kind of odd to vote for it on the condition that this get carried out. Franklin: It will have to be worked out tomorrow. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS 120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 10 Champion: We could maybe do, if it doesn't get worked out tomorrow, we could just do a quick meeting like at noon or something. Lehman: You mean a special meeting? Champion: Yeah. Lehman: We could do that or it might be also possible to do an approval contingent on, as we frequently do, you know we do a contingent- Franklin: Well, we try not to do it too frequently. Lehman: No, no. Champion: There is a long time to the next session. Lehman: I think that is your call Karin. Franklin: We will see if we can't work it out. Okay. Lehman: And if not you are right, we can always- Vanderhoef: And the special, we can get four people together as long as it is in the legal- Franklin: You just need four? Lehman: Right. Franklin: Okay. Lehman: Alright? Thornberry: It is a good idea. Franklin: I am done. Lehman: Well, as long as you are there, I will tell you what guys- we are going to skip the agenda items because the Public Art Advisory Committee- are you going to do that? Franklin: Yeah. Lehman: As long as you are there why don't we save you some time. Go ahead. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 11 Franklin: I will still be here for the Library, so it doesn't matter but that is fine. What was that? Kubby: I am saying, what if someone saw this agenda? Lehman: Anybody that believes that we go by an agenda- O'Donnell: We could take a break. Lehman: No. Vanderhoef: Until 7:25? Franklin: Would you like me to go forward with this? Lehman: I don't have any problems. Does any body have a problem with this? O'Donnell: I don't have a problem. Kubby: I have a problem. Atkins: Karin is going to be here for Library anyway. Franklin: I am. Lehman: Alright so she will still be here if someone comes and wants to address it we will go back to it. But go ahead. Kubby: But they won't get to hear what she has to say. Dilkes: Well can I- I am sorry- ifKarin is going to be here anyway maybe we should go in order. Franklin: Yeah- I will be here so it is- I mean, thank you for the consideration Mr. Mayor. Review Agenda Items Lehman: Review agenda items. Atkins: Ernie? Just to let you know, we have Andy, Chuck, and Dave concerning the Consent Decree if you have any questions about that. They are available. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page Norton: I was hoping somebody would explain it... Just what we promised to do, you mean? Atkins: There is a whole row back here that will explain it to you. Kubby: Yeah. Lehman: Alright. Norton: Somebody give us the big picture. And tomorrow night- you know, we have had this come up before but I had a comment from one of the scouts that visited that they couldn't understand what we were doing at the meeting because there is so little explanation going on that nobody could tell where we were. So it might be wise for us to hear it and hear it tomorrow night too. Because it has been a source of some contention I think hasn't it? Atkins: They are debating over who is going to do it. Norton: Oh. Kubby: I say arm wrestling could decide that one. O'Donnell: Definitely Chuck. Elias: I am Dave Elias with Waste Water Division. I can explain sort of the technical ends of the Consent Decree and I don't think there is anything too particularly complicated about the legal end but Andy or Chuck could handle that. What we have in the proposed Consent Decree is a lot of sort of##### but the third item there, statement of facts, covers the general requirement that we need to treat waste water. The second bullet under that is to extend the deadline of the 95 administrative order for one year, which allows us to continue working on the copper and mercury issue. We are making some progress as far identifying why we have those constituents in our water but we don't have a final solution or any agreement with DNR as to what the final outcome will be. It also gives us a couple- it extends also some additional activities that we are required to do in the long run which includes defining site specific river water quality issues and generate some toxicity data in the river itself or the foreign fauna in the river. That is what item number 2 does. Item number 3, under section 3, sets up a schedule for us to establish ammonia removal, which will be complete by August 1, 2002. That is the upgrade to the south wastewater treatment plant. We expect that to fully accomplish that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 13 Item 4 under there requires us to identify cyanide excursions to get a source identified and report back to DNR by next May. And we are continuing to look for sources of those. The load coming in at the treatment plant is very erratic so we don't have any real good data so far. We've got a couple of times when we have caught it but we haven't identified any locations in the community yet where that might be coming from. And then section number 5 sets the ammonia interim limits and what that does is leave the south plant as is. The south plant has been operating fine and has not had any violations in this area. It establishes new interim limits for the north plant in the summertime- a part of our permit- the wintertime part remains the same. The 30 day average for the ammonia limits at the south- at the north plant- remain the same and we have been given a 10% sort of buffer on the daily maximum so that we can maintain, try to maintain, that 30 day average. Kubby: How will we accomplish that at the north plant? Elias: In the long run the plan is to double the size and capacity of the south plant which will allow us to cut in half the flow coming to the noah plant. And so that will give us twice as much detention time, twice as much treatment capacity essentially for treating that water. We expect that the north plant processes- the trickling filters, the rock that trickling filters will be able to do that in all but the worst conditions. The worst conditions in this case would be very low flows like this year and very cold temperatures. That is when the trickling filters perform the poorest and the water quality requirements in the stream would be the highest because the dilution of the stream is the lowest. We also have in our plans a contingency for utilizing break point chlorination, which then can chemically remove the ammonia. We don't expect that we will have do that. We have one more sort of stop gap built in to there where we will be able to re-route part of the north plant effluent partially treated effluent to the south plant for further treatment which will cut down further the flow that would be leaving the noah plant. So, we have got 2 or 3 good steps for keeping control of the ammonia leaving the noah plant. Norton: And that can happen right now? Elias: Well, these- that would be, I mean, it could happen right now but the standards, the limits, that will be under at that point when we have the new permit and the south plant has been upgraded will be quite a bit more stringent than these. So, under these current ones we don't expect a problem. Kubby: So in the short term you think that that is an attainable goal? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 14 Elias: I have just a little bit of data that I can reflect on for this calendar year- we have got 10 months of data so far for this year, this is through October- we would have had only 3 days in 1999 that would have violated the summer ammonia standard. And that was back in May and we did have another mechanical problem at the plant in that period so there were 3 days. Right now we would be fully into winter limits and we have never had any problem with that and we haven't requested- DNR hasn't given us a change in winter limits. So, I don't anticipate any real problems meeting any of these ammonia limits under these sets, this set, of standards because these are the ones that we have always had in place and unless we have a, sort of a mechanical break down, we will probably be okay. Lehman: How does this Consent change the way we operate the plant? Elias: It doesn't change it a bit. We will be watching maintenance carefully. Lehman: So what does it do? Kubby: So how does it help us meet the standards? Norton: I don't understand either. Elias: The Consent Decree- the pfimary goal of the Consent Decree is to lock us in essentially to the construction and completion of the upgraded facilities. The reason it is not really making a change now is because we are not changing, significantly, effluent limits at this time period. When the new plant is on-line, is constructed, then DNR will be issuing us much tighter restrictions. There is not much we could do with the facilities that we have fight now to treat ammonia any more. Norton: The group that brought the allegation that we were out of compliance, for example, I didn't go back and look at that document- all we are doing is saying- why would they bring it, can't they bring it again? Saying we are still not there because mostly we are promising to be there in the future? Elias: Well, the next opportunity for that sort of a public lawsuit, if that is the technical term for it, would be at the end of this particular consent order. If we are under consent order then the citizens regulation, theoretically, is satisfied with that and we are moving along to meet our goals. So, what this consent decree does in the next- that fourth section- does give us some penalties. And so if we miss those ammonia limits then we will have penalties, it is a $1.20 per pound per day over the max and it is a $1.20 per pound per week over the 30 day average. So, for example, in those three This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 15 days this year in 1999 we would have- the calculated penalty would have been charged at $418.80. We don't expect to be there. We think that normally we can maintain control but for ammonia at the north plant primarily we are at the mercy of weather conditions. Namely rain and cold. Lehman: So what does the Consent Decree do? Elias: It locks the city into completely- Lehman: Future projects. Elias: -this building program and provides penalties if we don't meet the limits and then of course if we don't meet the major goal then there probably are significant penalties. Norton: Before Andy comments on that I want to understand- we have got this mercury and copper problem. We are still trying to find it and the cyanide- we don't know where it is. In other words, those were cited in the earlier book, lawsuit, or whatever it was, allegation. And they are still there I take it? The unknowns are still there. We haven't found the sources have we? Elias: We identified several mercury sources. Some of them have been eliminated now. Three of the University buildings with significant verifiable detectable sources have been addressed by the University- two of those buildings just within the last month or so. So it is kind of early to see if that is going to eliminate our problem. Frankly I don't think it is going to. What we have also found in attending conferences on the subject is that the primary source for the background ammonia- or mercury- is air pollution, air deposition. So mercury has been a thing that as humans we have been utilizing in various processes for several hundred years at one level or the other. There are lots of issues, lots of movements trying to reduce the output of human mercury into the air but that is going to be a very, very slow process and it is not something that our wastewater treatment facility is going to solve by itself in a year or two. Kubby: Although, if that is a major source, then why aren't many communities not meeting the standard? Norton: You would think everybody wouldn't. Kubby: Are there problems all over the country with not meeting the standards? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 16 Elias: There are. Norton: Whoever uses river water. Elias: There are all over the country however in Iowa I am only aware of 2 cities that have come into play on this issue. That would be us and the city of Des Moines. Primarily the reason for that is that other cities have not been required to look. And we have a history of having been required to look at that. The Iowa River has some background contamination that had been identified years ago and so this is an item that they have had us looking at. So, here we are. Incidentally, to kind of put the issue in perspective, and I know we have talked about it before, but for example, the wastewater limit for copper is 40 times lower than the current drinking water limit in our own drinking water supply. That just kind of puts it at the level that we are trying to deal with. For mercury, the wastewater limit is 25 times lower than the subsequent drinking water limit. So we are still talking about really tiny amounts. It is because we assume that the fish are living and breathing in it and we are simply drinking it- it doesn't affect us in the same way. That is a simplification of it. But that is why those limits can be different but the level that we are working at trying to identify and remove it at is quite difficult. Another way to kind of put this issue in perspective with what I think will be, although I don't have any definite scientific correlations or mathematic correlations, but if we consider this mercury, copper and cyanide- the analysis we have run this past year- at the noah plant we have detected mercury 35 times. Now, those aren't all violations. Those are just- we have detected it to one degree or another. Thirty five times at the north plant and seven at the south plant. Copper [is] 43 at the noah, 32 at the south. And then cyanide is 8 and 8. I think what that- we can hope to see from that is that the south plant process, when it is fully on line, has the capacity to absorb and assimilate more of these heavy metals than the north plant trickling filter process does. And so, we think that just completing that project will help us to some degree even on the copper and mercury and cyanide although it may not make it totally go away. Lehman: Andy, do you have some legal words of wisdom? Matthews: Perhaps I can offer some additional explanation as to why we proceeded with the Consent Decree and what the ramifications of that are. When we received the notice of citizen action we continued with our contacts with the DNR. We had had ongoing contacts throughout the years as I am sure all of Council is aware with respect to our waste plant operations and to a certain extent we were at the mercy of our aging wastewater facilities and at the mercy of users as far as any effluent violations, permit access This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 17 violations. When we received this notice of intent for citizen action we then entered into further discussions with DNR in an effort to arrive at a manageable schedule so that we could attack these problems both at the source on a short term basis and under a long term construction project basis knowing that there may be times when we might exceed permit effluent mounts. By entering into the consent order with the Department of Natural Resources we can better manage the problems we have established, interim levels with- for our limits for our effluent limits and not run the risk everyday, every month, every year, during this construction project that we are going to see further notices of intent to commit citizen actions and further threats of lawsuits. So long as we enter into this decree with the Department of Natural Resources we can work with the Department to correct those violations and to enter into a well timed and well organized construction plan for modifying our facilities and not run the risk of further lawsuits during that period of time. This Consent Decree establishes deadlines for construction. It establishes interim permit levels. Once that construction process is completed and the plants are working to full capacity new permits will be issued and those permit restrictions, those effluent restrictions, will be more strict than these interim limits. This just gives us a little bit of flexibility during that period of time to make those corrections and to construct and improve our wastewater plant facilities. Kubby: Is there any ability of the Mississippi River Revival or Environment Advocates to say "We think there should be some changes to this agreement. We think these things are okay but we want these couple of points to be added"? Do they have any control over it? Matthews: They can offer their suggestions to IDNR. We provided them with a copy of the proposed Consent Decree. They have kept in regular communications with the DNR through out this past year. This should not be a surprise to them. Kubby: Do we have any feedback from them about what- about this agreement? Matthews: Not that I am aware of. DNR may have- I am unaware of any.. Kubby: So there has been no official correspondence? Matthews: No and I copied them on this. I advised both the Mississippi Revival and River Revival and Environmental advocates that this was scheduled as a Council agenda item for the discussion of the proposed Consent Decree. They were aware that we were in ongoing negotiations with IDNR. They were aware as to the sum and substance generally of what there was in- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 18 [what] the negotiations would entail. I would be surprised if they are in essence surprised by what is contained in it. They might not necessarily agree with it, for example the interim limits set in there, that was a practical resolution with IDNR to give us something we can work with while we correct the problems and while we construct and improve our wastewater facilities. We certainly didn't do any of this behind their back. Lehman: Are there questions about this? O'Donnell: No. Lehman: Thank you Andy. Matthews: Certainly. Lehman: Any other agenda items? Dilkes: I have got one. If- when you are ready. You see in Item #27 we have set a public hearing on a conveyance of an about 3000 square foot piece of property at Grant Street and Court Street. That has been put on your agenda because an offer was made by the property owner. It is not right- of-way so there is no vacation required and we wanted to get it on the agenda because of the big lapse in time between your meetings. We will do some investigation as to the price that is being offered for that land and get some information to you about that before your meeting on the 18th. Thornberry: Wasn't that one appraised already? Dilkes: Pardon me? Thornberry: Wasn't that one appraised already? Dilkes: The property owner got an appraisal. We just need to look at it and see if we concur with the result. Kubby: And so they understand that that price could change? Dilkes: Yes, Sarah Holecek has communicated with them and has told them that the substance of the discussions will come at the public hearing. Public Art Advisory Committee Report Lehman: Okay? Karin, on the Art Advisory Board. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 19 Franklin: There is two items that I wish to report to you on from the Public Art Advisory Committee because these were Council referrals to the committee. The first had to do with the use of public arts ~mds to support Arts Iowa City. And I believe that the question from the Council was would the Public Art Advisory Committee agree to an allocation of up to $15,000 from the fiscal year 2000 public art funds for Arts Iowa City. As you, I hope, read in the November 4th minutes the Public Art Advisory Committee did consent to this allocation. They were very supportive of Arts Iowa City. However, understand that the allocation of an additional $15,000, and that $15,000 being from the public art funds, is the Council's decision and is, and should be, based upon the business plan brought to you by Arts Iowa City. The other item that I wanted to report to you on was the referral on the Guthienz fountain. The committee has recommended that the fountain not be relocated to the water plant. They have also recommended that the fountain not be relocated to Chauncey Swan Park. Lehman: In fact, they recommend that the fountain not be relocated. Franklin: No, they have not formally done that as yet. Lehman: Okay. Franklin: I think at this point, well, what do you think? Champion: I think we can leave it at storage for awhile until we decide. Franklin: Would you like the committee to deliberate further on any recommendation to you on the future of the fountain? Thornberry: That would be nice. Norton: Well we have got to do something with it. Lehman: That is okay but my only thought is that that has been a part of downtown for a couple dozen years. And I really feel that the way that it was purchased in the first place, with people buying the bricks and whatever, it had very a broad based unit of support. And people have indicated to me anyway that they would like to see it reconstructed. I would certainly like to see it reconstructed somewhere in the downtown area where it can be seen by a lot of people and hopefully kids can play in it like we always have. Thornberry: Maybe we can put it back fight over the top of Weatherdance. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2o Norton: Oh, come on. Lehman: I personally have no problem putting it across the street. I thought that was a great location. And if they want to talk about it fine, but I really think it should go back downtown somewhere. Franklin: I think it would be useful to have some- well, if you wish to give direction to the committee, direction. One possibility being that there is not an interest just putting it in storage or what is called "de-exsessioning" it which is to sell it or give it to another community. But that you wish to retain the sculpture and you would like them to recommend a location for it- that is one possibility. Champion: Maybe it would fit over, I know how bad it sounds, ##### area. Thornberry: I am thinking that maybe the Arts people should come up with a way to- I mean, that is their purview right? Norton: Yeah, but they may not have... Franklin: They will recommend to you exclusively. Thomb erry: What will they recommend? Franklin: Oh, I don't- Dean, at this point, I would not venture to guess. (several talking) Norton: ...didn't say where to put it. Franklin: Well, I think that there- that the possibilities that you could hear- that you couM hear- would be that it be de-exsessioned or that it be placed somewhere else in the community. O'Donnell: I would like to see this fountain. Lehman: Maybe we had better wait and see what they have got to say. O'Donnell: Excuse me? Lehman: I think we ought to wait and see what the committee has to say. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 21 Kubby: But they have done what we have asked them to do so we have to give them further direction. Norton: Well, let's tell them to tell us the location. I don't know. Vanderhoef: Would their intent be, if it were sold, then to have that money for other projects that they want? Franklin: It didn't get that far Dee but one, I mean, we have got some new members on the committee and one of them in fact approached it from a very different perspective than others and that was- and I explained to them the financial issues that were bringing this question to them. The perspective that was raised was "Would we, if we today were going to purchase a new piece, spend $87,000 to $112,000 or $120,000 whatever the bid was that came in on it, for this particular piece?" And to ask that question. And I think there are some who would say "yes" that they would do that given it's history and it's symbolism and then others who would say "yes, because I like this" and others who would say "no, because I don't like it". Norton: With the way that the money was raised it would really be tacky for the City to sell it and run off with the money. I mean, that is pretty tacky don't you think? It should either be- I think it would also be hard to throw it away. I think it ought to be somewhere, and close. Vanderhoef: And there may be another group in the City that who might incorporate it into their project. (rest muffled) Franklin: I have got three right now to consider another location. Champion: Norton: Ask them to tell us where it is, yeah. Franklin: Okay. Four- the question to the Public Art Committee is not a question of the de-exsessioning or not but where is the proper location? Champion: Right. Franklin: Correct? Champion: That is a good way to put it. Franklin: Okay- we are done. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 22 Norton: I like that word. Lehman: I can't even say it. Atkins: Emie? Lehman: Yes. Old Capitol Angle Parking Atkins: Before you move to the next item a couple of folks in the audience that I want to recognize an issue. You have pictures of the angle parking, whether you wish to change your mind- before you say anything it is not an official item- (changed tapes)- Lehman: Is everybody familiar with what we can't discuss? Thomb erry: Then why are they here? Lehman: We can't discuss- Thornberry: Why are the pictures here? Lehman: For the Council to look at. We can't discuss it. Look at it. If we choose to discuss it at some future time we may based on what you see. O'Donnell: Well, they we have all seen it...Is that all we can do? Lehman: That is all we can do. Atkins: I would encourage you to go to the next item. Lehman: Pardon? Atkins: I would encourage you to go on to your next item. Library Expansion Project Lehman: Library expansion project. I think we are all aware we have looked at a number of options that were presented to us by the Library Board. Or by the architects. Presented to us at the same time. There were two options that were considered, I guess, viable, acceptable. One of those two was construction of an entirely new facility on block 64 1A. The other one was using the present building and expanding to the west- mainly the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 23 ##### property. I think we all got in our packets a list of some questions and I think we have all probably had an opportunity to look at them. It would- I think it would be a definite benefit to the Library Board if they could have an indication from this Council as to which of the two options we would prefer. The new Council people have indicated that either of the two would probably be acceptable so we probably should be discussing those. If we chose to make a recommendation for the Library Board I think we can do that. It wouldn't be officially made until the new Council takes their seats. I can tell you that I have been approached by the owners of the/#~##~## property and they have expressed an interest in selling that property. The leases that are on that property expire in February 2001. And I know that there was some concern on that option that we would have to either condemn the property and/or evict tenants or both. And it appears that that- neither of those options would probably occur. So, let the discussion begin. Champion: Well, I don't- I have made up my mind. Kubby: And what was that? Champion: I am going for Westward. I like the idea of maintaining the current building. I like the idea of the Library ###~#. It has solved a lot of problems for me. Number 1: The use of the parking lot. I never remember what that thing is called .... It solved the problem of what to do with the old building. And I think it is a more sellable thing to the voters because when I talk to people from Library- never mind the people who want a branch- but everybody views that Library as being new. And I think you are going to have a hard time selling the public a whole new building. And I think they have an understanding of ######, the building was already there. I think that is how much more viable thing for the voters. And so that the plan that I like the best. Norton: Emie, I want to- I will tell you where I am going and that is 64 1A. But I want to comment a little bit about the Westward option and some issues that seem to me have not been as clear as they might be. And I am- I certainly can tolerate that option but I don't think it is the best one. I think we really need to consider how extensive the rebuilding, re-wiring, re- plumbing of that present building will be. It will be really gutted down to the structural members. The interior walls, the exterior walls, all of the plumbing and wiring, and the carpet being the least of it. In other words, there is a very substantial - it is not a "addition" to that building so much as the total rebuilding of the present structure plus an addition. The addition would only, as I understand it, have 5000 square feet of #### the replacement building up on the ground floor there for commercial space This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 24 and that would be in the basement. And we talked about 20,000 square feet of commercial. I understand that 15,000 of that would be underground. And 5000 would be on the first ground because the library would be expanding into the ##~## space at the back of that building. But just the front would be. It would be terribly disruptive and the cost of operating during construction will be extremely difficult. Both cost wise and operation wise. You have got to pay the cost of tearing the present ###### and building too? Champion: Norton: Yeah, and you have got to pay the cost of tearing down and moving the playground. So, I think that- Champion: Why would you move the playground? Norton: - so, in general you could build a Library that is really more efficient. O'Donnell: ... move the playground? Norton: Because it extends out into the mall that much. I think it will distress this- disturb the playground for sure. Champion: Norton: So there is a lot of- an instinct about that that would make it less than attractive. Atkins: I don't think you could build that building without relocating the playground equipment. Kubby: Are you kidding me? Atkins: No. Kubby: Talk about another couple of- Atkins: Nobody said relocate. I mean, I think you are going to have to do a site plan that looks at that and figure out how this is going to be located. I can't imagine you could construct the building with that playground virtually right adjacent to it. Kubby: Does that change your mind Connie? Public perception of a brand new This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 25 Norton: I also want to say that when I go for- and I will probably get out of the act here in a minute- when I, and I have looked a long time in trying to put the exact numbers- in either case you are going to have some selling to do. Either the present library space has to be sold but at least you are not tearing that clear down and basically building a new building there. And even the outside walls I guess have to be moved if you are going to use of all of that foot- you have got to move that east wall out. I think, now maybe somebody from the Library board or Susan or somebody can explain more but it looks to me like a terribly much more substantial thing to think than "addition". For the west. I want to see the most modern and appropriate Library built that really lasts. Not kind of jury-rigged into that old building. And I think you could make a much more efficient Library on the new side with drive-up. You could have underground parking. I still think the parking lot will be a part of it. You want to capitalize on the Dubuque Ramp with the accessibility to that parking so that the parking is an inherent component and you could get a drive up feature. And just do the job right. That is my feeling rather than kind of ungapots. Thomb erry: I wish you would have had that argument for the airport terminal building. It is just the opposite for that airport terminal. Just the opposite. Just exactly- Norton: The consistency, you know, the mother load .... Champion: Well, the Library building is not of any wonderful historic significance. Lehman: The- I believe that all of the options that were presented to us by the architect were basically very, very fine options. I don't think there is any- I don't think there is any compromise on the quality of the building. Whether you remodel the present building or build a brand new one, I think he made that very clear. Norton: But a nice square building is easier to manipulate than one like this and then with a big extension over there. Lehman: I seem to read into what you were saying that it was going to be less than a very fine Library and I don't think that would be true. Norton: It would be fine, I just think you could do a better one on the other site starting clean and clear. Kubby: Well how do people incorporate the bottom line price? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 26 Champion: The would be about the same price. Kubby: I mean, the are close but there is some difference. I mean, what is there? $700,000 difference? Champion: $700,000 is nothing when you are talking about estimates. These are estimates. This is nothing concrete. It could be 3 million one way or the other on either one of those projects. You are talking about really rough estimates. Kubby: Well, that might be a reality but I- we are needing to sell this to 60% of the voters and this- it is a political question about it. We consciously choose the more expensive option from the estimates. It is on the ballot. How does that play out? I mean, how does that enter into people's thinking? Champion: Well, the new Library also- the estimate figured, and I don't think I am wrong, was based on after the Library was sold. It included selling that Library building for a certain amotmt of money. So that was assumed. Norton: Well you can compare them both- selling that and selling the retail space. Compare them- put that in the same ballpark. Vanderhoef: In that 15 million we don't have any money for the purchase of the land for the Urban Renewal Possibilities so I'm a little uncomfortable looking at the recommendation that this would be- an all new Library would be a 15 million dollar Library because I am looking at some other costs that are there. And that if we move across to the new site we still have an old building that has need for $600,000 worth of upgrading in heating, lighting, air conditioning and those kinds of things. We certainly know that anyone that would come in or if we were to take it over and use it we would have ongoing costs with that. We have no idea how long it would take us to get this sold. We have no idea what the cost of marketing that building is. And those are all costs of having a new Library vs. staying where we are. So I can't put a dollar figure on it. I can put another 1.2 million on it if that is what the appraisal value is of 64 1A. And I could add on that $600,000 for the NUAC. So I think we could be talking at least adding 2 million and I suspect more than that onto "costs" that is being listed there as 15 million. And I don't see that we have in our budget right now- that we have all of those dollars to go ahead maintain this old building and bring it back up to date so I would expect to put those needed dollars into this bond issue because it is all part of Library. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 27 Norton: You have got space to sell in the other option too. You have got plenty of problems being a retail space .... don't you? Under the Westward Ho option you have got some space to sell. Vanderhoef: You have some space, absolutely. So we certainly have sitting out there a marketing dollar figure that I have no idea what that would be and we don't know for how long that that building could be empty. And that is a real concern because I don't see that it is appropriate for the City to be in competition with private property owners downtown who have office space and retail space. So there is a little bit of either way you go- Norton: Either way you are going to get some of that. Vanderhoef: But the lesser for me is the Westward Ho in that we would not be putting another very large building on the market for what ever purposes in competition with the spaces that are available downtown. What we would have would be replacement space of the present established businesses. Kubby: But if we sell 64 1A to a private entity isn't that still going to be more competition? Vanderhoef: But that is a private developer's use. It is not the city's risk sitting there and marketing against private. Kubby: It is one step beneath. I mean, it is kind of the same thing but it is just indirect. Norton: It is hard to avoid that. Vanderhoef: I can see why you might say that and I don't necessarily quite see it that way. Norton: Yeah, it is hard to avoid that. Vanderhoef: It is hard to avoid that, I agree. Kubby: So, some of the- some of the stuff in the memo with the questions and something Connie said about the parking lot being there makes it seem like some people are maybe tending toward thinking maybe we won't sell 64 1A, maybe we will keep it as a parking lot. Are people thinking about that? Lehman: Well, I tend to agree with- much of the point you said Connie- and part of that Karen, part of that is, my reasoning is, is that is a parking lot. It also This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 28 is, I believe, is a $80,000, or close to $80,000 a year revenue for the City. Very convenient. Probably one of the most popular places to park that we have downtown. I don't see that being a long term real estate. I don't see that being there 20 years from now. But in the short term, 6,8,10 years, I guess I don't see a problem with that. I favor the Westward expansion for many of the same reasons you do. I think it utilizes the old building and I realize there is a lot of remodeling to be done but it doesn't not use 64 1A which I think has two values. First, if we wanted to sell it there is some value to that. I think it could be sold. It also has value as a parking lot. Aside from some of the other options, obviously not 64 1A, it does very little to impact the Ped Mall which I think is a very important part of downtown. And one of the other things that we have to consider whether we like it or not is that should the bond issue not be successful on the first time around the option of the ####### may provide other options for the #### that just plain are not available if the bond issue on 64 1A is just flat- out rejected. Kubby: You mean potentially expand into #####? Lehman: Potentially I think there are opportunities there that we might be able to ##### if the big bond issue did not pass. Norton: My understanding is the assumption that maybe during the move they would utilize some of that space when they clear out of the present library and try to renovate that. Champion: Oh, absolutely. Norton: They would have to use all of that space in the ###### for temporary- it is still going to be a humongous process that juggling and moving. Champion: They other thing about the retail space is you know, these are preliminary ideas and drawings that the Library presented to us and to me, I visualize the Library differently although I am not the Library Board and I am not an architect. But you know I am not so sure you need that retail space there. I kind of envisioned a library utilizing that whole thing and having- maybe having children's stuff down there with a different exit and entrance and keeping the ###### away from the playground. I mean there is so much space available there. Why are we worried about commercial space there? I'm not. Norton: Westward Ho ##### you are talking about? Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 29 Champion: Right. I mean to really give the Library lots of space and even expansion space and for kids #### and developing in that building. I think it would be nice to have a Library entrance coming from that #### of the Pedestrian Mall. I don't know. Lehman: The Library said they really could not- once you have two entrances then your operational costs go up because you have to staff it differently and I don't think they want two entrances. Champion: They could have an exit. They could have a place you could exit. Norton: Watch them going out too. Champion: Right. I mean I, you know, it just seems logical to me that you expand the facility you have. That it is more accountable to me, I mean, I don't tear my house down and build new one because it needs new plumbing and electricity and air conditioning. I mean, I have done a lot of plumbing and air conditioning and heating to my house without tearing it down. I think you need to - I like keeping things an doing what you can with them as long as it can be done to make it a good project. And I think they made it clear that they could do a good project with either possibility. Norton: I think that is right but I just want to remind you now that means that the restrooms go, the stairway goes, the meeting rooms go- all that stuff. It is a totally gutting of that building. I mean, you have got to think about what we are talking about here is basically building a new library up on that side anyhow. You know, that- I've already said what I have got to say. O'Donnell: I have favored Westward Ho all along. I don't like the underground parking on the new structure. We have, and I have said before, a parking ramp next to a parking ramp next to a parking ramp. I just- I do not favor using 64 1A. It is the last commercial spot down there that we have opportunity to sell the taxpayer's ###- taxpayers build it. I believe if we go west we, I think that is going to be a more sellable .... Norton: Consideration, there is no doubt about it. O'Donnell: And you are utilizing an existing building rather than creating a new... Norton: It may be more money but we will see. O'Donnell: I just think it is a more sellable project. Ultimately we- I think we should ask the Library Board which one they want. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3o Norton: They have already said. Vanderhoef: The Library Board has already said. O'Donnell: I know, they want the- they want 64 1A. But which one realistically has a better chance of passing the ##~#. Lehman: That is going to be a matter of opinion. We all think differently. Kubby: Once it is selected then you #~######~ option. (several talking) Norton: Whatever it is, yeah. Champion: Make it clear that we could live with that, is that correct? Norton: We could live with either. Kubby: That is right. Champion: And I think they are better of going with one that the Council is really enthused about. (several talking) Lehman: Dean, what is your ....? Thornberry: That is a 15 to 18 million dollar remodeling basically. Norton: Well, remodeling and additions. Lehman: Remodeling and adding on. Norton: Remodeling and adding. Thornberry: Remodeling it and adding on 15 to 20-15 to 18 million. (rest muffled) Lehman: No, no- well, between the two options. You know I think it is important that we are not, I don't think, we are saying as a Council, at least I am not individually and I don't any of us are saying that this is a good or bad idea. It is between options, which one, if we were to select one, which one would we recommend. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS 120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 31 Thornberry: There is no way we can put both of those on, is that right? Lehman: That is correct. We agree on one thing. Thornberry: Why can't you have, I mean, why can't you have a fourth option? Lehman: Eleanor? Thomberry: One is a no. Lehman: Just a minute. Thornberry: One is a nothing. One is 64 1A, they want 64 1A. Another one is remodeling of the existing building and going west into the building. And the fourth one is leaving the building alone and building a branch out in on the ##### land. I mean, the is four options there that they are not... Dilkes: Let me say- Atkins: Ernie, I have got to jump in here. Lehman: Go ahead. Atkins: And Eleanor, you can discuss this but if you were going to put forth a preferential referendum- 1,2,3,4- remember what the purpose of the referendum is. The purpose of the referendum is to authorize you to incur debt. And I think we have to figure that out. Thomberry: This was the question. Can you do- Atkins: The referendum is an authorization of debt which you declare will be for the purposes of a particular project. And what is being suggested sounds like a preferential referendum which is, I don't know with an election- Lehman: Eleanor? Dilkes: I think you have to have the "no" posed against a particular option. So you can't have just a "no" with then four options. Thornberry: It would be a "no" and three. Dilkes: I don't think you can do what you are suggesting, no. Lehman: I think that- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 32 Dilkes: We could discuss it with Bond Counsel. I am not Bond Counsel. Kubby: .... the two options that we are discussing? On a ballot to say we want an 80,000- we want a bond for an 80,000 square foot public library downtown. Shall it be on 64 1A as a standalone building or shall it be an extension Westward Ho. Atkins: That is a preferential right there. Lehman: Hold it. The problem with that is it takes a 60% margin. If you- Dilkes: You certainly would have to have at a minimum, I would think, you would have to have two ballots. No against one option, no against the other option. You are not going to have- I can't imagine you would want people splitting their vote between the two positive options. Lehman: No. Kubby: It is important to have this discussion so people hear that that is an incredibly important reason to attempt- Thornberry: God, I would like to have a referendum to see which one they would like to have on the ballot. Norton: I think, you know, I am not all the way in favor. I think owe people- I think we owe people our best judgement not just #######. That is my opinion and I think that is what we owe them. Thornberry: There are pros and cons of both. Norton: Okay I understand. And so, I think we ought to- and I believe the Library Board is the one that is recommending- this is their responsibility to recommend to us. Ours is to decide which one to fund or try to fund or get on the ballot. I don't think we ought to second guess them altogether on the details of going to four different options. We are down to two and it seems that we ought to decide which on one we prefer and to go with it. Lehman: I think that is what we are going to do. Karen? Kubby: I have a quick question about something you said and it was in the paper too, that going with the standalone building on 64 1A would somehow impede the use of the Ped Mall? And I thought it would not change at all what the current use of the Ped Mall is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 33 Lehman: It doesn't. Kubby: Okay, maybe I am misunderstanding the words because I thought a couple of times that you said it would impede. Norton: The Westward one- Lehman: Neither of these really impede the Ped Mall. Kubby: Right. Norton: Well, the Westward one would a little depending on how you design it. Lehman: Oh, a little bit. Kubby: I just didn't understand it, so thanks for that clarification. I would prefer a standalone building on 64 1A and I think it is a lot of the reasons that Dee Norton has but I think it also for the long, long run of the building it's going to create much more flexible space for whatever the next step is. For youth, for the need for more public office space for the City or for more different kinds of private space downtown. Being able to have that building to be- will be expanded and having the current Library building, to me, it seems like really contrary to other popular belief- a sellable piece of property. That you have this large shell next door to all of this parking by a well-used public Library and foot traffic. A building that can hold all sorts of things. It could be carved up in different kinds of spaces very flexibly and can hold a huge amount of weight which allows it to be used very flexibly. So I don't have the concerns that other people have about not being able to sell the Library and I know there has been some talk about whether we end up with 64 1A to put on the market or whether we have the current Library building to put on the market that there shouldn't be any strings attached- that that has been a problem in the past. And I think that would not be good public policy because it would be, either one, would be the last open parcel. And I think there should be public strings attached to ensure that whatever happens there follows our downtown plan. And the only way that we have control over that is by saying "we will sell this to you with these strings attached" and that is it follows the plan and here is some things we need from it, so. Part of this- this is kind of a generalized comment about a fear I have that you might say in the future "we will sell this land with no strings attached". I think that would be a very bad road to go down. Lehman: Okay. Never going to happen. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 34 Kubby: That is not what I- Vanderhoef: I am sure we have ....because of the urban renewal? Lehman: I don't know. Vanderhoef: I don't know either because. Kubby: I don't know but it is good to talk about it. Lehman: Karen, do I hear you saying you prefer 64 1A? Kubby: You do hear me saying that. Lehman: Okay, so I hear two 64 1A's. I hear four Westward Hos. And I hear one- Thornberry: It doesn't really make any difference, you have got four for Westward Ho. Lehman: If you were going to vote Dean, which way would you like to go? Norton: Yeah, it is a subjunctive there. Thornberry: I told you, I wanted- Lehman: No, between the two. Kubby: Between the two. Norton: If you were going to vote. Lehman: If you were going to vote between the two which would you chose? Thornberry: I will tell you- Vanderhoef: Yes, please do. Thornberry: I will answer you but it is- I would vote for 64 1A. For reasons other than what have already been accepted. Completely different. Lehman: Alright, tell us what they are. Thomberry: Because I don't agree with it and I think it will be defeated. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 35 Lehman: Okay. Thomberry: Because I prefer having a branch library on the east side of town. Lehman: Alright. Thornberry: And I think that the #### on 64 1A, it will be defeated. Norton: That is mildly perverse. Lehman: Yes, that is a little- anyway I hear, I hear a two for 64 1A, four for Westward Ho, and one for nothing. Thornberry: No, I- O'Donnell: Four is including yourself?. Lehman: Yes. Now, I don't know, is this- do we wish to, and of course the ###### is missing- I guess you will have to take that for what it is worth. But I think that- Craig: Well, what your decision means is that we will give direction to the architects then to do more design work on that option and answer more of the questions they have and we would be back talking to you in about 8 weeks. After they have processed- Kubby: Now, the other question that Connie brought up that the architects would need to know about is if we didn't necessarily want to replace that retail space but have some pedestrian level large windowed, not necessarily accessed, but whether that space would be used for retail or library space. That is a crucial question. Craig: As a library director, I have a concern about trying to operate a building on the first level that is a block long. I believe that the public would have the expectation- if I were a member of the public I would- that you could get in or out at both ends of it. And we may as well have a branch because that is how much staff you have staffed at both entrances and exits. And whether it is a half a block apart or miles apart staffing is an issue. I mean, you don't have to have the other multiple staff in other areas but at the entrances and exits. The control point in the library is where you spend your staff. Thomberry: And in this case it would be your staff as opposed to Kirkwood Community College's staff. Is that not correct? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 36 Craig: What do you think? Lehman: Okay. Norton: We are talking about a downtown destination here. Lehman: The options that we saw for the Westward Ho indicated that it would be commercial space on the first level but I believe that long term, you know 20 years from now or whatever, if we needed it could at some point be turned into library space. Champion: Well, I mean, I feel strongly about the best thing for Iowa City. I mean, you may all think it is the best thing for the Library. (?) That is your job. It is to say what you think is the best thing for Iowa City and it will work in the Library. Champion: I think it is much more sellable to the public. I really do think it easy to sell it. You are going to have a hard time- at least people in my age group remembered voting for the last library which was so recently. Lehman: Okay. Champion: If it is not workable- I mean, I am willing to change my mind. I don't want to change my mind but if it is really not workable that the Library can't- we don't want you to have a non-workable facility no matter how big it was. Thornberry: I really would opt to have more than one on the ballot but if that, you know, if that is not possible I- I really don't know Emie because I still, I am holding out for that branch. Lehman: Well, that is not an option. (several talking) Vanderhoef: That option will not come until such time as the voters make it plain whether they do or don't want to spend their money for this. Lehman: Do I hear the Council saying proceed with the Westward Ho? Norton: Proceed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 37 Vanderhoef: I have one request on that please. Lehman: Yes. Vanderhoef: I want to be sure that on the Westward Ho that were are talking when they are looking at the design that they are putting in footings that there could be a third floor. Craig: That is correct. Lehman: That was talked about. Norton: Vanderhoef: And on the new part? Lehman: Right. Vanderhoef: Yes. Kubby: And is it possible to design it and have a construction plan minimize or eliminate the need to do something with that playground equipment? Champion: Right. Kubby: I don't know if that is possible but, you know, when we were thinking about the new Whiteway building at that they were going to be working fight up to it- up to the property line- although that is why you needed the alley because I know they need some space but- I don't know. If we can figure that out because I think that is a problem. That is a public problem and it is a resources problem that we just invested. It is like living on an army base and seeing new concrete laid and the next week it is pulled up again. It is just like it is not good timing. Lehman: I am sure that is an engineering problem. If they could work around it it would sure be nice. Kubby: We should ask would it be- and if there are some design elements that relate to that engineering issue we could figure it out. O'Donnell: Emie, we have both sat here and we've agreed in going west and we have a Library Board that is going to be selling this to the community and I know that they feel that they are going to have a chance to do it and get This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 38 enthusiastic behind it- that they are looking at 64 1A. But is really close- It is a very close decision for me- I mean. Norton: They can live with either one. O'Donnell: I am in favor in going west because I think it answers more questions however, I- Norton: Well, they are going that way now. O'Donnell: -I think... Champion: You are like me, I could settle on either thing. Thornberry: I have one question to Steve. Lehman: Alright. Thornberry: Or, Eleanor. If it goes on the ballot it says not just what it is but how much it is, is that correct? Lehman: Yeah. Thomb erry: Now, if you say we are approving it- this new Library or expansion of the Library or whatever you are going to call it- and you say 15 million dollars and the bids come in 18 million. Lehman: You can't go with it. (?) You have 15 million dollars. Thornberry: Pardon me? (?): You only have 15 million dollars. Atkins: With a bond referendum, which is an authorization to spend, a limit- and you can tax accordingly to create. You cannot spend 15 million unless you want to use your own current cash or other resources. But the debt is an authorization for debt. Thornberry: Alright, so it passed by 61%- 65% or whatever, and it is 15 million dollars. Then you put it out for bid, is that not correct? Atkins: That is correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 39 Thomberry: The bids come in as 20 million. Lehman: You can't go with it. Thornberry: Now, you can build 15 million of it. Atkins: You would have to redo the project. (?): Remember the project or whatever has to go back up for another referendum ..... you could. Norton: No. Thornberry: I mean, what do you do7 You build- Atkins: What you do is you scale the project back to what your financing authorization permits you to do. Thomberry: Is this what would have happened last time if we- if the new library that is in there now, I mean the current Library? Atkins: I think that was during the estimate. (7): What happened last time was at the City Council ###. Lehman: They cut it back. Craig: They cut it back. The original project was estimated to be- oh, my memory is 4.6 or 4.8 million and the feeling was on Council's part that that was too much money and it was cut back before it ever got to the referendum state. So the amount on the referendum was- and then that was the maximum you could spend because that is what the referendum allowed. Lehman: Yep, okay. Yes. Thornberry: Make sure that your referending enough money to go- or more than you need. Atkins: One of the ironies of this whole process is that you have to spend so much money up front to put it together in the kind of estimates that are going to withstand. I mean, you have really got to nail it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 40 Craig: Architects and engineers and cost estimators cost a lot of money but you have to do it. (?): I know, we spent $60,000 for them. Champion: If we spend $500,000, they are well worth it. Lehman: Well, I think the point is that at this point we are going to ask the Library Board, the architects and the engineers because .... Atkins: So you understand that- so I understand- what you said to Susan and I is that you selected the Westward option. That is fine. And if I were put together the engineering and the architectural estimates [it'd be] in accordance with that decision? Thomberry: I guess so. Champion: Yes. Atkins: Alright. Thornberry: Unless there is a recount. Atkins: And then- (?): Do you incorporate architects fees in that estimate? Thornberry: Anybody want to rethink their vote? Kubby: No. But even though it is not my preference of the two I am really grateful to this group that they are willing to make a decision on one so that we can move forward and start to create some momentum and keep this moving. So, I think that is great. Lehman: Alright, we are going to take five minutes guys. Oakland Cemetery/Hickory Hill Park (all talking) Lehman: Madan? The next item is Oakland Cemetery/Hickory Hill Park and I guess we need to decide tonight if we wish to put something on the agenda for the January- is it the 18th Steve? I think we have got a number of options. One is to do nothing. One is to at least from the conversations This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS 120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 41 that I have heard Council had- one is to designate all of the land that currently isn't being used for cemetery and hasn't been graded to be designated park land. One would be to designate the 29 acres that does not have, and this is of the- Norton: Are you saying designate or dedicate Emie? Lehman: Either one, we can designate, dedicate- Norton: That makes a big difference. O'Donnell: It does make a difference. Lehman: No, whatever we want to do we can do. My personal preference would be that we have two resolutions. One would be that we dedicate the balance of the Gaulocher property- the 29 acres- be dedicated to park land. The second resolution would be that we dedicate the six acres included in the master plan for the cemetery that we agreed on 2 years ago- dedicate that, I don't care whether we dedicate it park land or dedicate it cemetery land- but make it two separate resolutions so we can talk the two separately. Champion: Okay. Norton: Why not just make it one and dedicate all 36 and be done with it? Lehman: We can do that, I think you will have unanimity on one of them and you may not have on the other one. I think it would be simpler to do it that way. I don't have any problem with doing it however we want to do it. O'Donnell: We should keep in mind that any Council at any time can go back and change this. Lehman: We all know that. O'Donnell: You know, this fire storm that got started- I just believe that it is totally inappropriate. Any Council at any time can change this like I said, this was simple- we all looked at a five page master cemetery plan 2 years ago and spent- do you know...$360,000 or something like that and it included 10 acres. It was point not to expand the cemetery anymore into the park and dedicate that land so there would be some permanency. You could establish paths and trails. I just really, you know, but it is- the fire storm is inappropriate. We can do this many different ways and still keep in mind that a council two years from now can change the decision we make tonight. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 42 Lehman: I think we all know that. Vanderhoef: What I would like to look at is to get these words dedicate and designate out of the picture. What is our intent for the next forty-sum years? When we know that we have with the phase one the space to take care of interments for forty to fifty years, whatever that number comes out to be. For me, whether you call it dedicated or designated my intent for all 36 now is to be using it for park land. And to go ahead and design trails and so forth in there. It doesn't matter to me which was you call it- I think leave it alone. Norton: I agree. Vanderhoef: Because, we have, like you say, we cannot change- it can be changed at any point in time. We do not know what the culture will be saying about interments in forty years. O'Donnell: Or in 4 years. Vanderhoef: Or whether they think it will be something that should- (?): So, you are saying do nothing? Norton: No, no. Vanderhoef: I am saying give Parks and Recreation an indication of our intent for them to move forward with their planning process and my intent is to use all 36 acres for park land. Lehman: Well, that is all the conversation that needs to take place on the 18th. What we are deciding tonight is what to put on the meeting of the 18th. Champion: Well, maybe, you know, if there are four people that feel strongly that the 36- 35 or whatever it is- acres should be dedicated to the park then we don't even need to have this big public hearing. My original feeling was that we would dedicate the 29 acres to Hickory Hill park and designate the 6 acres to be used for ##### cemetery possibly and to leave that up to the Council in 50 years. So, to me, ifI am willing to left that decision up to the future City Council in 4 years whether they should use that for cemetery or park land what difference does it make? I might as well be saying- I might as well make them make the decision of turning it to cemetery and I will make the decision to turn it to parkland. Because that is obviously what the public wants at this point. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 43 Kubby: You would be willing to dedicate 36 acres to park? Dilkes: I need to make a comment about dedication. I want to make sure that you are all clear. It can- the Iowa law is that a dedication to one public use can be changed to another public use but it is not without some risk that an adjacent property owner could make a claim that they relied on the permanence of that improvement in- the permanence of that public use- in making improvements to their properties. So, there is a difference between dedication and just deciding to continue to use it as a park. Norton: I want to get in here to and make sure that we have dedicated the 36. I have- when we asked the people to do the study there was no commitment on our part to accept what they came back and my feeling is that it would be getting into prime park land to go any further than what we have done already. Lehman: Do we have four? Do we have four people who want to put dedication of 36 acres on the agenda for January? Vanderhoef: Dedication? Lehman: Dedication. Okay, fine. Vanderhoef: If you are saying that- O'Donnell: But you just said- Vanderhoef: No, I am saying that for the next forty years let it be used and designed all as park. That is what I am saying. Because in forty years we have all of this time that we should be using that land as park. At that time then that Council will chose whether they need to expand or want to expand. O'Donnell: Do we want to designate it or dedicate it? Norton: Let me respond to that a minute Ernie because it seemed to me that we ought to express our opinion about this Dee very clearly and clearly something else can happen by dedicating it to park. Then if somebody is- has forty years to get organized for altematives to be considered- if they want to go Hickory Hill west which I proposed many years ago- Vanderhoef: Well, so did I. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 44 Norton: Then they could get started. They have forty years to work on it. But we are telling them that in our best judgement this better used for park and any other altemative. Period. And that way everybody knows where we stand and think we owe it to posterity to say where we stand on it. Kubby: And actually... Thornberry: Let me ask this. What is it now? What is it now? Lehman: Designated cemetery property, I believe. Norton: Designated to the park. Lehman: Eleanor, is this property we are talking about designated cemetery property? Dilkes: Which? Lehman: The Gaulocher property that was purchased for cemetery property. Is it designated or is it just kind of- Dilkes: It was purchased at the time and it seems clear for cemetery. There is no restriction on how you chose to use it. Lehman: Does it have a designation? It is just public? Dilkes: Designation- it is not dedicated either way. Lehman: Well, I know that. Dilkes: Designation, I think of, if sort of like how it currently being used. Lehman: Okay. Norton: I was on the park- chairman of the park board at the time this all happened when Hickory Hill was bought. What is actual park was bought and this property was sitting there. Tim Brandt was Mayor I think at the time and had been on the park commission with me earlier and at that point we went to the Council and said "will you designate this for park?" and they did not dedicate it but they designated that that whole property which has been used as park since then and right now we have taken four of it because out of deference of the Gaulocher wishes and the desperate need of the cemetery to get some expansion- that was what was figured getting the four acres. I think we ought to stop that and move along with 36 and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 45 let them know where we stand. And the future can take care of itself. They've got fifty years of use to get it straight. Champion: That is pretty valuable land for a cemetery. Vanderhoef: Well, and the other thing is when I hear you say this- when I first went on Council I put out the memo to everyone that I thought it was time that we start looking for a property on the west side. And that having the combination of some fragile lands for park land and adjacent kind of land for cemetery because I had been following this though Parks and Recreation for several years before it ever came to Council. And I still feel that and now I am finally heating 3 votes and I don't know whether there is a fourth one that would have us start looking toward the west...(change tape)...this makes a big difference. Lehman: Well, fight now we are talking about what to put on the agenda for the 18th' Norton: A resolution to dedicate 36 acres. Champion: They won't need more cemetery for 40 years anyway, why decide fight now where we are going to put the next cemetery. Maybe the City won't even be in the cemetery business in 40 years. Norton: Right. Lehman: Do we have four people who want to dedicate 36 acres? Champion: Yes. Lehman: One, two, three, Champion: I can't believe you don't want to do that. Vanderhoef: The dedication of that six until there is a park- Champion: Oh, come on. Kubby: That would be the motivator to make it happen. It is on the pending list. That would be the motivator to make it happen. Before 965 goes through is the time to purchase- Vanderhoef: I know, the time has been in the last 3 or 4 years to get that. I agree. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcfiption of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 46 Norton: Jump on board here. Kubby: To vote dedication and that will create some- Vanderhoef: Because I want it used for forty years and I want it planned into the parkland. Kubby: So if it is dedicated it creates the instigation to act on what is on our pending list to make that idea happen- the Hickory Hill west concept. It is a message to the community if we combine the two things. And your support for the resolution to dedicate 36 acres is also your commitment to help work with Hickory Hill west. Norton: Come on, Connie. (several talking) Norton: It only hurts for a little while. Vanderhoef: I want it used for park land yes. Champion: I don't want one more phone call. Vanderhoef: I have been talking about this for a lot longer than you have. Champion: Let's dedicate it and get on with our lives. It is good for the future. Lehman: Just because you say you want it put on the agenda doesn't mean that you have to vote for it. And we something to put on the agenda. Vanderhoef: My preference is the thirty and the six. If we are going to get into the technicality. What I would rather see is for us to just say that for the next forty years we want this used as park land. O'Donnell: That is what we are saying fight now. Lehman: Do we have- are there- how many people would like to dedicate the 29 acres for sure if we don't do anything else. Okay, we all agree. How many would like to designate the other 6 acres for park land? Designate rather than dedicate? Vanderhoef: Yeah. Champion: I don't want to. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 47 Lehman: How many want to designate it? That is two, that is three, that is four. Alright fine. We are going to have 2 resolutions. (?): Why not have it be park land? Lehman: We can discuss it and heaven knows where it is going to come down but on the meeting there will be one resolution to dedicate the 29 acres and a resolution to designate the other 6, okay? And then we will discuss it and we will probably dedicate the whole works. But that is where we are. Norton: If you've got that resolution on there those of us that want to dedicate all of that to vote against the other one. Lehman: No, you amend it. Norton: You've got the good at fighting the better here or something like that. Lehman: Eleanor, that can be amended very easily can it not? Dilkes: I think you should do two. Lehman: Thank you very much. Two of them, you've got it. Okay. Atkins: This will be the meeting of- Lehman: The 18th. Atkins: The 18th. We are all in agreement there? Lehman: Yes. Airport Runway 17/35. Karr: I am sorry, could I clarify one thing? Lehman: Please do. Karr: It is the meeting of the 18th regardless of any special meetings that may occur in between. Lehman: Okay. That is fine. Norton: I'd like to have it on a special and then I could vote. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 48 Atkins: (several talking) Lehman: This will be a new Council that will be voting. O'Donnell: That is good. Lehman: Okay. Airport Runway 17/35. Airport Runway 17/35 Lehman: Who has got it? There is a note in the packet from you, I think, representing Council's discussion. Atkins: Here is what I understood you wanted to have done. It is that after discussion with the Airport Commission you felt that 17/35 at some time in the future in accordance with the master plan. You asked that I draft some sort of document or memo as an expression of policy. That is what you have- it is a draft. And you all were going to decide whether that is the draft that you wanted to send off to the Airport Commission and those folks. Lehman: That is right. Atkins: That is what I am saying where we are fight now. Lehman: My understanding was we were going to draft the letter that was going to be approved by Council before it was signed and mailed. Is this represent what we..? Norton: I thought it did perfectly. Kubby: I guess I want to know, because there is some language in here about doing some minor adjustments and I am not quite sure what that means. Atkins: My understanding of what you had to say, and R0n can speak to that, is that 17/35 is going to be reasonably maintained to assure proper safety for aircraft using it. But at far as the investment of extending other runways and making all of those decisions of consequences #### the master plan- it is with the assumption that 17/35 will go away. Kubby: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 49 Norton: You meant that the first crack wasn't going to make it be closed. You would patch that- you wouldn't do anything very serious. Lehman: My understanding on the master plan is that this- Atkins: Ron is over here. Lehman: Ron, my understanding from the master plan is that they would allow 17/35 to be closed was only after the improvements were made to the other two runways. Is that correct? O'Neil: Yes. Lehman: Then it is also my understanding that during the interim period until that runway could be closed they would also participate in the maintenance of that runway because it would be required for the airport. O'Neil: No, not really. Lehman: What does not really mean? O'Neil: Nothing major. Anything- any regular routine maintenance on 17/35 is local at this point. Lehman: Always has been? O'Neil: Well, since the #~#. Norton: Is what? Is ours? O'Neil: Yes, that is correct. Norton: They are putting no money into 17/35 as of the master plan? O'Neil: In the early nineties they put about $400,000 into it. Lehman: But they tell us we have to keep it until the other two get done? O'Neil: That is what the master plan says. Lehman: That is what it says. We have got to keep it but they are not going to help maintain it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS 120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5o O'Neil: That is correct. Thomberry: Are you anticipating anything major as far as upkeep to that runway? O'Neil: Thornberry: Yes, I had to talk to him .... O'Neil: Oh. Urn, not really. The worst concrete on that runway is clear to the north and the north commercial- as that project goes forward that concrete is basically going to go away anyway. Thornberry: That is north of the- the is north of the displaced ###, fight? O'Neil: Yes. Lehman: Alright. So we are in agreement basically? Then Steve are we then going to draft a letter? Atkins: I will draft that memo in final form for your signatures to send to the Airport Commission as a representation of Council's policy. Champion: Good. Atkins: Champion: Great, thanks. Affordable Dream Home Opportunity Program Lehman: Affordable Dream Home Opportunity Program. (?): Doug. Lehman: Yeah, there he is. Thomberry: Can we vote for Maggie? (?): Is it going to be secret ballot? (several talking) Boothroy: What are you trying to say Dean? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 51 Thomberry: No. Just make sure he reads your notes properly, okay? Boothroy: What is it you said on this page? Well, Maggie and I have a proposal to continue the Affordable Dream Home Opportunity Program. And, if you will recall, we got your approval about a year ago to reinvest some of the tenant ownership funds from the sale of public housing to our tenants and we built townhouse units on the west side of Iowa City and sold them. To date, we have expanded home ownership opportunities to I think- is it 9 families or 107 10, tomorrow night will be the tenth family that we have given the opportunity to own their own home. I think that is- well, we are achieving our goal [from] where we started at. This particular proposal is a little bit different. Not only do we want to extend this program ADHOP but we also want to do it in a demonstration way to demonstrate green building which is a house that is going to be very energy efficient. It saves on certain types of materials like trees and in fact the house is a concrete house which has a wall with a R-value of around 50 which will reduce utility costs, heating and cooling, by about 50% for the occupant. So that has some real positive benefits for the people living in the house. But it also has positive benefits for the community because we can demonstrate a new technology, we can show that that technology can be used in a more affordable format. This house would be about 1300 square feet. And, we also want to do this on the Parade of Homes so that we can get the ADHOP program better known throughout the community. We can celebrate the idea of affordable home ownership, what the city is doing, what other people are doing, and, you know, move forward with it. One of the things that I wanted to show you tonight is, I mentioned in the memorandum, that it is a concrete house and I did bring a wall cross section so you sort of can envision this. These proportions aren't exactly correct but the way this thing is constructed is that the inside wall, which this would be the inside wall, would be 4 inches thick. There would be two inches of Styrofoam, and then there would be a 2 inch outer shell. And this particular outer shell can be formed to look like just about anything. It could be siding, it could be stone, it could be brick. Our proposal is stucco because that is the cheapest of- way of doing the exterior. It takes less work in terms of forming it up. And these panels then are made- they are pre-cast panels. They are brought to the site and just like a truss system they are erected into place and as I said, this wall is a R-50 value which is, generally speaking, in a single family house your R-value in the wall would probably be right around close to R-15 maybe. Something in that area, maybe R-20. So this will be about double what a normal stick built house would run. Maybe I am high on those numbers. Lehman: How much heat loss and cold is lost through walls as opposed to a roof or a ceiling? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 52 Boothroy: Well, most of it- I will pass that around- most of it goes- a lot of it goes up through the ceiling. Lehman: I know that so I guess my concern is how much, even though you increase the R-value dramatically in the inside walls- do you know what that, how this is reflected in economies of heating. Boothroy: They are saying that it reduces heating bills about 50%. Lehman: Well, when you lose- 90% of heat loss is through the ceiling how can you gauge this much going through walls. There must be substantially increased insulation in those ceilings as well. Boothroy: There will be about a R-40 to R-50 in the ceiling on this house. And I think that is- typically people get close to R-40 in the ceiling so the insulation is going to be beefed up a little bit. Lehman: And you told me this is pretty competitive price wise to what we are doing now? Boothroy: It is- we haven't got the bids. Lehman: But the guess is. Boothroy: But the guess is in talking to some people in the industry that it should come in fairly close. I am hoping that the square foot cost is going to be down around $90 or $92 a square foot. I am not sure about that until we get the bids on it. Norton: Have we done anything like this at all in town? Boothroy: I don't think- there- I don't know of any that are under construction in Iowa City. They have done some in Coralville. They have done two houses. There may be one under construction this spring but we haven't received a permit for it yet, so. I am not talking about the one that I am proposing either, at this time. The houses that I have- Norton: Boothroy: The houses that I have seen this used in are usually in a 250,000 to 300,000 plus range so this will time the application has been on a smaller scale like this which I think makes it an interesting project. I also- this is how the windows are framed in and when you look at this you will see the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Cotmcil Work Session Page 53 four inch wall here like we were talking. And then they put a 2 X 6 or something around the window so that you can nail the window in. And then the walls, when they are constructed in the factory what they do is they run conduit in the walls to meet code with regard to electrical outlets. You might be asking "Well, how do you hang a picture?". Basically, in the concrete wall you would have to, I would suggest, drill it. Or cement nail but I would drill it so you wouldn't have any breaking. And what they do in these houses then so that the wood frame construction for the interior wall and these walls match up is they use the same kind of look- it looks like an orange peel that matches and blends it together and you can't tell the difference. The only difference you would know is if you went to hit one you would notice the difference immediately. Thornberry: The money that- I mean, the City is not building these? Boothroy: There is no general fund money on these. Thornberry: No general fund money. The money that you are getting, that your department is getting to build these dream homes comes from- Boothroy: The sale of public housing. Thomberry: The sale of public housing. Boothroy: Right. Thornberry: Now- Boothroy: We sold seven houses. Tomorrow night you will have sold the seventh house. Thornberry: Yeah. Who is the general contractor? Boothroy: That is what the bidding process will determine. Thornberry: Who owned- we sell the house as soon as it is built? It is a dream home and it is sold to the people that- and we help them with the down payment and they go and get their loan and all of this stuff, I got that part down. Boothroy: And we end up owning no portion of the house. We do carry a second mortgage but we don't own anything as far as the house is concerned. Atkins: The bottom line Dean is that what we would like to do with this is when we sell ownership- we want to turn that cash into more and more This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 54 opportunities for folks. That is basically what we are doing. This is just a unique idea. Thornberry: I understand that part. I was also looking at the private contractor who is- Atkins: They will build it. Thornberry: I know, but who- I am just trying to get- are we in competition with home builders like Bill Frantz for example. Boothroy: No, we are not doing it- Thornberry: He is building- Boothroy: W are not doing the general contracting Dean, so that is why we are not in competition. Atkins: How about this question Doug- is there someone else out there in the private market willing to build these 1300 square homes? Norton: No. Atkins: And that is where we have to say- no, that is not happening. Lehman: But we hired the private market to build it. Boothroy: Exactly, all of the money- we take the money and we put it back in the private market. We hire based on the bids, we will hire a contractor, they will hire subs- it all goes directly... Thornberry: We sell this house and they make payments to- Boothroy: The bank. Thornberry: To the bank. Now, and this is not a profit making thing? Boothroy: No. Norton: That is why it can be done. Thornberry: I understand how it can be done I am just saying that apparently there is not profit in building this small house or the contractors would be doing it. Lehman: The contractor is making a profit from the bid. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 55 Thornberry: No, no. On their own. Norton: On their own we've said a long time that the private market is not doing the low affordable housing because there is not enough gold in it. Vanderhoef: Well, they did do some though that apparently have sold very well over on the west side and that is in that complex where we did three. So I think this is a... Boothroy: There is some being done but it is not widespread. I think that the other thing is that we make it possible for some family that can't get a down payment to move into a house. Thornberry: Doug, we could do that. We could give them the down payment on the sale of houses from tenant to ownership. We could give them the down payment and it would take a second. That is not- we are not building these houses just because the people can't get the down payment together to get an affordable home. Boothroy: No, I hear what you are saying. All I am saying is that- what I was trying to explain is when we step in with a second mortgage that it in effect becomes the enabling part of the- Thornberry: I understand that. Boothroy: I wasn't trying to make that other argument. Norton: He is trying to figure out where the difference comes. Lehman: How would this be different from: you put out a bid for this house, the city does, and Emie Lehman puts out the bid for the same house. What is the difference? Boothroy: The best bid gets it. Lehman: The best bid gets it, the contractor has, hopefully, his margin where he is going to make a little profit on the sale. Boothroy: Well, what this really does is- Lehman: What you are really asking us to do is to authorize you to build a different style of house? ...different sorts of materials. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 56 Boothroy: In this case, yes. Lehman: And we are reinvesting money that we are required to reinvest by HUD? Boothroy: That is really one of the neat things about it is that we are reinvesting the money back into the community. It creates jobs and opportunities for the private sector. Lehman: We are required to reinvest. Boothroy: And we are required to reinvest it as a result of the 20 units that we got in Whispering Meadows. We have an obligation to sell 20 houses and we have been doing that. We have sold 7 as you know and we will continue to sell those and that money all came from the federal government originally. It was given to us as a grant and we are taking that money and reinvesting it again back into the community because at the time that we built the 20 or the 33 houses we took about 3.5 million dollars and spent it within the community to build those 33 houses, hired Frantz ###### to do them. Now we have sold it again and we've made some home ownership opportunities available and we are reinvesting it and turning it over and reinvesting it and buying some more goods and services. Thornberry: Making home owner opportunities- it can be done in a number of ways. Boothroy: Yeah, this is just one way. Thomberry: This is just one way and I didn't want the City to be in the home building and home ownership venue. I just don't think that that is the purview of government. I think the less govemment the better. Norton: That assumes the private circuit or the private market would take care of things and they have not. Vanderhoef: And I think this is a wonderful opportunity. I am delighted that you are going to try this concrete building material for this house but what I would like to see is- this is sort of a demonstration house for the City and our contractors are not necessarily real familiar with it. And if there were some way that we could get ongoing information about the cost savings in the utilities and so forth on this it would be very, very helpful in proceeding to do maybe more because if we are putting a low income or an 80% and below family in there and you have a family of four and you have a lot of utilities and you need to keep it warmer or whatever- their monthly outlay for utilities being lower could be a real plus. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 57 (several talking) Vanderhoef: It makes a big difference and over the long haul- Boothroy: We can do that Dee because I think that, you know, the fact that we are putting money into it ourselves in terms of that second mortgage I think we could put some conditions on it in terms of trying to monitor things like that. I think that is a good idea to see just how that works. Vanderhoef: And possibly- Boothroy: For a period of time. For one winter or something. Vanderhoef: -a viewing of that house. I- when we have got one built like this I would like to show it off to the community before people get moved into it and so forth. Boothroy: Well, they can't move into it- Lehman: Is it going to be part of the Parade? Boothroy: If it is on the parade they can't move into it before the Parade. So it will be- O'Donnell: I think, folks, it is a win-win situation. It is a no-brainer when... Norton: Go for it. O'Donnell: Providing housing. Go ahead. Kubby: I didn't want us to move on. Did we look at using ##### or is that real expensive? Boothroy: What is #####? Kubby: ###### is that, kind of the more 90's version of straw bale technology that is made in Ottumwa. Boothroy: I have seen that. Kubby: That Plumbers Supply and there is a home on Dearborn- it is supposed to have the same high R value and it is a local material- a regional material. Boothroy: Can we do that on our next home? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 58 Kubby: Well, I would like you to look at it because it there was a change in the Board of Appeals to use that as an alternative material. We can go back to those two places to- because it is supposed to be really easy and fast to put up. It is regionally made in Ottumwa, Iowa. If they are still going. I haven't really- there is a lot of homes in Fairfield, Iowa that are built on #####. And we have a commercial- a large building and we have a residential structure built with that. To find out- is it performing? There is more- a larger record in our community of performance. Norton: What is the larger building? Kubby: Plumber's Supply. And I could you the name of the residential. Lehman: They built a building in that? Boothroy: Part of it. Champion: A straw building. Lehman: Really? Kubby: Yeah, that whole building is made out of#####, which is basically like straw and concrete. It is still- it is concrete. Lehman: I didn't realize that. Norton: .... trouble with building codes. Lehman: Do the mice bug it? Boothroy: This is rodent free. They won't eat through the concrete. Kubby: It is breathable but high R factor. Lehman: I think you got a "go" on this. Champion: Yes, go! Boothroy: Okay, good. Lehman: Thank you Doug. Champion: Thanks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 59 Boothroy: Thank you. Board of Appeals Lehman: On Board of Appeals we don't have any applicants unless there is one I don't know about. Norton: Are we beating the bushes appropriately? Vanderhoef: I am sorry. Could I ask one more question? Lehman: Sure. Vanderhoef: In this neighborhood where this being built had the neighbors been informed about it so that they know that the value of this house is of equal value to other things in the community? Boothroy: I talked to- and I can't think of his first name now, uh, Wolfe- who was at the HCDC meeting. I talked to him about a week and a half ago about this and explained what we are doing and described it for him and stuff like that and invited him to meet with me anytime. He basically told me that, I mean, he was very optimistic about it. He was very positive. I didn't have- the roof pitch, double car garage, this particular house model is a Bill Frantz model. Lehman: Now the garages aren't going to be the front is it? Boothroy: Well, the lot- the house is forty feet wide so 18 feet of is going to be garage. But it is almost flat across the front now. I moved the garage back and pulled the front of the house out so there is only a slight offset at this point. It is less than 2 feet. And so it is got gable ends on the end of it and stuff like that. But it is a house that Bill has used in the past. I discussed it with him and he gave me his approval to go ahead and use it and I have made some modification on the interior of it but- and exterior. So it should fit in well. Vanderhoef: Just so they know. Boothroy: But we may still be meeting. He was supposed to call me back and he hasn't got back yet. (several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 60 Council Time Lehman: Does anybody have anything for Council time before Connie and Mike leave? There is something I gave you Dee. Norton: I understand. Lehman: And Dee is going to consider this. The governor is putting together a- I suppose it is called task force- Iowa Earth 2000 Ambassadors. I gave the information to Mr. Norton. We are to appoint two people for this group that is going to meet on January 21st. I think it is in Des Moines but I'd have to check for sure. It really is a neat thing and we are talking about the environment and I would certainly recommend that Mr. Norton if he finds the time to do this would be one of the two people that we would appoint. We need to appoint two people to this. Norton: Well, I was going to get some other names together of people that are interested perhaps. (several talking) Norton: Because there are a lot of people that are interested in this thing. Should I let people see a copy of it so they- Kubby: I mean, if Council is the body whose is appointing why don't we put it out for the public so that members of the public- Lehman: We can except that that appointment has got to be made in 13 days. O'Donnell: We have to get somebody that Dee can get along with, too. Kubby: Say your idea again. Champion: I think you ought to consider asking somebody from Environmental Advocates. Norton: That was what I was thinking too. That we would look for somebody like that. O'Donnell: Kubby: There is a lot of people.. Champion: There is a lot of really good people. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 61 Norton: There are a lot of people in there I understand. Lehman: Well, there is a lot of people I think that have significant interest in the environment. A lot more than there used to be. Norton: Representative of the people ~##, that is why I would like to think that to make sure that we get them on there if we can. Champion: Why don't you come up with a couple of names? Norton: Why don't we come up with some names? Kubby: I will write a couple down. Lehman: Okay. Norton: Otherwise I have a few things that I guess I will hold off on most of them but I wanted to remind us to take a look at that sidewalk. Are we going to get a briefing on the sidewalk program sometime? We haven't heard about it for a while. Well no,no. Just remind me that we have a program don't we to work on the sidewalks area by area. Atkins: Yes, we do an area each year. Lehman: We are doing that. Norton: Then we are proceeding on that. Atkins: That has not changed with anything. Norton: Okay, good. It is kind of highlighted today. Atkins: I will give you that update. Norton: Alright. And when do we get the South District Plan? Champion: You will be long gone. Norton: That is right. I will be gone. I don't have to worry. Vanderhoef: He doesn't have to care. Norton: I don't have to care anymore. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS 120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 62 Lehman: They deferred it didn't they? O'Donnell: I think Planning and Zoning just deferred- I am pretty sure they did. We will be getting that. I will send you a copy Dee. Kubby: You can go to the ##~##. Lehman: Anything else tonight? Karen? Kubby: I have nothing tonight. Lehman: Dee? Okay. I will be going to Ankeny tomorrow. Norton: Are you flying? Lehman: Yes, we are going to Ankeny to bid on an air show. Apparently one of the- it is kind of a premiere to show Iowa City along with two other cities. We are going up tomorrow morning and hopefully if we are successful Wendy Ford from the Commission of Tourism Bureau is going along. Oh here it is. I will read all about it and I hope we are successful. It could mean- I think they want room for 10 or 50 airplanes. That is a lot of people coming to Iowa City next summer. Thornberry: And it is for the home-built planes. You know the little- (?) The experimental planes. Thornberry: ..are huge but some of them are real small. Some of them are real big- that is a big... Norton: Somewhere I read, I find the reference, that that is going to be coming- giving all the congestion on the highways that these small planes are going to be the coming thing. I thought, boy, we got our airport ready just in time. Thomb erry: Well, they wanted to come here several years ago- well, quite a few years ago- but the then owner and operator of the flight service declined to have them and not that there is a change there they would really like to have them. And I tell you what, the tourism- it would be unbelievable. Norton: Will our buildings be all ready? Lehman: Oh, yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 63 Norton: To show them off?. Lehman: Yeah, it should be ready. I went through there today as a matter-of-fact. It is coming fight along. If anybody has an opportunity to go down to the airport terminal building they are in their final stages of that thing. They don't have carpet on the floor or- but go through there, it is coming along. Kubby: Looks great. Thornberry: It looks pretty nice. O'Donnell: One thing. I had two calls on Hickory Hill about dogs. Thornberry: Is that all? O'Donnell: But one person was walking on the path a dog actually knocked her down. So if we need to get a sign up there- because dogs need to be on a leash. Lehman: Dogs can't read. Thornberry: To go along with that I think at one point, at one time or another, I think that the Council ought to look at a dog park somewhere. Kubby: There is huge support for that. O'Donnell: I agree Dean but people walk the paths and this one lady told me she had this huge boxer come at her and knock her down. Thornberry: I know but there are dog parks around that have- for large dogs and small dogs and they can through Frisbees and they can interact with each other. These are dog parks. Norton: A perfect place is the Peninsula. They can't run at you because they would run in the river. Lehman: No, they would hit deer. Norton: But, right down on the lower level- O'Donnell: I just think it is something to look at. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699 December 6, 1999 Council Work Session Page 64 Thornberry: Many cities have them. Denver has four. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 6, 1999. WS120699