Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-29 Transcription#3 Page 1 ITEM NO. 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Kanner: I had a question about some correspondence about the minutes from the- I had some questions about the correspondence from the minutes from the Police Citizen Review Board. We had a resolution of a complaint and the Police Citizen Review Board found the complaints not sustained but they had a recommendation and I would like to know if there is going to be any follow through on that recommendation to look at it. the recommendation was on sensitive issues the police should designate a primary spokesperson for the department and more clearly restrict the release of information that is not factual in nature. So I would like to ask the City Manager to give us a report on that at a later time and see what is happening with that. Helling: Sure. Lehman: I think we should have a response from RJ. I think that is responsibly (can't hear). Helling: Yeah, we will get back to you (can't hear). Pfab: Marian, push the red button before you push it down. Karr: The red button causes more static. Lehman: Any other discussion on the consent calendar? Kanner: And the other thing was the correspondence about crossing Burlington at Madison and wanted to know if anyone else felt it was difficult to cross there. We need to look at that timing on crossing that street. There are quite a few people that do cross there. (can't hear) that the Quik Trip is going to be closing there. Hopefully we will get something else in there. Lehman: They are? Kanner: That was in the paper the other day. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #3 Page 2 Lehman: I didn't see it. O'Donnell: It was in the paper yesterday. Kanner: But, um, there is quite a bit that goes back and forth going to the parking lots and it might be difficult. So I would like to hear a response. Helling: Yeah, we can check and see. We did something at Capitol- I am sorry- at Dubuque Street to lengthen that a little bit and I am not sure how that would tie in. I know all of those signals are tied together. Yeah, we will look into that Steve. Kanner: Thanks. Leturtan: Other discussion? Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #4 Page 3 ITEM NO. 4. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 190 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-5) (APPROXIMATELY 82.1 ACRES) TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORItOOD, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 400 DWELLING UNITS AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES AND PUBLIC (P) (APPROXIMATELY 107.9 ACRES) LOCATED WEST OF FOSTER ROAD. (PASS AND ADOPT). Vanderhoef: Move to adopt. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: Are we going to have a road out the back end now pretty soon? A street? Vanderhoef: That doesn't have anything to do with this. Pfab: I know but- Lethman: Well, and- O'Donnell: There is a river there. Pfab: The river also can be bridged. Champion: To whose benefit? Lehman: Well, obviously this is the rezoning that allows the development of the peninsula project. (Can't hear). Pfab: (can't hear). Lehman: Is there discussion on it? Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 4 ITEM NO. 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND TERRY L. STAMPER HOLDINGS, L.L.C. Lehman: This is the agreement, I guess, we have been kind of waiting for, for what, two and a half years? I think it is a pretty important thing. Obviously we all have copies of that agreement. Do we have a motion to approve the agreement? Vanderhoef: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Wilburn: I think it is real significant- you pointed out Ernie that is has been a long process and there is, even though we will be looking at different segments of selling it is going to be a good project. I had some questions from a couple of developer folk about the speed at which certain things are happening. But, again, this is not, should not, be a surprise to anyone that the city is going through with this. Lehman: The questions- were they regarding that this was moving too fast? Wilburn: About things that since this a partnership with the city and this particular developer that somehow they are getting the fast track or that it is in some way going to drive up housing costs. That type of comment. But, it has been a long- Lehman: And we have a million and three of the taxpayer's dollars sitting out there in that property for 2 years and it is time that we start (can't hear). Wilbum: Moving on. Lehman: I have some questions, personally. Vanderhoef: So do I. O'Donnell: So do I. Vanderhoef: And I will see if you have the same ones I do. Lehman: Okay, I am sure there is more. Do you have a copy of the agreement, Karin, you sent us? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 5 Franklin: Yes. Lehman: On page three, item (0, the last sentence in the first paragraph- talking about the sensitive areas- the slope, ravines and whatever- Franklin: Yes. Lehman: And they shall be protected in perpetuity through an appropriate conservation easement and/or dedication of the affected land to a conservancy of the city. I guess I am a little- Franklin: Conservancy or the city. Lehman: I don't know that I am interested in the city owning and maintaining any more parkland. I mean, I would think that we would be much better off having the Peninsula Association be responsible for maintaining those sensitive slopes. Franklin: Well, what we did at this point is to leave that open so that we can discuss that when we get the regulating plan and see exactly what those properties are. That is going to be one of the issues that we will need to consider. Now, what we were thinking of mainly here is the wooded slopes on the hillside, which will be abutting the Peninsula park. In terms of actual maintenance of those properties we would have to look very closely at what that would entail. Because basically it does not need to be mowed. There may however be some public trails through there. Probably in the Peninsula development itself, the Town Square may be an area that we would want to have for the public. But any of the smaller open space areas would be taken care of by the Association for the Peninsula. But that is something we would discuss when we get the regulating plan, which is basically an amended OPDH. And that is the next step and we would be getting that toward the end of the summer, beginning of fall. And that will go through you again. Lehman: So even if we approve the language as it is written here, we can at that time refuse to accept dedication of ground to the city for our maintenance? Franklin: Yes, yes. Lehman: Okay. Franklin: Because then we will know exactly what it is we are talking about- the nature of the land, how much maintenance it would take, that sort of thing. Lehman: Okay. Second question, same page, item (g). We use the term "to remain affordable over time". I think that is so ambiguous. I think that is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 6 impossible. I understand the issue of affordability at the outset and I certainly concur with that but I think when we start talking about the insuring of affordability over time we are talking about what may be some philosophic arguments. I am not sure- first of all, I am not sure we can guarantee affordability. I mean, over time. The over time is the part that I am concerned about. Franklin: I think as we have talked about this, affordability has had a broad connotation. At least in my mind it has in that to me one of the things we are trying to achieve is that there will always be units in this area that are at the lower end of the housing market. The ownership housing market. That the value of these properties is going to appreciate over time but that it not become a place where it is so exclusive that people who are just entering the housing market or who want to maybe move up to the next level but not to the very expensive homes are able to access this neighborhood. That was one of the reasons for looking at different housing types such that you can get more affordable units by attached units. That we have the involvement of non profit housing organizations in this which will probably be primarily for ownership programs like the Affordable Dream Home program of the Housing Authority or Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship's land trust program where they retain ownership of the land. But the house, the unit, is actually owned by the people that live there. That is not to say that there won't be the possibility of some rental units here that are owned by a non-profit housing organization. Our understanding of the council's position about the Housing Authority owning properties for rent is that you do not wish to increase the public housing stock and so our approach there would not be to have rental units owned by the Housing Authority. Lehman: I think that is right. I have no problem with us insisting- and I think we should- on diversity in types of housing and cost of housing. I mean, we are setting the stage obviously for the affordability issue. Beyond that, I have a problem and I, you know, if we sell or if our developer sells to the Iowa City Housing Authority or some non profit group and whatever I think it is incumbent on them to retain affordability issues. Franklin: That is right. That is- this sentence is written that the purpose of having 10% constructed and marketed to non profit housing organizations is to assure that a minimum percentage are affordable and remain affordable over time. Lehman: But that- Franklin: But the responsibility of that goes to the non profit housing corporation, not to the city and not to the developer. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 7 Lehman: Okay. Okay, so that we- neither the developer or the city will be charged with seeing to it that these units- we are charged with making them affordable, if you will, at the outset. Franklin: Yes. Lehman: First sale we are insisting that a certain number of these units be in the affordable range, 10% or whatever. Beyond that then it becomes the function of whoever buys these to see to it that they remain affordable. Franklin: Okay, now, understand that one of the entities that will participate in this will be the Housing Authority who is, at this point, the city. But the idea is that those entities that are set up for addressing issues of affordability- that those are the entities that are taking on this burden and that we as we design this, as we look at these initial costs, that we try to keep those down to allow those affordable units. Now, affordable does not mean that 30% of median income can access these properties. That will not happen. We probably be talking about somewhere between 80-100% of median income being able to access these properties [and] possibly some in the 60% range. Lehman: I have no problem with that. My only concern- only concern- is after we do our job we are presenting this as it is outlined here or whatever and we are going to be building diverse housing values. I want to see the city's responsibility after we have presented that end. In other words, we have presented the opportunity- Franklin: Are you including the Housing Authority in that? Lehman: I don't see the Housing Authority buying property out there. Vanderhoef: But they will have the secondary mortgage on the (can't hear) program. That is where we stay involved. Lehman: In that (can't hear). Kanner: Actually, the way I read it is that we stay involved and that at each phase when they bring that to us and we begin that negotiation stage for each phase, we are going to ask and say "how are you doing on affordable housing?". We are going to say we want overall 10%. But it is not just going to be this phase, but it is going to be the next phase also. Lehman: The entire project. Franklin: Let me clarify something there. When we get the initial preliminary plat- this regulating plan preliminary plat and code book in the fall- that will be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 8 for the entire 82.1 acres. As we have been talking at this point, that is to include the location of all of the affordable units at that point. And that will ensure that they are spread out over this neighborhood in various phases. But possibly not in all phases. But we want to ensure that in that whole we have the 10%. And that it is distributed throughout the neighborhood. Then as we do the final plat for each phase, that final plat should follow the preliminary just as it does for any other development project. So we won't be negotiating each phase unless there is a market change that requires us to take a second look at that. But the second look will include the council. So if there is any change from what is set out at that preliminary phase, we will have participation review of all of that. We retain our partnership in this project until that last phase is sold. So it is a very different relationship than we have ever had with any other development project, because we have a proprietary interest as well as a regulatory interest. Vanderhoef: Okay Karin, you just said "spread out", which touches on what one of my questions was. Because we keep talking in the comp plan and stuff about scattered sites and so forth, without having a definition of how that looks, so if we were going to the max number of homes on this property- Franklin: 41. Vanderhoef: We could have up to 41 affordable homes? And, yes, we get to look at the plan but do we have a really good idea amongst all the councilors of what this scattered site looks like? Are we talking about 15 or 20 in one location meaning like an apartment kind of thing or are we looking at more scattered than that and maybe only 6 in a location? And it just- I don't have a good feel for this. Does anybody else have anything on how they see this? Champion: I don't think we have to have a good feel for it. Pfab: This is my feeling but I don't know if it is right or not. My feeling is it is going to be different phases but at each of those phases there should be a mixture. Is that right? Franklin: Yeah. Primarily. There may be some phases particularly as we get to the end and we have some of those lots that are on the single loaded street looking out over the park. That we may be more into a single family mode there and those are going to be more expensive and we don't have 10% in there. I can't say absolutely that that is the case because we may have, in fact in that phase a row of row houses in which you might have ten row houses and two of them are affordable and 8 are market rate. I mean, there is a lot of different ways that you can do this and that is why when we look at the whole, that is when we are going to get down to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 9 exactly where these are. When we are looking at that preliminary plat, unlike most plats that you see, the buildings will be on the blocks. You are going to see a block that has a duplex, a row house, single family detached. You are going to see what it is going to look like at that stage. Pfab: Okay, I have two things. One is if this works, this is a tremendously good model that we should be- hopefully we can duplicate as we go down- Franklin: This is a model, Irvin, for what is called "inclusionary zoning". And I am not suggesting we are going in that direction at all in this community. But it is one technique that other communities have used for the distribution of affordable housing. And that is where there is a certain percentage of every development that needs to be dedicated to affordable housing, however the community defines that. And that becomes law. Now, I am not suggesting at this point that we are doing that but that is in essence what is happening here. It is that we are saying out of this whole project 10% must be affordable units. They must be built that way. Pfab: Two comments- I think that is probably the most valuable part of this whole development- is introducing that concept and experimenting to see if it works. The other part- there might be room here for a little bit of more understanding and maybe some compromise. You talked about to ensure that a minimum number of the constructed dwellings are affordable and remain affordable over time. Now, Ernie is saying "I want the city out of that". But maybe this is a place to indicate that the people who are in this business, Greater Iowa City Housing, that they have the responsibility to see over time that this is built into the way it is handled. Dilkes: I think the "remain affordable over time" clause is less complicated than it is being made. All that does is assure and set forth the assumption that the mechanism by which- there will be a mechanism and the city has an interest in assuring that there is a mechanism that these are affordable over time. Whether that is because the Public Housing Authority is involved or because Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship is involved, I think that is basically all this means. Lehman: Eleanor, let's just say- and obviously I think this is not probably very feasible- but let' s just say that the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, the city council- there is no one interested in- no non profit organization is interested in buying property. It is all going to be sold on the market. Now, we may do some affordable dream homes and there will be at the outset- there will be this diversity in cost and whatever but no non profit organization buys any of that property. What is the city's responsibility to assure affordability over time in a case like that? Dilkes: Is that a realistic assumption? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 10 Lehman: Probably not. Franklin: Well, first of all, the way this is written- Dilkes: I don't know that we need to go there. Franklin: The way this is written is that what we are doing is saying that 10% of the units shall be constructed and/or marketed to non-profit housing organizations. "Shall be constructed for and/or marketed to". That doesn't mean that we are tied into them buying them. I mean, if nobody shows up to play, I don't see that there is an obligation here that the city provide 10%. It is saying that in this project there is an agreement that the developer is going to make this opportunity available. Lehman: Yeah, but the word "shall" says "they shall be constructed for and/or marketed to". Franklin: And/or marketed to. You can market it to somebody and if they- Dilkes: Let them (can't hear). Franklin: If they don't want to play then- if they don't want to buy-. I think you have met your obligation. Dilkes: I agree with that. I also think that the mech- you know, all the mechanisms that we had in place when we do the tenant to ownership program, when we do the affordable dream home program- those are all the kind of mechanisms that you use to assure it is affordable over time. And I know Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship has another set of mechanisms that they use. And I think that is all this- this is what is envisioned here. Lehman: I have no problem with those whatsoever. But I would hate to see a council 10 years from now look back at this and say look, we agreed this was going to be affordable over time and then the city suddenly becomes involved and starts messing around in this project that we have put together now when we have no intention. I think our intention is to see to it that if sold to organizations that will ensure affordability over time. That is our intention. Should they chose not to buy it or if they do not retain their affordability over time, I don't think the city should have any liability in seeing to it that that occurs. Franklin: And I don't see that there is any legal liability there that this language is such that it does not put that obligation on the city. Now, if politically this council or a future council decides to get involved in that question, that is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page a whole other story. And that is what probably is more likely to occur than there to be any kind of legal issue. Dilkes: This paragraph is a protection of the city's interest in assuring some affordability out there, not the imposition of an obligation on the city. Okay? It is- Lelunan: Eleanor says. Pfab: Okay, comment? Maybe I lost my thought here. I mentioned that if Ernie can't be satisfied any other way, maybe we could say "remain affordable over time with the responsibility of this to be on the developer or market". Lehman: Well, apparently we don't need that. If you are comfortable Eleanor, I am too. Pfab: But I think the neat part about this is this is telling the developer hey, we are concerned however you develop this that this be here. And I think that is great. Lehman: Well, and that has been part of the plan ever since we started the whole thing. Dilkes: And there is- I mean, I should back up from that. There is an obligation on the city in light of this agreement to see that that happens. I mean, we are not just going to look at a plan that doesn't provide for this 10% affordable housing (can't hear) that is fine. I mean, we have to be involved here. We are a player here. Champion: I have another question on that page as long as we are on that page. Lehman: Sure. Champion: Up above where it says (can't hear) for conveyance of storm water to the Iowa River- does that also include street rnnoff? Franklin: Yes. Champion: So the street runoffwill go directly into the river? Franklin: Yeah, that is- I mean, any development that occurs within proximity to the Iowa River or a natural drainage way such as Ralston Creek, one of the options that you have for your storm water is to get it to that drainage way. In this case the Iowa River, without doing detention. But you have to provide for the conveyance of the 100-year flood to the river. And this would all be going across public property. Remember, we are a partner in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 12 this and so the determination of exactly what that is, how it is going to be done, is all going to be part of the review during the preliminary plat. Champion: I thought part of the future problems of environmental concerns is that we don't allow street drainage to go directly into rivers. That is has going to have to be cleaned up. O'Donnell: That may happen. That is down the road. Franklin: That- Champion: But doesn't it seem kind of odd that we are now designing a whole big project that is going to allow all the oil and stuff, whatever comes off of streets that is dangerous to the environment, to go right into the river? Franklin: We haven't changed our local laws yet. I mean, any development can do this. What we are going under right now is the laws that we have in place. Having said that, this team includes Conservation Design, which is a firm that we engaged to design the Peninsula Park. And is also a firm that does alternative means of storm water management. And the means that they use are attempts to collect that storm water into a system into which they use the topography and the drainage of the area to filter that water before it goes on to whatever channel it is going into. The team will be here in mid July, and one of the first things that they will start working on is that aspect of it. How to deal with those kinds of systems. So, what I am hoping we will see with this is a system that is innovative and is different from the systems that we typically have of just channeling the water into the Iowa River. Wilburn: Aren't there a couple of developments in Coralville now that use that mixed-? Franklin: Yes, there is. Wilbum: That is what I thought. Kanner: I guess my concem is that where it says here "shall comply with any applicable state, local and federal standards"- then that means future standards they have to comply with at their expense? Franklin: No, those are current standards. We can't anticipate what future standards are going to be. Dilkes: Yeah, they would have to comply with the standards in effect at the time it is done. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 13 Vanderhoef: So the standards are in place fight now and they take effect in March of '03, I believe. Kanner: So what happens for future standards that change? Who is responsible for implementing those changes if there are any future changes, the city or TLC? Lehman: The city, just like we are in every other part of the city. Kanner: No, because this- they are responsible for present. Lehman: Right. Franklin: As is every developer. (several talking) Lehman: They would be on a level playing field with everybody else. Vanderhoef: Changing the standards would be like an unftmded mandate to go back and redo multiple things in the city that- Dilkes: If there is- I mean, just hypothetically- if ten years down the road there is a standard that is imposed retroactively, then it would not be the city's responsibility to comply with that. Assuming- I mean, it might- the city might have some regulatory authority but as a party to this agreement, the city wouldn't be responsible for that. Champion: Well I do- I still have problems with it that when we know that that is probably not a good thing to do and yet we are allowing it. And I do have problems with that. O'Donnell: Because we do know it is coming. Lehman: Yeah, but the other thing is this- it might be entirely possible- Franklin: We don't even know what is coming. Dilkes: Wait, wait. I think we are talking too much in the abstract here. What specific regulations are we talking about that we know is coming? Do we know that there is regulation that is going to prohibit this storm water management technique? I don't think so. Franklin: All we know is that there is discussion about having storm water quality regulations that are going to be imposed on cities of our size. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page ~4 Lehman: But this filtration system might very well satisfy the requirements that may be coming down the pike. Franklin: Yeah. It may be, again, it may- as we go through that preliminary plat stage and look at what they have designed, it may be a model of what we can use for future storm water management systems to address that very issue. Pfab: Is this- something you said begs this question for me. Is it time that we should maybe be looking at some changes in laws before this gets locked in? You talked about- O'Donnell: We don't know (can't hear). Vanderhoef: They are published right now for our cities. Franklin: That is something that you have on your pending list, I believe, or on your agenda somewhere to look at how to deal with storm water management in the event that- well, I think it is pretty certain that this is going to happen. But we don't know exactly what the standards are going to be, which is always the issue. One of the reasons that we are pursuing this GIS system is so that we can very specifically map and know where the outlets are into the natural drainage system so that we know what we are going to have to control. And so some of the cost of that is being covered by the storm water management effort that you are going to be undertaking. Dilkes: My understanding is that Engineering and Public Works are well aware of the new standards and are governing themselves accordingly. Pfab: But you made the point that the developer- and this is a fairly large development process- that they only have to respond- their need is to respond to present laws. Franklin: Right. Pfab: Is this a time that we should start implementing something with this in mind that it is going to happen anyway? Franklin: I can't answer that Irvin, I think that probably Chuck Schmadeke or Rick Fosse would be a better person to address that. Vanderhoef: Irvin? Franklin: But I would not start- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 15 Vanderhoef: (can't hear) were voted on in Congress last December. And they were published in March. And their date to be implemented, I believe, is March of '03. It is either of '02 or '03. So they are already there. Our engineers are aware of these new things because they are already published. Pfab: Okay, but it is- so you are saying that the law is already passed? Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. Last December. Pfab: And the city- but I understood Karin- Franklin: Our local storm water management ordinance is what we govern development by. This is reviewed by the Public Works staff. Whenever we have a storm water management system come through. I am not the person to address this issue. I know nothing about what those federal regulations are. What I am saying is that with this development project, I don't see us changing our approach- which I don't even know what that approach is going to be- for this project. That we will make every effort in working with conservation design to do a system which would address this issue of quality. But we have not changed our local law in terms of every development project that you review to have different storm water management regulations right now. Pfab: Is there reason why we should or shouldn't change it? Franklin: Yes. But that is a discussion that you need to have with Public Works. And I don't know what the urgency- I mean, Dee has said the date of March 2003. I have to assume that Public Works is cognoscente of that date and is working toward something that will be a change in our local ordinance regulating storm water. Lehman: This project represents a change anyway. We obviously are applying the same sort of standards that we did to the Elks Club. They will not be able to use certain kinds of pesticides, herbicides, whatever. We are controlling the runoff of storm water and requiring filtration, which we have never required any place else. We are treating them the same as we are treating the Elks. It would be, I would think it would be absolutely unfair to subject them to stricter regulations for other reasons than we would any other subdivision. Franklin: Well, particularly when we don't know what they are going to be at a local level. I mean, I don't know that we even have any idea. Kanner: When the infrastructure is put in as defined here in (e), do they do for the whole 82 acres or just for the first phase for that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 16 Franklin: It will be a combination, Steven, because depending upon how they do the sewer with the sanitary sewer lift station, they may decide to totally gravity feed this to the sanitary sewer lift station which is kind of at that medium level plateau and then force main it back up to the main sewer line. So that would be something that would- parts of that would be serving the whole development. For the most part they are going to be doing the infrastructure that is needed for the phase that they are working OFt. Kanner: So my second part is that when they come to us with phase two- let's say it is past 2003- we will be going by the standards that are in place at that time for their infrastructure that is going to come before us? Is that correct? Franklin: The infrastructure is approved for- with the preliminary plat, the actual construction plans are approved with each final plat. We will treat this one the same way we would treat any other development project that came before us in terms of when those laws apply. I don't know if there is anything in the federal law that is going to require us to go back. Kanner: I am just saying that for phase two, if there are new laws and they are building a new infrastructure for that phase two, they will go by- we will assume they will go by that law for that phase two? Franklin: The stonn water management will be designed at the preliminary stage for the entire thing. And there is a reliance that one has in Iowa law on a preliminary plat. And so when we approve that preliminary plat under whatever law is in effect at that time, that will hold for subsequent- Kanner: For the whole thing? Okay. Dilkes: Although it is dependent on- I mean, because this is now federally regulated it is dependent on the timing as established by federal law. I mean, I don't know what that is. If it is effective 2003, and it applies to all construction after that date. It depends on how that is set up. Vanderhoef: I hate to go back to this but I don't think I ever got an answer about the scattered or spread out of our affordable housing. And there is nothing actually in this document that is saying that, even though it is one of the things that we have in our Comprehensive Plan. I feel like we ought to mention it. Franklin: It is in the Peninsula Plan and Guidelines in terms of a concept. Vanderhoef: But we don't define what that concept is? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 17 Franklin: We have not defined it as a policy making body. And so, that is where when we get the preliminary plat and we have it all laid out, that is when we are going to wrestle with that for this and may, in fact, help you define what you mean by dispersion. Because I think there is a variety of opinions on the council as to what spread out means. Vanderhoef: However, in looking at it from the developer's side, certainly any guideline that we could give them before they start drawing all of this up- Franklin: I would have no idea, Dee, what to give them. Lehman: I mean- I hear you Dee. I think if they come back with a plan that shows 40% or two pockets with- if they have two pockets of 28 low housing cost in those two pockets, we are going to say no. Franklin: That is right. And we- remember, this is again how it is different from all of the other projects we look at. We are not just in the regulatory mode. We are in proprietary mode. We own this. And when they come back with a plan in August or September, that kind of issue as to where those units are, how spread out they are- we are a part of that design. Vanderhoef: I understand. Franklin: And there is- unless we can come to resolution of it, and we will come to resolution of it because if we don't it stops. Vanderhoef: I am just trying to save time and effort on everybody's part in that if we are not going to approve something that has 20 in one location, why wouldn't we say that now before they get into the design? Franklin: Because they- well, just in my conversations with them- one thing we would have to do it redraft this. We then defer this meeting, defer consideration of this meeting, which is not- I mean, if you have a number of changes you want to make then we will make them and we will defer. But it means another point of renegotiation. To say exactly what it means to spread it out. And what I guess I am saying to you is, you have the opportunity to control that. In my conversations with Terry Stamper, he is totally on board with this spreading out issue. Because it is better for him for marketing it. Much better. Lehman: Karin, I don't this- Franklin: It is kind of a point that we are not losing anything by leaving it as it is and making sure that we are all right with it at the regulating plan when it is on paper and visible. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 18 Lehman: I think that we are all saying the same thing. I also think that we are saying that we should tell this to Terry up front- hey, fella, before you start doing this development, we sense that the council really wants to see some dispersion. So don't come in here with a pocket of- Franklin: He knows that. Lehman: I think that is all you are saying. Franklin: He knows that. Vanderhoef: That is all I am saying and I don't want to waster his time or anyone else ' s. Franklin: He knows it and he is totally in sync with that theory. I mean, we have been talking about that since we did the interviews. Dilkes: I think the other thing you need to assume here is that he is looking out for his interests. Vanderhoef: Absolutely. Dilkes: And we are looking out for ours. And we have negotiated this thing now for a number of weeks and that if he thought that there was some ambiguity that prevented him from doing what he needs to do on this dispersion issue, I am certain that he would have raised the issue. Our interests are protected because we can say, no that is not acceptable to us down the road. Pfab: My point is I think he is probably perceptive enough to realize that if you don't come in with a plan that will pass, it isn't going to happen. And if he isn't, he probably isn't going to make it anyway. Kanner: Ernie? Lehman: Yes? Kanner: My concern- Dee, were you finished with your question on that issue? Vanderhoef: With that particular one. Go ahead. Kanner: I had something about affordable housing too. I have a concern about that but I think it comes from an opposite place of what you are talking about. I would like us to take some responsibility. That is my concern along with TLC for affordable housing. And define it a little more and talk about how we want a number of houses affordable for people in the 50% range This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 19 up to the 100% range of median income. And I was wondering, how did the discussion go about the 10% and what defined affordable housing, Karin? Franklin: In terms of the 10% figure, we started out with requesting a slightly higher percentage. It was 15%. He didn't want to have any percentage fixed, although he clearly was willing to provide for the sort of things we have included in here- that is the construction and the marketing for non-profits. In terms of what affordability is- we have been talking primarily about what I just explained to you previously. Mostly the 80-100% of median will probably get into some of the- maybe 50-60% of median for the rental. Any units that are rental. But not defined as to exactly how many households in this range, how many households in this range, because I don't think we wanted to limit ourselves that way. We want to be responsive also to what the needs are of the non-profit housing corporations. I don't think it realistic to believe that anything in this development is going to be accessible to people at 30%. Kanner: So couldn't we put in parentheses a parenthetical note that affordable, just like we said that Iowa City Housing Authority would be included as non- profit, that we would say that affordable would include, could include, from 50-100% of median income? Franklin: I think you get that by targeting non-profit housing organizations because that is what they do. Champion: I think it is already in there. Lehman: And a 10% discount on the land. Pfab: Could I make a comment? Steve, I believe that we could but it means that we won't be able to approve this at this time. I mean, it appears- I am comfortable that those are incorporated in here, not precisely that way, but indirectly. Sure, we can change this but that means no approval today. Kanner: I have a feeling we are going to get closer to the 100% of median income for most of these unless we get a little more specific. That we might get down to 80%. Franklin: But that is going to be up to the non-profits that are dealing with this as to the clientele that they serve. Pfab: Is this a time to ask if any non-profits are present and if they have any comments? Franklin: That is up to the Mayor. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 20 Lehman: Well I don't really- that is fine with me if anyone wants to speak to it. but obviously I don't think a non-profit organization that wants to build affordable housing- we are- property will be made available at 10% discount. What occurs with that then is up to the non profit organization and who they choose to serve. Is that-? Franklin: Right. That is exactly fight. Champion: We have set guidelines, they are here. We cannot micromanage every single parcel of land on this Peninsula. I think we are getting way too explicit here and I think we ought to just move on. We have got guidelines, they are set down, they are set in the plan, they are set in here. We know who in this town is going to have a possibility to purchase that land to make affordable housing. So we just really- I mean, I think we are just micromanaging this to the absolute limit. It is ridiculous. Wilburn: I think the concept mainly to keep in mind is that you are incorporating an inclusionary zoning concept, which in the past has been pretty controversial around here. This is all kind of a demonstration project anyway. Lehman: The emphasis- there is obviously an emphasis on affordable housing. You know what I mean? It is spelled out. It is very clear. For the first time we are able to do that because we are involved in it. I have a question for you, Eleanor, that isn't referring to affordable housing. On page 5 of this agreement- and I didn't (can't hear) this as carefully as I should have because I knew that you did- paragraph 9 1 think covers the possibility of the developer being financially unable to complete the project. And then if he is not able to complete the project that obviously we take care of it. is there anything to protect us if- and I think you always have to imagine the worse I guess- is there anything to- obviously if he borrows money against this project, which he will to put in the infrastructure or whatever (changed tapes) to a point that I might even just that as collateral as something else. I guess I am concerned that if we were to have to assume this property because of a financial inability of the developer to perform and he has used this property as collateral for other projects which he could use if he owns it- I would hate to see us be liable to pay that offif it is a lien against the property. Dilkes: We worked on this for a long period of time. Lehman: So it is okay? That is all I wanted to know. Dilkes: I am not telling you it is not without some risk because I think that is just the nature of the situation but I think we have tightened it up as best we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page can. What we have said here is that we will take it and we will take it back subject to a purchase money mortgage, so to speak. Lehman: All I am concemed is if this property is used for collateral for something else. Vanderhoef: But remember, he is only going to buy one phase at a time. So he is not going to own the whole thing- Dilkes: You are right in that we do not have a second mortgage position for instance whereby we would be- we could foreclose and take flee and clear of anything below us. That is a risk. I think if things really got bad here what we would have to do is enforce this by a suit for a specific performance, which is a court action. So I am telling you it is not without risk. I just think that we have done the best we can do under these circumstances. Pfab: I have a question. Is them not the function of bonds- having bonded him to finish this? Kanner: I am sorry Irvin, I can't hear you. Pfab: Okay. Is it not possible to have the developer purchase bonds to protect us and that the funds would be forthcoming from someone else? A third party (can't hear). In other words, when you- Lehman: Performance bond. Pfab: Performance bond. That was the word I was looking for. Is it any different than if somebody starts tearing up the street and they go broke? Don't we ask them to be bonded? Dilkes: We require those as part of- for instance we get maintenance bonds when we accept improvements for instance. Pfab: Not maintenance. I am talking performance. Franklin: Don't we get those when we do subdividers agreements? Dilkes: Not perf- I don't think we get- we get escrows. We don't get performance bonds. Performance bonds are the things that we get, for instance, when we retain a contractor to build Tower Place and Parking, for instance. And we require that they give us a performance bond. Lehman: A performance bond on a project like this would be probably impossible. I can't imagine any bonding company that- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 22 Dilkes: Steve is shaking his head. I don't know if they could get bonded for something like this. Atkins: I am not sure- I suspect they could get bonded for something, a number, which you could agree to by negotiation. But I can also assure you it would be obscenely expensive for them because there is just very little- I don't know how you would calculate the risk. Pfab: That is the bonding company's problem. Atkins: No it is not the bonding company's problem. Dilkes: It is not just the bonding company's problem. Atkins: Yeah, the developer will want to pass the cost along- Pfab: Right. At that point if the bonding company says no way jose- it might run the flag up the pole to say that maybe we should be looking at somebody else- not that I am making thatjudgement at all. Atkins: In land development I think it would be very difficult to calculate exactly because you are buying a piece of ground, tuming around and subdividing it and selling it off piece by piece. I guess it could be done. I have not heard of it done in that fashion. And so therefore I think it is going to be- obviously anyone who would consider doing that I think is going to pay a lot of money. They are going to want a lot of money for- and I would suspect Eleanor that there will be every imaginable wiggle room out of it. Lehman: Yeah. Dilkes: Right. Atkins: Yeah. Dilkes: The other thing, Ernie, that relates to this paragraph is I think it is important to remember that we are doing it in phases. So we are not conveying the whole chunk at once. We are going at it slowly. So hopefully if there are problems we will get- Letunan: My only concern is when this project is in its final phase for example and this developer- who I have obviously every faith in or we wouldn't be talking to him- he finds a development in Detroit, Michigan that he wants to do in the worst way and he borrows against this project that is ultimately almost complete to fund another project someplace else. And then he defaults and we end up taking it over. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 23 Atkins: Ernie, wouldn't he only be able to borrow against that particular phase? Because it would have been built out, sold off- Lehman: If you are a bank and you know that the city is going to be responsible and they are going to take it over if he goes into default that is like guaranteeing a loan. Atkins: No, I understand that. But if you take the project and carve it up into ten pieces and as each piece is developed, that is accepted, over with- Lehman: That should be free and clear. Atkins: Free and- yeah, ifI buy a home up there in phase three- Dilkes: Oh, yeah. You are going to want the liens released. Right. Atkins: I want all my liens released and all the obligations. Then the developer- and I'll ask Karin this- do they have to come back and ask for permission to move to the next phase or is it automatic? I don't recall. Franklin: No, they have to come back and final plat the next phase. Atkins: Okay, so they- you know, there is a legislative process that you have to approve. Franklin: And that is set out in their procedures. Dilkes: Remember too that in terms of whether the bank has some kind of- would loan- I can't believe they would be allowed by regulation to loan in excess of the value of the property just because the city might step in and take it over. And the city doesn't have an obligation to do that, it may. It doesn't have to. And so I am assuming that would- at that point we would assess whether that was a good thing to do or not. We certainly don't have to. Atkins: And it would seem that the likelihood that if we going to a bank we would be borrowing against the good name of the project. See, here is how successful I have been in developing in accordance with this agreement. I can understand that. A bank looking at it very favorably saying this guy knows what he is doing, we are more likely to loan. Champion: But in Detroit? Pfab: Ernie, I think you got saved by the word "may" or "shall". Lehman: I may have been saved. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 24 Kanner: Ernie? Lehman: Go ahead. Kanner: You go. Lehman: I have got one question and then I am going to let-. Under the miscellaneous provisions I believe I read that if- Pfab: What page are you on? Lehman: Well, it is on page 7. But if he were to become insolvent or whatever or sell the property to some other entity where this organization is no longer in charge of developing, that it says the city- under paragraph 3- oh, the city- I guess this almost seems like a one way street to me that if he were to sell his interest in that property and someone else would purchase it and wish to continue the development, he can't sell that because the city can terminate. I mean, it seems to me that is almost a two way street that if he sells to a legitimate developer who is going to continue the project why would we have the ability to terminate the agreement? Dilkes: Because we want the right to decide whether it is a legitimate developer who is willing to proceed with this agreement. Franklin: Remember, we selected this team for who they were and what they were going to bring to this. And so we don't want him to be able to just sell it to somebody else who may be of totally different philosophy because he is in a financial tight spot. Dilkes: It is analogous to- Lehman: Even if he sold it the agreement would still be in place that requires the performance just as if he owned it. Dilkes: But it is not- I think it is analogous to, for instance, a design contract. You hire someone to design something for you because that is the person you want. And even though they might transfer their interest to another designer who might have every obligation to comply with the agreement that you have got, that is not the person you decided you wanted. And so you want to be able to retain the right to say, "I wanted this person. I wanted this entity." Lehman: Even if you have the preliminary plans and everything is agreed to and whatever? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 25 Dilkes: Absolutely. Lelunan: Okay. But, now that is not incumbent on the city? Dilkes: Right. Lehman: We can choose to terminate or we could choose to continue. Franklin: Right, right. Lehman: Alright, I am done. Irvin, or Steven? Kanner: Yeah, a couple of other points. The $1.3 million is what we paid for the property, is that correct? Franklin: That is right. Kanner: What is it worth at the cun'ent time approximately? Franklin: Well, I am kind of guessing on that. But we are selling it at this $1.3 million for $15,853 an acre. And given the sale of other properties in this general area of the city, smaller properties went for a higher-remarkably higher- per acre cost. The Louis Condominiums, which is a fairly small piece, I think went for $42,000 an acre. So I am figuring that- and this is a ballpark without an appraisal, you know, just out of my head- is about $30,000 an acre if we were to sell this on the open market. I think from the beginning what we have talked about with this is recovering that $1.3 million and then we have put on the 6.5% compounded annually on the balance just like a mortgage. That we are getting some extra because of holding this over time, but we- my understanding is we had agreed to essentially subsidize this project to make this type of development happen. That if we were going to sell it on the open market we would do it just for whatever and sell it for whatever we could get. And that is what we have been operating under as we have been doing all of these negotiations and what was put out when we did the request for proposals. Kanner: So that is a large piece of the puzzle, is that one of the reasons that they are agreeing to do this is they are getting a pretty good deal on this? Franklin: Yes, and it is what- the phasing and that is what keeps us in it and keeps us in control of it too. Lehman: Now, that is also based on 90 acres? Your $15,0007 Franklin: No, $15,853 is based on 82.1 acres. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 26 Lehman: And how much of that is developable? Vanderhoef: Or transferable? Franklin: Maybe 50. Lehman: 507 Vanderhoef: But it is transferable° Franklin: Yes, but we have transferred the densities offof the slopes so- Vanderhoef: So that is good. Franklin: That is one reason why we have this base price per unit. It is so that we are assured as we go through these phases that we are getting paid for all of that land that is being left in open space. Vanderhoef: Karin, you and I spoke yesterday about part of this because I had questions about how we arrived at the 6.5% compounded on the unsold land as it goes along. And as I understood it you said the figure was produced because or on lost opportunity for the dollars of the $1.3 million. And now we have talked about the fact that conservatively we could have perhaps on the open market sold this at $30,000 an acre. The other things that stick out in my mind that we are also subsidizing would be the loss of tax monies and you said you'd check on that. Franklin: Yes, the taxes on this 82 acres would be $197 a year. Vanderhoef: That is agriculture? And it doesn't change from agricultural until when? Franklin: The taxes change as there are improvements made to the property. Vanderhoef: Not when it is sold? Franklin: No, no. Sale and zoning has nothing to do with the taxes. It has to do with what is on the ground or in the ground. Vanderhoef: Okay. And then the other thing that stuck in my mind that is there is the huge amount of dollars that we have put into the infrastructure up to the Peninsula which has increased the value of that land certainly as compared to previous owners and no infrastructure or possibility for it for quite a long time. Franklin: Yeah, well, that and looking at the $30,000 an acre and taking that into consideration, because that is comparing it to this other property that sold This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 27 for $42,000 but is a smaller piece. And when you buy larger pieces the price per acre goes down. That has access, sewer and water to the property line, which is the case with this property now. So, that $30,000 that I am giving you is already taking that into consideration. Vanderhoef: And the interest and lost opportunity in the enterprise fund for water and sewer? Franklin: No. I don't know what that means. Steve? Atkins: (can't hear). (several talking) Vanderhoef: Well, built into all of the infrastructure- obviously we have just now spent and bonded for this infrastructure in a very large way. Atkins: Right. Vanderhoef: And so right now we have this interest that we are paying on bonds for water and sewer and that is another lost opportunity for dollars to be spent on infrastructure elsewhere. I don't know exactly how this all fits together. I am trying to get a whole big picture of this. Atkins: That is partially- I mean, that is correct. But also remember you created 400 new customers. Or whatever is going to be up there. You are making a front-end investment, paying the interest on that. And then in turn you hope to recoup a good bit of that by the water and sewer that is going to be used by the 400+ folks that are going to be up there. Franklin: I point out too that there are probably another 80 to 100 acres that have benefited, will benefit, from the extension of Foster Road and the sewer and water that has been installed there. That we have not assessed for those projects. (Vanderhoef and Franklin talking) Franklin: The approach we have taken has been doing it as, you know, a public project to open up this area. Vanderhoef: So what you are probably saying then is that we are subsidizing the GIS by that $15,000 an acre approximately? Franklin: Right. Vanderhoef: To do this whole project? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 28 Franklin: Right. Lehman: The other way of looking at that and I guess I don't like the idea of subsidy- I look at 400 units or the potential of 400 units on that Peninsula as opposed to maybe 30 or 40 if we sold it off for the $4.2 million that we might get on the open market. And I look at the cost of providing city services to those 20 units out there or 30 compared to the 400. The taxes that we take off- to me, this is kind of like a pretty good investment in a mutual fund. We give a little on the front end, but from the cost- but from the city's perspective in providing services to that area and what we collected taxes from the units that are built there, that is a tremendous investment on our part. So I guess I don't look at that as a subsidy. I look at is as an incentive that allows the City of Iowa City to get a very, very good return on this $1.3 million. Vanderhoef: And return on the utility. O'Donnell: Long term. Lehman: Oh, long term- Vanderhoef: Long term. Lehman: -it is a real good value. Vanderhoef: I understand that. I just wanted to get this into a picture that we all had a handle on how this was a good deal for both sides and that the citizens understand this. Lehman: I know, but once you use the word "subsidy" you suddenly told the people that we are putting the building community at a competitive disadvantage because the city is subsidizing a project. And I don't feel that is true with this project. I think that we are enabling a development to take place that will really benefit the community. Vanderhoef: And this was Karin's word to subsidize and I am putting it out as is this truly a subsidy and you are making the good argument that I had been thinking but I wanted it all spelled out in advance rather than have little pieces come back. Dilkes: Dee, I think the way to look at it is we would not sell this for market value and retain the right to control the development. Vanderhoef: Right, I understand that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 29 Dilkes: So with the consideration that we are getting in addition to the money, we are getting non monetary consideration- i.e. the right to significantly control the development. Vanderhoef: So there are all these positive things that we are getting out of this. Wilburn: Some which you can calculate but others that we can't calculate. Vanderhoef: Can't calculate, right. That is it. Thanks. Lehman: Other discussion? Kanner: On page 8, number 6 and 7. Number 7, Karin, mentions that disputes will be resolved ultimately if they can't be resolved by the parties working it out by dispute resolution procedure, identified elsewhere in the agreement. And I didn't see that. Can you tell me where that is? That is at the bottom of 7, like the 4th or 5th line up. It talks about that. And then my question in pertaining to number 6 is why we didn't put that dispute resolution procedure for number 6 also? Dilkes: I am sorry, I am not- where are you? Franklin: Dispute resolution proceedings? Kanner: Number 7 on page 8, fifth line up. There is a dispute resolution procedure that is identified elsewhere in the agreement. So my first question is where in the agreement is that? I did not see that. I must have overlooked that. And then my second question is on number 6 we spell out how we settle disputes and I am wondering why we didn't add that dispute resolution procedure for number 6 also as a last resort for paragraph number 67 Lehman: Seven deals with delays. Franklin: Well isn't the dispute resolution the formal notice shall be made- what is outlined in number 67 Mutually agree in good faith and negotiations for the purpose of resolving said identified issues. It may include executing additional agreements to cover whatever that issue is. Kanner: So the dispute resolution procedure is what is outlined in number 67 Franklin: Yes, that we- that notice is given by whichever party has an issue and we enter into good faith negotiations. And we may execute an additional agreement as a consequence of that. Atkins: The agreement does not specify mediation or arbitration. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 30 Franklin: No. Atkins: You are making the assumption that the two parties will get together and decide whether we would choose to mediate or arbitrate. Franklin: And work it out. Dilkes: My recollection is that they had initially wanted an arbitration provision. Franklin: No, they didn't. They had written something rather general and Sarah had jumped to that conclusion but that was not the case. Kanner: So, the recourse then after 6 if it can't be resolved is then it would have to go to court because there is no other procedure outlined in the contract? Dilkes: Absent a contrary agreement by the parties to submit the issue to binding arbitration or mediation. You can always agree to that down the road. But our general- my general feeling is that binding arbitration clauses up front and in agreement usually don't do us much good. Lehman: Well I don't mean- any disagreement ultimately would be- the council would have the opportunity to resolve that prior to going to court too? Dilkes: Sure. Franklin: The bottom line is we don't sell them any more phases until we get it resolved. Or the whole thing falls apart. Lehman: Where the council is involved in this project from the very beginning to the end. Franklin: Yeah. Dilkes: I think absent mutual agreement for another way to resolve it, the courts are probably the best way to do it. Lehman: Other discussion? Are we ready to vote on this folks? Champion: Yes. Lehman: This is a really big thing and I am so pleased to be able to vote on this. Roll call. Motion passes. Franklin: Thanks very much for agreeing to have this special meeting to allow us to get through this. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #5 Page 3 1 Lehman: Well thank you for the work. This really- Vanderhoef: And thank Eleanor too. Lehman: I was going to say it was the culmination of a lot of work but it really isn't, it is kind of the start or everything. This is something we have been working on for so long. So, thank you. Vanderhoef: But getting this coreract and negotiation done and a huge step and we do appreciate your efforts ladies. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #7 Page 32 ITEM NO. 7. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FORM OF TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE $14,310,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Vanderhoef: So moved. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Kanner: Could Steve explain this- a need for these certificates? Atkins: There is a variety of procedural matters, Steven, that we have to go through. Certificates pertaining to disclosure, certificate pertaining to the tax exemption status. You have to declare (can't hear). The reason we put this on the agenda is that once you go through and jump through these respective hoops- legal hoops- to secure the money, we can get the money immediately which buys us three weeks of $14.3 million worth of investments. That is why I am asking you to do it now rather than wait until July. There are procedural matters associated with the sale of general obligation bonds in accordance with IRS regulations, SEC- you have to do these things. Lehman: This is a great reference to tax exemption certificate (can't hear). Atkins: You have to prepare a tax exemption- not knowing all the (can't hear) language, you are declaring you are a government, you have purchased these bonds, and therefore that is tax exempt. So the person on the other end buying the bond puts it in their portfolio clearly under those circumstances- interest, tax exempt status and things such as that. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #9 Page 33 ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SECURING THE PAYMENT OF $14,310,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CODE OF IOWA, AND PROVIDING FOR A METHOD OF PAYMENT OF SAID BONDS. Vanderhoef: So moved. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Atkins: This means you will pay it back. Vanderhoef: Promises, promises. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000. #10 Page 34 ITEM NO. 10. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCY a. Public Art Advisory Committee Lehman: One appointment to fill an unexpired term ending January 1, 2001. This appointment will be made August 1. Is there a motion? O'Doxmell: So moved. Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by- I arn sorry, what? Kanner: I was just wondering- we have had this problem a few times of people that they see Iowa City on their address and they think they live in the boundary of Iowa City. Maybe on the form we might need to spell this out a little bit better for- Karr: Steven, this person did have an Iowa City address and when she was notified we forrod out she moved. Kanner: Oh, she just moved. Karr: She just moved. Kanner: So it is not so much a problem ofpeople- Karr: Not to this particular case. Kanner: I was just thinking in general maybe. Karr: We certainly- I think we do have a yes or no, do you live inside or outside the city limits. And sometimes people forget to fill that in or make an assumption they do and don't. Lehman: We have a motion by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion to adjourn. All in favor? All: Aye. Lehman: Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of June 29, 2000.