Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-07 Transcription Page 1 ITEM NO. 2 OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS- LONGFELLOW ELEMENTARY Lehman: If Caitlin, Jody and Samantha would come forward please. We do this about every Council Meeting and, you know, I forget sometimes to tell folks what this is all about. The Iowa City Council now, for some time, has recognized the importance of citizenship in the community. At each Council meeting we try to recognize outstanding citizen- outstanding student citizens- from our various grade schools. And this is really one of the most important parts of our meeting and we are very, very proud of these young people. So I would like you to give us your name and tell us why you have been nominated. Caitlin Juetten: My name is Caitlin and I have been nominated by my classroom. And I have a speech to give. Dear City Council members, I believe that volunteering and participating in school and out of school activities is important because it enriches our society and helps the community too. Some of the things that I have done that make me a good citizen are that I am in the Young Footlighters, a drama group, I play viola in the Eastside Elementary Orchestra, I volunteer at the animal shelter, and recycle everything possible. I volunteer for the school camival every year, I am a member of safety patrol, student council, and I animal sit for my neighbors. I am a good student and I participate in our school's Feed The Children can drive. I was in Gift Scouts for quite a few years and I attend Summer Enrichment programs. Doing these things makes me feel happy because I am doing something for humanity, and also sad, especially when volunteering at the animal shelter. These things make me feel like I am doing something for our society- improving it. I would like to thank my family, teachers and peers for making it possible for me to be a good citizen. I would also like to thank the City Council for recognizing these efforts in Iowa City youth. Thank you. Lehman: I am especially impressed with the animal shelter. That is where we got Peaches. That is our new dog and she is a peach. Jody Olsen: Hi, my name is Jody Olsen and I was nominated by my class. When my teacher asked our class to make a list of things we do to be involved in our community I made this list. I help recycle, I sing in the Trinity Episcopal Church Children's Choir, I attend Sunday School, I am on the student council at Longfellow Elementary, I perform my violin and piano for things like the Festival of Trees. I also sing each year at the Festival of Trees. I (can't hear) at Trinity Episcopal Church and substitute for (can't hear) that can't come. I usher at Trinity Episcopal Church. I help two people in my sixth grade class who don't know English very well. I helped my mother assist a woman with brain problems for a period of time. I raised the most amount of money at Longfellow Elementary for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #2 Page 2 the American Heart Association in the 1998-1999 school year for Jump Rope for Heart. I went with a group of kids to a park and picked up litter. I played a piano piece at a nursing home with my grandfather. I was a pen pal with a SCI child at school. I volunteered at the free lunch program and helped clear tables and mop the floor. I helped at a day care. I took an American Red Cross babysitting course. I baby-sit my little sister regularly. I helped different people clean things like their cars, houses and rooms. I try to be a good role model. I participated in Girl Scouts for several years. At school I volunteer to do small things like clean the bookshelves and toys. I participated in fund raising for my swim team the Iowa City Eels. I was chosen to teach my class mates about a certain program on the computer. I think that it is important to volunteer because it is a way to share my happiness, to do things for others, and to prevent selfishness. It is a way to take care of our planet. Recycling and litter cleaning preserves resources, nature and our health. It is a way to make the world more interesting. Being involved in music and sports adds to the beauty and fun in my life and others. Volunteering helps me understand my community better. Lehman: You made me tired with all that and we just started the meeting. Samantha Sidwell: Hi, my name is Samantha Sidwell and my class nominated me for the Citizenship Award. During the years of my life I have done lots of things. I try as hard as I can to raise money for Jump Rope for Heart. I work my hardest to get donations and give donations to child labor. I realize how hard it must be to get separated from your families. I adopted some cats and dogs that were just about to get put to sleep. I love children so I baby-sit too. I help children cross the busy streets while wearing a safety patrol belt. I have raised money for child labor by doing a bake sale. I like to help and volunteer. Lehman: We have a certificate for each of you. I am going to read one of them. Citizenship Award-For outstanding qualities of leadership within Longfellow Elementary as well as the community, and for her sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others we recognize these young ladies as outstanding student citizens. Your community is proud of you. Presented by the Iowa City, City Council. Caitlin, Jody, and Samantha- let's hear it for those folks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #3 Page 3 ITEM NO. 3 MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS Lehman: The next item on the agenda is a proclamation. There is no one here to receive that proclamation. There is no one here to receive that proclamation but it is proclaiming Barbershop Harmony Month for April 2000. And then there is something that isn't on the agenda that I would like to bring up right now. You know, we have I think in excess of 500 employees. Is that correct Steve? Atkins: Yes. Lehman: And we have got probably some of the best employees anywhere. And I think as a Council we are very, very proud of our people. And occasionally some of our employees become super outstanding employees and receive recognition that I think the community needs to know about. And so tonight I don't have a proclamation but I am going to read a letter that was written to our City Clerk from Mary Lou Rand who is the president of the International Institute of Municipal Clerks. They have an organization that is a professional organization. "Dear Marian, On behalf of the IIMC Board of Directors I am honored to inform you that you are the 8th municipal clerk in the state of Iowa to achieve the Master Municipal Clerk Designation. You are to be congratulated on this very special milestone for you and IIMC. An active member oflIMC since March 1980, you have accomplished all that is excellent about our profession through your professional efforts to learn and grow, and your perseverance and dedication to quality performance, and in your service to the community and your professional colleagues. The prestigious Master of Municipal Clerks pin and certificate will be mailed to her in about 3 weeks." Too bad we don't have it tonight. "You join only 76 other municipal clerks", that is in the entire country ,"who have earned the MMC designation. I know I speak for the entire IIMC family in expressing our sincere pride in your accomplishments and in knowing you as our colleague and friend. We praise you and your commitment to regular life long learning and to improving your professional performance for the public good. Congratulations Marian". And I am sure that is from the entire Council and from (can't hear). Karr: If I could just have some job security we could continue on with the meeting. Lehman: Don't let it go to your head. I don't think anybody probably appreciates the efforts of the City Clerk any more than the Council because, you know, we all have other activities to take care of and Marian certainly is a tremendous benefit to all of us. So, from all of us Marjan, congratulations. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #4 Page 4 ITEM NO. 4. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Vanderhoef: Move adoption. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: I had a couple of points Emie, I wanted to bring up. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: One of the letters that we received in our packets which is part of the consent calendar, the correspondence, was a letter from Iowa City Resident Judy Miner. She talked about car free day in Bogota, Columbia. And that was done there in support of a cleaner environment. And she suggested that Iowa City perhaps consider doing something similar to that. And I like that idea and in the future maybe that is something that we could talk about as a Council, the idea of a car free day. Promoting a car free day. The mayor that she cited said it went over great in Bogota. The other item that I wanted to mention was from the minutes of the Public Arts Advisory Committee. I just wanted to let folks know that the committee has been discussing for a number of months purchases of art pieces for Iowa City with our $100,000 budget- the yearly budget that is allocated for purchases. And they are narrowing down the field for five pieces in the art in the Ped Mall- five sculptures. And they are also considering artists for our literary walk on the renovated Iowa Avenue. So it is pretty exciting and if you are interested in who they are picking contact one of the commission members. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #5 Page 5 ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). [UNTIL 8 PM]. Lehman: This is time reserved on the Council for discussion relative to items that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council please step to the podium, sign your name, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Dan Coleman: Hi, my name is Dan Coleman. I will be brief. I just wanted to- it came to my attention since last week's public heating on the budget that I didn't properly identify myself. And I wanted to correct that because it has been stated in the newspapers and elsewhere that opponents of the Hickory- of the First Avenue Extension- are NIMBYs. And I want to make sure you all know that I live on Bloomington Street and daily I have to deal with the cut through traffic that speeds down what is supposed to be a neighborhood street. And we have been told by the City Staff that if the extension goes through- Lehman: Dan, if you are going to discuss the extension that comes under budget because that is part of the budget discussion. Coleman: Well I am just clarifying that I am not a NIMBY. Lehman: That is fine but you are doing it in discussing the First Avenue extension. Now, identifying yourself as a speaker last week is fine and we are going to be discussing budget. And you are certainly welcome to speak at that time because I am sure that there will be others that will do it as well. Coleman: Okay. I am almost done but if you would rather I finish then I can come back. Lehman: Okay. Coleman: What is your pleasure? Lehman: Finish your- I am sure you are about through. Coleman: Okay. Right, so my point is that my reason for opposing the extension is because I think it is the best thing for the city even though it may be against my own self interests. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #5 Page 6 Jerry Feick: Jerry Feick, Coralville. Is it the Mayor 's preference to discuss the elderly service item that is in your packet on my allegations that they continually commit tax fraud and their funding should be shut off?. Lehman: Where is that? Feick: Do you want to discuss that with the budget? It is a hand written note. Do you want to discuss that with the budget items or at this time? Lehman: Is that a budget item? Feick: Well, you fund them in part. Lehman: Then it would be part of the budget. Feick: I will wait until that time. Lehman: Okay. Louise Young:My name is Louise Young and I am proposing a resolution that we have agreed on at the Johnson County Coalition for People with Disabilities. (reads letter) And I do have copies to pass to people. Lehman: Okay. Champion: Thank you. Young: Our concern- we were made very much aware of this when the kiosks in fact were installed and it was found that they were not accessible to people using wheel chairs. And we feel that the way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is two things: don't install them until the measurements have been checked to make sure that they are according to specification and the other thing just as important [is] make sure that people with disabilities are advising you about what really is accessible. Because it is people with disabilities who have the best knowledge of what ways those disabilities get in the way and what are the ways to get around them. Lehman: We found out about that really the same time you did. We were under the impression that those were accessible. So- and they were supposed to have been. I understand what you are saying and I appreciate what you said but we also- Young: Yeah, I understand too that it was- you thought they were too and- Lehman: Absolutely. And they are being corrected. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Meeting of March 7, 2000. #5 Page 7 Young: Good. Lehman: Okay. Young: I would say let's prevent it though by having that committee of people with disabilities that can advise. Lehman: Okay, thank you. Kanner: Louise? Young: Yes? Kanner: I've got a question for you. Are you having a workshop or did you have that already for businesses? Young: We are sponsoring. We are putting on a forum for downtown businesses. It is meeting at the Iowa Memorial Union in the South Room on March 20 between 10:00 and 12:00. And we will also be able to arrange to have tours of different places by request and if our keynote speaker is able to conduct them to help people get some first hand advice on how to modify their businesses so they are more accessible. Kanner: Did you give a telephone number to call for more information? Young: Yes, our chairman is Marilyn Bellman and her number is 338-3946. Kanner: Thanks. O'Donnell: I serve on the SEATS advisory committee with Marilyn and I am sure we will be talking about this. But it is a good idea. Young: Thank you very much. Karr: Could we have a motion to accept correspondence? Wilburn: So moved. Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? All: Aye. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #5 Page 8 Lehman: Opposed? Motion carries. Other public discussion on items that do not appear on the agenda? Hearing none we will proceed to planning and zoning matters. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6c Page 9 ITEM NO. 6c. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-8) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO FOSTER ROAD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 FOSTER ROAD. (REZ99-0016) a.) Public Hearing Lehman: This is a continuation of a public hearing from February 1. Public hearing is open. Lillian Lyons Davis: (can't hear) the public hearing regarding the application for the conditional zoning application? I am Lillian Lyons Davis and I represent H & O, LC. Our firm has worked with the City Staff to prepare an mended rezoning application which reflects the consensus that the driveway be taken out on the happening of either two conditions. One is that when the Louis' move away from that house. The other is when the traffic counts on Foster Avenue are the collector street category levels or when an additional 250 occupancy permits are issued for the area west of the driveway. And that is not limited to the Peninsula area which was discussed previously but it is just west of the driveway in that area. We anticipate that the city will require an escrow agreement and we are negotiating the specific terms of that with the city right now. We would like to express our appreciation for the cooperation in coming to this agreement which meets the needs of all the parties. b.) First Consideration Lehman: Thank you. Any one else wish to speak at the hearing? The public hearing is closed for the purposes of information. I will just briefly go to give a brief history of this. This area was rezoned a little over a year ago with an agreement from the property owner, in this case Mr. Louis, that access to Foster Road would be discontinued upon the construction of a new street. Since then it has come to the attention of Mr. Louis and I guess to the City that that access represents some inconvenience that has fallen on, I think, somewhat sensitive ears. Now, this was denied by Planning and Zoning. Planning and Zoning Commission ruled that they would need to abide by the agreement that was originally signed and that was by a 3-4 vote. We met with the Planning and Zoning Commission last night because if this Council chooses not to agree with Planning and Zoning and there is a possibility of that, our ordinances require that we have that meeting. Basically the Council, I believe, has three options. We can require that the access be discontinued as was agreed to in the original agreement over a year ago. We can agree to allow, as the attorney indicated, to use that access for as long as he owns the property. Or the third option which is the last one developed is that that access would be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6c Page 10 discontinued upon traffic reaching a certain level that which would have been required by an arterial street and that an amount of money be put in escrow sufficient to build the secondary access when that occurs. So discussion from Council. Champion: Well, I will move adoption of the third- of the third consideration. O'Donnell: I will second that. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell that he be allowed to use that until the traffic on the street dictates that the driveway needs to be discontinued and that an amount of money be placed in escrow sufficient to build the secondary access. Discussion? Pfab: I have a question. What is the criteria for deciding that it is time to do something different? Lehman: We have all that in the packet and it is based on traffic count on the road. And that has been- that has been transposed into number of building units. And I believe the number of building units that would generate the kind of traffic that would require that to be discontinued is in the neighborhood of 250 units. Pfab: I would oppose that way of counting. I would say why don't we count cars because it is car safety. It is not relevant how many people live any place. And if it is for a safety issue it is the number of vehicles that should be on it. Vehicles are easy to count. Lehman: I think that it is also easy to do it by a resident- Franklin: If I could address that please? Lehman: Would you please? Franklin: We talked about that in terms of just using traffic counts. Traffic counts one can dispute depending upon what time of day you are taking that particular count. And so rather than leave ourselves in a rather ambiguous position what we did is take the number of cars that we use as a threshold for collector streets, which is 2500 cars, at 7 trips per day which is an average for single family dwellings. That equated to a certain number of dwelling units. I believe it was 357 or something like that. We took that then and subtracted the existing dwelling units which are west of the Louis property and came up with the 250 additional units that could be constructed that would generate the amount of traffic that would bring it to that collector standard. And that is the point at which we are saying the traffic has reached a point that the driveway becomes an impediment to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6c Page 11 the full capacity of that road. But it has to do with the ambiguity of the traffic counts, Irvin, because you can debate how many cars are going by at a certain time of day. Unless, you all agree that it is going to be counted at x time, in this kind of weather, and when these activities are or are not going on. But if you have the dwelling units and you have a standard, which is a standard that is used in traffic engineering and traffic planning that is an accepted standard~ we felt that was the more reasonable way and less debatable way to go. ~ Pfab: I object to that because of the fact this is an area where there is going to be a considerable amount of new construction. And that will demand an awful lot of traffic. And if this is a safety issue, fine. If it isn't, then why do we go through the exercise? I think that you are looking at something- if you are adding 300 units how long is it going to take to get 300 units out there? Or 250 or whatever it is? Five years, ten years? Lehman: Could be. Franklin: It could be. Pfab: So, you know, I think is a motion- it is an exercise in nothing. An exercise for exercise's sake. O'Donnell: I disagree. I- Champion: Karin, I need to have you just clarify one thing. O'Donnell: I will finish later. Champion: Sorry. O'Donnell: Go ahead. Champion: But she was leaving. I wanted to catch her before she left. O'Donnell: No, go ahead. Champion: Like, if there is an apartment complex each apartment would be counted as a dwelling unit? Is that correct? Franklin: A dwelling unit, uh-huh. Lehman: Right. Champion: Thank you. I am sorry Mike. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6c Page 12 O'Donnell: No, you were fine. I was probably out of line there. I think this is a much more equitable way to do it. You can have a golf tournament- and you said it exactly right Karin. When are we going to count the cars and how many golf tournaments are we going to have? How many parties are we going to have? I am going to support this because I think it is the only way to do it. Lehman: Karin, I have just one question for you as well. I guess I would hate to surmise but I am going to surmise. I would surmise that the amount of traffic that is generated by construction activity in that area of building new homes and whatever probably is not nearly as much as that that would be created by people who live there. Franklin: It is a different kind of traffic that is generated. I mean, I am not going to say for a moment that it is not going to generate some traffic but it is a different sort. Lehman: Obviously it will some. Okay. Other-? Vanderhoef: Yes. Karin, I believe I understood the attorney for Mr. Louis to say that they recognize that this is all of the traffic- or the housing units west of- Franklin: Right. Vanderhoef: And a driveway. Franklin: (can't hear) we were able to make those changes in the agreements to get the necessary signatures and all that. Vanderhoef: Oh you did? Franklin: Yes. Vanderhoef: Good, thank you. Franklin: So, it magically came together quickly. Vanderhoef: Fantastic, thank you. Lehman: Steven? Kanner: Irvin, maybe a possible compromise that I would offer is the actual amount of units that was presented that would reach 2500 vehicles, trips per day, was 243 units. Occupancy permit units. And it was rounded up to 250. So just to be on the safe side perhaps we could say we want it at This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6c Page 13 200 or 225. And so that way the time would be even less and even less traffic. I think that is something that might get to your issue there. Franklin: Could I just point out that changes in the conditional zoning agreement at this point will require an amended agreement and acquiring those four signatures. Again, we would need to defer this if you are going to make changes to the agreement tonight. Lehman: Karin, the number that we have received from Staff has been arrived at- I mean this has been calculated as scientific- Franklin: It is calculation- I think it is a reasonable calculation based on standards that we have. And it is a number that the applicants have agreed to, we have agreed to. Wilburn: It is a more finite definition less open to interpretation as a traffic count (can't hear)? Franklin: We believe so, yes. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: Karin, why was is rounded up from 243 instead of down to 240? O'Donnell: Arbitrarily and capriciously. Franklin: Yeah, arbitrarily and capriciously. No, attorneys don't like that. Just- it just was. Lehman: I can't imagine that seven units one way or the other is a big difference. Franklin: Yeah, 7 units. Okay, that is 49 cars a day. O'Donnell: (can't hear). Lehman: Other discussion? Lillian Lyons Davis: Could I just add that right now his drive, Mr. Louis's driveway, is closed. And so movement forward on this issue would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. First reading carries 6-1, Pfab voting "no". Dilkes: Mr. Mayor, you should close the public hearing. Lehman: I did that before I started discussion. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6c Page 14 Dilkes: Did you do that? Okay. Lehman: Even though we kept talking it was closed. O'Donnell: It is closed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6d Page 15 ITEM NO. 6d.) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-1) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-l) FOR 2.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FIRST AVENUE AT TUDOR DRIVE. (REZ99-0015) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. And before we start the discussion I would just like to point out this was a proposal that has been denied by Planning and Zoning. We passed the first reading knowing that we were meeting with Planning and Zoning. We had that meeting last night. The Planning and Zoning Commission, and please correct me Council if I misinterpret this, but my understanding of the Planning and Zoning conclusion was that applying the standards for a CN-1 zone, which the property was zoned for, this property would not comply and on that basis they denied the request. The discussion here I think is going to be whether or not it is an appropriate thing to- and that is the request- to change it from a CN-1 to a CO-1 which would allow the development to occur that has been requested. So, discussion? Champion: Well I think we should point out that- that this might, Dee Vanderhoef brought up a good point- that it might open up- what am I going to say- a new zone that would mean review zoning. That we may want to talk about a different zone so these kind of businesses can fit into our neighborhood commercial zones. And I think that is a real good thing to do as soon as possible. I like that idea. O'Donnell: And I agree. CN-1 zoning and CO-1 zoning I understand are very, very similar. I am going to support the project. It has been blessed by- many people have contacted me from the neighborhood and I think Mercy hospital has done a wonderful job trying to fit it into the neighborhood. So I will support it. Vanderhoef: Thank you for supporting this idea of investigating the zoning. I had an opportunity to talk to the Director to Planning and Zoning this afternoon and shortly they will be undertaking a full review of the zoning ordinances in its entirety for the City. And she said that if Council would so chose we could direct them to do the commercial zoning first so that we could get this taken care of sooner rather than later. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6d Page 16 Wilburn: I think that would be important to do. Vanderhoef: Thank you. Lehman: When you mean "this" are you talking about this- are you talking about this project? Champion: No. Lehman: Or this issue? Wilbum: No. Lehman: This issue? O'Donnell: Zoning in general. Lehman: Other discussion? Steven? Kanner: Yeah, I would just like to let folks know that the original vote was 7-0 against. And when talking to the Planning and Zoning members one person at the meeting yesterday- one commissioner said that she would have voted the other way with the new information. So it was still 6-1 against. I think that the issue they presented was perhaps a little bigger than the way you presented it Ernie. I think they talked about needing to give this zone a chance. And I think that was a big part of their decision also. And the regional nature that often accompanies larger than the permitted square footage, which is a 2400 square feet- and to me those are important points of why we should not approve this appeal. And that we should support the Planning and Zoning position. Lehman: Other discussion? I will support this because I believe that this is- we had in the case of this particular piece of property, and I don't really care who made the application- it just seems to me that the CN-1 was not the correct zone for this area, that the CO zone would have been the correct zone. And if it had been zoned CO then this would have been an appropriate use. So I will support it. Roll call. Second consideration carries 6-1, Kanner voting "no". This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6f Page 17 ITEM NO. 6f. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT AND INCORPORATE THE SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 218, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF THE IOWA RIVER. Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Kanner: I guess I have a problem with the proposed road south of the airport. In the Comprehensive Plan the issue isn't necessarily traffic amount. It talks about that the current roads are adequate for future traffic increases. And so it is a matter of development and I think we need to be more creative in how we present our plans in what could happen there instead of adding more roads and envisioning more traffic there and only one sort of business there. I think we ought to look at other things and think about can we preserve farmland? Can we preserve- there is open space that is preserved. So I just have some problems. That is the main thing, I would say, I would have some problems with. Lehman: Your objection is to putting a road across the area? In other words, without the road there can be no development. So you are saying is that- Kanner: There is development there now in a different sense. There is housing there. There is- the airport is there. There are businesses on the northern end and we are going to be building another road just south of the northern edge road. Lehman: Which road are you objecting to? Kanner: The southern- the one on the southern part of the airport. South of the airport. Lehman: The one that we haven't decided the alignment on? Kanner: Right. O'Donnell: That is that CN-? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6f Page 18 Lehman: Yeah, but without that road there can be no further development in that area. Kanner: Right. I am saying that we ought to look at development in a different sense. Because we put a road in that pushes us in a certain direction of saying that the only way we could have development is to build roads. I am saying there is other types of development. We can think in different terms. We can think in terms of agricultural development. We can think in terms of recreational development. We can think in terms of residential development. Lehman: How could you do residential development without access with roads? Kanner: Well there is residential there. Lehman: I realize that but- Kanner: And we can say how can we improve that? And maybe there are possibilities of roads that can go in there but to have a road that goes all the way across that district and then going- planning in the future to go across the river, I think there is great expense in that. And I don't know if it is worth it for us as a City to have development in that direction. To think of that big road that is going to go across wetlands and woodlands and the river eventually. And that is why I think I would like to see a different direction in the district plan. Lehman: Other discussion? No my understanding ifI am correct and a staff person may correct me if I am wrong, but the location of that road is kind of a floating location. We have just said this is a approximately where we would like to locate that road. It is not defined. It is not placed in any particular spot but it is in a range of locations which would obviously be discussed at whatever time development would start to occur. Is that correct? Davidson: There are three altemative aligrm~ents identified in the plan. All are acceptable with respect to our design standards. In other words, they are good options. And basically the plan leaves it to a future City Council that would wish to actually construct the road to decide which of those or a variation of them is acceptable. Lehman: Right. Okay. Roll call. Motion carries 6-1 Kanner voting "no". Karr: Do we have a motion to accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: So moved. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #6f Page 19 O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to accept correspondence. All in favor? All: Aye. Lehman: Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #7 Page 20 ITEM NO. 7. THE FILING OF THE CONSOLIDATED TRANSIT FUNDING APPLICATION WITH THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FY2001 IOWA DOT STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE AND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FUNDING. b.) Consider a resolution authorizing. Lehman: Do we have a motion? Champion: Move adoption. Lehman: Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Atkins: Emie, before you read the roll call- I know some of you have opinions about this matter. Please note in this application the $8.8 million dollars. It represents an application for funding for the Near Southside Transportation Center. It is the same funding agency. Therefore I wanted you to be aware that voting for this is voting for that application also. Lehman: Well, I think maybe we should- I appreciate that Steve because I think this is more than just- this is an application for $8,800,000 in, this would be federal funds. Atkins: Yes. Lehman: For the transit facility which we have been talking about. Which will be located on the block south of Burlington Street. So is there discussion on the part of Council? Wilburn: Is this an appropriate time to ask about-just some clarification about site selection on the project or-? Atkins: That is for the next one. Vanderhoef: That is the next one. Wilburn: That is what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Lehman: Yeah, I think that is right. Discussion? Yes? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #7 Page 21 Kanner: The city will be kicking in I think close to $2.5 million on this project and in my mind it is another parking ramp. We have two parking ramps right across the street and this is going to be close to 600 spaces similar in the Iowa Avenue ramps. And I think if we continue to build ramps and subsidize cars to use those ramps we are going to have ever dwindling use of public transportation, more pollution and more congestion. And I think that the other parts that go with this- putting in the Greyhound bus station and a taxi stand and a cover for the bicycle and a child care center are good things. And I think what we need to do in my opinion is to shrink down the amount of parking spaces to under 100 or to fit the neighborhood and not make it a regional attraction. Which it is now with 600 spaces. So I would recommend to vote against it. Lehman: Well Steven, I- you said "subsidize parking". I think that is a misnomer because parking actually does in this community- parking pays for itself. It pays for the ramps, it pays for- the entire function is paid for by those people who drive. On the other hand, I have to agree that it certainly does not discourage driving automobiles. But if we- I think that this particular area south of Burlington Street, if we are reasonably going to expect any development down there, there has got to be some associated parking. We also have some, I think, legal obligations for some of the apartments that have been built down there. And they are going to pay us impact fees to provide that parking. And if we expect to see that occur, that development occur, there is going to have to be some parking to facilitate those folks who wish to build there. So I guess I am going to have to support that. Other discussion? Irvin? Pfab: I have a great question about whether that is the fight location and the right site for that. I am- I agree with Steve. I am a little reluctant to see more and more parking go on. But I think there is even a more immediate question and not as much theory- is that the right location for that? And if the sites are re-evaluated and revisited then I would be interested. For that site I don't know. Atkins: Emie, I would like to remind you, and Jeff is coming to the microphone. This is the application for funding. Lehman: This isn't the site plan or the size of the ramp or anything. This is just- Atkins: This is just assuming the next point because we are acquiring property. It goes more to your point Irvin which is to (can't hear). Davidson: The next item is the one where we are proposing (can't hear). Pfab: So we are not- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #7 Page 22 Lehman: Stay available because we are going to address that as soon as we get through with this. Okay? Is there other- I think both of the questions we have- Pfab: So the question is- this is not a specific site? Lehman: We will talk about that on the next- Pfab: No, no- but I mean this- Vanderhoef: This one is just the funding for the project. Pfab: Okay. That is fine. I will support it. If it is that site then I wouldn't. Lehman: Okay. So we can get to the next one. Let's do the roll call on this one. Motion carries 6-1 with Kanner voting "no". This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 23 ITEM NO. 8. THE CITY'S INTENT TO PROCEED WITH AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE TRANSPORTATION CENTER PROJECT. a.) Public hearing. Lehman: Public hearing is open. W.A. Fotsch: I will come here first so you see I am anxious. I appreciate appearing before you and I have provided each one of you, the Mayor and all Council people, with my letter. And I think for the record I will read it. I addressed this to the Mayor and Council people. (Reads letter) I included some site selection maps for you to look at. (changed tapes) (Continues to read letter) I will not go over that proposed location because that is a separate issue. The other day Fred Lucas wrote an article in the Press Citizen that said and quoted, didn't quote I should say, indicated that the people affected by block was ready to sell. I contacted Mr. Lucas and he said he just assumed that after talking with City Staff. So it was not a quote from City Staff that he said that but it gave the indication to the public that those of us that are affected are ready to sell. That is not the case. Lehman: Wes, have you indicated to Staff your unwillingness to work with this project? Fotsch: No. Lehman: Okay. Fotsch: But I have also finished- Lehman: Well, I am just asking because you are making a pretty case that you are not willing to work with them. And if you aren't I think you should tell US. Fotsch: Well, I want to refer to 1992 and 1994 and 1995- all these plans that was adopted by the City referred to block 102 as Office Commercial Development. None had a site for a parking ramp on my site. In February I just received a copy of the 2000- February 2000 Near Southside Transportation feasibility study. Page 21 says "The proposed facility will have 25,000 square foot of commercial space". On page 23 it shows 27,000 square foot of commercial rental space. Now this is what I have been alluding to in the information I gave you. My information is one thing and what is printed and what you are going to be voting on is two things. I have been told one thing, what is printed is another thing. The very- that is- the minimum is very misleading. In your January 18th This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 24 resolution to put this on the agenda none of the Council people were aware that I was built on urban renewal ground. That amazed me. None of you knew that my site is urban renewal and the Planter' s Bank site is urban renewal. There is 2 new buildings there, relatively new, that you plan to try and tear down. Now I need evidence. You can take private property that is on urban renewal land. That you have explored all other possibilities and that this is absolutely the only possible site available. I have not seen anything provided by the City to me yet. I have kept my side of the contract. I built my building in accordance with what the City dictates. I have maintained my building in excellent condition. I have paid taxes in excess of $160,000. Now you are going to have to convince me to go out of business and you to tear down my building. I don't think anyone with good common sense would look at the entire block of 102 and say that the east half should go. That the two relatively new buildings should be tom down. If your decision is to proceed to condemn my building, then I believe it has been told that it's within my property as a taxpayer to acquire the necessary signatures and require referendum. I have no other way to protect my property. I don't have any assurance that I could be put back in the same structure with the ownership of 6100 square feet that I now own. Lehman: If you had that assurance would that-? You know, I don't know where you are coming from. You say you have not said you wouldn't work with the Staff but everything you have said is that you don't want to work with the Staff. If you have the opportunity to return in the spot that you are in, in the new building, would that be something that you could live with? Fotsch: I have indicated to both- all of you in private (can't hear) that if it was dictated that I had to go and you would assure me ownership of the same amount of space that I now possess, that I would probably acquiesce. But the information that is provided and written does not say that. Lehman: Okay, thank you Wes. Yes Jeff?. Or Karin? Franklin: Um, there is just a couple of points that I would like to address. The urban renewal plan does talk about block 102 and it is designated in the urban renewal plan as being in the central business service area, which is what we used to call this part of downtown. And what it indicates is that, and I am quoting here, "the development of this area should: provide a number of things one of which is provide space for either surface or structure parking to meet the needs for employer and employee long term parking. Such parking to be in proper relationship to Burlington Street and the established traffic patterns so as to divert traffic from residential streets". This is a quote from the original urban renewal plan. This was adopted in 1969. It was to be in effect for a period of 25 years and renewed automatically thereafter for 5 year periods unless amended by the Council. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 25 And it has been amended 8 times over that period of time. I think this speaks to, at least in part, what some of the direction was for this area going back to the '60's when urban renewal was being considered. The plans that were adopted in '92, the Near Southside Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, outlines parking needs in the Near Southside and designates specifically block 102 as well as the federal lot as potential parking location sites. And so this project is consistent with that urban renewal plan and with the Near Southside Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. In reference to some of Mr. Fotsch's comments about our assurances or anybody's assurances. When we have talked to people- and we have talked to all of the property owners and most of the tenants on the east half of the block- what we have told them is that we want to make this as painless as possible for them, understanding that it is going to be a disruptive and potentially painful project for them because they are not choosing to be dislocated. This is a choice that we are making as a community to go forward with this project. That we need to ascertain the desires of various people if they wish to relocated back into the building that is being constructed. And that we will try as much as possible to meet those wishes. But understand that there may be conflicts between people who want the same space. We have made no assurances to anyone of specific location or design or anything. Until we have an architect on board we can not even begin to give those kinds of assurances. But what we have tried to ascertain is who did want to come back in the building so we knew who we had to work with for the future. Lehman: Karin, is it possible to do like a first right of refusal? I mean, obviously in the Iowa Avenue parking facility we made some very, very concerted efforts to see to it the folks that were there were able to return and we were at least partially successful there. And I don't know process, but- Franklin: What we have told Mr. Fotsch is as we have told the other property owners and the property owners particularly because they have a right in the negotiations which are very different from the tenants- we are trying to acquire their property and we will try to acquire it (can't hear). That is, without condemnation. If we can negotiate something. The reason we send the notice out is because of the state requirement that if there is a possibility that we might condemn, we have to provide this notice. And that is what we have done. It is never our intention to condemn without trying all possible avenues of negotiation first. And I hope that we have made that clear to people that we have talked to. Lehman: I think the new law is somewhat disarming in a way. Because we have to provide that notice when in fact there may be no condemnation. It all may be a friendly acquisition (can't hear). Franklin: It is quite scary looking when you get it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 26 Lehman: No, no- I am sure it is. Franklin: Yes. Wilburn: Karin, you have described the nature of your comments in seeking permission from owners [and] tenants around the area- around the block. And I have indicated to interested parties that I can only respond to what is front of me. I can't respond to rumor. And I can't respond to if one owner is saying, you know, something to another owner that may or may not be true. You know, I can't respond to that. Can you tell me the nature of written correspondence that you have sent out? Is it that- is the only thing that notice that Ernie was referring to about the possibilities of-? Franklin: No, there were letters that were sent out earlier before we went through the formal (can't hear). Wilburu: Can you tell me the nature of those? Franklin: Yes. It was basically initially to inform the property owners that we were going to consider this project again because we had talked about this project some years ago, I don't know exactly how many now, but 2 or 3 years ago. Frankly, it was a bit of a surprise when we got the grant from the Transit Administration. So when we got it, the first thing that we did- and we tried to get those out and I think were successful in getting these out to the property owners before it hit the press- that we were going to get this grant and so we would be reconsidering this project. And so we sent out a letter initially to do that. We then asked people to sit down with Jeff Davidson and myself so that we could have face to face conversations with them about the project and how we would be proceeding. As things have evolved we have sent out notices to them to inform them of what the next steps were and try to keep them up to speed on what is going on. O'Donnell: Have we indicated our wanting them to relocate in this new parking ramp? Franklin: We have not- we have left it to them as to whether it is appropriate for them by their judgement to relocate. We have certainly in our conversations indicated to them our desire that they relocate and stay in downtown. We don't want businesses to leave downtown. However, this project by its very nature, because it is disruptive and requires people to move during construction or potentially to move twice during construction, we understand that the outcome of that may be that people find an opportunity to move someplace else which works for them and they move. So be it. That is not the best thing that could happen but it may be a consequence of this whole project. We have also indicated to them that through the construction we will try to do it in a phased manner This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 27 such that they would only need to move once. Now, because we are working with at this point, a whole stretch of the block whether it is the east side or the south side, you have got to start some place and somebody is going to be displaced such that they have to move twice. There is no other way to do it. I mean, I don't know, maybe you could start in the middle on the east side. We can look at that. But this is what we did with Tower Place. We started on the west side so that the tenant in that case, The Cottage, could get back in as soon as possible but obviously had to move twice. Wilburn: I looked at the concept plan about the Near Southside Redevelopment a few years back. There were- some of the other identified blocks referred to parking structure- at that time was the intent a multi-purpose use or through the nature of this grant that came up modified the parking transportation child care etc, etc? Franklin: Since we started talking about a parking facility in the Near Southside we have talked about building things different from Chauncey Swan, Dubuque Street and Capitol ramp, that are just kind of these behemoth parking structures. That they be- one of the principles in the Near Southside is that at the street level, both in private development and in public development, it is done in such a way that there is an interaction between the building and the street. That you are not confronted with blank walls. That you are not confronted with just parking. And so certainly in our public structures when we are talking about a parking facility the only way you can get that is by doing a mixed facility where you've got something along the street- shops or offices or restaurants or something- that enables there to be some kind of interaction between the building and the street and it is not just blank parking ramp. So, long answer, yes we talked about the multi-use from the beginning. Lehman: Well, Karin, as I remember- when we were talking about the St. Pat's parking lot, and that was six years ago, one of the components of that parking ramp was somewhat multi use. That there would- we talked about a day care. We talked about several things that I found foreign to a parking facility. But that sort of notion has been, for that part of town, has been- every time we have talked about parking it has included things other than just parking. Franklin: And this whole livable communities grant from the feds is about that. To have that mixed use to try to cut down on the number of trips and also to have the multi-modal. That you are looking at different means of transportation. Wilburn: And what about the question about- maybe you hinted at this at your opening comments, I am not sure- about the suggestion of how can you- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 28 Franklin: Renew urban renewal property? Wilburn: Renew urban renewal property. I don't know if that is a question you can answer. Franklin: We have looked at that. Sarah Holecek did some research today and in Chapter 403 of the Iowa Code there is nothing that precludes the City from reacquiring property that was urban renewal. I don't know- when you think about it, we did this back in the '60s, almost 40 years ago. It seems inconceivable to me that the intent of the urban renewal law was that you did it once and then you never did it again. It just doesn't quite seem reasonable. So, I mean, I think as a community grows, changes, there is always the possibility of renewing again. Lehman: What kinds of things can or should we do to address the concerns that Wes has relative to being able to relocate in the same location that he is now? Wilburn: Is that at the point where you are doing the actual building design or? Franklin: Yes. There is two next steps. One is for the architects, the designers, to start working with having conversations with the individuals who have indicated a desire, not a commitment, but a desire to move back into this building- to understand their space needs. And to see what is conceivable. I mean, we are talking about a fairly complex building here with access points and images and a lot of uses that could conflict but ought to be able to work together. So that is one step. The other step is the negotiations for the property- to acquire the property. And that is the other thing that we have to start working through that- Eleanor? Dilkes: Yeah, I just want to note there are some legal requirements largely due to the new condemnation laws that prevent us from talking about specifics of the compensation. Whether that be compensation with money or compensation with property as we did with some of the property owners on the Iowa Avenue ramp. We are required to get appraisals. We are required to send offers and there is a time period within which we cannot contact the property owners after we send out those offers. The FTA regulations are similar in that respect with requiring us to get appraisals, review appraisals, etc. So, in addition to the design issues that Karin talked about there are those legal requirements that prevent us from getting too specific. In fact, when Karin and I and Jeff have been talking about this and talking about their communications with the property owners I have cautioned them against making any commitments in terms of what kind of compensation we would be willing to provide. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 29 Lehman: So, from our position as a Council if we perceive this proposal to be valid- to be a good proposal, one that we think is in the best interest of the downtown- at the same time we have some rather acute interest in what happens to those folks that we are displacing that we really aren't going to be able to sit here and discuss- we aren't going to be able to discuss this. Other than we have a real strong- I mean, I have a very strong concern that we- and I think the City does. As a staff we are very concerned that we provide the least inconvenience that we possibly can. But apparently we are not going to be able to do a whole lot of talking about that. Dilkes: Well, I think you can express some policy positions. I mean in terms- and I think the one that Karin expressed about, you know, we go we do whatever we can to avoid condemnation. I think- I think we made that pretty clear in the Iowa Avenue ramp and that is a big priority. You can certainly express those kind of policy positions. But no you cannot sit here today and negotiate the specifics of the acquisition and that includes the specifics of where you might relocate somebody into what space. Because that is a- that is a type of compensation. Lehman: But as a policy we could indicate that we prefer when possible if at all possible that our folks who are displaced are replaced in the same structure in the same area? Franklin: To the extent they desire it. Dilkes: Yeah. Lehman: Right. Okay. Dilkes: And I think that is expressed in the plan. Kanner: I can- I think I can relate or understand where Wes is coming from. I think most people if they have thriving businesses there is two levels- the first level is they don't want to go and if it is a foregone conclusion then they will go to the next level and take whatever they can get from the City. I would think that we would want to reconsider St. Pat's. We have an empty parking lot there that is- it seems to me it is the higher ranked place and we were told that we had people that were opposed to it just like we have people that appear to be opposed to this location. And it seems that when we have an empty parking lot that would be more natural location to go to build a parking ramp. And I think we should as a City reconsider our top ranked location for this parking ramp to be St. Pat's again. Lehman: I am the wrong one to talk to about St. Pat's because I thought it was the wrong one to start with. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 3o Champion: But this is a different structure than we were building- that we were talking about then. We are talking about a facility that is going to house our interstate public- is that what they call it, interstate buses? Or taxis. It is very different from what was talked about going on St. Pat's. This is a whole different thing. This obviously needs to be on a major thoroughfare. Lehman: Well, and the other factor about this I think that is reasonably significant is that it is obviously, I believe, intended to be a catalyst to see development occur on that side of Burlington Street whereas St. Pat' s probably would not have been nearly as significant. Wilburn: Emie, I have one last question. And maybe David might be the more appropriate person to answer it. It is related to site selection on that block. Davidson: You mean Jeff?. Wilburn: I mean Jeff. I am sorry, Jeff. I think that is the second time I have done it today. Sorry Jeff. In the ranking that you all went through, you identified nine different categories in determining the east side vs. the south side vs. the west side. Could you give me a little clarification on two of those items? One, you ranked the east side vs. the south side preferential in terms of disruption to existing businesses. And the other was in terms of visibility. I guess I can see visibility but in terms of disruption to existing businesses can you briefly walk me through? Davidson: Yeah, and certainly and I hope the point scores reflect that it was never implied that there is no disruption from any of them. Wilburn: Right. Davidson: As Karin I believe expressed. Unfortunately, a project of this scale, someone is going to be disrupted. The south half of the block does affect the greatest number of individual businesses. Wilbum: Okay. That is all I needed to know. Davidson: Okay. Thank you. Kanner: Connie, to answer what you said- on page 26 in this it talks about some reasons why St. Pat's is a good place. It is good accessibility to projects which have already paid into the Near Southside Parking Impact Fee Fund. It is a good location for long term parking permit use by downtown businesses. The facility can be constructed incrementally. It is a good location to serve potential short term redevelopment sites in the Near This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 31 Southside Neighborhood. I think it meets a lot of our needs and I think we ought to take a look at this again. Champion: That did meet our needs but now we are talking about a structure that is going to handle the interstate buses. And I can't imagine that that lot on St. Pat's would- could be adapted for big long Greyhound buses or-. This is a whole different project than was originally slated for that. That is my whole point. It is a different project now. It is not the same project. Vanderhoef: The St. Pat's project I had just been on Council a month or two when we had our first negotiation on that and after trying diligently to negotiate that it was not moving anywhere and I was not clear to begin with that that was the best choice at all. And that is when we chose to look at some redevelopment for the north side neighborhood and for the churches and so forth and that is where we came up with our Iowa Avenue Project which was totally different than what this transportation center would be. I wouldn't be interested in looking at St. Pat's. Lehman: Eleanor? Dilkes: Can I suggest that you continue with the public hearing and then maybe start talking about your conclusions and what conclusions you might reach etc after you hear the public? Champion: Good point. Lehman: Jerry? Jerry Feick: Through several months- Lehman: Give your name first please. Feick: Jerry Feick, Coralville. Through several months of research on this I, several months ago, came to your council and suggested at the time that what I referred to then as the Hieronymus Block- that you consider building housing there four buildings 30, 40 and 50 stories high. At the time Mr. O'Donnell said that I should come back to reality. However, the reason why this all come about down there on that block is as follows stated to me by Mrs. Hieronymus herself and I will quote her. She told me that on a particular day that she was held "hostage" in the First National Bank to then City Councilor Mr. Baker, Larry Baker, and another Councilor which I will not at this time name. And she was threatened that she was either going to come up with $200,000 for a parking ramp or nothing would ever be built on the block. They would not lend her permits for her building thereby called Hieronymus Square. I think what this whole plan amounts to is only for a flee parking ramp for Freda This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 32 Hieronymus. Her building won't work without a parking ramp because of the traffic patterns. Your city knows it, everyone knows it. And I think 6 of you might be a little bit surprised at what I am saying here but one of you knows about it. One of you I had a conversation, in fact it was Mr. Lehman the Mayor, in your store some months ago. And you told me and I will quote you, that it was in the agreement in this block that Planter's Bank if they gave up their property, they would be promised the property where the Mod Pod sits. Lehman: Jerry, that is not true. Feick: Well, Mr. Mayor I have got you on tape. Lehman: Jerry, I am sorry. Feick: We can prove it. They were promised that land by you. Lehman: I never even discussed that. Never. I have never discussed that. Feick: You stated it to me. The tape will prove for itself. Lehman: Jerry, you are a prevaricator. Feick: The tape won't lie Mr. Mayor. Lehman: Well, I am sorry but that is absolutely not true. Feick: Call me a liar. We will play the tape later. That Planter's Bank was going to get the Mod Pod location if they gave up their property. You are saying you didn't say that? You want to state that again or do you want to change it? Lehman: Jerry, I never said that. Now, that is plain silly. Feick: I will dig out the tape. Lehman: All right, why don't you go dig out the tape and let us continue with the meeting? Feick: Not tonight, later. And so I- you also told the Councilor Mr. Pfab a little bit ago when you were working on item number 7 that the $8.8 million had nothing to do with it being put in that Hieronymus Square location. That is not true. Lehman: That particular resolution had only to do with the application for funding when we are talking about (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 33 Feick: For the transportation center? Lehman: Yeah. The one we are talking about now is the location. Feick: The grant. Now, there is no restrictions as to where this transportation center has to go subject to the funding? That is not what you told me previously. Lehman: I don't know if that is true. Feick: Pardon? Lehman: I don't know if that is true or not. Feick: Well let's review the record. We need a court reporter here or a tape recorder. What did you tell Mr. Pfab before you took the vote? Lehman: We all heard- Dilkes: Mr. Mayor? JeffDavidson is shaking his head no that the grant is not related to specific location. Lehman: Okay, thank you Jeff. Feick: Well, that is not what you told Mr. Pfab. Champion: It is exactly what he told Mr. Pfab. Lehman: No, no that is okay. Jerry, finish up please. Feick: I will produce the tape recording later. Lehman: All right. Dan Coleman: I don't know ifI want to follow that act but. Lehman: I wouldn't blame you. Coleman: I am Dan Coleman. And I also want to speak to the issue of either choosing against this location or possibly separating the Transportation Center from the parking ramp. And the reason for that is the announcement last week or I guess the final announcement perhaps of the Amtrak proposed route that is going to go through Iowa City sometime in the coming decade. And I think that was pretty exciting news and it is going to be a great boom to downtown Iowa City. And there was an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 34 unusually cogent editorial in the Gazette a few days ago that I hope you all had a chance to see. I didn't think to bring it with me but they were making the argument that this Transportation Center should be looked at again in the context of the need for a train station and the possibility of having a link- a common link between all of those transportation services. And I think that would be fabulous. I have thought about it a little bit in the last few days and don't know a lot about the property ownership in that area and all and it seems like it could be challenging to come up with a solution. But I think it is worth thinking about to take the time to look at that and be forward thinking and to look at that train link as an important part of the overall transportation network linking downtown Iowa City to the rest of the world and to integrate that with our bus system and other transit services. So I hope you will consider that. Thank you. Jeff Fields: My name is Jeff Fields. I am- my office located at 131 E. Burlington. It is upstairs from the Mod Pod building. Their address is Dubuque Street and mine is Burlington just because of the entrances. And I didn't find out about this project until I received a notice that the City Council approved it probably about a month and a half ago. My major concern or question about the project- two actually- is one the location on that block east vs. west. And without presuming that I know better than the people who have done the research, my question is what is the plan for the west half of that block? IfI buy a classic car and I do everything I can to make half of that car look great, the other half still looks terrible. What is the plan for the west half of the block? Right now there is a gravel parking lot there that seems like it is going to be there for a real long time. And I think that is something that needs to go into consideration as far as location. To tear down buildings on the east half of the block without having a plan as to getting some kind of construction on the west half of the block within a reasonable amount of time doesn't seem responsible. And as I stated, I am not- I don't want to move. I am in the location I am in. I have only been- I have been on my own three years. I am in this location- I want to be here for a long time. I am not a property owner. No one has come to talk to me about priority- whether I would be interested in priority. That is kind of discouraging. I work there anywhere between 70 and 100 hours a week. For me to move is significant. I have got a client base. I have got to let them know where I move. Right now it is very easy- comer of Dubuque and Burlington. One of the busiest streets in town. They pull up, they know where the Holiday Inn is. It is going to be a Sheraton soon. I have things invested there that is the same as property owners. And I think that is a consideration. That when it is time to talk about priorities moving back into the new building if it is a possibility I would like someone to come talk to me about priority. Another issue is the fact that if what I am heating tonight, and correct me if I am wrong, is I am being asked to move without any guarantee of priority beforehand. With the statements essentially that we will come talk to you about priority when This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 35 we have a plan as to what the building is. I know that without a concept of the building you can't put anyone in any particular spot. But I want to know that- I am an attorney. I want to know that I want to be the first attorney in that building and have the choice of where I go in that building. I don't want some law firm that is in Coralville now to come scoot me out and that is the priority I am concerned about. And I think that is important. I think that- and I haven't done the research. I am sure Ms. Dilkes has and her staff has and when she states that priorities is compensation that makes sense. That is what I am talking about. I know that is compensation. But what I am concerned about is once this project gets going I need to know where I am going to be. Do I- I've got maybe a year. I mean ifI am lucky. I don't know what the time table is. To find a location I need to know is that a location I am going to have for 2 years or is that the location I need to have for the next 20 years so I don't have to keep moving around. And I want some assurance whether it be a statement from the Council that priority the replacing- giving the current owners and tenants an opportunity to get back in that spot is important and something that the staff should consider when the design of the building is begun or when it is the point where priority can be discussed. I want to know that before I move. IfI don't move- I mean if I don't know that I am going where I can be for a long time. And, I mean, and as much frustration as I have with downtown Iowa City because there are a lot of vacancies downtown and it is difficult to argue on behalf of downtown when there is- it doesn't seem like there is a lot being done actively to pull anchor businesses into downtown areas. Large downtown spaces. For me to get the boot from downtown, speaking quite frankly, I have got to go somewhere where I know I can have my business for a number of years and I can tell my clients this is where you are going to find me. If I can't get some kind of assurance relatively quickly either before I move or soon after I move I don't know why any business would hang in limbo until they have some kind of insurance that they- yes you can come back in this building. And I know we don't know what this building looks like. We don't know how many floors it is going to be, how many stories. We don't know particularly what the layout is going to be but it seems incredibly unfair for the City to say yeah you should move. And yeah, we will talk to you about where your priorities are going to be. I know there are at least three or four lawyers in the back end of that block that would love my location. If it is a brand new building. And if they can chose where they want to be in the building. And I want to know that I can chose where I am at in that building because that why I am there. I chose that location. It is not my first office. I moved to that location because it is on that comer and it is important to me and it is my livelihood and I spend- I hate to say it- but I spend more time there than I do at home. So, it is important to me. I think the other business owners as well to know that regardless of whether I am a tenant or a land, the owner of the land, that my concerns are being taken into consideration. If I hear you say that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 36 tonight then I am okay with the project. I don't like moving, but if the people who have done their research on the project say that is the best spot for it I am okay with that. But I think when I- and listening to Mr. Fotsch- that the vagueness of it all is frustrating. You want me definitely to move and maybe to move back. That is very frustrating. And I say "you" I refer to the City not at anyone particular. Not to Council specifically. But that is frustrating and I just think that- I hope that when the decision is made that that is taken into consideration and- Lehman: Jeff, I think ifI am not mistaken at all and you correct me, I think you said that the Council could make policy. We could state our policy and that our policy would be that those folks who were there we would make every effort to try to see that they were able to continue or come back. Would you say as a policy we could do that? I mean, we can't guarantee apparently a spot, the door, the window, the first floor, second floor, whatever. But we can say as a policy we would intend that those folks there be able to return. Is that correct? Dilkes: If that is their desire that is right. Lehman: That is what we wanted to do. Dilkes: And I think that is a theme that is expressed in the feasibility study which you got a copy of. It is expressed on the first page of the proposed consultant agreement with the design- with the architect. It says the city will attempt to relocate any existing tenants on the site into the new structure and the phasing of the facility needs to take that into account. So'- Lehman: (can't hear) Wilbum: How would that occur? Lehman: Well, it is in that wording of the agreement with the architect. Fields: And so for my clarification does that- would that policy affect tenants who are not property owners as well as property owners? Dilkes: Yes, most definitely. O'Donnell: Absolutely. Dilkes: And in that respect let me just clarify that we will- the lease hold interests will be valued just as the fee interests are valued by our appraisers. And that tenants as well as owners of businesses are entitled to relocation assistance as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 37 Lehman: Okay. Fields: Thank you. Feick: I have got a brief suggestion in regard to Amtrak. IfAmtrak comes into town I assume they are going to use the current rail. I doubt if they are going to lay a new one. Why not go down south of the current depot and clean up some of that trash between the Johnson County Administration Building and that depot? And build down there? And then redo the- convince Amtrak to maybe redo that depot. You would have something very positive in that section of town. And it would drive redevelopment in that whole section. And I think you have to admit that end of town is an eyesore. I don't mean that as an insult to any of the property owners but they are the ones with the weeds and their trash buildings. Kanner: Karin or Jeff, how many businesses are there that will be displaced initially by the parking ramp? Dilkes: Approximately nine I think. Approximately nine I think. Fotsch: I just must say on the same feasibility study that you quote that you have in here that you have in here the total commercial (changed tapes) as rental space as part of your income projection for that facility. It says nothing in here about ownership. My position is I want to own exactly what I have, where I am at, and I believe and the advice that I have been given, that they can make a decision to say that. Lehman: Jeff, I need to ask you a question because on the Iowa Avenue facility we obviously had the same options and we chose to condominiumize and sell. My understanding is that we can do the same thing here. Davidson: That is correct. We will have the option to both sell- Lehman: Or rent. Davidson: Because of the federal funding that then has some ramifications for what ultimately happens to the proceeds that we would receive but we will have the option. We are aware of Mr. Fotsch and I think others as well who may desire to own space and we will attempt to work through that. Lehman: And our inclination in that Iowa Avenue facility was that we would prefer to condominiumize and sell rather than to own. Davidson: Right. That is correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 38 Lehman: And I would suspect that the same thing may very well be true with this building. Davidson: It may very well be true. Lehman: Okay. Jerry Hanson: My name is Jerry Hanson and I keep hearing about a day care center in this building. And I just had the question- will this be private or city managed? And if it is private, do you already have an agreement in place? And if it is city managed, how will it be funded? Lehman: Jerry, this is so far out in the future. This is a concept. We do intend and my understanding is to have a daycare there. It is not our intention from past discussions for the city to even own it. But we are so far away from this we haven't- you know, the concept- Hanson: It just seems to be a good selling point and I think it is very- Lehman: I think the Council is solidly behind it. But as far as- we don't know how big. During the discussions that I have been aware of my understanding is that the City is not interested in running a day care. That this would be privately run. Hanson: Do you privately finance it? Lehman: We haven't really gotten far enough in the whole thing. There is so much to do. But the day care is definitely part of it. Hanson: Okay, thank you. Kanner: Has the city been approached by Amtrak at all? Recently? Atkins: I have not been. Davidson: The study that has been referred to is been administered by Iowa Department of Transportation in Iowa and we have been kept apprised of the progress of that. In case all of you are not aware, the study that involved Iowa was one of nine routes studied that was hubbed- that were hubbed out of Chicago. And the results of the study is that the route through Iowa, Omaha to Chicago, is the least economically feasible of the nine. And Amtrak intends to proceed with implementing those nine in the order of the best economic feasibility to the poorest. So we aren't anticipating anything happening immediately with Amtrak service. However, we have begun some very preliminary discussions with Amtrak. We have attempted to get some materials from them on what they would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 39 require- excuse me- what they would require for stations and the parking associated with that station. Because they do have some specific requirements- those would be our responsibility. There is also, just very quickly, there is also another proposal that is out there from the Iowa Interstate Railroad to begin a so-called express service. Which is basically tagging a car on the end of a freight train that would take 7 hours to go from Des Moines to Chicago. I am not sure about the use of the word express with that. Never the less, that is the service that- there has been some confusion- that is the service that could potentially begin as early as next year. The larger Amtrak Omaha to Chicago service is much, much further out. Kanner: We have heard, you know, all kinds of plans in the past and they haven't really panned out. Could you give like a percentage of chance of us having some sort of train coming through here in the- anytime in the near future? Davidson: Well, some sort of train obviously- the service is being proposed by Iowa Interstate. You know, it would be an overnight type service and may be appealing to some people. And that could happen fairly soon. The larger Amtrak route- you know, as long as Amtrak is interested in it there is some potential for it. But I wouldn't buy your ticket quite yet. Kanner: But for the first one there is a good chance it will happen? Davidson: The Iowa Interstate Railroad seems very interested in it. Champion: You can take the Greyhound bus faster than 7 hours. O'Donnell: (can't hear) Lehman: Any other comments in the public hearing? Karr: Do we accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: So moved. O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. All in favor? All: Aye. Lehman: Opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. (See public hearing continued after vote of "b") This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 4O b.) Consider a resolution declaring. Lehman: Do we have a motion to consider the resolution? Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Champion: I have some discussion. I am, as you know, totally for this project. I think it is a great idea. And I don't know- Eleanor you might have to just tell me to be quiet but- I really feel strongly that people that are being displaced because of a project that I like, need to have something for me that they are going to be given preferential treatment in getting them back to where they were. Is that- I mean, I feel strongly about that. That seems common sense to me. Lehman: I think that every thing we do does that. Is that not correct? I think we do that. Dilkes: I don't think that is the problem. Are you talking about preference with respect to people who aren't currently on that site? Champion: Right. Dilkes: I think that is a given. I mean, because I think we will be negotiating with those people. Champion: Well, we haven't said that. I just wanted- Dilkes: Yeah, I think that is- yes. O'Donnell: Are we advanced along far enough to say that? Because when we can say that I would like it said. Dilkes: Oh, I think you can say that. The way this would work is- the way this will work and the way it worked on the ramp is that we will have to acquire this property and at the same time that we are acquiring the property we will likely negotiate for relocation back into the facility if that is something that the property owners desire. Not until all of that is done do we even get to the point of marketing the space that is remaining. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 41 Champion: Now, we would not try to relocate other people into that facility until we had dealt with everyone who was being displaced? Dilkes: Right. O'Donnell: All the existing people. Vanderhoef: And that includes the rental tenants as well as the property owners? Dilkes: Yes. You know, you didn't see a listing agreement for the remaining commercial space in the Iowa Avenue ramp until way after that thing was- we had acquired the property, we had bid it- I mean, put it out to bid. Wilburn: I am comfortable with it since- since it can cover the- we can say our intent with both ownership and leasing, so. Champion: Well, I think that is really important. Vanderhoef: It is. And if we need to have it in a policy form to adopt we can do that. Champion: I would like it in a policy form. Lehman: I think it is in the wording of everything we have done so far. Isn't that not true? Champion: I don't think it is that specific. O'Donnell: Apparently not. We have heard some concern tonight. Lehman: Well, how do we make it more specific? Davidson: I would just point out that page 28 of the feasibility study, fight underneath that table that Ross was referring to earlier, does have the statement "the City wishes to relocate any displaced tenant who indicates a desire to be relocated into the new facility". And quite frankly, that is something that the feds expect us to do. Champion: But it doesn't say that they would have preference. Davidson: Right, but I think Eleanor expressed it very well when she said because of the timing of all this the property acquisition and the potential relocation is done all at the front end so that we are working with those people before we ever get to marketing any of the additional space. O'Donnell: It is really to our advantage to relocate these people in the building. Or in that (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 42 Davidson: Well, we feel that way Mike. Vanderhoef: We would like that. O'Donnell: So I- there- I believe we would all support it. And we all do support it. Champion: But I think it needs to be in writing. O'Donnell: I agree. Champion: I think people want to read it. O'Donnell: But when we get to that point. Dilkes: I suppose we could- the resolution that you've got in front of you now that declares your intent to proceed and authorize acquisition of the property rights we could put a statement in that resolution. And that wouldn't be a problem. Champion: I would like to move that we put a statement in the resolution. O'Donnell: I would second that. Champion: That would assure- I don't know how to word it Eleanor. Maybe you could help me. That would assure that present tenants or property owners in this area would be given preferential treatment in getting- I don't know, I am not a lawyer. Dilkes: Do you want me to frame- suggest a motion? Champion: Please. Lehman: Well I think that it is pretty clear that we are all very concerned that these people have priority. Pfab: I would offer an amendment to that resolution in the fact that no matter what- Champion: I never finished it. Pfab: Finish it then. Champion: I can't, but go ahead. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 43 Pfab: In other words that I keep hearing that it is not site specific but then I hear it is site specific. So I am kind of tom between. So in other words, whatever site it is. That whoever is, you know,- I am reluctant to commit to this one particular site. I think that this needs to be expanded a little and there is a lot of new input in this. You know, in the last number of years. Vanderhoef: So you are saying you are not going to support this resolution tonight? Pfab: I am going to support it as long as it is not site specific. Lehman: It is site specific because it specifically indicates we are sending notice to the folks that it may be necessary to acquire their property. Am I correct? Dilkes: This resolution has to be site specific. Lehman: It is, that is the whole purpose of it. Dilkes: And in fact if you change the location from this one- I mean if you chose to do that it is fine- we will have to send out, we will have to go through this process again with the property owners we haven't covered on this location. Pfab: But does that endanger the grant? Lehman: No. Pfab: Is the grant for this spot? Champion: No. O'Donnell: They are two separate issues. Dilkes: No it is not for this spot. Lehman: This hearing is relative to this site which is the eastern half of the block bordering South Dubuque Street. Pfab: What if farther down the road in the month or so we decide that there is a better location? Lehman: If we have that concern then we shouldn't pass this. Pfab: Well then I vote against it. Lehman: Okay. But Connie made an amendment. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 44 Champion: Yeah, Eleanor is going to phrase it for me. Lehman: Yes. Dilkes: Something like this I think would be acceptable. The City will attempt to relocate any existing tenants and property owners who so desire on the site into the new structure and will make such attempt prior to offering the space for sale or rent to the general public. Lehman: Is there a second to that? Vanderhoef: I second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Champion: Is that enough? Lehman: Well I think we have said that but I think- I don't disagree. It reinforces it. Champion: I think everybody knows our intention anyway. Lehman: Is there discussion on the amendment? Is there a roll call on an amendment? All in favor of the amendment say "aye". (All except Pfab:D Aye. Lehman: Opposed? Pfab: I would be opposed because I don't quite understand what that- it is still locked into that one site. Lehman: No the amendment- the only thing it deals with is that if we were proceed with this that we would be user-friendly, if you will, to the property owners and tenants who are there now. All the amendment says- Pfab: But it still- Lehman: That is not relevant to the amendment. Vanderho ef: We are not voting on the site. Lehman: That is just a policy statement. Pfab: I will support that. No problem. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 45 Lehman: Now, further discussion on the motion as amended? Vanderhoef: I truly am excited about this project. I think it has lots to offer the community. It has the potential of this child care which is in the agreement with the feds as I understand. But it also has the potential of putting some health care facilities for children and perhaps even more. I think it would be something worth investigating. It also puts it within walking distance for a lot of our senior center folks. It puts it near a couple of senior housing projects that they will be having access very close to all of our inter-city transportation. And this is a real advantage. I think it is a positive thing for the community and will be an asset to the growth of the south side. Lehman: It also may be the catalyst that may spur development that has presently been proposed down there to get under way. Further discussion? Champion: I have another thing. Lehman: Yes? Champion: IfI am inappropriate somebody just has to tell me to be quiet. And usually I am. Because there are nine businesses and some of them are small and some of them are bigger and some of them are more powerful than others- then I worry about location and somehow I think location priorities should be based on where they are at right now. That is just my personal opinion. I am just making a personal opinion. So, maybe we have to deal with this at some time in an executive session. Lehman: Probably not. Champion: It is too late. Lehman; I don't think it is appropriate for an executive session. Dilkes; It would be if the- if we were talking about acquisition of property and talking about what we would give in return it would be appropriate for executive session. Lehman: Other discussion? Champion: I just have problems with that too. Lehman: Well I think Connie that- I don't know that we would compromise the design of the building. Champion: Oh no, I don't expect that. No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 46 Lehman: I think we would make every effort to do exactly what your amendment indicated. Champion: Okay. Just checking. Thanks. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries 5-2. Kanner and Pfab voting "no". We are going to take a break for about 7 or 8 minutes folks. a.) Public hearing (Continued) Lehman: My understanding is that there was someone in the audience who would like to have spoken to the last public hearing who did not have that opportunity and we certainly give that person the opportunity at this time. Champion: She is hard of hearing. Could you tell her? Karr: Honey, if you wish to speak I will get you the aid. Did you wish to speak (can't hear)? Honey Parkins: She is trying to help me out with a hearing problem. I am sorry. I am Honey Parkins and I came tonight to address the issue of the proposed transit- Near Southside Transit Center. And I would just like to emphasis some points that are of concern to me as an area citizen. I guess one of the key things that I am disturbed by is, [and] you have probably heard a good bit on tonight, is the issue of how you acquire that property by the process of condemnation. The fact that a governing body can chose to take any private non-sectarian piece of real estate by using the tool of condemnation, to me, is an appalling fact. The bottom line is that no citizen has sole rights to his or her property. It is even more abhorrent- that said so-called governing body is supposed to be a representative of the people at large. On their behalf. Such an idea is utopian in regards to the use as such a tactic as condemnation- which I believe should be struck from the books of law. A governing body should only have a right to fair market practices of making offers and bidding to acquire any desired property. If the property owner does not wish to sell, then that should be his or her right and then not subject to condemnation. The condemnation process really involves enough compensation for the losses suffered by the existing owners. In the case of the proposed transit center, there are 8 businesses that are going to be affected by that. They are the tenants of the Union Planter's Bank building, the Union Planters Bank itself, the law offices of Jean Bartley and James Houghton attorneys, the security abstract company and Willis and Willis Attorneys, John R. StreifDental Offices, and the Zimmerman Law Office, in association with L. Craig Newman the Dell A. Richard attorney and Vaughn Davisson an agent for the Farmer's Insurance Group. The other building that is involved is a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 47 Jeffrey Fields Law Firm, whom you heard from earlier this evening. There is another issue concerning the destruction of these buildings which will be necessitated by the design and construction of the transit center. It is that you are going to have to tear down very good structures and I feel very strongly about this business of not only- I don't care who it is, whether it is a city or a govemment or a private person [who] comes in, buys a piece of property, an existing structure doesn't fit their needs and no matter what the age is and then just destroy it. This is one of our big problems with environment today is it is a disposable society that comes into place here. And all of this- and then somebody has to dispose of all this rubble after it has been tom down. Well, fine, some of it can be used to riffraff for (can't hear) and what have you but it involves a lot of energy consumption in the process because first of all, you had energy consumption to put those structures up and energy consumption to take them down, and energy consumption to put up new structures. And that is a lot of fuel. A lot of energy. A lot of concrete is involved. And some of you may not know that the so-called Portland Cement that is used in most construction is the number one energy consumer in this country. And there are a lot of other problems with cement that I won't get into right now. There is some other issues about putting up this transit center in the first place and I think the idea of putting up a transit center depending on what it is that they want to do with the transit center- that is the key thing. It was my understanding initially that this type of transit center was supposed to help eliminate a traffic problem in downtown Iowa City and also to eliminate a lot of the pollution caused by this excess traffic. That by providing more public transportation that we would eliminate hopefully so much need for the use of private vehicles. And encourage people to use this public transportation. And granted, there are people coming in from the outer peripheries of Iowa City who need to put their cars somewhere. Well, there are parking areas all around the periphery of Iowa City and we already have a very good public bus system. And if they need to connect elsewhere they can just keep connecting, which is what they have been doing all along. So I really wonder whether we really need this transit center. I won't question the fact that we need to do something about the existing bus depot which is definitely a need. But there are other options, you know, if you just want to do that. But as far as another parking ramp- no way! In this particular location that you are proposing to put this, which is on the- borders on the Burlington, Dubuque, Court and Clinton Street area, you already have a huge parking ramp on the corner of Dubuque and Burlington and you have another huge parking ramp on the corner of Clinton and Burlington. And now, you have this Iowa Avenue one which is one the other side of the immediate downtown area. And as I see it, the immediate downtown area comprises about 16 square blocks- business district wise. Okay, so now you are talking 3 huge parking ramps and there is still a parking lot until the library or somebody decides to do away with that. And the on street parking. And so what this does is by This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 48 putting up all these parking ramps, you are encouraging people to drive- not discouraging them. And I think that defeats the purpose of providing public transportation. I think it was a good thing you put in the free shuttle. And I don't have any statistics on that so- but it is running so I gather that you know, people are using this. And I think that was an excellent idea in the move of providing public transportation to just get out- get around from one block to the next. That is good. A lot of people would appreciate that. For some people, walking even a block or two is an effort. And I am talking about a lot of people with disabilities and I happen to be one of them though I am not to the stage where I can't walk some distance. But you heard from somebody earlier who addressed that issue in regards to the new Iowa Avenue parking ramp and of course there there is a problem with access. Particularly because of its location next to the Ecumenical Towers and the Senior Center. Any time you put up anything like that you need to make it accessible. But at any rate, I just question whether this whole idea of putting up this type of transit center is really needed. I think some facets of it as I mentioned- having a hub where transportation comes together, public transportation, that is fine. Like a central terminal if you will. But not for private cars. We don't need that. And then there is the other issue of the money. Lehman: You need to wrap this up pretty soon, okay? Parkins: Pardon? Lehman: You need to wrap it up pretty soon. Parkins: Okay. Well, at any rate, one of the existing problems with the money aside from the grant monies and where the balance of the money is going to come from- because in the proposed grant, even though it is $9 million, if it is accepted would not all be available up front. And so you need to look at, you know, if you need $5 million to get this project started and the public grants are only going to provide $1.5 million and then down the road there is still $3 million to be dealt with. It is not going to be covered by the total of $12 that is needed. You know, where is all this money coming from? And I question about the business of the commercial retail space. You know, how that is going to figure in because I don't see at this point- because you have already got a problem with that at the Iowa Avenue parking ramp whether you can look at much return off of that. So I just think that there needs to be a lot more homework done on this whole idea of the transit center before you get too far into actually paying an architect or somebody to do plans for it. So, anyway, those are some of the key issues that I wanted to state and I appreciate your listening to me- especially at this late point in the meeting. Thank you. Champion: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #8 Page 49 Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #9 Page 50 ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND OPN ARCHITECTS, INC. Lehman: This is a team arrangement with HLM from Iowa City and regards the engineering portion of the facility that we have been talking about. Champion: Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Kanner: I am going to make the point that I made yesterday again here at the formal session. I think Greyhound, which is going to be offered a lease in the new parking ramp, is a multi-million dollar corporation. They have had a fantastic deal here in Iowa City for a number of years with the rent not going up for years and years and years. And I think we ought to ask them to be partners in contributing not only thoughts of what they need for the- for their new space but also in contributing money to the new space beyond their lease. I think that this is a company that is not going to leave town. It is a gold mine for- with all the students here. And I think that we should get some sort of compensation for providing them with a facility in the next couple years where they are going to move into beyond the leasing. If we are going to build something specifically for them let's have them kick in a little bit. Champion: Am I on the wrong- are we on the architect's agreement? Lehman: That is right. Champion: I thought I- I am sorry. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 6-1, Kanner voting "no". This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #10 Page 51 ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS RECEIVED ON FEBRUARY 23 FOR THE TRANSIT METHANE ABATEMENT PROJECT, PHASE 2, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 21 ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANSIT METHANE ABATEMENT PROJECT, PHASE 2, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE SAID PLANS ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. Lehman: There was a bid opening of this project on February 23. The following bids were received: Iowa Enterprises $253,000, the engineer's estimate was $200,000. And we have been recommended that we reject that bid. Is there a motion to reject it? O'Donnell: I move we reject. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Motion by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. By passing this motion in the affirmative we will be rejecting that bid. Roll call. The motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 52 ITEM NO. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2001. Vanderhoef: Move adoption. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Dan Coleman: Thanks. I am Dan Coleman. I wanted to speak in support of the commonsense budget that Steven Kanner has put forward. And I know not all citizens are aware this was discussed in the work session last night and I encourage citizens to obtain a copy of this budget which is very far- reaching and I think has a lot of good ideas in it that even if they are not adopted this year should get people' s attention to be on the table for the future. I want to speak to just four of the points just because of time limits, that I think are good ideas worthy of support. One is the issue of limiting the funding for the Iowa City Area Development group. And I think Steven is fight to question that funding and that there should be some procedure whereby the benefits that are claimed to that organization are more directly accounted for. Because there is the kinds of growth and the kinds of economic benefits that we have seen in recent years can be ascribed to a lot of factors and I haven't seen the direct indication of benefits coming from the work of that organization. Second, and much more to me a no brainer, is to eliminate support for the DARE program. I am aware as Steven pointed out of the many studies that have showed that that program has no benefit or no measurable benefit in terms of its impact on drug use. And really just serves as a public relations tool for the police department. That is not what it is intended to do. And if that is what we want it to be we should be clear about that. But I think we should recognize that it does not meet its claimed goals and should not be continued. Another point is Steven's proposal of an increased parking fees. And there is a lot of issues that have been on the table some which are very controversial involving roads. We have a responsibility to find ways to get people out of their cars. If not looking at.just local considerations, as local government we share with state, federal and governments around the world a responsibility for minimizing auto use so as to minimize exhaust and to minimize the effects of global warming. And it is very clear that increasing parking fees will discourage auto use. It will get more people on the bus. It will encourage people to car pool. It will encourage people to walk and bike. And the fourth point that I want to speak to is the question of making some drastic cuts in the proposed road building program. Because- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 53 Lehman: I think that is the next item on the agenda. That is the fiscal- is that not correct? Coleman: Okay, I will come back. Atkins: I was going to say before you sit down Dan, and you are correct technically. Lehman: (can't hear) because they are basically- Atkins: The annual budget, the items that you identified Dan, were operating budget. The Capital budget, the road building and things of that nature, is more likely to be identified in number 12. Lehman: That is fine though. Coleman: I am happy to come back. Lehman: No, no that is fine. Go ahead. Coleman: And all I want- all I wanted to say about that is that again there is- I mean, there is a kind of perverse twist on the idea of if you build it they will come when it comes to building roads. And study after study and experience all around the country has been that roads are widen, roads are added, to deal with traffic congestion and the level of traffic just continues to increase. And that in fact if you want to solve those kinds of problems that using public transportation, supporting multi-modal transit systems, is much better use of public funds than continuing to build and expand roads. And I hope that the City Council will consider rethinking its transportation priorities as reflected in the proposed budget and give some consideration to the ideas that Steven Kanner has put forward. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you Dan. John Kammermeyer: My name is John Kammermeyer and I am an allergist here in town. I have my office over by Mercy Hospital. My home is over on First Avenue. And I just wanted to make a general comment or observation about the budget. And I am sorry that I don't have any real detail specific solutions to the point I am going to bring up and I certainly haven't looked into the budget nearly as thoroughly as the City Staff and the Council has but I want to address if not this year, for the future, the issue of raising property taxes. The budget this year will be increasing the property tax somewhere around 3+%. I think in general principles every super human effort should be made not to increase property taxes now or in the future. There is at least 3 points for- because of that I want to make. One is elderly people and retired people on fixed incomes in the homes- that they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 54 have spent decades purchasing, paying mortgagees on, owning and then we get to the point where we raise property taxes to the point where they have to sell the home and vacate their premises. And this happens and has continued to happen. And as a matter of fact, in my own case, my late father, the recent years I have lived in his home over on the west side, and but for about 4 or 5 years prior to his going in the nursing home if he had been living there and I had not been paying the property taxes he could not have afforded to stay in that home. So the point is that the trend in health care and into dealing with the elderly as the population ages is to try and keep people in their homes as long as possible for their own sake and for the health care costs involved. And here we are, every time we kick up property taxes, we threaten a certain percent of elderly people staying and being able to live and afford the property taxes in their home. Number two, when this applies to rental properties or what is going to happen, is that obviously rents are going to go up. That property tax is going to be passed along to renters. So, rents I think and I am not an expert on this but are certainly as high as anywhere in Iowa here. And this is going to tend to the more you raise property tax we will kick up rents higher. So those are two points. The third one is the issue of recently, as you are probably aware, the City Assessor has had a contract with Vanguard Appraisals to reappraise properties and I have just been- received this in the mail this week that my office site by Mercy has been increased in appraised valuation for~next year by 10%. Increased by about $200,000. And I know of 4 other people personally that own offices or businesses in town that have had their appraised valuation increase by 8 to 10%. So there is a lot of offices and businesses that are going to have an increase in their property tax due to this. At the same time that you are increasing it by another percentage. And raising property taxes, there is some protection. There is- I don't know the proper term Ernie or somebody- Lehman: Rollback. Kammermeyer: Rollback for residential. But that isn't going to affect businesses and offices and so the brunt of this increased appraisal from Vanguard and increase in the property tax with the City budget is going to fall on people who own offices, businesses, and commercial properties. And right now Iowa City, I would like to use a medical analogy, is hemorrhaging a little bit as far as businesses and offices to other locales such as Noah Liberty, Coralville and elsewhere. And if you really want to preserve downtown and really want to keep businesses here and really want to keep offices here and commercial development you are not going to keep kicking up property taxes. And this is another way of property taxes being increased by having the City Assessor just up the cost of the appraised value of these commercial properties by about 8 to 10%. So a lot of people are going to be a little concerned about this as I am. And I would like and urge you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 55 now and in the future to try and really hold the line and trim every little detail you can out of the budget to try and not raise property taxes. Lehman: Thank you John. Feick: So much for the spin-offs of the Coral Ridge Mall and Kelly Hayworth, right? But just look how much wealthier they are when they get those increases. In regards to the budget portion, I have for quite some time, and three of you, Mr. Pfab, Wilbum, and Kanner, know I don't believe anything about this. Mr. Pfab does several years ago, but I doubt if he honestly remembers it. But to the rest of you I have spoken from time to time about massive tax fraud at the senior citizens center, i.e. namely the elderly services agency. This is no secret. Lehman: Jerry, you're talking about the funding item in the budget.. Feick: And you in part, in large part, as the city, funds this, so does United Way, so does the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. In fact, to very briefly encapsulate their train-load of financial fraud, I'm going to use a timeline. In 1965, federal congress passed what is called the older American's act. It sent the first $100,000 down to the State of Iowa, in the case of Iowa law, it send it to the general fund. It is procreated back out through appropriations bills. Also in the case of that federal law, it mandated that it is procreated out through the health department, vis-h-vis their quasi- appropriation bills. Also in that federal law, it mandated, still does, that the Board of Supervisors on the local level in all 99 counties in Iowa, in all the rest of the counties across America, make the sole decision whether there will be these particular services for the elderly. In the case of Iowa, there was set up, first of all, a commission, called Iowa commission on the Aging. That was in existence from 1965 through 1985. In 1985, there was a name change only to what is now known as the Iowa Department of EIder Affairs. I'd like you sometime, and I've asked several of you in the past, to secure their fiscal year annual reports from the State Library in Des Moines, and you'll see their massive fraud. Each year, however, there is an appropriations bill, and the thirteen area agencies on aging, which geographically divides up the state, in somewhat the same vernacular as the community colleges, have particular graphic encapsulation of certain counties. Johnson County is run by Heritage Agency on Aging out of Cedar Rapids. Even their director, their previous director, who as of three and a half weeks ago no longer is there, for years wanted to continue to cover up this tax fraud. In the case of Johnson County, and I faxed you items from the auditors office of which they had been hiding since 1993, it is an indexing system of their contractual agreements between the Board of Supervisors, the Health Department, and Elderly Services. They have to operate under their contractual agreement as an administrative agency. That includes that if a person of the public or in your entity asks for your This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 56 records to be examined, they have to cough them up. They have refused since 1993. In their appropriations bill, and I faxed this to you, I don't want you to take my handwritten message which is in your packet as a mistake, I meant this to be addressed to Elderly Services and the City Manager, and the City Council. The tax fraud is encapsulated, and if you look at the general session laws of Iowa, and every general assembly from 1965 to current date, has general session laws. There's generally, in the recent decade and a half, two volumes each year. Look in the general session laws, look in the index, look under Iowa Department of Elder Affairs after 1985, look under the word appropriation in the index, and one site that you'll find, and this sentence is worded the same every single year, the mandate for tax payment. Quote, and I'm reading from the general session laws of 1997, the 77th General Assembly of Iowa, Volume 1, Section 5, Chapter 203, pages 616 through 628, not the definition portion of Protective Services, but the body portion of this appropriations bill. This appropriations bill lets out all the money.. Lehman: Jerry, can I... Feick: Just a minute...the Iowa Department of Elder affairs, and the State Department of Human Services, for the welfare portion of these services, to those Iowans that qualify because of their income only. Lehman: You need to wrap this up. Feick: Here's the sentence, and you tell me whether this should substantiate an investigation for their tax fraud, 'cause they haven't paid one cent ever since 1980. And they don't intend to. Quote 'The subcontract shall require that each home care aid subcontracting agency,' That agency is Elderly Services. 'Shall pay the employee contribution of social security and provide workers compensation coverage for persons providing direct home care aid services and meet any other applicable legal requirements of an employer-employee relationship.' That would include INS filing, W-2, W-4, proper reporting of that, federal and state unemployment taxes, uh, federal income tax, social security withholding, state income tax, they've done none of this. They have consistently lied to representative Leach's office, but of course he helped them cover up their fraud, and nothing is done. I want to know why your city keeps massively funding this tax fraud entity. So, go get the fiscal year annual reports, go get their contracts, then go down to JCCOG, right here in the building, and get their budget request and their budgets, get both of 'em, and you'll see the data, and ask for their W-2 forms and W-4 forms. They don't have any. Why should those employees be hoodwinked, and the City keep funding this entity. Those employees be hoodwinked out of any social security, unemployment taxes, of any kind, when the legislature has mandated that the taxes shall be paid. I'd like an answer from you in writing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 57 Lehman: Thank you Jerry... Feick: And I'd like you therefore to rescind all budgeting of the Senior Citizens Center, their skywalk center, and Elderly Services, until they pay these back taxes from 1980 to current date, and subpoena their records. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: There's one thing I'd like to... Feick: Questions? Kanner: Well I'd like to address to our City Manager.. Feick: He knows about it, he's helped them to cover it up. And that's a matter of record. Kanner: Uh, the claim was made that under the law that set up the Older Americans Act, people who receive funding such as Elderly Services has to pay social security and other proper payroll taxes. I think that would be an easy thing to find out. Feick: No, just a minute. You're misunderstanding. I never stated that the Older Americans Act states that. I state that the Iowa Legislature has stated that. Constitutionally under states fight, a legislature has the right to make a law more restrictive, and they did. Kanner: Ok, so the Iowa legislature - I think that would be an easy thing to find out. I'd be interested to know, because there are sometimes questions about agencies not paying social security tax, and we are supporting this agency with significant amount of funds. Feick: Massively - they couldn't exist without you, and I want briefly to tell you why. Lehman: Jerry, we've spent a long time tonight... Feick: They get, now just a minute, you need to know this, they get $100,000 block grants, they have to match it and without your funding they would be out of business. Lehman: Jerry, please, you've made your point... Feick: Ernie, you've covered this up yourself for years. Tell the public the truth for once. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 58 Lehman: You've made your point, ok? Feick: Thank you. Investigate it, and investigate the little cop, Tommy Whitmer, too. Lehman: We can see, I mean, we'll talk about this later, but anyone else care to speak at the hearing? Last night we discussed a couple of...(changed tapes)... Champion: Do we need to have a resolution to cut the budget report and make amendments to it ? Lehman: We have that, the motion has been made. Champion: Forgot that. I would like to amend the budget to keep the budget for the Art Advisory Committee at $100,000. I think that's a new committee that's just gotten underway and that $100,000 is a minimum I think that they can function with. So I'd like not to cut that budget by $25,000. I'd like to raise to $100,000. Lehman: Is there a second to that amendment ? Pfab: I seconded that. Atkins: May I step in just for a moment. I don't want to inten'upt your legislative process. Item 13 if you were to vote that down it would remain at $100,000. Lehman: I think that we were told last night that we would have to make this because the budget specifically says $75,000. So the amendment is correct. Atkins: Okay fine. Lehman: Is there discussion on the amendment ? Vanderhoef: I have sympathies for public art and when the Public Art Committee was started I think it was voted on three years ago I supported it up to the amount of $100,000. At that time these dollars were coming from the general fund. Since that time the funding for public art has been moved into bonding. I can not support the addition $25,000 when these dollars are going into bonding. At anytime that we can afford it out of our general fund I will continue to support public art. Lehman: Other discussion ? Irvin. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 59 Pfab: My understanding is that this was the agreement when it was formed ? Lehman: That's correct. Pfab: That's what I'm basing my interest in. Lehman: In fact it would require a change in the ordinance to fund it at less than $100,000. Pfab: Let's do what we agree to do and go on. Lehman: Other discussion ? Dilkes: I'm sorry is this item are we talking about this item or the next one Kevin has just indicated to me that it's the next one. Atkins: The next item if you choose Vanderhoef: I thought it was bonding. It should be in the capital then the general fund. O'Malley: The $100,000 was in the capital budget which is the next item. Vanderhoef: That 's where the bonding part of it is. Lehman: We're going to save it Connie. Champion: I'll withdraw my amendment. Atkins: Before you withdraw I want to make sure I understood. You wish to restore the funding to $100,000. You do not want to take it from the general fund. Champion: I thought it was still coming out of the general fired. Atkins: No it's out of debt as Dee had explained. So it's $100,000 worth of general obligation debt so if you choose to add back the $25,000 thereby getting it back to 100 and you wish to keep it at GO debt it should be the next item. Lehman: If you want to keep it GO debt it would be appropriate in item 12, if you want it to come from general fund it would go into item 11. Pfab: Just to keep the record straight I withdraw my second. Vanderhoef: I have an amendment also. I would like to increase the parks & recreation budget for one half-time fie for the I'm going to say for recreation and I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 60 understand that there are some folks here that would like the choice made at the directorship of parks and recreation. I had that conversation with the director and feel that it will be used for youth activities and so I'll be okay whether you want to list it for youth activities or whether you want to leave it open. Lehman: What's the amendment? Vanderhoef: The amendment is for half-time fte for parks and recreation. Lehman: I there a second? O'Donnell Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell, discussion ? Atkins: Now do I understand that you wish to add $24,000 to the department of parks and recreation budget with the understanding this is a half-time recreation supervisors. Champion: No, we're not directing where it goes. Lehman: We're not specifying. Atkins: A half-time person okay, not a professional employee which is a recreation supervisor, not a maintenance worker. Okay Lehman: Discussion. Champion: I'm going to support this because I think the park and rec are short of hand and we have tremendous programming and we do a great job of it I think they need some help with it. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment say "Aye". (all ayes) The amendment carries. Are there any other discussion about the annual budget this is the portion of the budget that deals with the general fund any other amendments ? Kanner: I do. I'd like to pass these out. Steve I think you have one of these. Some of these are appropriate for the second motion that we're going to do in regards to our financial plan but I wanted to propose as an amendment to the budget those that are appropriate for this annual budget for the fiscal year and propose that these be accepted to the budget. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 61 Lehman: I guess my understanding would be you are making amendment to the budget adding the items you have distributed to the Council one-half of that page deals with the general fund. Is that your motion ? Kanner: Yes. Lehman: Is there a second to that motion ? Pfab: I seconded for the sake of discussion. Lehman: Motion made by Mr. Kanner, seconded by Mr. Pfab. There are a number of items on this amendment. Vanderhoef: Take them one at a time. Lehman: Should we read all of those ? Champion: I think we need to read them to make sure we have them clear. Lehman; Well briefly. First is to increase the parking fees by 20 cents an hour. The second is to increase funding for the transit system. Third is do not replace three retiring police officers in other words reduce the size of the police force by three people. The third is to reduce economic development proposal within the budget by $250,000. Those are reductions. Kanner: Let me just comment on those things. The $250,000 reduction would net us an estimated $12,500 from interest that we would lose now from taking out of these reserve funds. Not replacing the three potential retiring police officers first one that would be done in the next three years and that would be $50,000 savings next year. It's estimated increased federal state funding for increased bus riders at approximately $15,000. Increased parking fees at 20 cents a hour is at least $600,000 estimate. Base those on 10 cents an hour proposal that said something in the neighborhood of $365,000 from staff was their recommendation of how much that would be. So those would be additions to the general fund that would total $677,500 plus as a budget estimate. What I would add to the budget would be added bus routes and lower fares to a total of $400,000 and three firefighters starting next year to supplement our current firefighting force at a total of $143,000. A natural areas manager at $48,000 and we've just adopted the next one of an afternoon recreation supervisor at $24,000. Arts Iowa City for our community group funding they requested the same funding as the Jazz Fest and the Arts Festival funding at $7500 again this is for FY01 which begins in July and parks and recreation fee support at $12,500 so that none of the fees such as youth volleyball or market place rentals or pottery studio would go up beyond the inflation rate of 3%. So This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 62 our general fund increase would be $635,000 so we have according to my figures a lower amount proposed for the general fund. Lehman: Incidentally Steven I talked to the folks at park and rec today the fees charged for the farmers market this year will be exactly the same as last year. Kanner: Listed wrong ? Lehman: Yeah I think it was listed wrong. The fees will be the same as last year. They went up last year. Is there any interest on the part of any of the Council people with adopting any of these amendments ? We talked about them all last night. No one seemed to have any interest in them. I think some of those well any one want to speak to any of these ? Kanner: Ernie, yeah I'd like to speak now or before our final vote either time. Lehman: Well the time is to speak now on the amendment because we're going to vote on this amendment. We have a movement and a second and the time for discussion is now. So go ahead. Kanner: Okay, I propose as Dan has mentioned a common sense budget. Every year Iowa City is obligated to submit a yearly budget to our citizens in the state of Iowa and many thanks first go to our City Manager and our Finance Director and his staff. They put together a multi-million dollar plan to guide our City. The City Manager has done his part by proposing a budget the not only meets legal and fiscal guidelines but is in line with what he believes is the direction that previous and present Council majorities want Iowa City to move. Mr. Atkins and the majority of Council have one view point on the best way to spend our City's dollars I have a different viewpoint that I believe a large number of people in Iowa City shared and that's why unless these amendments are passed which it doesn't seem likely I'll be voting to not approve the FY2001 annual budget. As councilors we're obligated to show vision and leadership I believe is a community that is rich in resources and with the University of Iowa as our neighbor there is no reason that Iowa City can not be a national leader in all areas that work to improve our City. The budget that I'm proposing will continue to stand on those things that we hold dear and work to share them with those who have less access to them. The common sense budget proposes vision and leadership from our City Council and will work to lower taxes significantly. We need more public and alternative transportation funding and less spent on roads leading to congestion, sprawl and outer development. We need to work on our skyrocketing housing rental costs as others have mentions, a lack of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 63 adequate number of affordable homes and the need for more homeless shelters. We need less tax breaks for large developers like those that may be offered in the proposed economic development strategy and we need to strengthen neighborhoods and their communities from the southeast side to the west side. Iowa Citians for many years have worked hard at making sure we have a clean city that is full of art, parks, recreation, and services. With vision and leadership we can expand those programs and make them more accessible to our citizens. The United States spends over $300 billion per year to subsidize roads and cars its time to just say no to the drug like subsidies we receive from the state and the federal government that push our city to build more roads and parking ramps. It's with the above vision in mind that I submit the amendments that I just submitted plus the ones you will hear for the capital budget also. I propose that we eliminate the 1st Avenue extension. We'll save $400,000. Mormon Trek expansion we'll save $1.75 million. Eliminating the Near Southside parking ramp will save $2.4 million. These are all local funds that we would save. I would propose that we increase the parking fees by 20 cents a hour as people have mention because it will help to increase public transportation. This raise will net us close to $600,000 per year. So along with not building the southside ramp and this increased fee we will encourage people to use alternative means of transportation and public transportation. According to the Johnson County Council of Government one of the major factors in encouraging increase car use is the availability of cheap parking downtown. Again we just have to say no to this drug that's offered very freely in this country to states and to cities. Our capital debt continues to grow at astonishing rates granted some of the growth is needed in order to pay for mandated and needed improvements for our water delivery distribution and management systems but unless we adopt a common sense budget proposal and cut back in a manner similar to what I suggest we'll soon go over the Iowa City self-imposed limit for debt service levy. We've gone from close to $15 million in outstanding debt in FY92 to a near $69 million outstanding debt that proposed for FY03. When the library expansion bond is passed in November of this year if we continue our present course we'll need to cut back on capital debt so that we'll stay within our 25% limit of percentage of our total levy of the property tax for debt service levy. My proposed budget leaves plenty of room for proposed library expansion. The police of Iowa City are well trained and an efficient department but they have expanded their numbers significantly the last four years. Fourteen officers have been hired since FY96 with the aid of federal grants that pay less than 75% of their costs. The problem is that these grants only last for three years these federal grants then the full cost of the police officer must be picked up by the City. I would proposed not replacing four officers that are near retirement age when they leave the police force. This reduction in the number of police employees after three years for three officials would save the City over $150,000 per year from the general fund. I would do this reduction This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 64 over three years. With taxes continuing to increase the timing is not fight for an expansion to the second floor right over there of the police headquarters. This is not a necessity. We should remove the $594,000 expense for this capital project for FY01. In addition to the above it has been mentioned before by Dan our DARE program should be phased out over the next two years. The City of Iowa City pays the full amount of this Iowa City school program from its police department budget. Paying only for half time position in FY01 for the deer program would save approximately $34,000 an full reduction in FY02 would save $68,000 per year. This officer currently working in the program would replace the fourth retiring officer. To supplement our lost officers. I would ask the University to increase their patrol around the ped mall and bar arenas. Too much of our police resources are tied up in enforcing flawed public intoxication law. If people are harassing others we need to deal with that. If there only a little bit wobbly let them be lets us additional community resources besides police personnel to deal with drug violations, underage and binge drinking. In regards to the DARE program numerous studies said that it's not effective and again another program area where money could be spent in a better fashion is in regards to the ICAD program that' s Iowa City Area Development. Currently we give this private development group $50,000 a year. I would cut this figure in half to $25,000 for FY01 and then to $5,000 after next year. After years of public accountability from this organization a public presentation was finally made to Council this year. When the figures, while the figures presented may appear impressive. It is difficult to believe that ICAD alone was responsible for the reported hundreds of jobs created in Iowa City as some had claimed. Many of ICAD's job responsibility such as fielding phone calls from prospective businesses could be and most likely are being done by other organizations and City staff. The first staff in greater future support for ICAD starts with public access to their budget and meetings which is not the case now. Lehman: Could you kinda of condense this a little ? We restrict the public to five minutes I think we could probably do the same. Kanner: Well some people actually spoke for ten but I am almost done. I'll be done in about two minutes. Until then for ICAD lets invest our money somewhere else. I would add three firefighters to the budget. That would be $143 per year. Staff has not been added since the early 1970's. Firefighters themselves have been lobbied hard for this. We need to add that. City of Iowa City personnel in other departments starting FY01 would include a fulltime natural areas manager which would be $48,000 per year. Our parks are our pride lets continue to maintain them at high levels and the above addition will allow someone to manage them. Additional cuts from the City Manager proposed budget include reducing the $1.2 million economic development strategy down to $450,000 before This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #11 Page 65 we establish an even larger pot of money for economic development it is imperative that we make sure that the strategy will not be a boon doggle to developers who could afford to pay their way. Studies indicate that it is not clear how effective proposed industrial business parks are in generating revenue for the City. A component of an economic development strategy is attracting jobs and tax producing businesses tax breaks are not the major reasons that businesses expand stay or are attracted to community. Studies have shown that high ranking reasons for locating in a city are quality of life issues. This could include such quality of life issues as schools, housing, public transportation, environment, culture, etc. I would propose that Council make sure that before it approves larger amounts to an economic development strategy that it take care of some of our other needs first. Maintaining Iowa City's high quality of life will go a long way in attracting the businesses and industries that we want here in our community. Final additions to the budget include adding back the $25,000 per year that was cut to the recently formed Public Arts acquisition program, will be speaking to that in a moment. Finally the proposed parks and recreation fee budget program includes many 10 to 15% increases for FY01. I would hold any proposed increases to the rate of inflation as I mentioned before which is approximately 3%. The common sense budget would save over $7 million in capital costs. Every $700,000 saved in capital costs reduces the debt levy by approximately 7cents of our total of over $14 in total levy. This will help to lower Iowa City's property tax burden and leave room in our budget for the important proposed library expansion. And finally in conclusion in order to continue to fund Iowa City's needs into the future Iowa City Council should pass a resolution requesting that the Iowa State Legislature give cities the option of passing a local income tax. An income tax is the most fair and progressive tax in use around the country. This way Iowa City would be able to take some of the tax burden off of homeowners and renters and place it more on those that can afford it which are some of our higher income citizens along with the rest of the citizens of Iowa City. So I would urge passage of the proposed amendments to the City Council budget. Lehman: Just for the publics information. These were discussed last night item by item and I realize Mr. Kanner refers to this as a common sense budget I have a feeling that there's a lot of folks who probably wouldn't use the word sense in there. In any event we have discussed those at some length. We did not as a Council last night choose to adopt any of them. Now we do have a motion to adopt these and we have had a second. Those in favor of adopting these amendments please signify by saying "Aye." Amendments fail Karmer voting ayes. Are there other amendments to the general fund budget item 11 ? Roll Call. Motion carries 6/1 Kanner voting no. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 66 ITEM NO. 12 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001 THROUGH 2003 AND THE MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2004. Lehman: Do we have a motion? Champion: Move for adoption Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef, discussion. Vanderhoef: Okay I have an amendment to add to the Capital Improvement Plan for the Year 2003 I would like to add the extension of Mormon Trek from Highway 1 to Dane Road. Lehman: I guess a point of information is it prudent to add an item without a number on it ? Atkins: We don not have an engineering estimate but its not out of the question ? But it's a plan remember and if you approve this I'm assuming your directing us to put together the financing we'll bring it back to you and you'll decide whether you wish to proceed or not. But I do need authorization to get into the engineering work on these things. Lehman: Okay is there a second to that amendment ? Lehman: I think the amendment fails for lack of a second. However I do personally agree that this should be something looked into but I hesitate to put something on a CIP without knowing the cost of it. I think we need to know that I think we need to look at that at least get preliminary numbers. Can't we just direct staff to proceed to get numbers ? Atkins: Certainly. Tell us to do whatever you like. Kanner: Mayor could you repeat the proposal. Lehman: Go ahead. Vanderhoef.' I was going to add the extension of Mormon Trek from Highway 1 to Dane Road. It's the road that we will have to build in the near future at the time that the runway is extended on the Airport and we are purchasing clear zone in that area and the road will be closed the present road will be closed. So I think its something that we need to be looking at whether you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. # 12 Page 67 put it in a year right now or whether we just direct staff that' s fine with me too. O'Donnell: I agree with that. We need to look at that. Lehman: Direct staff to do it. Atkins: A count four we'll go back and prepare rough engineering estimate and bring it back to you. Vanderhoef: Fine. Lehman: Are there four people, I think this is something we need to be ready for when it comes up. Pfab: But that's not going to affect the vote on this ? Lehman: No, has nothing to do with this budget. Vanderhoef: Okay, so were not going to put it in the CIP. Lehman: Put it on the back burner. Any discussion or amendments on item 127 Champion: I would like to amend the budget to remove the paving of First Avenue from the year 2002 and move it to 2003. Lehman: The amendment is to take the paving portion of First Avenue and remove it from FY2002 to 2003. Pfab; I second that. Lehman: Seconded by Mr. Pfab. Discussion. O'Donnell: I would like to know what that is going to cost the taxpayers to do that ? We discussed this last night and it appears that' s the only way we're going to get this road constructed. The taxpayers do have the right to know it's going to cost them more money. Lehman: Rick Fosse has done some numbers and if you would tell us Champion: It might not cost anything, gas might be cheaper than. Lehman: If you would give us both sides of the coin. I think you have the numbers that will indicate what it would cost us to abandoned the First Avenue project totally then come back and do the water and grading and what it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 68 would cost what we would save by doing the two together and then you have an estimate or guess as to what the increased cost of paving. Atkins: Now Rick before you answer the motion was paving only. Just want to make sure, ok. Fosse: IfI understand your motion it's to Lehman: Take the paving portion out. Fosse: The paving portion will go in 2003 the grading will occur as part of Captain Irish Champion: When all the other equipment is there. Fosse: What the additional costs that we would experience there is that there would be some duplication on seeding and erosion control because we'd be disturbing that area two years in a row. There would also be some loss in economy in scale by not bidding that paving as part of Captain Irish. To put a figure on that economy of scale is very difficult to do and that can depend on the market in a given year as well. Champion: It could be less. Concrete does go up and down. Fosse: Yes it does. O'Donnell: Yes but this gone from $1.2 million to $1.7 million in two years so chances of it being less I think are fairly remote. Pfab: Also if you get into smaller projects you have the potential of a lot more businesses, smaller businesses bidding on it. Fosse: Right, locally here we usually have two local concrete firms bid on projects ranging from small to very large ones. O'Donnell: But is should be said that if we let this bid out to one contractor we will get a better deal probably. Fosse: Typically that's the case, there is some economy of scale. O'Donnell: By delaying this one year, although I'm going to support it cause that's the only way we'll get the road done, it does cost taxpayers more money. Fosse: Potentially yes. O'Donnell: There is an awful good chance. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 69 Champion: Well I'm just going to address Mike for a minute but you know I didn't really want to go into a long explanation because its getting late and I'm frankly tired. When I first decided that I wanted to ask for the postponement of First Avenue and to do Captain Irish first I've always felt that from the very beginning when I first started talking about First Avenue and Captain Irish for a couple of reasons. Number one I think there is a lot of division in the community on this road and I've never been against the road I've always spoken for it. But I do feel that doing Captain Irish and Scott Boulevard first will alleviate some of the peoples fears. It may not but I think it will. The other thing that I have asked and the reason I really want to postpone it for a year was that then I could ask along with the other Council it would just be me asking in fact I couldn't get it done if it was just me, is that we got representatives from these different factions that support the road don't want the road and I mean people who have some reason to get together with city staff in the design of First Avenue. Not just the new part of the road but my major concem was the road from Rochester to Muscatine. I'm really concerned about the schools, peoples driveways the exits, and I think I know those things can be addressed and maybe with people being involved who are against the road because of those fears can be involved in the solution. They'll be more comfortable that we can get there kids across the street safely we already do it in other parts of town. That there are things we can do with stop lights with crossing guards, lots of things we can do to make roads safe. The other reason I really want trucks to stay off of First Avenue and I think the only way to do that is to do it after Captain Irish is done. My reasons were not because individual groups came to me it was that there were a lot of different individual groups that came to me and I think they all have valid concerns and to me there are ways to protect that park and buffer it and those things need to be all written down and then hopefully maybe will get some comfort level with this road that is going to go through. We do need this road and we need it for a lot of reasons and I'm not against the road I just want things done a little differently. I don't think it will hurt not to do that road immediately I think it would be damaging to do it I don't think it would hurt to wait a year. And it may cost the taxpayers a little bit more money but there are a lot of things we do that cost a lot of money. To me this is a cost that I'm willing to bear the brunt for. I really think its important that we handle it in this way I totally support the road I just want it done a little differently and I don't think money is always the major concern. So I'm going to support this amendment because I'd like to see anything done but I'm not an economic idiot and I know it would be very expensive to delay everything until that road can go through. So I don't feel like I need to defend myself for that little bit of money and maybe I am the changing vote but there are four of us who weren't willing to support doing it so I'm not the only person voting against doing them together. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 7O Lehman: Well Connie I think that the increased cost as Rick indicated is somewhat I hate to use the word insignificant but certainly not a major portion of the project. The other thing it does, I think it does do a couple of other things. I believe we do have to put this to bed once and for all that the road will be built. This has been a source of a lot of conflict within the community and obviously some minds are never going to change but we need to move on. It also gives us the opportunity to proceed with the fire station proposal which certainly is a very important part of public safety on the east side of town. And doing the grading and water line at the same time really recoups most of the cost that would have been incurred had we delayed the project the entire project for a year. So I obviously will support it. Irvin. Pfab: I will support the amendment as it is or the plans as it is now to move it but I'm somewhat reluctant. I really not like, I would like to see that First Avenue not even be graded except we got one problem and that' s a water pipe so we have to put that in and I just spoke to Rick here and that's got to be put in and the water will be coming toward the end of 01 is that right ? So that's something we have to do and it appears that that's about the best and economical place to put the pipe ok. So with that I reluctantly agree to have the grading and the water pipe put in. I'm also a little bit concerned about this talk about some of this ground has to go to build Captain Irish or Scott Boulevard whatever you call it. I'm sure if that's officially know at this point. I'm also concerned that there are the area up there Hickory Hill park and wherever or however it is, there's a natural asset there that I think a lot of people have a lot of concerns about protecting it I think that the public has to come together and have a meeting of the minds and sure it's going to cost a little bit more but what is the cost of people being very upset with their neighbors and feeling that their concerns are not being addressed and people are being in a sense ruled and their opinions and their concerns don't count. So I think I'm willing to trade off putting off the paving for at least a year I'd like to put off the grading but I see that's going to have to be done because of the water pipe. So I'll support what Connie is, and I basically agree with what she has to say and we have to look at the total cost and not just the little thing because if you put First Avenue through there this traffic is going to be a lot of traffic questions that are going to be brought up they have to be solved and they are also part of the numbers. It's not just the cost of First Avenue but what you have to do up and down the whole strip. Lehman: Other discussion. Randy Brown: Excuse me for interrupting. Maybe I missed the que but I think there's several people who wanted to talk about this. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 71 Lehman: No that's fine. Brown: My name is Randy Brown and I live on Walnut Street and I want to talk about this so called compromise on extending First Avenue. I'm here to tell you that nobody is fooled by the word compromise. In talking with people about this today it made no difference whether they were for the extension or against the extension they all found the word compromise comical and farsicle as its applied to this situation. You were going to grade for the extension before you still plan to grade for the extension. You were going to extend First Avenue before you still plan to extend First Avenue. Nothing has changed there is no compromise. In 1997 we had the referendum and voted to delay the extension and we delayed it by grading and pouring the turn off Captain Irish toward First Avenue. In 2000 you've listen politely as citizen after citizen has expressed reservations about extending First Avenue and you've decided to delay the road so the community won't be sharply divided. By delay you mean grading the street per the original schedule. At this rate in 2003 the City Council will say its heeding the community's mandate never to complete the extension after which it will pave the final 1600 feet and say there we've listen to the people and didn't extend First Avenue but isn't it a great street. There is arrogance in ignoring so many citizens concerns about the extension and I understand there is also some question about depending on many things this is something that the City Attorney says that she just cannot have an opinion about yet but this may be worded in such a way that a referendum would be impossible. I think that would be slickness in ignoring us in a way that would prevent a referendum that would ensure that the voters would not have the last word on this issue as we did three years ago. You have done that while claiming to listen to those very same voters you are a perfect local example of political double speak. So many people wanted to engage in a discussion on this issues. So far you have refused to be drawn into a meaningful discussion of whether First Avenue is advisable so far you have decided vote first discuss later. Last night Councilor Pfab proposed a special committee with a outside mediator to explore the complicated competing priorities involved in this issue and I would urge him to bring that proposed amendment back up and I would urge you to consider it. Thank you for listening. Wilburn: I will not be supporting the amendment. At other meetings I've stated my objection to this I'm using my vote to object to this amendment because there's been throughout all of this there's been a hint that either I'm not being reasonable that there's a small minority group of people objecting to this and correspondence that I have had indicates that this is not the case. There's people all over the community on both sides of this issue and in fact I had a message from someone today that I won't listen to reason. Well, reasonable people can disagree and so I will not be supporting this amendment I will be supporting the capital improvement budget in total This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 72 but on this I will not support it. Also I just want to say from the public hearing the other night that I appreciate again with that premise that reasonable people can disagree. I appreciate people that have been on the opposite side than me respectfully disagreeing with me and not resorting to the name calling and things like that that went on the other night so. We Lehman: Well said. Jerry Feick: The other day I spoke briefly with Connie Champion and the Mayor in reference to First Avenue and I pulled the map out of the phone book which all the citizens listening can do for themselves. What prompted that discussion with the Mayor and Ms. Champion was that that day I sat in a Coralville bus approximately between two and two thirty in the afternoon west of the English philosophy building at the intersection. An ambulance was trying to come from the south and could not get through because of the traffic at that time of day that traffic bottlenecks down highway 6 clear south to the city water plant daily many times a day clear out to the China Garden. You have an immense problem there. Now I understand you try to pretend that Coralville doesn't exist. There here and there here to stay. And people from that northeast quadrant of Iowa City want to go to Coralville so the suggestion that I made and I don't know if this is feasible engineering wise I'm just looking at the map from the air which any citizen and any council person and the Mayor and City Manager can do. Take Highway 6 where the cement curve is east of Veteran's Hospital run it north noaheast connect it to Park Road run east northeast connect it to Highway 1 you'll have your First Avenue problem solved. Yes it will cost millions of dollars but I think you got to look twenty thirty years into the future your going to develop part of that peninsula. Your going to develop that area around First Avenue and you say your not going to develop this wooded area out there well that's the plan now but wait twenty years down the road you run out of space. At sometime you will develop some of that wooded area out there on the edge of First Avenue that everybody's complaining about. I'm not saying it's going to be done now but you got to have the vision to look at the future. I think you need to look at this to get rid of that massive traffic problem you've got on Highway 6 west of the downtown. Now you say we don't want a direct road coming down Highway 1 down Park Road connecting to Highway 6 everybody will go to Coralville they bypass downtown. Well sorry folks there going to bypass downtown and tallyho to the Coral Ridge Mall anyway. And probably if your wise and look into the longer future thirty forty years Highway 6 from that comer going west is going to be widened massively widened because that noahwest quadrant of Coralville is only going to grow yet your going to have people working at the University and students and I don't think the University is going to get smaller and I don't think University Hospitals is going to get smaller. Maybe that's something to consider look at the map get your engineers contact the people at the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 73 University they now the ground layout of it. Maybe it can't be done exactly at that angle you got a railroad there to contend with but at some point your going to have to get rid of that bottleneck maybe you'll be in the ambulance someday and it can't get through. It had to jump the curb and go up the wrong side of the road to get to I don't know whether they went to Veteran's Hospital I assume that's where they went or otherwise they would have turned on west at the comer west of the English Philosophy building and probably went up to the University Hospitals that direction. You might be in the ambulance someday so might some other citizens. Karin Turner McKeone: My name is Karin Turner McKeone I live at 1181 Hotz. I'm opposed to the extension of First Avenue. This morning at 7:33 am a train crossed the First Avenue by Southeast Junior High School. Traffic was backed up to Muscatine Avenue in the area of Walgreen' s and Hy- Vee. People became impatient some took to the side streets to reach their destination. Can you imagine this problem when you add as much traffic as you plan to add. Still you continue to march toward your vision of continuing this project regardless of the impact on our community, schools and children, regardless of the objection from people living in the area and regardless of the pollution, traffic noise and objection from Hickory Hill Park users. Where is your regard for us ? The plan to grade the First Avenue extension this year with imminent pavement next year is not a compromise. It is a way for the Council to pursue a project in spite of the many objections and arguments already presented before the Council. Do you really expect citizens to embrace further town meetings to identify potential solutions after the area has already been graded ? Have you considered the message that you send to us when you ignore more than 5,000 voters who voted to delay this project in the referendum as this was the only legal step that we had at this time to delay or to slow the City down. Proponents of the First Avenue believe we are stifling their opportunities not everybody is opposed to the development of land around the end of First Avenue but let it be in keeping with the neighborhoods population and sensitivity of the area. Dave Forkenbroch the University of Iowa Transportation and Policy Center Director has given you optional plans for the development of this area. He also states that Scott Boulevard is efficient and design to handle the increased traffic. He recommends allowing Scott Boulevard to do its job. If you still aren't convinced that this is enough access traffic counts can occur along First Avenue before and after Scott Boulevard if completed these numbers should tell you what you need to know. Mr. Forkenbroch also sites the Highway compacity manual which is kind of like a bible of transportation planning. In this reference recommendation is made against building an arterial street with the existing slope of First Avenue. This is dangerous. The existing section of First Avenue by Rochester was designed as an entry to a subdivision not an arterial street. At the end of last week's public hearing Mr. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 74 O'Donnell revealed the tally that he'd been keeping two more votes for the extension it's pretty close he stated. Don't forget to add those five thousand voters when you work out your tally. Also not everyone present spoke in respect to the Council's time. We could have all kept you here longer (change side of tape) On a personal note yesterday my nephew was hit by a van as he was riding his bicycle from school. Thankfully he's doing okay thanks to his helmet, there's a plug for helmets. This accident to place in the low traffic area. Imagine a child darting into a street with the capacity that's been projected for First Avenue extension. Please take this project out of your budget for good if possible. We have the solution of Scott Boulevard which will handle the traffic without community risks. Thank you. Marie Gurnett: I'm Marie Gurnett and I live in Iowa City and I personally will be using the Scott Boulevard extension however I feel strongly that we need the First Avenue extension as well. I'm concerned is will it really paved ? This is what I ask. Lehman: Folks, we're going to take comments on First Avenue for another ten minutes or so. Brandon Ross: I think it's wrong to limit the concern on First Avenue since this is the majority of the people here who are against First Avenue and by you who are supporting the road I don't think you should be asking for limited time. That's my personal opinion. Lehman: My point is that we had two and half hours on last Tuesday where we heard from both sides. I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone who supports or opposes it to come to every meeting. I would be more than happy to hear any new comments that we haven't heard obviously. Ross: Well respectfully Mayor Lehman there is an amendment being proposed tonight and this is a completely new platform on which to speak and I truly believe that what is happening here is that you are proposing something new and not giving both sides a chance to actually discuss it. It looks like you are railroading through something that is wanted by certain members and not wanted by many others. So I propose that a lot of discussion should be allowed because we are considering a new thing. Lehman: The only difference is ifit's completed, the only difference in what has been amended tonight and what we had last Tuesday night is in 2002 was the proposal a week ago to complete both projects now the paving portion of First Avenue is been moved to 2003. So no the time flame has changed the project has not but please speak to it. Ross: Okay thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. Page 75 Kanner: Can you tell us your name again? Ross: My name is Brandon Ross and I live in Iowa City and I've said before this is the greatest place to live. I would like to call attention to the American flag that's in the comer and I would like to move that people pledge of allegiance during this meeting. May that be accepted? Lehman: I don't see the point in that. But continue. Ross: Because I think that the pledge of allegiance states something that are important to our process and I think that we are being ignored here. I think the people are being ignored in the favor of the money interest the money interest. Take a look at the map over there. It's very comprehensive, somewhat. You see this gray area of roads well basically what's going to happen here is your going to cut into Hickory Hill park and people do not want it. We didn't come out here and discuss things because we're happy with your decision. You're not representing the people right now. The park is something that is a great resource to this town it represents things that are greater than money. Just because the kings and queens and jokers want to put their pieces on the board I don't think that the rest of the people in the community should suffer because of this. I think I'm speaking seriously for the greater number of people in this community. I would say that what' s going to happen here most likely is the road is put through eventually what will happen is developments will be brought in and they'll be grids of developments that will be attached to this road and there are going to be other things. They'll be more parking garages you know increase our parking garage collection which is becoming a tourist interest I think we should have a tour of parking garages. Then maybe will have some kiosks and maybe some chili dogs stands and sidewalks are going to be put through there. And some people will complain that it's no longer safe to be in the park you'll have to create some other concrete things. And I'm standing up here to tell you that basically people don't want this. The people who are against this are the educated, the school teachers, the professors, the scientists, the environmentalist, the children, and the adolescence in this town. Well how many children and adolescence came to say that they wanted the road to go through. How many of them can you convince that it's important and that's what should happen. I don't think you could convince any of them and there where none of them that should up in support of this. You make a big show today of giving awards to the children who have done something for this community and the promising young minds that we have and you give them a plaque and it's very nice and everything is fine but what you going to do with these children once you give them the awards is your going to close down something that's beautiful in the child's eye. Your stealing their promise. That's what I think your stealing the promise from them. As This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 76 far as issues around the park may of them have already been said. I think that what your doing with the amendment I think the amendment is strickning and I think your coating it with sugar so that the public will take it nicely I don't think that's the solution I think last week when a Council Member spoke up against a fellow who was threatening the actual the process, you know threatening to have the mad go through I was very hearten because I thought that someone was speaking against something that was assumed to be in place. Well it's not in place the road is not wanted it's only needed if we all believe that those people wearing the gold watches they should have more things to play with and not necessarily public transportation, and parks, and education do you think we can spend, that we can't spend enough money in those areas. Well I read in the Press-Citizen that this same person was threatening to have a referendum if the road was not going to be voted for that person was threatening to get a referendum signed. But we signed a referendum okay I encouraged that person and invite him wholeheartedly to get the referendum signed. If they can sign a referendum well then lets talk I invite them to take part in the democratic process that at least I so respect and I know that most people here do. Anyone here who is young and idealistic at one point in there lives which is everybody. I know you want to make the right decision I know you want to make the right decision about this park. Don't destroy one of Iowa City' s greatest things in just because of interest in growth. I'm completely against this growth I think it's cancerous growth. I think if you want to keep growing and developing well it doesn't solve the problems I think you are alienating your community and what happens when you put the dollar in front of the community I think you get things like that you see around the country like Columbine and other such things. Put the people first don't vote for the dollar you know whose hands are in whose pockets we come out here with no vested interest except to save the spiritual quality of life in this town. Save Iowa City and save this park and do not put through that road it will be vastly unpopular. Thank you. Lehman: Jerry let other people speak first. Jerry Feick: I want to make a suggestion here I'll be the jester here okay just observation I think a lot of the viewers can see my point. Why don't all of you save your asses and put this up for a referendum and let the public decide. If it carries it carries. Either way but at least you don't get blamed the next election and by all the citizens on both sides of the aisle. Lehman: I don't think that's an option that the Council has. Feick: It's not an option, well I think your going to find as the imminent lawyer in town used to say, he's deceased now Billy Meardon, your about to turn the spotlight on yourselves and make yourself star of the show. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. # 12 Page 77 O'Donnell: Well there's something new we've never done that. Feick: Mr. O'Donnell you'll be the next one to lose the election. O'Donnell: Thank you. Feick: Remember what I said O'Donnell: Thank you very much. Dan Coleman: Dan Coleman, I have two comments. There's been some discussion this evening about a some kind of consensus seeking process that could take place on this issue in the coming year and I want to make the point that that process already took place in 1998. It was called the Northeast Area Small District Plan. That was an open process it took place right after the First Avenue referendum so people participating understood that that was an important issue in the plan. Over 100 citizens participated they divided into eleven groups nine of those groups came up with scenarios that did not connect First Avenue to Captain Irish the other two connected it in a much diminished way then what is proposed and reportedly did that only because they thought it was not politically feasible to not have any connection at all. So I think if your looking for a consensus there it took place in an open and democratic planning process that the city sponsored. I wanted to ask Ross if you would clarify your previous comment cause it had previously been reported in the papers and understood by the public that you were opposed to the current time table for the extension and you seem to be saying you know are supporting the CIP as proposed and does that mean you are now supporting the current time table for the extension? Wilburn: We were just discussing that and you'll have to excuse me my brain's a little tired and I'm not sure what the paper said I did not look at the paper and the comments that were attributed to me frankly today. I have supported Scott Boulevard my position has been lets do Scott Boulevard and see if we need it if that produces the desired effect in terms of the north south traffic flow distribution and let's let it go at that. The suggestion that I had heard was put in the paper that was made by Mayor Lehman was to do Scott Boulevard to grade where the extension of First Avenue would be down to street level because the water line is going though as opposed to if the road never goes through, how much we're going to grade it though and because I'm not supportive of that because if my first point that if we do Scott Boulevard and if that works and if that has the desired effect and First Avenue never goes through then if you and if it never goes through then what good did it do to or what damage did you do by grading down to street level. So I'm going to be looking to the City Attorney or Marian because they're familiar with my positions you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 78 familiar with my position. I'm looking for some help to make sure that I vote that's consistent with my view because I'm a little, I'm a little because of the way this has been proposed and worded I'm a little confused about which of these I should be voting for and which I should not be voting for. The entire capital improvement project includes budget includes some other items that I support that I'm not once we have the vote on this issue I'm wanting to support the capital improvements project budget so that other projects that I do support go through. Earlier Mr. Kanner decided in his amendment to the annual budget he suggested an amendment it defeated and then on the vote for the entire year budget he decided to vote against that. I'm not willing to not vote for some other capital improvement projects once we had a vote on this particular issue. Is that Coleman: My follow up would be that Connies' motion amendment fails would you then support an amendment to delay the grading as well as the paving for such an amendment put forward ? Wilburn: Yes. Coleman: Thank you. Wilburn: And I think that's consist with what I had been saying. Elizabeth Field: My name is Elizabeth Field. I live at 627 St. Thomas Court which happens to be a cul-de-sac- coming off Rochester east of First Avenue. I apologize is I'm going to say something that you've heard before but in my defense I didn't realize until I picked up the paper at 5:15 on my way home from work that something had changed between last week and this week. I am opposed to the First Avenue extension for the reason that I do not believe that the First Avenue south of Rochester can handle the excess traffic which I estimate based on the traffic reports that have been published in the paper are going to be 10,000 extra cars. I think that the schools in that area can not handle that. I don't see any reasonable plans put forth by the City on how the City plans to deal with that additional traffic which I am assuming is going down First Avenue since it hasn't been projected to go into the Rochester numbers. So I've made that as brief as I could to respect the late time. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Pfab: I have only one question here. Is there a way to handle the water problem without it going to where the proposed First Avenue is ? To getting the water from the water plant to wherever your trying to go. Lehman: Rick would you like to address that ? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. # 12 Page 79 Pfab: Because I'm really opposed to grading that and disturbing that, is there another way? Fosse: I think there are probably alternate routes out there you would have to get the easements for them. This is the one that certainly makes sense with the way that area has been laid out. Pfab: Are there alternative ways and were they ever costed out or ever plotted out ? Atkins: We did the one go down Scott Boulevard you requested that. Pfab: But is there is there some is there other than that ? Atkins: Not without some sicuitous route to get somewhere. Pfab: No no I don't mean that part. I mean I just that just I have great difficulty grading that under the pretense of putting a water pipe in and that' s just how I have to sort it out. Kanner: What's the additional cost for going to Scott ? Fosse: Let's see going around is Kanner: It's a million dollar cost now. Atkins: It's about $1.7 million. Fosse: Right. Pfab: Now does that include a larger size ? to give up the water pressure to compensate for the water Atkins: The water project involves a 24 inch line from the water plant to the Rochester reservoir that's going in. Then it has a 12 inch line coming out that would serve the neighborhood, the supply line, one would supply the neighborhood. Now remember part of the process that we have here with this water line is to solve the pressure problems as well as get the new water into our neighborhoods. Pfab: Is the line going under the proposed First Avenue plotting there, is that a 24 inch line ? Atkins: 24 inch line as I recall Rick goes down the west side of the street and a 12 inch line goes up the east side of the street. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 80 Fosse: That's correct. Kanner: Rick while your there I have a question that doesn't it addresses the issue perhaps not the amendment directly but for out meeting tonight could you tell us the cost of widening First Avenue the approximate cost to widen First Avenue if we extended First Avenue north what would it be for south of Rochester ? Fosse: If you were to reconstruction from Rochester to approximately Ralston Creek Kanner: Near the Hy-Vee. Fosse: Depending on the scope of improvements it would be in about the 2 to 3 million dollar range. Kanner: That's what recommended if we're going to extend north. Fosse: I don't think any recommendations has been made. Lehman: I don't think that's recommended. Atkins: We' ve never done that. Kanner: It's not recommended to make it an arterial street. Lehman: No, the numbers don't justify it but I do think you'd have to, my personal feeling is that there would have to be some turn lanes or whatever at Court Street but I don't think those Kanner: What would be the cost ofwhat's recommended to keep it to arterial street standards ? That's what I thought we asked for. Fosse: Again, there's been no recommendation that I'm aware of now if we look at a reconstruction so that we extend the cross section that you see between Bradford and Muscatine that would be in the 2 to 3 million dollar range. Lehman: Rick, is that street constructed at arterial standards now ? Fosse: Which segment now ? Lehman: Any of it. Pfab: Bradford to Muscatine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 81 Fosse: Bradford to the Hy-Vee it is, yes. Actually south of there as well. Lehman: How does that compare with for example West Benton Street which carries probably three times the traffic. I think West Benton Street is 26 feet. Fosse: West Benton, no I think it's a little wider than that I think it's 31 or 33 once you get out by Willow Creek Park. Pfab: If First Avenue didn't go through you probably wouldn't have to do that. Fosse: Well I think in the out years of the program there's some consideration to the intersection of Court and First Avenue right now. Looking at some turn lane improvements there. Vanderhoef: While your there would you just quickly give the timetable of what's happening on North Dodge because I truly have a safety issue with delaying the First Avenue paving because of the work that's going to be done on Noah Dodge and the state involvement in that one. Fosse: Right now we're looking at doing some improvements to Noah Dodge from where Governor and Dodge come together on out to 1-80. That would be in the calendar year 2003. Vanderhoef: Is that when we start widening, we've got money in the 01 and 02 and 03 in the capital budget for Dodge Street. Fosse: That would be the construction year 2003. Atkins: We're doing the environmental report remember that ? Vanderhoef: So we won't start construction until 03. Lehman: Which I think you had pointed out last night was an advantage because if First Avenue were to go through as it presently proposed in this plan it would be completed when Noah Dodge was being reconstructed and could serve as a detour which obviously we don't want it to be. Fosse: Right. But as proposed Captain Irish would be in place and be able to serve for that. Irvin. Pfab: To go back to the timetable now as it's set up right now without any amendments or changes, when would grading start on Captain Irish I think is what the term you used now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 82 Fosse: Okay. The grading would begin in the fall of 2001 because we need to have the water lines in place by the end of calendar year 2001. Pfab: So you say January or July of 2001. Fosse: No by December 31, 2001 we need to have the water lines in place. Pfab: That would be when you'd start grading for Scott Boulevard Fosse: Yeah it would be the middle of the summer 2001 into the fall. Pfab: Let me ask you a question what's it going to be called. Fosse: What's it going to be called. I don't know whether it will be Scott Boulevard or Captain Irish. Pfab: So as it is right now with no changes no amendments no nothing changes you start the grading of Scott Boulevard before December 1 of 01 or before December 31 01 but that's before how much before ? What's the earliest you pull in a bulldozer and start pushing dirt around ? What's the earliest? Fosse: I'd say mid summer Pfab: Of ? Fosse: Of 2001. Pfab: So as so up until midsummer July of 2001 nothing is going to change fight now the way it set up. Right, correct Pfab: Is that time to work out a solution that people can walk away and say we all had input. I don't know. Lehman: Thank you Rick. Wilburn: Can you restate the amendment for me so I'm clear on it. Lehman: The amendment removes the paving portion of First Avenue from the year FY02 and places it in FY03 it changes nothing else. Wilbum: And is the grading to street level within this or ifI have an objection to that do I need to make a separate motion to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 83 Lehman: Yeah, the grading and water line are involved in it because the dirt that's involved in the grading Wilburn: Do I need to make a separate motion ? Lehman: If you don't want the grading and water line included in that you would have to well actually if you don't want the grading and water line improvement that would be removing all of Wilburn: The grading to street level. Vanderhoef: That's in this amendment. Lehman: That's in it. Dilkes: This motion presumes that the grading will be done at the time the water line goes in. So that if that is not acceptable to you you would vote against that. Wilburn: All right. Lehman: You all fight ? Wilbum: I'm all right. Pfab: Okay your making an assumption and I don't know if it's totally correct as I speak to different people. That dirt from First Avenue has got to go to Scott Boulevard it's got to be transported there. I think that you may be overstating that just a little bit. Lehman: Rick would you address that. Rick can tell you exactly becausehe does the engineering. Pfab: My point is that there might be other places to use that dirt. Lehman: But the point is that if you don't use it there you got to haul it away later. Go ahead. Fosse: Yeah the earth the 2800 yards from First Avenue has about $60,000 of value to the Captain Irish project. If the grading is done independently that is First Avenue is graded at a later date then you need to dispose of that excess material and the going rates for last year any way that would cost about $145,000. P~ab: So it's about $145,000 if you don't use the dirt from First Avenue to build Scott Boulevard. That's assuming that's the only place you could use that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 84 dirt. That you can't use somewhere in the park area. Let's suppose your going to breem or brehm or whatever you call it along the road to protect the park from noise pollution. Berm. Fosse: Oh berm. Okay. It could possibly used there but you remember when you do that grading that increases the footprint on the whole project too. Pfab: You mean the whole project for what ? The berm makes the footprint wider. Fosse: Right. Pfab: Okay. Fosse: That would be outside the fight-of- way. Pfab: I think there should be a way where the people who are trying to protect that natural area have some input and I think there's a solution there but standing each on one side of the street and shouting at the other just doesn't seem to be the way to make this thing work. Lehman: Eleanor. Dilkes: Mr. Mayor can I ask a couple of questions of Rick just to clarify. I just want to make sure I have the answers to these questions because I think there going to be factors in questions that I may get down the road about the fight of an initiative. Lehman; Okay. Dilkes: The motion on the table is suggesting that the grading would be done when we put the water line in in anticipation of the road. I'm assuming that you could put the water lines in without grading and would do so if you were never going to put the road through is that right ? Fosse: Correct it's possible. Dilkes: Assuming there was never a road plan there you wouldn't would you put your waterline in and not necessarily grade down to street level. Is it possible to put the water line in and grade, put the water line in now not do the grading and grade for First Avenue at a later date after the water line is in or is that something is that grading that level of the dirt you have to know where that's going to be when you put the water line in initially. Fosse: What you've described is possible and the additional costs of that additional depth is $59,000. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 85 Dilkes: Okay. Pfab: So for an additional $59,000 you could put the water line in without disturbing or grading First Avenue. Atkins: That's right. Fosse: That's right. Pfab: Looks like a bargain to me but that's my point. Wilburn: Assuming that the road goes through. Pfab: Well yeah. No assuming that the road maybe doesn't go. Whether it does or doesn't go through it's going to cost you about $59,000 more to put it in without disturbing all the land and scraping it off and causing more erosion as you go along. Lehman: But if you did put the road through there would be an additional $140,000 because of the earth issue. Fosse: That's right there's two components of that. Lehman: Couple hundred thousand. Kanner: Eleanor if we approve without the road just putting it in 12 feet under and then with the assumption if we ever want to change it would cost $59,000. Could some one bring a referendum on that ? Do we have a limit on that issue of a referendum to put the road through would they be allowed to do that because there's that additional cost that $59,000. Dilkes: That really goes that doesn't go to the issue of an initiative to put the road through but what I'm talking about is an initiative to further delay First Avenue. The question is planning policies and plans are subject to initiative. Execution of plans are not. So my questions are geared to trying to figure out are we grading for when we put the water line in and grade for First Avenue is the only reason to do that because of First Avenue and therefore we are executing a part of the First Avenue plan. It sounds to me the answer is yes. So I just want that all out on the table here and again I'm not saying what my final judgement would be on that because I hesitate to give opinions on hypothetical initiatives until someone puts it on paper and I look at it. But I needed that clarification to help me down the road if that comes up. Jim Walters: Briefly I think at some point it's obvious to all of us that we're going to stop building roads. The only question is when that question is when that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 86 day is going to come. We're limited by a couple of things. We're limited first of all because we might simply run out of space if we pave the earth so I don't think that's going to happen. The reality is that we're going to run out of oil and it's coming at us fairly quickly. My good friend Carl Means is the former state chair of the Sierra Club writes this consistently in the Gazette. You can read his editorials about twice a year, he puts them with the websites that you can go and visit and get the information. It's coming at us very, very quickly. So we're going to stop building roads at some point and if you want to stop building roads this is the best place that you've ever got to make the step. You couldn't find a better candidate for a road to not build than this road because it doesn't, it has so many bad fits. Now I say that knowing and acknowledging as I have that there are compelling reasons for building the road. I'm not going to stand here like some of the people that support the road and say that I don't believe that because I do. I can listen to these arguments and I can be supportive of them. I want them to acknowledge the other side. I want them to acknowledge all the information that has been put before you opposing this road and the compelling reasons for opposing this road and I want you to put that out on the table and weigh it because I think if you do you've got a grand opportunity here to set Iowa City transportation and raod policy on a new course. You can't-we're in a big battleship called you know with oil and transportation and cars and no, we're not going to just turn that battleship around and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction but you make a maneuver and you change course. This is a good place to just point the ship a little bit to the right or left whatever way you consider it and make a slight move in changing course. And you can do that, and you can do that as Irvin has suggested by getting all of us together and sitting down and talking about it. Really not saying let's limit debate. Not saying we've heard it all. Because I don't think we really have. I mean I'm learning new things every day about thing. And I'm hearing new people and making new friends. And I'm hoping not making any new enemies and I think as we do that we'll strengthen the community in a way that's really positive and we may also find some new direction for our policies. The other thing that I think is a compelling reason to oppose this is because I think as Steven as pointed out so well we've got a real budget that heading toward bust here and we've got a whole bunch of other capital projects coming at us. We've got a library. We've got a jail. We've got all kinds of business revitalization things that need to be done. This would be a good one to take off and divert some of that money in some of these other areas that we're going to have to divert it too. So I think that's a compelling reason for taking this out of the budget. And I have to commend Irvin for getting to the root of this issue is that we can put that water line through. We got no problem with that. We can put that water line through and we can leave that road unbuilt and I hope you'll do that. Thanks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 87 Lehman: Thank you. I think we've got somebody else who'd like to speak. Jerry Feick: Well, they can get in line. It 's democracy at work. Lehman: Now look at almost every public meeting Feick: Connie I'd like you to withdraw your ah motion. Lehman: Jerry (gavel) Atkins: Jerry Feick: either withdraw it totally Lehman: Give everybody an opportunity to speak before you get up again. Feick: either withdraw it totally or create a new motion Lehman: Jerry Atkins: Jerry, will you please sit down. Feick: or create a new motion only allowing for the laying of the water line and you'll have less dissention in the community. Lehman: Jerry will you please sit down. We'd like to have everybody have an opportunity to speak. Feick: Ernie as Billy Meardon said I'm about to turn the spotlight on you an make you star of the show and it's going to happen next week. Lehman: Thank you Jerry. Thank you. Sit down please. O'Donnell: Good Night. Atkins: Mr. Mayor and members of Council this behavior occurs again I want the understanding that I'll have Mr. Feick removed. Feick: Same threats I received from the City Mayor (Manager) on the tax fraud at Elderly Services. Champion: Do it right now. O'Donnell: Do it right now. Vanderhoef: Do it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 88 Lehman: Go ahead. Corbin Sexton: Good evening my name is Corbin Sexton and I live at 1159 Hotz Avenue. I don't want to live in a community that is designed with convenience in mind above everything else. And you know there are a lot of things that are more important than convenience and First Avenue is being driven in large part by this goal of convenience. Excuse me. Democracy is not convenient. It's not convenient for us all to be here tonight to listen to one person after another but we do it because we think it serves a higher purpose. Ross Wilbum earlier made the point that in a community like this we'd like to think that we can respectfully disagree with one another. I think the problem around this issue is that there are many of us that tried to go through the conventional channels on this issue. We've collected signatures. We've asked people to contact Council Members. We have shown up at meeting, after meeting, after meeting. We've attended the neighborhood planning meetings and presented ideas that have then been dismissed so respect is not the first word that comes to mind looking back over how all of that has lead to a proposal that flies in the face of what so many people are standing up and asking for and that is to stop the First Avenue extension. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Okay we're going to take one more and then we're really going to have to stop discussion. Danielle Williams: Hi, my name is Danielle Williams. I live on Dover Street. So I benefit a lot from the First Avenue extension but that's not the only reason I'm for it. As some of the people have argued that there would be more cars driving just because it's more convenient so it would add to the pollution of the City but right now I drive so far out of my way every day and I think of the other cars doing that and that's a lot of pollution that' s added to the environment that wouldn't be there. I think, I guess in my opinion I think the First Avenue extension would lessen the pollution in the City and if you are worried about the pollution and you want people to ride the buses, the bus system here isn't very good. I guess I came from Ames where the buses like the City works with the University and it's all one bus system. Here there's three different ones and they don't seem to work together. So that would be another thing to work on also. And I guess if this extension doesn't go through my next house will be in Coralville. Lehman: Thank you. Any other discussion on the Council? Jerry Feick: (can't hear from audience) tax abatement Lehman: Like to call for a vote on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 89 Brandon Ross: Some people haven't gotten to speak yet. Pfab: What is the amendment? Lehman: Sorry? Brandon Ross:Not everyone has gotten to speak yet. Champion: My amendment is Lehman: I don't think we're going to go all night sir. I'm sorry. Ross: That's not the idea. Champion: My amendment is that we remove the paving from First Avenue from to 2003. O'Donnell: And I second that if it hasn't been seconded. Karr: It has been seconded. Champion: I'll call the motion. Can I call my own motion? Lehman: Go ahead Woman: One more comment. My name is (can't hear), 217 N. Mt. Vernon Drive. I'm very much opposed to the First Avenue extension. I don't want to see it built. But I want to direct to Ross particularly that if you don't vote for this particular amendment First Avenue is going to be built this summer. If you vote for this amendment it will get graded but it's not going to be paved. Then we still have time. I would rather see somebody propose an amendment to only put the water line through this summer and delay the rest of it but that does not appear to be happening. I guess that's the main thing I wanted to point out. It's better to stop the paving than to let the whole thing go through fight now. Thank you. Lehman: Thank. The amendment is to remove the paving portion from FY 02 and place it in FY 03. Other than that, and that is so far the only amendment on this. A1 those in favor of the amendment say "aye". Opposed. Pfab: I'm opposed. Lehman: I beg your pardon. Pfab: I'm opposed to it because I think we should not pave it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 9o Lehman: The amendment carried 5/2. Any other amendments for. Feick: Could you declare the votes orally so the public could know what the votes are? Lehman: Mr. Kanner and Mr. Pfab voted against it and the other five voted Feick: Thank you. Pfab: Can I make a motion or amendment or whatever it takes to say I'm for grading, or putting the water line in and not disturbing the other ground. Lehman: Right. You're making a motion that we amend the motion by doing the water line only. Pfab: Right. Lehman: Is there a second? Wilbum: Second Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. Discussion. Champion: That would disagree with my motion Lehman: No, no not if it passes. Vanderhoef: Yes it would. Lehman: It would actually Vanderhoef: You can't do it. O'Donnell: Don't we need to act on Connie's? Feick: Can if you want to defeat the previous passage. Read Robert's Rules of Order Mr. Mayor. Atkins: Do you want me to take care of him? Dilkes: I think you've already passed a motion which says you will grade for the water line. Lehman: Than I guess that's out of order. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 91 Pfab: But it didn't say you can't amend the motion that was just made. It was a certain time then it was moved is there any reason you can't move it one more step? It looks to me like you should be able to. Vanderhoef: Amend the amendment? Kanner: You could have amended the amendment but it already is passed. Pfab: Well, you can out in another amendment and say and Lehman: You could amend the motion by in addition to removing the paving section you could also remove the grading and put in the water line only. Dilkes: Yes you could. Lehman: . .made it and seconded by Mr. Wilbum. Discussion. All those in favor that would put in the water line only say "aye". Those opposed. Let's have a show of hands. The votes were three (Wilburn, Kanner and Pfab) in favor and show the other four opposed so the amendment was defeated. Okay any other amendments to item 127 Have we done the Public Art? Champion: We need to do Public Art. Karr: No, we did not. Lehman: We need to do Public Art. Ms. Champion to you make the motion that we add $25,000 to Public Art? Champion: I would like to add $25,000 to Public Art. Pfab: And I'd second that. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab, that we add $25,000 to Public Art bringing it to the $100,000 level. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I guess I made my comment before. Lehman: Okay. All those in favor of the amendment. Ayes: everyone but Vanderhoef. Nays: Vanderhoef. Kanner: Ernie, just officially for the record I'd like to too, I'm not going to discuss these I made my discussion. I wanted to offer my amendments as noted in the Capital project plan that I submitted for this financial plan and just read into the record what they are. Lehman: You're making this the amendments that would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 92 Kanner: Amendment that would Lehman: Go ahead and read them. Kanner: Okay. Remove from the budget First Avenue extension north of Rochester, saving $500,000+. The widening of First, well this might be mute point I assume the widening of First Avenue south of Rochester was a given that would be Lehman: That wasn't in the budget. Champion: No, it's not in the Kanner: Okay, I'll eliminate that. Lehman: Yea. Kanner: Mormon Trek widening saving a total of $1.75 million. The elimination of the Near South Side ramp a savings of $2.4 million Pfab: A point of information please? Is there any reason you couldn't add this as correspondence? No, no I'm serious. Kanner: I'm adding them as an amendment and then be added that way. Karr: He's making an amendment. Pfab: And is there any reason he couldn't do it... Karr: I think for a public record for the vote he's reading it into the record. Pfab: All fight, okay. Lehman: Go ahead. Kanner: Eliminate the Police Headquarters expansion a savings of $594,000 and reduce the economic development strategy by $500,000 for a total reduction in fiscal year 01 of $2,346,000 and in addition in fiscal year 02 through 04 Lehman: We just did that one. Kanner: $4.9 million. Lehman: I'm sorry, thought you were reading the next one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 93 Kanner: And then we accepted the art thing so that would be my. Lehman: Is there a second to Mr. Kanner's? Pfab: I would second that. Lehman: You would second the amendment. Discussion on those amendments? All those in favor say "ayes". (Kanner) Opposed (remaining 6) The amendments are defeated 6/1 Kanner voting in the affirmative. We are going to take 5 minutes at least. BREAK Champion: I have a question I need to ask the attorney. Pfab: Are you ready? Are you on now? Champion: Okay. Pfab: Okay we're on. Champion: When you're talking about referendums, um, I have to ask a question. There is a group out there who want a referendum to put the road through. Now since my amendment passed that means that the road is going that's the intention that the road is going through. Dilkes: ah, huh. Champion: Can they have a referendum then to put the road through? I mean let's say two years from now there's a different City Council and that City Council votes not to put the road through. Lehman: They can. Champion: Then can they have a referendum to put that road through because I don't want to preclude that either. Dilkes: Worded like that, no they couldn't. You can not Champion: So it would just stay ungraded forever? Dilkes: You can not have a referendum saying build this road. That's why we got into the whole planning issue. That's why the initiative was framed the way it was last time. Because plans can be subject to initiative. So in other words I guess you could envision an initiative where they said move This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 94 it, move it closer in the plan. Move it back to 2002. The other thing to remember about initiatives is that the Council two years after a vote can change an initiative. So it's only binding for a period of two years. Pfab: But it is binding for two years? Right? Dilkes: It is binding for a period of two years. But the big difference to remember is that the planning of something is subject to a initiative, the actual building, I mean someone could not bring an initiative and say "shall the City Council go out to bid for the First Avenue extension on or before X date". I mean, that's not, you can't do that. Pfab: Let's suppose Champion: Now, wait, wait, wait let me finish. I got to have an answer to my question. So if there is a different City Council sitting here in two years and that road is not paved and that City Council decided not to do the paving Lehman: They don't have too. Champion: then is no way for the citizens to make the City Council do the paving. IS that what you're telling me? That they could not have a referendum. Dilkes: No, I'm not telling (change tape) to address a planning aspect of First Avenue as opposed to a building aspect of First Avenue then it's a possibility. Pfab: Okay, let's suppose that we were going to develop a referendum that Dilkes: You know, Can I? I want to interject here. This is ajudgement call that I have to make when I see a proposed initiative and to sit here and talk about hypotheticals one after the another is I think Champion: Not fair. Dilkes: not, not right. Lehman: Prudent. Dilkes: Prudent, not prudent. That's the lawyerly word I was looking for. Lehman: There you go. Dilkes: You know I have tried to give some guidelines there set forth in the Charter but, but you know it's it's not prudent to sit here particularly at This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 95 this late hour and talk about hypotheticals and get me say whether I think that would be an appropriate initiative. Lehman: Right. I think in the interest of prudence we will proceed. Item 12 as amended and I would like to make two comments before we vote. The first one being that I supported the moving of the paving for one year because I felt that it would certainly give people an opportunity to get used to using Scott Blvd or Capt. Irish whatever it would happen to be and would put less pressure on First Avenue. I felt that was, I really felt that was a compromise. The other thing I want to say is that there are very, very, and Ross you said it better than I'm going to I'm sure, but there are very good people who believe that road should be built just as there are very good people who believe that road should not be built. The other thing I'd like to remind people of that I don't suppose there would be a lot of agreement on there are seven pretty good people sitting up here who really care about what happens in this community and really want to do what's best for the community and the citizens may not always agree with what we do but I believe that what we do we sincerely believe is in the best interests of all the people in the community so having said that. Roll Call. Pfab: And we are voting on what now? Letunan: Item 12 which is the Capital Improvements. Pfab: Just the way it is here? Vanderhoef: As amended. Pfab: That says the paving is going, will you state the amendment. Lehman: The only two amendments that have been added to item #12 is that the paving for First Avenue will have been changed from the year 02 to 03, the grading and water lines, everything remains the same except the paving. The other amendment was that $25,000 per year will be added back into the Public Arts Program to bring that up to $100,000. Other than that it's the same as Pfab: So the motion that we're voting on is to add the $25,000 and delay the paving? Lehman: We've already passed those two amendments. We're now voting on the item as amended. Wilbum: Entire thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #12 Page 96 Lehman: So it includes that. Pfab: The whole enchilada. Lehman: The whole, yes. Roll Call. Motion carries, 6/1, Kanner voting in the negative. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Seconded. Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum to accept correspondence. All in favor. All ayes. Motion carded. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #13 Page 97 ITEM NO. 13 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM. Lehman: This resolution should be defeated. This is a resolution that would have reduced the allocation to the Public Art Program to $75,000 from $100,000. Is there a motion to approve? Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. O'Donnell: Seconded. Lehman: Seconded by O'Dormell. Discussion. Again. Pfab: So what- Lehman: If we vote we need to vote this Champion: Down. Atkins: You need to vote it down. Lehman: we need to vote this down. Pfab: No is Lehman: No vote brings is to $100,000 as we just amended the budget for. Pfab: I just wanted to know which to vote aye or nay. Lehman: Fine. Roll Call. Motion carries or is defeated, 6/1, Vanderhoefvoting the affirmative. Karr: Motion to accept the correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All in favor. (all ayes). Opposed (none). Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #14 Page 98 ITEM NO. 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INVITATION TO SELECTED ARTISTS FOR THE IOWA AVENUE LITERARY WALK. Lehman: This project would be funded through the Public Art allocation for the next two fiscal years is a $120,000 proposed budget allowing up to $20,000 per block. Vanderhoef: Mr. Mayor I will be abstaining on this due to a conflict of interest. Lehman: Okay. Is there a motion to approve? Champion: Consider adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Pfab. Discussion. Kanner: I have some questions on this. Is Karin or. Two questions the first one can you explain what the $20,000 per block will be buying. I don't quite understand that concept. Karin Franklin: Pavement art. It's the design and the installation of pavement art within a 8 foot corridor that will between two bands of colored concrete and the new sidewalks on Iowa Avenue. Kanner: When they say $20,000 per block do they mean a street block? Franklin: It's per block face so there's $120,000 allocated for the whole project which is from Gilbert to Clinton Street and so it's $20,000 on each side of the street. Lehman: For three blocks. Franklin: For three blocks. So $40,000 a block, $20,000 per block face, and $120,000 for the whole smear. Kanner: And it's anticipated that it will go the length of a block? Franklin: Yea. Kanner: This design concept. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #14 Page 99 Franklin: Conceivably yes. Kanner: It really stuck me as something neat when I heard about this but then reading the minutes it looked like the idea of including short passages was not included. Is the idea to include like a short passage from the author's work? Franklin: Well that's something that the artist will need to come up with as to exactly how they would work the recognition of the author into their proposal and then the Public Art Committee would review those proposals and pick three of the eight artists that will be invited to actually do or execute a design. There is a subcommittee of folks who are choosing the authors to be recognized and they would certainly like to have some text involved. But that's going to unfold as we see what the proposals are from the artists. Kanner: I hope that's included. Can we have any kind public sort of a contest for recommendations? I think that would be kinda fun. Franklin: Well as part of the Kanner: Like who gets included. Franklin: As part of the Public Art Advisory Committee procedures when the artists make their submittals, the eight artists make their submittals, we will have a public presentation of those submittals and select the finalists, the three finalists, artists. So there will be an opportunity for public input always. Kanner: I mean not the artists per se but I think it would be fun if like one of the newspapers co-sponsored a contest of what authors should be included. Franklin: The Public Art Committee does want to um enable the public to suggest some artists or some authors to be included in this. Kanner: Suggest maybe have contest. Contact one of the papers see if they want to sponsor it and Franklin: For people to suggest authors who want to be part of this or should be part Kanner: No, authors that should be included. Franklin: should be included? Kanner: So the top ten lists would be given to the artists or the Committee. Franklin: Well, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #14 Page loo Kanner: It doesn't have to be binding but it would be a recommendation. Franklin: Yes, that's essentially the idea of the way that we are proceeding so far with the author selection committee which is a subcommittee. Lehman: But that, isn't that basically a call of the Public Art Committee though? Champion: Right. Franklin: Yes and we already have gone through that and when you get the minutes of their last meeting you'll see that they want to have some public input on who the authors are. Lehman: Okay. O'Donnell: Very good. Lehman: Other discussion. Kanner: It's like reading a mystery novel. Waiting to get to the end of the chapter. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries, 6/0, Vanderhoef abstaining. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #15 Page lol ITEM NO. 15 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 1, "DEFINITIONS," TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR SERVICE AREAS," AND TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED COMMERCIAL ISE OF SIDEWALK TO ESTABLISH NEW DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR SERVICE AREAS AND SIDEWALK CAFES. Lehman: Public hearing is open. Champion: Thought it said not to open it? Atkins: It says not to open it. Dilkes: Not to open it. Lehman: Oh, it's late. I beg your pardon. Champion: Let's move on to the next. Kanner: You want to delay this, staff?. Atkins: Assume you can open and close it. Dilkes: Yea, just close Champion: Close it now. Lehman: Public hearing is closed. Atkins: We were not prepared. O'Donnell: Best one we had. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #18 Page 102 ITEM NO. 18 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DODGE STREET BRIDGE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AN PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. b) Consider a resolution approving Lehman: Do we have a resolution? Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. O'Donnell: Seconded. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion. Kanner: I had a couple of questions. First can you tell me exactly where this is on Dodge and will it cause any disruption to car traffic? Lehman: It goes under the railroad tracks. Kim Shera: Hi, Kim Shera, and it's at the railroad bridge on Dodge Street and it's going to close one lane of traffic southbound. Pfab: Now, you're talking, Dodge Street between what two streets? What two cross streets? Shera: It would be south of Bowery. Pfab: South of Bowery? Shera: Yea. And north of Page Street, that bridge. Lehman: Okay, other discussion? Roll Call. (all ayes) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #19 Page lo3 ITEM NO. 19 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IOWA AVENUE STREETSCAPE PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. a. ) Public hearing Lehman: Estimated construction cost is $1,056,000 of which the University of Iowa is going to contribute $400,000. O'Donnell: Move first consideration. Lehman: Public hearing is open. O'Donnell: I'd still move it. Ready to go. Vanderhoef: I have to leave. I have conflict of interest. Lehman: Good-Bye. If you don't hurry it's going to be done by the time you get Champion: I second it. Lehman: Public heating is closed. b) Consider a resolution approving Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion, to approve. Discussion? Kanner: This is scheduled to start May 2000. Lehman: May 15 of this year. And to be completed before the end of the year. Pfab: I have just one question here. And maybe it has no bearing here at all. Now the University is going to contribute $400,000 how much infrastructure do they have buffed under this street? Is this a reasonable amount? I've seen them put pipes after pipes after pipes. Lehman: I don't think the University has anything under the street. Pfab: I know they have a lot of of fibre optics under there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #19 Page lo4 Rick Fosse: Some of their fibre optic lines are coming out as a part of this project but they do have some duct banks under the north edge of the roadway over there. Their contribution to this project is as much a part of improvements to the corridor as it is to accommodate their traderground utilities. Pfab: Is that a fair proportion? Fosse: I think so yes. Pfab: Okay. Thank you. Kanner: What was that that you said they have duct banks? Fosse: Duct banks. I think they have steam, chilled water and electrical. Atkins: Wires through. Fosse: They also have one of their water lines out there as well. Which is common in the campus area. Pfab: My point in bringing it up is because of that the stuff the utilities and what not underneath is going to cost the construction to be higher so that's why I question whether they are paying their share. Fosse: I don't see this or their utilities as adding significantly to the construction costs. Again their contribution was that they wanted to be pretty much n equal player in this corridor. Pfab: $400,000 out of a $1,056,000 doesn't look like their equal players. Fosse: Yea but their contribution to the corridor as a whole is $1.5 million. Atkins: $1.5 million this is only the first step. Pfab: In other words it evens out. Atkins: They still owe us $1.1 million for the rest of the project and its probably approaching 40-50% of the entire project. Pfab: Looking at the map here Atkins: On this one your map is correct. Fosse: This also includes the Beer Creek Storm Sewer. Atkins: Make it up later on. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #19 Page lo5 Fosse: So that throws it out of balance a little bit. Pfab: That's fine. Just a joint I wanted to question. Fosse: Okay. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll Call. Motion carries, 6/0, with Vanderhoef abstaining. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #20 Page 106 ITEM NO. 20 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT~ AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BENTON STREET TURN LANE AND NED ASHTON MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. a) Public hearing Lehman: Estimated cost is $134,650. Public hearing is open. Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion? b) Consider a resolution approving Pfab: I moved the adoption. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Vanderhoef; Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? You mentioned last night is this one where there is a possibility of Vanderhoef: This isn't. Lehman: Oh this is the turning lane. Okay. Atkins: This is the turning land and the park. Vanderhoef: And the park. Lehman: There may be a chance of some funding coming. Vanderhoef: Private. Atkins: You mentioned the McKusick's. Yes, we're going to check on that. Vanderhoef: Yes. Lehman: Okay, any other discussion. Roll call. Motion carried (all ayes) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #21 Page 107 ITEM NO. 21 PLANS~ SPECIFICATIONS~ FORM OF CONTRACT~ AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY LANDFILL RECYCLING CENTER PROJECT, PHASE 2, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS~ AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. b) Consider a resolution approving Lehman: Do we have a motion? Champion: Move adoption. Lehman: Moved by Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Kanner: So this is similar to the other bid without the paving, right? Atkins: That's substantially it. Lehman: I think that's correct. Atkins: Correct. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries (all ayes) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #22 Page 108 ITEM NO. 22 CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF LOTE 1, BLOCK 3, RUNDELL ADDITION, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 2,995 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRANT STREET AND COURT STREET, TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WILLIAM G. FLANAGAN AND ELIZABETH ROSE. a) Public hearing Lehman: This was a public hearing that was continued from the last time was February 15. Public hearing is open. Public hearing is closed. b) Consider a resolution approving Lehman: Do we have a motion? Pfab: I move that the resolution be adopted. Lehman: We got a motion by Pfab and a second by O 'Donnell. Discussion? The amount I believe they've offered the sum of $4,500 for that piece of property. Pfab: Plus. Plus they're also going to do a survey, an accurate survey is that correct? Champion: Correct. Pfab: As part of the consideration. Okay. Lehman: Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. (all ayes) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #25 Page 109 ITEM NO. 25 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHASE III IOWA CITY DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Engineers estimate was $1,510,000 and the low bid was All American Concrete from West Liberty of $1,383,666.90. and they have been recommended. Vanderhoef: Mr. Mayor I will be abstaining on this. Lehman: Thank you, good-bye, but don't go too far away. Public Works and Engineering recommend the award of the bid to All American Concrete and that by the way is the company that has done the other project downtown and I think they've been very happy. Pfab: I was always impressed by what they did. Lehman: After all of that we did get a motion and a second. Pfab: Yes I had motioned earlier but I guess I have to re-do it again at the right time. I make a motion that we do it. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Any discussion? Kanner: Just tell me where specifically this concrete will be laid down? Lehman: This project goes I believe from Burlington Street to Iowa Avenue along Clinton Street and it also does some, hey you tell us Rick. I don't want to say it wrong. Rick Fosse: This finishes out the renovation of the downtown area on the perimeter streets. Lehman: Right. Fosse: And our focus has been in the pedestrian plaza so far and this will take care of Clinton Street, it will not do Iowa Avenue that will be a separate project, Linn Street. Lehman: Linn. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #25 Page 110 Fosse: Some work along Burlington and College. Lehman: Do any of Gilbert? Fosse: Yes it will there will be some lighting along Gilbert. Kanner: When will this start Rick? Fosse: Probably begin within a month or so depending on how the weather behaves. Kanner: And are we doing Clinton at the same time that the Whiteway building wants to come out farther? Is that going to cause some trouble? Atkins: I don' think so. Fosse: We're going to work around that area. Kanner: Okay. So we'll save that until they're done over there. Fosse: Yes. Lehman: That project is supposed to be essentially completed by the first of August. Fosse: The Whiteway? Lehman: My understanding is that they would like to have those apartments leased by the first of August. Champion: Really. Lehman: At least a large portion of the construction should be out of the street by then. Champion: Oh by God. Lehman: I just said suppose to be. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion passes, 6/0, with Vanderhoef abstaining. Dilkes: And for the record I understand it was an abstention for a conflict. Lehman: Oh, yes. Dilkes: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #26 Page ITEM NO. 26 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE HIGHWAY 6 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STP-U-3715(615)--70-52. Champion: Move adoption. Lehman: Thank you. Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second it. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. This is a project that improves the Iowa Avenue Streetscape pardon me the Highway 6 O'Donnell: Highway 6 Lehman: Streetscape the preliminary estimate of $2.8 million with up to $995,000 in federal money. Discussion? Roll Call. Motion carries. (all ayes) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #27 Page 112 ITEM NO. 27 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY 6 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVERPASS PROJECT [STP-U-3715(14)--70-521. Pfab: I recommend adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? This is 80% federal funds and the remainder is the University of Iowa. I think it is kind of a formality that we have to approve this. Champion: Right. We're the pass through. Lehman: Yes. Roll Call. (all ayes) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #28 Page 113 ITEM NO. 28 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL S., CHRISTINE M., MARC B., AND MONICA B. MOEN FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A PORTION OF CLINTON STREET IN IOWA CITY~ IOWA. Pfab: I move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by O'Donnell. I think you should tell us. Do you know what this is? I think this enables them to use part of the traveled portion of the road to construct the building. Rick Fosse: Right. We'll use one of the northbound lanes there. Lehman: And this is for Pfab: Putting the top on the building. Fosse: Yep. Lehman: No, no is there a time frame on it? Fosse: I hear they'll be done by August. (laughter) Lehman: Good authority. You got that on good information. Fosse: Yes, I did. O'Donnell: (can't hear) break that down. Lehman: Thank you son. Kanner: March 8 through May 31 at the latest, Ernie. Lehman: What's that? Kanner: May 31 st at the latest. Champion: Thank you Steve. Kanner: March 8 through May 3'1. Lehman: All right. Any other discussion? Roll Call. Motion carries. (all ayes) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #29 Page ITEM NO. 29 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, AS BUYER AND JOHN AND MARY WILSON AND GENE PAUL AND SARAH HELT, AS SELLERS FOR 408 E. COLLEGE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA. Lehman: This is the building adjacent to the present bus depot and the selling price was $240,000 which I believe is the same price the City offered approximately five years ago. Atkins: That's right. Lehman: Is there a motion to Pfab: I move adoption of this one. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Champion: I will not be supporting this because I think it's foolish to purchase property we have no immediate use for. Lehman: Other discussion? Pfab: I would say when opportunities like this come along you take and if worse comes to worse we can sell it back to Connie. Lehman: I don't think it will get that bad. Vanderhoef: I think it has future need and we have had a plan for a number of years to make a public government kind of complex in this area and this is the last piece of unpurchased land in that block O'Donnell: I agree. Vanderhoef: belonging to the City so I will support this. Lehman: And we may very well be able to lease that property and use it and not just sit there with it so other discussion. Kanner: Yea, I feel uncomfortable taking this off of the property tax rolls. I guess it's about $1400 a year that we probably lose in a rough figure. And This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #29 Page 115 maybe if we had assurance that we were going to lease it in the near future I would be more acceptable to buying it but are there plans to tear it down in the near future? Atkins: We would expect, I walked over and Dale and a number of us and the inspectors took us through basically the building appears to be structurally sound the walls are beginning to sag. It's an old building. We talked about a couple of things that we'd like to do and it's not out of the realm of possibility for us to think to actually rent the first floor. Put it up for and generate some income. The biggest advantage to us is that allows us to own all the property on that particular block which had been a long, long term goal. And we also pick up significant storage space. The building next door, which is the old U Smash Em car wreck place or fix em up whatever, Lehman: Body shop. Atkins: Yea, we have bicycles storage in there for the police and lots of junk and that building is about to go. Champion: Garage sale. Atkins: No self respecting garage would accept most of that. Lehman: Generally speaking Connie I would concur with your thinking about this but I get so tired of the City having to pay outrageous prices for property because we have to have it and this is something that I think definitely we'll use in the future. Atkins: We can market it. Lehman: Yea, I know. Atkins: And we'll bring something back to you if we figure we can put that together because the first floor space there is reasonably satisfactory. Vanderhoef: And fair market value on rental would include the tax. Atkins: Yes. Champion: Of course. Atkins: Yes. Pfab: So at this point there's no intention of tearing it down? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #29 Page 116 Atkins: No, no. Lehman: No. Atkins: Not in the near term. Pfab: I didn't Atkins: Not in the near term, Irvin, no. Kanner: Emie? Lehman: Yes. Kanner: I guess I would feel a little more comfortable and I want to see if Council would entertain an amendment that we do not have intention to tear it down for let's say a few years tinless we attempt to market it for rental and then I would feel more comfortable voting for this. 1 was wondering what folks thought about that? Lehman: Steven I really think that if we're going to tear it down it probably is going to have come back to this group for permission to tear it down anyway but to tell us or tell the staff that we're not going to tear a building down for a period of two years, or five years, or ten years, I don't think that's very prudent. They're going to have to come back and ask us anyway. Atkins: And we are not motivated to tear it down. Lehman: You're not going to be able to tear it down without our permission. Atkins: Yes. Lehman: And you do not have our permission to Atkins: I understand that. I mean it may fall down but we're not going to tear it down. Lehman: Other discussion? O'Donnell: Let's vote on it. Lehman: Roll Call. Motion carries, 5/2, Kanner and Champion voting no. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #30 Page 117 ITEM NO. 30 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INVOLVING PENDING LITIGATION. O'Donnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Pfab: Anything new on this? Karr: You have a resolution in front you. Lehman: I don't know. The resolution came out tonight. Champion: Oh, I didn't see that. Pfab: That was what I Dilkes: No there's not. Kanner: Can you give me a second to find it? Pfab: Is it proper to ask the jest of it? Dilkes: The resolution? Pfab: Yes. Dilkes: Yea, it's right here. Lehman: You can read the resolution but it really doesn't tell anything. It just authorizes the City Manager to act in our behalf. Dilkes: (can't hear) the litigation and authorizes the City Manager Pfab: I move adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll Call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #33 Page 118 ITEM NO. 33. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION Champion: I would like to move that we eliminate City Council information tonight. Pfab: I object to that. Lehman: Irvin do you have anything for us ? Pfab: I would just like to see if there is anything we can do to help bring the community together bring it up at some point in time to move on that area of getting the public to come together on the First Avenue extension part etc., etc. Lehman: I think we all share that. Pfab: So I'd like to see if we could work on it. Lehman: Okay Champion: Then I'll have to say something too since I didn't get a second and that is that I've decided that democracy is very painful. Pfab: But it's better than anything else we know. O'Donnell: I just had a couple quick things. Several weeks ago I played wheelchair basketball with a bunch of disabled vets and it was a tremendous experience. It was five on five but I swear we were out numbered. We were outmatched and completely outclassed on the basketball court. We were down, they were ahead 39 to 7 at the half and then they switched scores and gave us 39 points and were ahead of us again at the end of the third quarter so we were surrounded and out manned. It was really a good experience and I enjoyed it. Lehman: Mike, if we ever need to play basketball for the City to make money remind me not to appoint you to the team. O'Donnell; We were playing in wheelchairs and this one guy was tremendous he went by an kept putting on my brake. So it's true it was a great deal of fun and we really enjoyed it. Lehman: Did you keep track of how that brake works maybe we could put in on Council people? O'Donnell: Don't tempt me Ernie. Also last Saturday Steven and Ross and I and we dug up Larry Baker, I say that literally, we all had the opportunity to bowl This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #33 Page 119 with the great Dee Norton and Big Brothers and Big Sisters and he indeed humbled me again for the second straight year. Norton is just a legend of the lanes like I said last year and it's a great pleasure and I will get you for it Dee Norton. Lehman: He beat you. O'Donnell: Course he did. Lehman: You mean you lost in basketball and bowling both. O'Donnell: He beats me every year but you know we won a trophy we won cookies we had a great time down there and it was for a great cause Big Brothers Big Sisters. That's all I have to say. Lehman: Okay, Dee. Vanderhoef: Just one thing did you folks also get the email from Jim Ruebush concerning the 74 Durango Place. I'm going to put this in the public record and then I'd like staff to just look at it. I don't know anything about this area and Pfab: What are you referring to there ? Vanderhoef: It's out on the west side in the Country Club Estates area and inquiring about plans in that area and I don't know anything about plans in that area. Lehman: I think this is the potential of another First Avenue. Showing streets and not building them Atkins: Is that the gentleman that may have suggested something about Slothower Road ? Yes Atkins: Okay, I'd hear of it but I did not, I will follow up on that for you. Karr: Do you want to accept it ? Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. All ayes. Its been accepted. Wilburn: I just want to, if any of you know that there was a fire on the southside of town some folks were displaced and there was a tragic death but I want to thank and if any of you know the property owner gave the people This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #33 Page 120 displaced up for a night and of course Red Cross took over so I 'm very appreciative of that. Pfab: I also understand that the people were awaken by fire alarms. Wilburn: The other thing is there was a comment earlier or a request to have a look at some type of committee related to disability issues and for us to get input and that's something I've supported before but I think at a minimum I think we have the example here tonight of someone who Marian pulled a rabbit out of a hat and had a hearing device. If there are accommodations that we can make available here I'd like to know what they are and us think of ways too that we can let the public know whether that's posting out there that if you need some type of accommodations how they can do that here. Pfab: I would make a comment too that we do whatever it takes to make the City totally aware of ADA obligations and whatever it takes too whether it requires a commission or committee or something I would encourage going forward on that. Lehman: Okay, Steven. Kanner: Let's see, oh I'm still trying to digest the Norton experience it's still washing over me. O'Donnell: It's truly humbling isn't it ? Kanner: It is it is quite an experience and I was glad I was part of it. Another experience that I'm looking forward to is I'm going to Washington D.C. to my first National League of Cities conference and I look forward to the workshops that will take place and to the networking and to the ideas that will be promoted and also I'm planning to talk to my US representative Mr. Leach and I look forward to that also and that will be an exciting event I hope to bring back a lot of good ideas. When we first started this year we talked about the budget process of perhaps starting earlier in a certain sense in July and August so that Council will start to formulate its goals that then staff can botmce offof that and I hope we stick to that idea of starting to do that in the fall before we start putting down some real hard numbers so it will be more of a synergetic process in that sense. Pfab: I myself found this a very strenuous and I wasn't very comfortable with the process but that doesn't mean that it was wrong that was just my own and anything we can I'm interested in seeing how we can get started on this earlier. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #33 Page 121 Lehman: The first year is the worst. I promise you. I doesn't get easy but it gets easier. Kanner: And also again thanks to Steve and the Finance Department for putting all this material together. Atkins: The sooner we start its better for us too. Makes life a lot easier for us when we know what you want done sooner than later. I'm fine with that. Lehman: Steven did you write a letter to the Gazette and I think you mention I was you wrote a letter then complained about my not wanting to accept correspondence is that correct ? You wrote that letter? Kanner: What's that ? Lehman: The letter to the Gazette. Kanner: Yes I felt there was reluctance to accept correspondence. Lehman: And you wrote that. The reason I just wanted you to know and the rest of the Council I don't consider a leaflet left on somebody's window correspondence. It was not addressed to Council and I obviously will accept anything addressed to Council and if I didn't make myself clear, and I didn't but I don't think leaflets left on doors are appropriate things to be accepted by Council. Kanner: I do want to say though it was not just a leaflet, the City Manager presented it to us that's why I thought Lehman: It was a copy of a leaflet. Which was my Atkins: No I did give it to you. Pfab: Mr. Mayor I'm so glad that you made that perfectly clear. Lehman: I'm glad that you understand. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000. #34 Page 122 ITEM NO. 34 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY Lehman: Steve do you have anything? Atkins: No sir. Lehman: Eleanor, Marian? Karr: Just real quickly we'll have a resolution ifthere's a majority of you to permanently put City Clerk business on because it will take a resolution to include. Ifthat's what your wishes are. Champion: Fine, okay Lehman: That's our wishes. Do we have a motion to adjoum? Moved by O'Donnell seconded by Vanderhoef. All ayes. This represems only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of March 7, 2000.