Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-12 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM NO. 2 MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS Lehman: (Reads proclamation). Karr: Here to accept is Verna Johnson, member of the Pilgrim Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Johnson: Just a few quick words to say thank you for declaring this coming week the 17th through the 23ra Constitution Week in coincidence with the national observance of that week. We would also like to inform you of and invite you to a dedication of a tree commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the beginning of the Korean conflict which will be held September 23rd at 10:00am on the northwest quadrant of the Pentacrest and hope that if you could be there that would be wonderful or if you know of any veterans who would like to participate, we would like to invite them. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you. You know council members, this is kind of unique. This, the entire constitution takes less room than one chapter of our building code. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. # 13 Page 2 ITEM NO. 13 COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Lehman: I would like to ask for an amendment to the agenda to place ITEM 13 in place now. We are at a special meeting a week later than normal and we do have boards and commissions in session tonight. ITEM 13 is appointment of board and commission members. If I could have a motion to that effect? Vanderhoef: I move. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. All in favor? Kanner: What's the proposal? What is being changed here? Lehman: We are changing the order doing council appointments now. This is a special meeting. These appointments would have been made a week ago and we do have board and commission meetings in session now. Kanner: Okay. Lehman: All in favor? All: Aye. Lehman: Opposed? Motion passes. ITEM 13 is Council Appointments. The Solid Waste Advisory Commission, we had one applicant- Janelle Retting. The Housing Community Development Commission, we have three Appointments to fill. We decided last night to appoint Rick House. We do need to re-advertise for more applications. The Citizens Review Board we have two appointments. And the two folks we discussed last night were John Stratton and Loren Horton. Do we have a motion to approve those appointments? Wilbum: So moved. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilburn and seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? Opposed? Motion is carried. The other appointments that will be coming, Civil Service Commission had no applications and Historic Preservation had no applications. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #3 Page 3 ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Vanderhoef.' Move to adopt. Champion: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by Champion. Discussion? Kanner: Yes. I wanted to note again as I have been doing in the past that we have a resolution to issue liquor licenses and my hope that by announcing the arrest rates of people that are under age that we bring attention to different facets that go into licensing and that hopefully in the near future we will begin to take that into consideration. And there are two bars that are listed here that are having license renewals that have a record. The Vine year-to-date from January to August had two visits by the police and they had zero arrests for underage drinking. And Joe' s had twelve visits and zero arrests. And the other liquor establishments that are up for renewal are not listed here because they fall into the same category. One other thing I wanted to bring up for council is that I would like to put out that we get reports from the Police Chief in the future about visits that the police, or not just visits but calls they've had to bars and the number of bars and that we have some sort of formal report from the Police Chief. The Police Chief signs off as part of the process on the licensing procedure but it is my understanding that at times the Police Chief isn't too happy about doing that. He feels they are compelled to do that for certain reasons, but in any case I think it would be good for us to look at the idea of getting those reports if a bar is constantly having the police called. I'd like to see those reports. Champion: You mean different than just the list of bar checks and the number of arrests? You mean like if a bar called the police? Kanner: Or if other people call the police. If there are fights constantly, fights in and outside the bar, I think that is something that we should like at as far as the health, welfare and safety of the community, which is part of the licensing process and what we are supposed to look at. And also hear from the Police Chief and see what he has to say about that. Lehman: I would think that might be better addressed when we discuss the bar issues that will be coming up probably, I'm guessing, next month. But I think that could be brought up at that point. Atkins: Just so you know that information is not difficult to compile. Champion: Yeah, I think it might be valuable. Atkins: As long as you're aware. It's easy enough to compile. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #3 Page 4 Lehman: Other discussion? Kanner: Can we ask the Police Chief if he feels it might be worthwhile to give us this information? If he thinks that might be helpful. Lehman: I think we can do that. I'm not sure that the consent calendar is the place to do it. I think council time. Does the council want to do this? I mean, I don't have any problem with it. Champion: I don't have any problem with it. O'Donnell: I think it would be better if we talk about it during our (can't hear). Lehman: We've talked about it so if we want to do it- well, what's your pleasure? Champion: If it's easy to obtain why don't we just ask for it? Lehman: Ok, done. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #4 Page 5 ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). [UNTIL 8 PM] Lehman: Item four is public discussion. This is a time reserved for comments from the public on items that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you would like to address the council, please sign in, give your name, address and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Olsen: Hello this is Clara Olsen. I'm from Springdale, Iowa. I'm here with my cap on as president of the American Federation of Teachers, Local 716 to issue a special invitation to the council and the city employees and other members of the community. The American Federation of Teachers, Local 716 will be sponsoring an event in which the new executive director of the state civil fights commission, Corlis Moody will be in town on September 21. And this will be at 7:00, in meeting room A at the Iowa City Public Library. This will be co-sponsored by, among others, the Iowa City Federation of Labor, SEIU, Local 199, the Hawkeye Chapter of the civil liberty' s union, University of Iowa Lesbian Gay Staff and Faculty association, The National Lawyers Guild and the Iowa City Human Rights Commission. Corlis Moody is the second executive director under the new Iowa State Governor to have this position. I think that Iowa City has a tradition of considering itself an enlightened community on civil rights issues. And therefore I think this an opportunity to both welcome this new commissioner, hear the status of the present state civil fights statute, hear the status of the present agency how it's being administered and also provide feedback to this agency as to the enforcement of it's civil rights efforts and also perhaps areas in which the statue could be amended. For example by adding sexual orientation, adding jury trials, punitive damages, subpoena power, so there will be quite a few topics and if people can not attend personally we certainly urge you to listen on cable TV. Thank you. Lehman: That's the 21st at 7:00 at the library? Olsen: Correct. Champion: Clara what was her official title? Olsen: She is the executive director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. And one of the members of this community, David Leshtz, has been appointed by Governor Vilsak as a member of that state commission. So I'I1 leave this with the details up here, ok? Sexton: Good evening, my name is Corbin Sexton, I live at 1159 Hotz Ave. And I want to just turn the clock back a little bit to August 1 when you voted to dedicate 33 acres to Hickory Hill Park- 33 additional acres- and I'm here on behalf of Friends of Hickory Hill Park to thank you very much for that vote. We are very pleased, as are people who aren't yet officially members of our organization. So I am here to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #4 Page 6 hope you will accept our expression of gratitude a little delayed, but wanting you to know that your vote did not go unnoticed. And I just want to make the point that Iowa City's parks are valued by its citizens because they have defining characteristics. The woodlands that is part of the 33 acres that you dedicated is exactly that. It's a defining characteristic of Hickory Hill Park. It's why it's valued by so many of the park users. If you imagine what the Pedestrian Mall would be like without the Friday Night Concert Series or if you imagined what City Park would be like without the swimming pool or Napoleon Park without the softball fields, that's what Hickory Hill would be like without those 33 acres. It's a very essential part of it and you've really done the community a big favor. Some decisions are a lot harder to reverse- if you were to discontinue the concert series I don't think you'd have to move heaven and earth to maybe restart it a year later. But if you were to level a woodland like that no matter how much money you would throw at it, it would not rise up the next season. So, thank you very much and we look forward to more decisions that will preserve this asset of Iowa City. Thank you. Dieterie: I am Caroline Dieterle and I am here to invite you very cordially, each and every one of you I hope- that you will all accept this invitation to come or to view on library channel TV the upcoming forum on the proposed county jail expansion. This forum is being sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild and it will take place on Monday the 18th. That's next Monday at 7:00 PM in the Iowa City Public Library, room A. I hope that you will all come. I think that it's important for you to see that there's another side to this issue than the one that the jail study committee and the consultants perhaps have already communicated to you. And I think that coming to this forum, considering the people who are speaking at it and talking about it, will certainly give you a lot more information. And I invite everyone who is listening to this broadcast of the council meeting to please pay attention to this too and see it because the upcoming bond issue which is the largest bond issue that has ever been proposed for Johnson County. It's going to mean a lot to every body in terms of your pocket book as well as all the other values that we have and so it's very important that you vote on this measure. It will appear on the back of your ballot on November 7th and don't miss it because it is back there. And please do all you can to educate yourself about this subject and you can begin very, very well by going to this forum. And I'm going to present you with a poster annotmcing the forum and there is a letter attached conceming it. Lehman: Caroline, if we are not there at the meeting it's because we have a council meeting. So if the council will ... but we can watch it when it plays. Dieterie: I'm assuming that a person such as yourself Mayor Lehman has a video taper that you can possibly video tape it. Lehman: You are correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #4 Page 7 Dieterie: And watch it later because I think that the video will contain material that you will find that you are glad that you saw. Champion: Will it be re-aired? Will it be taped and re-aired? Dieterie: I don't know. I imagine so but I can't give you now, you know, a time when it would be re-taped and so I purposely didn't mention that. But anyway, I do hope that you'll all try to find some way. Could you just pass it around and let everyone see the letter? Champion: Well maybe our meeting will only last a half an hour. Dieterie: Well you could try to make it like that. Lehman: Thank you. (Laughter) Boos: My name is Florence Boos. I'm at 1427 Davenport Street. I wish to speak on alternatives to the 2000-2001 Deer Management Plan. Lehman: Florence that comes up later on the agenda. Boos: Ok. But we can't use any of the open part for it? Lehman: No. If it's on the agenda we'll take it at that time. Wilburn: Is that item number 7, is it? Lehman: Yeah, it could be. Boos: Yes. Champion: I was just looking. Lehman: Yeah. Other public comments? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5e Page 8 ITEM NO. 5e CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 20.78 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY (ID-RM) TO PUBLIC (P) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF GILBERT STREET SOUTH OF NAPOLEON LANE. (REZ00-0017) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move adoption. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. This is the property upon which we are building the new Public Works facility if I am not mistaken. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5h Page 9 ITEM NO. 5h CONSIDER A LETTER TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REZONING OF 125.43 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN FRINGE AREA C EAST OF DANE ROAD AND WEST AND SOUTH OF THE LAKERIDGE MOBILE HOME PARK FROM COUNTY A1 RURAL AND RS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO COUNTY RMH MANUFACTURED HOUSING RESIDENTIAL. (CZ0027) Lehman: We're being asked to defer this but I don't know to what date. Karr: Nineteenth. Lehman: The nineteenth? Karr: Correct. Lehman: Could I have a motion to defer that to a week from tonight? Vanderhoef: So moved. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion. All in favor? Deferred until the nineteenth. Karr: Could we have a motion to accept correspondence requesting deferral? Champion: So moved. O'Donnell: Seconded. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 10 ITEM NO. 5i CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND IOWA CITY, IOWA, AMENDING THE FRINGE AREA POLICY AGREEMENT BETWEEN JOHNSON COUNTY AND IOWA CITY. Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Beasley: Does that mean others? Lehman: Yes, that means anyone who is here to speak to the Fringe Area Agreement that we have between the city and the county should speak at this point. Beasley: I'll take this opportunity. My name is John Beasley. My address, work address, is 321 E. Market Street. I'm here on behalf of Nellie Donovan who owns 280 acres of land east of Iowa City. I believe some of the land is north and some of the land is south of Herbert Hoover Highway. I brought some nice colored drawings for you to take a look at during my presentation here. I wasn't sure of what AV capabilities you had so I thought I'd do it the old fashioned way, which was with magic markers. Also have some photographs. Kanner: John, while you're doing that- you're one of three people representing the Donovans that have approached us so far. At least I've been approached by three different people I believe are representing the Donovans. Beasley: I believe you've probably only been approached by, in terms of the legal profession representing the Donovans, either Mr. Gelman or I, in the legal capacity. Maybe you've been approached by some engineers, but I... Kanner: Engineers and real estate. Beasley: Ok. That may be true, I don't know who've you've been approached by. I know I haven't spoken with you. That's all I can say. Kanner: You're not coordinating with any of these other people? They're all operating independent? Beasley: Well, you'd have to ask them how they're operating. I can tell you how I'm operating which is I've talked to a few of you individually but that' s it. If you have some specific questions you want me to ask them I'll be happy to do that for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 11 you but I'm not sure. You'll have to call it speculation on my part to address what a realtor's doing who I don't even know who the name is. Kanner: It just seems a little strange that the Donovans aren't coordinating who's representing them. Beasley: In your eyes. Anyway, what we're requesting is that in the Fringe Area Policy Agreement that there be included 15 acres of land owned by Nellie Donovan in the commercial area of this agreement. And we're requesting that the boundary of the commercial area be adjusted approximately, and again if my math is off I apologize, 1300 feet to the west of the line as I know it on the proposed resolution to the west, to include Nellie's 1500 acres. What we're not requesting is that Nellie' s land to the west of her 15 acres or that the land to the south of the Herbert Hoover Highway be included in the commercial area of this Fringe Area Policy Agreement. The facts of the land the way I understand them, and I try to demonstrate them on this drawing I have provided to you, is that to the east of Nellie's land- in your drawing Nellie's land is- the 15 acres is shown in blue highlight. To the east of Nellie's land it's my understanding there is land which has already been zoned commercial by the county. In fact, there is commercial development with commercial buildings existing on that land. I believe the land just to the east is already called Gateway One. To the north, it's my understanding that there is some land that has been re-zoned commercial by the county. It hasn't begun commercial development on it yet, but it has been zoned for that. Of course to the south is Herbert Hoover Highway, which I consider to be an arterial highway that can handle commercial traffic. I believe there is already, and some of you may have been out there, some turning lanes that have already been put in place on Herbert Hoover Highway to assist the commercial traffic to get in and out of the Gateway development to the east. And then abutting Nellie' s 15 acres in my understanding is a high tension electrical power line that runs from Hills, Iowa somewhere to the noah. And I can't speak to how far noah it goes. And those are the photographs that I provided. It's a picture of that power line. And some of those photographs- you'll have to make the determination on your own- some of those have descriptions on the back. They're either taken from the north or the south to demonstrate that line. It's my opinion that the most appropriate use of Nellie's 15 acres is commercial. In fact, as I look at the plan, the plan that is subject to being amended, it's without dispute that there should be some commercial development in this particular area. And as I understand it, the plan or the amended plan calls for the commercial development to be east of Nellie's land. And I drew on my diagram in black with hash marks through it, the land that I understand is going to be classified or characterized for commercial development. And as you can see, portions of the Gateway One commercial are in it, portions are not included in it. When we look at the realities of the land, Nellie's land included, this high tension barrier abutting it on the west, I think it is the most reasonable to include this land in your plan for commercial use. I would suggest to you that the most reasonable approach is to look at the land at issue and the surrounding facts in determining what should be considered commercial. And simply not look at This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 12 what looks nice on a map. The map I've seen makes a very nice rectangular shape on a map and it is centered on Interstate 80 Interchange. But in terms of the land and the current uses of land in that area, it doesn't make sense to me simply to draw the line 1300 feet from land that is my mind best used or the most appropriate use would be commercial. I took a look before I came down here this evening at the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance Chapter and I noticed that there are several purposes of that zoning chapter that area that are articulated. And I noticed that one of them, I believe it's the 2"d one, states that the purpose of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance is to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. And if this is in fact a purpose, the purpose to encourage the most appropriate use of land, then I think this council should apply that principal and include this 15 acres of land into this fringe agreement now. If there is a concem on the council on where to draw a line, and I understand that is what you are confronted with all the time, you have got to draw a line somewhere. I would suggest that its no hardship to anybody to move this line one lap around a football field to the west. You already have a significant barrier in my mind along the west in the form of that high powered electrical line. And when we are trying to draw lines, lets not just rely on what looks nice on a map, but take into the realities and the circumstances surrounding a particular piece of land, because I feel very strongly that when you look at how this land looks in connection with roads and high powered lines and existing commercial land, the most appropriate use would be commercial. So lets get off on the fight foot on this particular process and include this land in the fringe agreement now. Now, I know through some of my discussions with individuals, that there is concems about a domino effect. Well, if we draw it here you'll be back sometime to talk about here and you'll keep moving in towards the city. Well I'm here tonight. Nellie owns the land right next to this. And were not here to ask you to include that land to the west of that power line or the land to the south. Lehman: Can I interrupt you for just a moment? When this property to the north was changed to commercial, why wasn't this changed at the same time? Beasley: I can tell you the practical effect. I believe the land to the north was sold and I believe that Nellie sold the 15 acres- or the land just to the noah. There is some misunderstanding. She did not own the land to the east. But when the land was sold to the noah, there simply wasn't an application made to rezone this land as part of that process. Lehman: What is the designation of that ground right now in the existing comprehensive or the fringe area agreement? Beasley: Which? Lehman: The 15 acres that you are talking about. Beasley: On the existing? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 13 Lehman: Right. Beasley: I believe its Ag. But I can check with (can't hear)- Agricultural. Lehman: Okay. Fine. Go ahead. Beasley: And I believe that if I read the map right, your growth area may just trim the northwest comer of this land. So what we are asking is that you take a reasonable approach to this, look at the facts of the land, the circumstances surrounding this land and let that dictate or help direct the line versus what looks nice on a particular map. I think, and I think if you were too, and again I'I1 try to speak for them. Well I can't speak for them but I have a sense from the county that if this council took the position that this land could be included in this fringe agreement, I think I might be able to get the county' s support on that particular process. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Is Karin Franklin here tonight? Wilburn: Yes. She's here. Lehman: Oh, you are hiding? The person in front of you is larger than you are and did not see you. Karen I would like you to-. Vanderhoef: I'm sorry. May I ask John a question? Lehman: Yes please do. Vanderhoef: Tell me, what is the size of that easement for the power line? Beasley: I can tell you from what I've been told, that the easement is a generally described easement but the engineers tell me it may be as broad- and I can confirm this for you- it may be as wide as 600 feet and then based on a center line that's described in the easement. And I can't tell you whether that power line if the actual line sits on that center line or not, but there is- I believe it's 600 feet wide. Vanderhoef: But it's not a no-use underneath it? That easement? Beasley: I don't know if it restricts the land in that regard. Vanderhoef: OK. Beasley: I will be candid with you. There will be I think some contact with the electrical company to see if that can be reduced, that 300 or 600 feet can This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 14 be reduced down. But that hasn't been done yet and we don't know what their position is on that. Vanderhoef.' Was that condemned to put that high wire in there? Beasley: I can't say that. Vanderhoef: And was there payment for that one, that easement? Beasley: I can't give you the history. I just know there's an easement that exists there. And I don't know what their position with the easement is. Lehman: OK John. We may have more questions, but for the time being I'd like Karin with the recommendation from the joint committee with the county that worked on the agreement and also apparently our own planning and zoning commission with the concurrence of staff made this recommendation which I do not believe is designed to make a pretty line on a map. Would you like to explain to us why this is designated, or the proposal was designated the way this? Franklin: Um mm. Well there's quite a history to this property, as I know the council is aware in that this property was rezoned to commercial in two phases for the Gateway development that John refers to. And the first time that the rezoning commercial was before the county and comment was given by the city, the city's recommendation was to not zone it to commercial because that was inconsistent with the Fringe Agreement that is in place at this time. The county at that time chose to rezone the property regardless of our views about the Fringe Agreement. When the second rezoning application came in for commercial, which is the property that creates that surround on the Donovan property that John is referring to, the county board at that time also rezoned it to commercial again contrary to Iowa City's wishes and in contradiction to the Fringe Agreement based on the logic that the commercial zoning was in place there at the interchange [and that] this was just another part of that development. And so that would just add to the commercial that was already there which is this domino effect that John is referring to. When this came before the subcommittee which included council members and board members, one of the reasons the Fringe Agreement was being discussed and being amended had to do with exactly this particular circumstance because of the disconnect between the direction the county was going and the direction the city was going in as to where there should be commercial development in the county outside of Iowa City' s growth area but within our two mile extra territorial jurisdiction. And so that was one of the reasons we sat down was because of the property- a land use decisions that were being made at this interchange. So the question was This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 15 "how much if any commercial zoning or commercial potential should there be within the two mile extra territorial jurisdiction of Iowa City?" And the sub-committee agreed that there would be some compromise. That the city would recognize the action that the county had already taken to do some commercial zoning. That the county would respect the city' s desire not to have a commercial strip on Herbert Hoover Highway as it came into Iowa City. And that there would be a defined commercial area around the interchange that would be focused on the interchange. Thus the lines were drawn. And the Donovan property- the piece that is in question- was specifically discussed at that time. And the decision was not to include it so as not to extend that commercial just a little bit more down Herbert Hoover Highway. Lehman: I understand you to say at the time that this property directly to the north was changed to commercial, this was discussed and it was decided not to change this to commercial? Franklin: No. At the time that the sub-committee was talking about the commercial designation-. Lehman: Oh, fine go ahead. Franklin: -for the Fringe Agreement, this particular piece was discussed as to whether it should be included in the area designated for commercial or whether it should not. And the decision was at that time to not include it because the frontage on Herbert Hoover was not commercial, the commercial development was occurring along the interstate, and that there was no reason to progress with commercial designation down Herbert Hoover Highway toward Iowa City. Kanner: Karin? Franklin: Yes. Kanner: You said there was a compromise within the committee, the sub- committee that was working on this and you said that the city would accept the previous zoning of commercial that the county had done in this area. What- Franklin: Recognize that it was there and it would not change. Kanner: Recognize. OK. Recognize that it was there and would not change. What could the city have done? What did we give up in this compromise? Could we have fought it in court? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 16 Franklin: No. We could have continued through this process holding the position that there should not be commercial development in this area at all and not designate anything at this interchange for commercial development in the Fringe Agreement. So that was the extreme position that the city could have taken was to say no the commercial development should occur within the corporate limits, we do not want to have any commercial along this entrance to Iowa City along Herbert Hoover Highway, and what is done is done but that' s all there will be. But what was done is to designate an area that surrounds the interchange and includes some areas that are not zoned commercial now, recognizes the demand for commercial at the interchange, recognizes the Johnson County land use plan which speaks to commercial at the intersection of paved streets and say OK this is the area that we can agree on is appropriate for some commercial development, but these are the boundaries. And as John says you always draw a boundary and the question is always "where is it going to be?" But that's how we got to the boundary that's shown on the map and Ernie is right, it wasn't done just for the aesthetics of it. Vanderhoef: We gave up the position of no commercial on the north side of Interstate 80 exchange where we already have one commercial piece on the northeast comer of that interchange. We gave up that in exchange for keeping our entrance to the city less congested and less likely to become a strip of commercial all the way in to town. Franklin: Right. Wilburn: Walk me through that rationale as how it differs from the southeast side of town where ACT and the new industrial areas going over there- how is that different from where the ACT main campus, Friday's is, Press Citize-, how is that different from the southwest side of town where we're currently speculating about possibly something in conjunction with the Avenue of the Saints? How does that differ or destroy or whatever not having a commercial entryway? Franklin: Well, it's not so much, Ross, the concept of not having commercial at an entryway. It had to do with, well, two things. First of all in terms of the entryway, it was a matter of whether we were going to designate in this area a land use that was a strip of commercial along Herbert Hoover Highway. Because every time that you designate something for a certain land use you have to have some rationale for why you did the boundary there or the question always becomes as it is here, "Well why not just put this one in?" So anybody who' s next door across the street can make the argument that, "well mine should be commercial too", because you're always gonna get higher prices for commercial land. Always. Generally speaking you're gonna get higher prices for commercial land than you are for residential or agricultural land. So there is an interest on the part of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 17 property owner to get it zoned that way, if that' s their interest to develop their land for some financial benefit. Wilburn: I, I understand that. Franklin: So, so the entrance way concepts in terms of southeast Iowa City and Scott and 6th at ACT at the Highway One, 1-80 interchange and at the 218, Highway One interchange are that all of those areas are, one are within Iowa City's corporate limits or they were within our growth plan and have since been annexed. They are in designated commercial areas that are designated for commercial in our comprehensive plan and we have those in different parts of the city. But they are within the city where we can provide the services that a more intensive land use is gonna require. Counties are not set up to provide those kinds of services. Wilbum: And is it, walk me through the designation of the boundary of the city limits on that area, I'm looking at natural boundaries here. Are you saying that at no point someday Iowa City will just go that extra way out to the- Franklin: Well I would never say at no point some day. That's an awful long time. Wilburn: OK. Franklin: OK. But right now our growth area is in the Donovan's property someplace. At some time we'll get out to that point because that's an area which we can serve by gravity sewer and we already have that in our long range plans. Will we ever get to the interchange? It's possible, but there's gonna to be a big decision as to whether we want to invest in a huge piece of infrastructure, another sewer plant, to be able to serve that area. But it could likely happen and I don't think any of us in this room will see it. I don't think so. Wilburn: Speak for yourself. (LAUGHTER) I guess when you're talking about it, I mean, maybe I'm thinking that this area isn't as large as you're saying that it will not be, that there be another huge investment of infrastructure. Franklin: Well once you go beyond that urban growth boundary that we have then you're talking about another water shed and so then you're next boundary, your next logical boundary... Wilburn: Is there a ridge somewhere along that... Franklin: Yes. Wilburn: -on the west of that interchange? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 18 Franklin: There is a, there's a ridgeline along the west side of the interchange which is defining our growth boundary. Wilbum: OK. Franklin: Now as I indicated last night, exactly where that is depends on how deep we put the pipe in. But we generally know it's gonna go along the ridge line there. Wilburn: OK, OK. (Changed tapes) Lehman: Showing a land use on the Fringe Area Agreement does not have the same effect as zoning. The land is not zoned the way it's shown on the property that is shown as the- I suppose intended expected use for that property? Franklin: That's- that's correct. Lehman: OK. Now should this property be designated agricultural and a plan was presented that was not agricultural- it could be approved by both the city and the county and at some point do whatever the two agree to do, is that not correct? Franklin: If you amend the Fringe Agreement. Lehman: That's correct. Now, if this is shown as commercial, the average person would probably interpret that to mean that anything that we list as a commercial use would be expected to be or logically we could probably not object to being used in that (can't hear)? Franklin: Well, what the Fringe Agreement states for this designated commercial area, however you decide you're going to designate it, is that it would be zoned to the county CP2, which is a planned commercial, and that is the county zoning designation. There's a variety of uses that are allowed in that CP2. We don't have a comparable zone in Iowa City. In the county they call it a planned commercial but it probably is not, it is not how we would potentially do a planned commercial in Iowa City. There are some things that they need to follow. One of the requirements that is included in the Fringe Agreement is that the parking lots have to be paved. That was something special in the Fringe Agreement, which is not required in the county zoning ordinance. So I can't say that it would be wide open to anything. Them are certain restrictions of uses but those listed in the county zoning ordinance. Lehman: Any other questions for Karin? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5 i Page 19 Champion: In the past Karin we've had a Fringe Agreement that the county did not adhere to twice, right? I mean twice in this particular area that we're talking about? Franklin: Right, right. Different board is in office now. Champion: Right, so really what we would like to see that we really don't have any legal control over. Isn't that correct? Franklin: No. You do have- with the Fringe Agreement if both bodies come to an agreement on what the land uses should be. If one party violates that agreement you can, you have the right to, take that other party to court for violation of the agreement. Champion: Why didn't we? Franklin: Because the council did not choose to. We chose to work it out or try to work it out instead. Champion: OK. Pfab: I have a question. I'm just curious how far is this land from the commercial development on Scott Blvd. and Highway 67 Franklin: Scott Blvd. and Highway 6. Oh my. As the crow flies? Pfab: No. You can't move the cargo that way. Franklin: It's about three to four miles, three and a half. Champion: Three miles to the interchange of Scott to city limits. Franklin: Because it's a mile from Taft to Scott and then from Rochester down to Highway 6 it' s about two to two and a half miles. Pfab: So it's about three miles. That means... Franklin: About, yeah. Pfab: I just was curious. This piece of property really gives me a fit because there are some nice agricultural aspects to that but the location and the noise from the interstate, you know, that puzzles me. And of course, the other is already there. Franklin: When you think about the land use decisions that you have a role in, in terms of land use decisions of land that is in the county in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 20 unincorporated part of the county, because we're all in the county, but that land that' s in the unincorporated part of the county, you need to think about it a little bit differently than the way you think about the land use decisions that you make within the corporate limits. Because of the services that are provided by a city for certain urban densities of development and those services are not provided in the unincorporated county and they will not be provided unless things change radically. So you kinda, it's a little bit different view point Pfab: To make that more complicated it is sewerable. And it is eventually... Franklin: At some point in time the Donovan property will be sewerable. It isn't right now. Pfab: No but I mean it is sewerable. Franklin: It's in our growth area and that also gives that property development potential in the future that it does not enjoy right now. Wilburn: I forgot to ask this last night, but if we were to vote to allow this does that make us in violation of the agreement if we... Lehman: This is part of a new agreement. This is only a portion. We're voting on the entire agreement. Wilbum: Right. Lehman: The map is part of the new agreement so we can't violate anything with the new agreement. Wilbum: Right. Franklin: What you would need to do is you would need to make an amendment to the agreement and I think then you would need to decide whether you wanted to consult with your Planning and Zoning commissioner on that change. Kanner: Karin, who were the members of the sub-committee? Franklin: Ernie and Mike from the council, and Jonathan Jordahl and Mike Lehman from the Board of Supervisors. Lehman: And you were there. Kanner: Plus Ann? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 21 Franklin: I was their staff and was Rick Dvorak as staff. Kanner: And Ann from Planning and Zoning? Franklin: I'm sorry? Kanner: Ann? Franklin: You're right Ann ##### from Planning, City Planning and Zoning and Bob Saunders from County Planning and Zoning. Thank you Steven. Kanner: Pretty good mix of folks there. Franklin: Yeah. Lehman: While you're here obviously we're not talking about just this parcel of ground. There are some other features of this proposed agreement that I think are very tmique that the public should know. And would you like to, I think there are three or four very unique changes from the present agreement. Franklin: OK. The commercial I think we've covered. There is a repeated reference in this to the Johnson County Land Use Plan, which was not in our previous agreement because the plan had not been adopted yet. In area A which there are three different districts in this plan A, B and C which are those sections of the two mile extra-territorial jurisdiction that surrounds the city. In area A, which is north of Interstate 80, it recognizes the change in our growth area. Our growth area now extends noah of Interstate 80 and provides for land use decision distinctions between what will be in our growth area in the future and what will continue to be in the county in the long run. It also recognizes the agreement that we have with Coralville for that area along the river near Dubuque Street north. And area B which is on the east side of Iowa City through the southeast, there is a provision for clustering of development if it should occur. The preferred use is for continued agriculture but it does allow some development with the clustering. And then there are provisions for city standards for any development projects and review by the city of any projects over three acres. And a consultation mechanism if there is a conflict. If something had occurred like the rezoning of the Iman property under this agreement before the board acted they would need to consult with the city council and you all would have a sit down to try to come to some resolution of your disagreement. That is a new mechanism in the Fringe Agreement. And there is a- Kanner: Karin it's not the whole council and board, it is representatives isn't it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 22 Franklin: It's- Kanner: According to wording I thought. Franklin: I'm trying to remember- Lehman: I think that's right Franklin: I'm trying to remember what the language says whether it's representative or not. Lehman: I think it'sjust a committee representative of the Council on the Board with a joint committee. Whose actions would have to be approved by both the Council and the Board so. Franklin: Yeah, yeah. Pfab: Ernie. I have, I'm sorry. Franklin: And the last thing is the term of the agreement is five years automatic renewal unless either party has a problem with that automatic renewal which allows us to sit down and talk about it some more. Lehman: Our present Fringe Area Agreement expired the first of this year. Is that correct? Franklin: Um, no. Lehman: Not correct. Franklin: August. Lehman: August. I'm sorry. Fine. But is did expire. Franklin: Yes I believe that's correct. I have to check the date. Pfab: Ernie. You made a statement a little bit earlier and I'm not sure, I heard what you said, but I'm not sure what the implications were. You are saying that if that property was commercial and inside of the city limits where full utilities infrastructure- services that the city can provide- that the county is not able to do, are you implying that could allow a much higher use of that land? More intense on development of that land? Franklin: OK. First of all I was saying that for any commercial it is more appropriate to have it in a city as opposed to in the unincorporated county. But then also because the Donovan property is within our growth area, at This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 23 some time in the future when it's contiguous to the city and the owner's wish to annex, the development potential there is greater in the city than it would be than if it's in the unincorporated county. For the very same reasons because you can provide most services from the city. But it could- there's also a greater variety which can be more responsive to the market in terms of a higher density residential that you can buffer from commercial or potentially commercial. We would have to look at what the appropriate land uses were in that area. O'Donnell: This is really a very difficult piece of ground Karin. It's bordered on two sides by commercial and the third side by high wire lines and on the other side by the highway. The commercial beside it and behind it, I'm really having a problem with this and I know I sat in on the Fringe Agreement committee, but it just seems natural that that would be zoned commercial. Franklin: And so, so will the next piece which will have the high wire line next to a commercial along one side and Interstate 80 on the north. Lehman: And the Interstate on the other. O'Donnell: But we've already set a precedent here. We have zoned. This zoning stops short by it looks like about 300 feet of zoning that expands back towards Iowa City. Champion: We haven't set the precedent, the county did. O'Donnell: Well and that's true. Franklin: That's your choice. Champion: I do. I have a problem- it looks logical on this map, this nice little map that John made, but I have a really strong belief that commercial development does belong within the corporate city limits and not in urban, rural county. And to me this piece of property could eventually be, if the city ever moves out that far, probably not in my lifetime, maybe it will be zoned commercial. Maybe it will be a buffer area for commercial and residential. It has lots of possibilities for use in future years. And I agree with the committee, the sub°committees that at this point should not be commercial. But I think it does belong in the corporate limits. Lehman: Connie, this action on the Fringe Area Agreement does not preclude that from being commercial- Champion: I know. Lehman: -if the county and the city at some point, week after next... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 24 Champion: That's what I'm saying. Lehman: -or ten years from now if they decide to do it. This isn't rezoning. Champion: Right, Oh, right, right I understand that. Vanderhoef: But I agree with some of the things you're saying there Connie and for me protecting the entrance to our city is rather important. We've done a very good job of that on North Dubuque. We have done a good job in that we have allowed the commercial and a commercial park to be built around the interchange on North Dodge. However, then we have open space and have continued on in and the only other commercial that is on North Dodge is what we call our neighborhood commercial which is what we have in our comprehensive plan and are continuing to do to provide services within neighborhoods. I look at what happened on Highway One coming in from the west and I look what happened to what we used to call Highway Six bypass and look at the number of commercial businesses that have come along in here and number of curb cuts that have come in there and yet we are constantly having to "buffer" those commercial things so that we can get into residential areas. Now this particular piece of property to me would be one of those buffer places that typically what we have done in our present comp plan is to put high density housing kinds of things as we move from either neighborhood commercial or other commercial. I think it would be inappropriate to add another strip of businesses along there at this point in time and I would hate mislead the owners of the property that we might do that at this point in time. I think 15 years from now there may be a different look to this and then again maybe they will thank us a whole lot for holding our line and following what our comprehensive plan is as well as keeping all of the commercial industrial kinds of things placed in the city where we have certain services. Lehman: Go ahead. Seydel: My name is Lyle Seydel, I live at 445 Garden Street. I'm a licensed realtor. And I have this property listed for sale. When it was listed for sale it was listed as Ag land with potential development. Dee, this is my town also. I carried the flag as a boxer to Chicago to New York. I spent twenty-one years in the service. I spent twenty-one years working for the city as it's housing coordinator. Can you hear me all right? Group: Um,mm. Seydel: So what I say is not just because I'm a realtor with the piece of property listing. That property will be zoned commercial some day. Why put it off This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 25 for 10-15 years? They're not asking for it to be rezoned. All they're asking for is the plan to be changed or to be designated potential commercial development. They're not asking for it to be rezoned at this point in time. And if you look at the map west end boundary should have been the planner if you're looking at their business, the western boundary should have been that quarter to quarter section line. It makes sense to use that, why develop another line? Our forefathers surveyed this country and made it out into sections. So if you just use that "section line" it encompasses this 15 acres we're talking about. So I'd ask that you consider accepting the Planning and Zoning committee's recommendation. You can do that but you can also recommend that the area be enlarged to include the western boundary to be the -- section line. Do you understand what I'm saying? Thank you. Lehman: Other discussion? Pfab: I have a question. I'm trying to listen here and I don't see a very clear sense of direction. Now maybe I'm wrong. And I'm wondering if this would be best postponed for a week or two? I don't know if it would or anything would happen, I just don't know. It's just I'm putting this out as a possibility. I don't have an answer. Is there a time pressure on making this decision or is it not making a decision now just another delay? Lehman: I don't know that there's a time constraint. I guess we need to ask ourselves what will we know a week from tonight that we don't know tonight. Or- and if there is something I don't have a problem but ... Pfab: I don't know either. This is one of the toughest things I... Vanderhoef: What is it you'd like to find out? Pfab: Well, it's the idea, OK. We have a very, as a city council we have a vested interest of driving at commercial enterprise, potential enterprise, to our commercial areas. And that's not good or bad, it just is. But we also have a problem that we may eventually come in to an area that is zoned commercial and probably not highly utilizing the ground there wholly because it's not in the city now. It's, fight now it has a fair amount of agricultural application there, it's a good piece of, it's a relatively small piece of ground, but it's a very fine piece of ground so I don't know. Vanderhoef: Do you recognize that in some point in time the sewer will get out there but right now that is not in the foreseeable future? And I guess the question I would ask you is, are you comfortable with having industrial being built in the county without a full range of city services of fire and water and sewer? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 26 Pfab: Well, I have to weigh that on the idea if you have a commercial operation you're awfully close to the interstate. Otherwise you're three miles from it. You know if we look at it as an alternative of locating that. And that to me, that interchange is valuable to a owner of that property of commercial because the transportation is basically solved if you're gonna go by truck or something like that. It's, that's the tug and putt. And I'm not, the other point, the question, I'm not I can't resolve in my mind right now is the fact what does accepting this agreement, what are the intricacies that will affect this property when we accept the zoning, not the zoning but the Fringe Area Agreement? I'm mean I'm sure, where that Fringe Area Agreement how that really affects that piece of property right now? Lehman: In impact in that unless it is used- and correct me if I'm wrong on this- unless the property is used in accordance with the Fringe Area Agreement, it would require a consultation between the county Board of Supervisors and the cotmcil to change that use. Pfab: But in this... Lehman: Am I correct? Dilkes: No you couldn't. There would be a consultation about whether- what the Fringe Area Agreement called for. I mean if you were going to enlarge the commercial area provided for under the Fringe Area Agreement you would need an amendment to the Fringe Area Agreement. Lehman: Right but if it were used for something other what it was designated. In other words if it was designated agricultural and it wants, for some reason there' s wanting to put a new newspaper for example, it would require an agreement between the county and the city in order to make that use because it's not agricultural. Dilkes: We would require an amendment to the Fringe Area Agreement. Lehman: Right, right. Wilbum: Right. Lehman: Right. Wilbum: I think it's important that we have the Fringe Area Agreement in place, so I'm wanting us to move on this tonight. But just to move us along, has this been moved and seconded? Lehman: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 27 Wilburn: OK, I'm gonna, I don't think there's, just listen there's no support for this, but I'm gonna move that we amend the agreement to include the 15 acres of this property. Lehman: You're moving to change that? Wilburn: I'm moving to change it to commercial. Lehman: We have a move to move to change the 15 acres to commercial. Is there a second? O'Donnell: I'll second it. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum. Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion on the amendment? Pfab: What are you proposing? I hear... Wilbum: That we change this to yellow. Lehman: Change this to yellow. Wilbum: Commercial. Pfab: And how does this affect, how does this affect the Fringe Area Agreement? Kanner: Well it has to be renegotiated in the subcommittee. Lehman: No, I don't think that's true. I think if the sub-committee wished to have this brought back to them or Planning and Zoning wanted to have it brought back them we certainly could do that. My feeling, and Karin correct me if I'm wrong, if the council chose to change this 15 acres it probably would go from us to the county for their approval as amended. Would it not? Franklin: The Board has it on their agenda Thursday night. The only question I have on my mind is your own Planning and Zoning Commission. Because we've got that resolution about if you're gonna go away different from the Planning and Zoning commission that you have a consultation with the commission. Now that's for development proposals, but I mean it's part of our comprehensive plan so I think it would be prudent for you to- Lehman: Go back to them? Franklin: Go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 28 Lehman: Well then let's just leave it that way. If we choose to change that we will send it back to P & Z. Is there any other discussion on the amendment? Pfab: So if you vote yes on this amendment it will immediately go back to Planning and Zoning before anything else happens? Wilburn: No, if we vote on the amendment then we have to vote on adopting the Fringe Area Agreement policy as amended. Franklin: I think if you want to, if you believe it prudent to confer with the Planning and Zoning Commission then you need defer the item, have your consultation with P & Z and then do your vote. Wilbum: OK. Lehman: May I, would it be appropriate for me to ask you to withdraw your motion for an amendment and ask rather that it be deferred and returned to P & Z for consideration of that 15 acre parcel? Champion: Why don't we see if we have- Lehman: Oh no, we'll vote on that but is it, but would you care to substitute that motion? Because what I'm hearing from city attorney is that it would be appropriate if we are going to amend it, that before we do so we defer it, send it back to them tell them what we'd like to do, consult with them and then decide what we're going to do. Franklin: If you want to have a consultation with P &Z then yes that makes sense, to withdraw the motion determine whether there are four of you who are interested in considering this change to add the 15 acres and if so then to defer it and go have your consultation with P & Z. Lehman: Well I guess I'm asking would you be willing- Wilburn: I withdraw it. Lehman: And who made the second? Would you be willing to make that-? O'Donnell: That's fine Lehman: Alright, so the motion at this point then is to defer this item back to P&Z. Dilkes: We need, we need such a motion. There is not such a motion. Lehman: OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 29 Dilkes: Currently. Lehman: You withdrew your first motion now. Wilbum: Move to make defer. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Motion by Wilbum to defer. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. And for the purposes of adding the 15 acres and consulting with the Planning and Zoning commission. Pfab: I am comfortable with that. Kanner: Ernie, just for the sake of the vote clarify again for all of us what a yes vote- Lehman: The yes vote on this motion will defer this item, return it to Planning and Zoning Commission for a consultant meeting between the council and the Planning and Zoning Commission with the express intent of looking at this parcel and changing it to commercial. So if you don't favor changing this parcel to commercial there's no point in voting for the deferral. Pfab: Right. Lehman: If you want this change to commercial then it will be appropriate that you vote to defer it. OK. Further discussion. Dilkes: Is that a motion to defer indefinitely? I'm assuming, because we don't know when we can meet with P & Z? Right? Lehman: Yes. Dilkes: OK. Lehman: Now we understand- Pfab: What is, what is, what? Wilburn: I'm moving to defer this item indefinitely until we know when we can set up a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 30 Pfab: Oh, OK that's fine. Go ahead. Lehman: For the specific purpose of- Wilburn: Discussing this Lehman: Changing the 15 acres to commercial that is not presently shown that way. A yes vote means that you probably would like to change this to commercial. A no vote says you're comfortable with what this is and you want to proceed. All those in favor of deferring please say aye. Three: Aye. Lehman: Let's raise our hands. I see three. Those opposed of deferring raise your hands. The motion is defeated. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Kanner: Yes, I'd just like to make a point that one of the things I like in here is the requirement for clustering of any future developments in the county and requiring that at least 50 % of the development be designated as an outlet for open space agriculture or future development upon annexation so I think it keeps a lot of the character, the agricultural character in the surrounding area and that's an aspect that's new and that the cotmty will hopefully be adding that to their zoning. The agricultural and clustering aspect, they don't have that in there right now. Lehman: You're right Steven. The other thing I'm a little bit disappointed in a way that our concentration tonight has only been on 15 acres because this is a very significant agreement with the county. We have had an excellent relationship with Johnson County in our Fringe area and there's a tremendous willingness to cooperate with the City of Iowa City and the county. There are a number of things in this Fringe Area Agreement that are really good for the city and the county. Pfab: My question to you is we want the agreement and immediately we want to not abide by it? That's the contradiction that I have. Lehman: Where do you, where do you hear that? Champion: No, we don't want to change it, we haven't voted on it. Pfab: Yeah right but in a sense we, the, I think the consensus is to keep this from drifting towards commercial the way the Fringe Area Agreement is set up. Is that correct? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #5i Page 31 O'Donnell: I don't think so Irvin. I think everybody is resigned to the fact that this will someday be commercial. And I believe that the property sold in the next six months, that an application will be made to make it commercial and I think it will probably go through county and city through our joint review process. Kanner: Mike, I think that the county's gonna uphold this from what we heard from Karin. That the county won't go against our wishes and against the Fringe Agreement. I think they'll stick to it this time. O'Donnell: Well we'll see. Lehman: No, no. What you say Mike is correct. Ifthere's an application come in, it would require a joint meeting that's neither here nor there but I don't think I understood what you said Irvin about us breaking our own agreement. Pfab: Well, it looks to me like the Fringe Area Agreement would say that would not be commercial. Lehman: That's exactly what we're saying. O'DonnelI: So immediately we make an agreement then we say we want to change it. Lehman: No, no, no we didn't say that. Someone is going to have to come in and ask for that. We're not saying that we would do that even if they ask for it. Champion: I'd like to move that we accept the Fringe Agreement. Lehman: We have a move. Champion: Oh. Lehman: (can't hear) Roll call. Motion carries. Karr: Will you accept correspondence please? Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoefto accept correspondence. Second? O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: By O'Donnell. All in favor. Motion carries. I have a request for a short recess. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. Announcement Page 32 Lehman: Mrs. Left was elected with 82% of the vote and Pete Wallace was elected with 79% so for those of you folks who are here about the School Board election Pete Wallace and Janet Left are the two school board people who have been elected. Congratulations. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #Sj Page 33 ITEM NO. 5j CONSIDER A LETTER TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOMMENDING AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SAND MINING AND EXTRACTION OPERATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED JOHNSON COUNTY, SOUTH OF ISSAC WALTON LEAGUE ROAD WEST OF THE IOWA RIVER. Lehman: Do we have a motion to move? O'Donnell: Move to send the letter. Champion: Second. Lehman: Motion by O'Donnell. Second by Champion. Discussion? I would just comment that this is moving a sand and gravel operation and the work that has been done in reclaiming this area which is being used now, was I think engineered by (can't hear). It's is an absolutely magnificent area. It's going to a beautiful park. This is something that we had asked that be done. There has been a tremendous amount of time and effort and money spent on this. It's going to be a real asset to that area south of town. Further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 34 ITEM NO. 7 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2000-2001 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Lehman: Before we start the public discussion- Is Pat here? Pat as chair of the Deer Committee is going to give us a quick overview of what their recommendation are and then we will take public discussion. Farrant: I was the 1 ~t chair of the Iowa City Deer Management Committee and this is the first plan that was written entirely by the Citizen Management Working Group. And I want to say a few things before I walk quickly through the plan itself. And the first is that it's important to remember that we did this work in the context of the city' s approved long range deer management plan. So while we were free to do what we thought best for this year, we were committed, we affirmed that we wanted to work within the guidelines that were established some years ago when the committee first started its work. I want to stress that this is not a linear project. Rather its one that is likely to continue to be recursive as committee membership changes, as the needs of the community change and attitudes develop and so will the contents of the plan. So I am just warning you ahead of time. We shouldn't be surprised if what is proposed in any given years differs from what has become before or might happen in the future. One thing is clear and I really want to stress this, is that this plan, however it tums out, is always going to be a compromise. In fact we felt we needed to stress in the preamble to this year's plan which I would like to read. Its just a paragraph. And this is the message from the committee to anyone who read this plan this year. "The members of the 2000-2001 Iowa City Management Committee acknowledge that we are not wildlife specialists, traffic engineers, mathematicians or politicians, but rather citizens who have come together to address an important matter facing our community. We developed this plan after researching options for deer management considering documented evidence, gathering information about other communities in comparable situations, receiving advise from the Iowa DNR, listening to the opinions and experience of fellow citizens and exploring our perceptions of the kind of plan most likely to be both accepted by and effective with the community. We believe strongly that it is unlikely that every component of any deer management plan is going to be accepted by every member of the committee or every resident of Iowa City. The plan we are presenting is a compromise. The product of our attempt to understand and respect many different voices." Part of this compromise has to come about as people deal with issues that provoke examination of intensely personal closely held beliefs, issues over which emotions are strong, deep and sometimes it seems also visceral. It is not easy. One of the projects we overtook this year was to host neighborhood listening sessions- gatherings at which citizens could say what they wished in an atmosphere that promise no judgements or recriminations. What we heard only affirmed the impossibility of coming up with a plan that would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 35 satisfy everyone. We listened to people speaking from virtually every point of the continuum of attitude toward living with deer. From those for whom killing any living thing, for human convenience, consumption or recreation is unthinkable. To those who would be cheered to learn that the Orkin man has added deer to his service options. So having said that, keep in mind that we are talking about a compromise here and I'll run through the options, the 8 points on our deer management plan, and then I understand that we are open for public discussion. Lehman: Correct. Farrant: The committee unanimously endorsed this plan. We didn't unanimously endorse last year. There was one abstention. This year the vote was unanimous. Item 1 on the plan, and again this is in the context of the long range plan, is that the city will continue the activities that were begun to provide resources and educational materials for citizens to learn to live productively, peacefully with deer. There will be an extension of the materials that are available for checkout at the library. We are talking about doing some more educational videos on defensive driving techniques and there are also some educational materials that have been made available already this year. #2: the city will continue to install and maintain the reflector system that was initiated two years ago. It hasn't had an opportunity to its effectiveness to be assessed because of problems with construction in the areas where many of the reflectors were established. And the city will continue to look at all possible creative forms of signage to help people deal with driving techniques that are necessary at certain times of the year when deer are likely more active and the likelihood of accidents increases. The city will continue to work with the DNR to understand the place that deer have in the natural environment in Iowa in general. #4, the city will continue to try to identify an agency with which we can cooperate on a pilot project to determine whether either deer contraception or some other means of deer sterilization or birth control is a possibility for our community. It's not a simple matter but we haven't given up on it. Lots of things have changed since we first started talking about this and we are hopeful that something in the near future and we are committed to continue to work toward that. #5 is the issue of killing. We did conclude again this year that if the city is to continue to make progress toward the goals established in the long term deer management plan, which call for coming up with an average population of 35 deer per square mile within the city limits, then reduction of the herd through killing will be necessary again this year. We examined a variety of options for lethal deer management and concluded once again this year that sharp shooting would be the lethal management control of choice. We developed, using information provided by the DNR and available through the annual aerial deer counts, a number of deer that it will be necessary to kill within the city limits in the 2000-2001 shooting year. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 36 That number is set at 500 and I don't want to go in to the details but this is a number based on a projection produced by the DNR adjusted to accommodate the realities to what it takes to shoot 380 does. The number suggested by the DNR is that it takes 500. Its takes about 1/3 more to assure that you are going to kill 380 does. Again, any number that is thrown about when we talk about this plan has got to be viewed strictly as an estimate or a soft number. Nothing about this is absolutely precise. We tried to base on some scientific evidence but everything about it has to be viewed as having a large area of play. But we needed some figures that were targets. The city will apply to the DNR for the appropriate number of tags, will continue to allow the performance of reproductive autopsies on a select number of deer just to get a sense of the state of the deer herd. We will comply with all of the state rules and regulations governing the sharp shoot and we need to apply once again for permission to do this because as everyone knows this is not an approach to wildlife that is endorsed widely in the state. #6 is something new. A couple of members of the committee, particularly after having listened to people who had specific problems in certain areas of the city limits, wanted the city to at least look into the possibility of permitting regulated hunting and to understand the issues that we have to make a distinction between what sharp shooting entails and what hunting entails. Its something that not every member of the committee was in favor of but it seemed like something that needed to be in the plan and at least to be looked at. #7 simply says that the city will continue its data computation because that's crucial to determining whether we are having any success in reaching and approaching the goals of the long term plan. So we will continue to collect information about deer vehicle accidents and there will be another helicopter count at the appropriate time around the turn of the year. And finally the city will meet to formally evaluate the effectiveness of the plan as of May in 2000. And this was approved in August of 2000 by unanimous vote of the deer committee after a lot of work, a lot of thinking and a lot of hard talk and I think now we are going to open it to public comment. Lehman: Before we do that, on behalf of the council and the people of the community, we really want to thank you folks. That its been an extremely difficult job and it's a job that you are going to get a lot of criticism for, or you'll get a lot of thanks for, but you certainly have the heartfelt thanks of the council as I'm sure most of the folks in the community for aver, y very difficult job. Farrant: Thank you. Lehman: I suspect that there may be a number of folks who would like to comment on this so in the interest of respecting each other's time or whatever, please keep your comments as brief as you can. In no event will anyone This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 37 be permitted to go over 5 minutes. So those who wish to speak to the plan please step forward. Wall: My name is Mary Wall. I, too, thank the Deer Committee. I thank the council for getting a deer committee. I think they listened. I was very appreciative that they held meetings. I live on Ridge Road, which is a section, which has more deer per square inch than you can shake a snake at. And my neighbors will cringe but they know my stand. I think I'm privileged to see deer every day. I like them. That said, there are two things that I really do want to say. One is that it bothers me that we have a problem and we consider killing as the solution and then we wonder why are children take arms to school and consider killing as their resolutions. That bothers me very much. The second thing I want to say is that in the meeting I was in, there was one thing the city council might consider that I haven't heard brought up since was to allow people to put up 8 foot fences rather than 6 foot fences within the city limit to help keep the deer out of what they want to keep he deer out of. And the 3rd thing I'd like to say is that it seems to me every so often we are faced with killing the deer. We put $70,000 into it last year. I don't know how many thousand it will be this year. I'd like us to take that money and think about creating some land which we would call a deer preserve and feed the deer there. Have it nice. It wouldn't necessarily keep all the deer there, but if it were big enough it would be used on all the deer. There was a gentleman in our group who had a more specific plan. He knew about a town in Wisconsin's plan that they actually did segregate the deer and made it into a kind of a park and charged people for feeding them and sent a lot of the young deer to petting zoos. I also realize there is going to be a limit to petting zoos. But I think some of these things should be considered. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Just to answer the question, we did receive a proposed budget for the deer management program and it is at $98,450.00. Till-Retz Hi, my name's Roberta Till-Retz, I live at 600 Manor Drive, and I feel bad that I didn't speak about this deer issue last year when it came up. So I'm here to son of do my duty, I think. I guess I'd just like to speak about one small, little narrow area and that's the area of those of us who are gardeners. I myself an am avid gardener, and after years and years of seeing the deer eat all of my precious plants that I've spent so much time and money on, I just wanted to speak about that issue. I was surprised after years of the deer eating all my precious plants that I've spent so much money on that I was honored to be chosen as the subject of a garden tour by the Environmental Advocates. And this year I noticed that the Gay Garden Tour had featured many yards in the Prairie du Chien part of town This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 38 up there, where there's tons and tons of deer, and there were some incredibly inventive measures taken for keeping the deer at bay, which I promptly went home and started to use anyway, even though the fact is that I've only seen one deer since the end of the deer shooting period, whereas last year we saw five, six, seven deer in our yard at a time. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, I just cannot support the shooting of these deer. I mean, I've tended to look at my yard, I guess, as more of a wildlife habitat. I think as strictly from the gardening- I know there are many other aspects than gardening here, but just as to gardening, to preserve my hostas, lilies and roses seems trivial compared to killing one of these beautiful animals. So I think it's a trivial concem that we have, I know it's a complex issue but I cannot support the committee's recommendations. I like the first four points and thank them for all their work. But to do the sharp shooting, the 500, I don't think it's necessary. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Myers: My name is Elyse Myers, and I live at 914 E. Bloomington. And I would like to add my voice to those who have been calling for a humane, compassionate and tolerance-minded approach to the local deer population issue. I strongly oppose the sharp shooting program that has been proposed and urge our community to implement other, more advocately responsible strategies for peacefully managing the deer population, and here's why. The simple slaughter of populations that seem to inconvenience our own has throughout the past been a popular course of action taken by those who narrowly view their way of life as the only one really worthy of life. I think it's time we begin to really accept, appreciate and value life different from our own, including that of wildlife. Moreover, as our way of life increasingly swallows up the environment and displaces the need of inhabitants, we will increasingly encounter them in our backyards, our farms, our parks. Quite basically then, in order for wildlife to continue to live in our world we must find ways to live with it, not fight against it. In the case of the deer, some of these ways must indeed involve non-lethal population control measures such as contraception and fencing, but I believe one of our most valuable and effective resources for managing the situation is ourselves and our ability to teach and cultivate peaceful coexistence. Wildlife is doomed if we continue to devalue it and refuse to change our own behavior to accommodate it. Rather than killing the deer, we need to better educate the public about the value of living peaceably with these animals and with wildlife in general, which really means teaching about the value of life itself. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 39 Berkowitz: I don't think I could say anything more eloquently. I would add and emphasize the establishment of areas that are safe for habitat, not only of deer... I'm Holly Berkowitz... not only deer but the whole web of life because it's too fragile to put a shotgun to. It just doesn't hold the web of life together. We're a part of the web of life and the deer are only a symptom of our aggression against it. And I think the point was well made that we can't just feel inconvenienced and eliminate things that inconvenience us 'cause that- we've seen in the 20th century that is just too deadly. That's too inhumane. We've seen history rip apart our world and I don't want to go back to that. I want to go forward to a more positive course and the peaceful coexistence is critical to that. And these animals need a home just like we do. We need a home, they need a home, every living creature needs a home. Why do we have to impose our walls and our barriers on all the life in the world? That's why all the life in the world is dying, including us. I mean, just because we stand up on two feet doesn't mean we're alive. We can't say we're alive, therefore we're healthy or we're dead, therefore we're not. There's a whole range in between there that I think we're missing. Several steps to turn our course around. It's much bigger... the picture is... As I say, the deer are just a symptom of a much bigger problem. What are the costs of sprawl? Kanner: Where is that from, Holly? Berkowitz It's the Press-Citizen from March 20, 1999. Urban sprawl spills into the halls of Congress. When we talk about correcting sprawl, we're going to have to also talk about making safe places for the creatures other than ourselves, the plants included. The plants, the urban run off, the water run off of urban sprawl causes flooding. Deforestation, urban sprawl, pesticides kill the organisms in the land, kill the processes of the land we need to hold the water to the land. The water rushes off and floods us and we say God did it? I'm gonna read something. Help for Communities. To strive to help communities help themselves is the approach. Our approach is two-fold. Offering financial incentives to communities willing to invest in open space, regional mass transit and redevelopment while working to cut federal subsidies that promote sprawl. For decades the federal government had subsidized highways that allow people to live far from their workplaces, offer tax breaks for bringing bigger, more expensive homes, help finance built bigger, more expensive homes... help finance development of sewer systems to new suburban subdivisions and encouraged housing development in flood plains by building dams and levies. And on and on. What are the costs? The flooding, the heat, urban areas, core areas generally range ten degrees hotter than the green areas that the deer indicate. The deer are an indicator of a healthy environment and if they end up on a street that's a sign that they are desperate for space. Okay. I won't go into the costs but I guess the point is that we need to take another course. Americans between 1983 and 1990, vehicle miles This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 40 traveled increased nationwide by 41% while population grew at the rate of only 6% in the United States. Okay. That means that our urban areas have multiplied the number of roads extending out of urban areas, so that doesn't count the number of developments that we have that increased the traffic and the destruction of the habitats for all animals exponentially, and it's not a linear problem, it's an exponential problem. It grows through time, it destroys ... it destroys life at an exponential rate, and we can't afford to go on being so selfish because life either grows up to positive outcomes or it... slowly or it falls down into the gravity very quickly. Lehman: Holly, you're gonna have to Berkowitz: The main point I have is that the population shift is shifting from the southeastern side of Iowa City to the northwest side of Coralville. There's an entire section of Coralville that has not been developed Lehmm~: Holly, you're going to have to wrap this up, please. Berkowitz: Okay. It's a big problem. Lehman: You're right. Berkowitz It's a big area, it's long term, it's public, it's not private. It can't be put into a little box. Okay? So I ask your patience here. I'm sorry. What the school district is having to do is move their resources out to the northwest side. That's major reactionism. And that's a symptom also of visionless planning. This is crisis management. Prevention is much less costly than crisis mismanagement. We're in a crisis mismanagement situation now. We need to take ourselves back to a place where we can find a better habitat for everybody. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Holly. Major: My name is Charlie Major, I live on 7 Blue Stem Court, and I wish we didn't have to kill the deer but I think we have to. There's one other solution to not killing any deer, and that would be for us to leave. I don't think that's a solution. I have confidence in White Buffalo doing a good job, I think they did a good job last year. I don't... I anticipate this is not going to be handled in one year, I think it's going to be a three or four or five year program, and maybe longer, and I think that the deer themselves are going to have more twins and triplets and things like that so I don't think this is going to be handled this year alone, and I have confidence in White Buffalo and I think they're going to do the best job that they can. And I'm scared when I drive on North Dodge in my car, every time I drive on Old Dubuque Road I see deer early in the morning and I think it's becoming more and more a problem. When I play golf on Finkbine it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 41 doesn't bother me, but when I drive my car in certain pans of the City I'm very scared. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Charlie. Boos: My name is Florence Boos of 1427 Davenport St. I'd like to speak on alternatives to the management plan and to point out, as you read the deer committee report and its recommendations, some of these limitations. First the excessive numbers. The proposal to kill 500 deer. When the City killed 360 deer last year, some Council members suggested that more shooting might be unnecessary. Nothing has changed in the past two years, which would suggest that the deer are urgent enemies to be extricated but the deer management committee has now escalated the number to 500. Few cities have undertaken to kill deer systematically on such a massive scale. Even management companies typically argue for the sharp shooting of more limited numbers of deer in more well defined areas. There is much to suggest that some City officials and the DNR have sought to implement extreme policies because such actions may influence policy elsewhere. Do we really want Iowa City to innovate in the rapid and violent extrication of 21st century wildlife? Secondly, issues of safety. The committee has proposed also to kill 135 deer in Hickory Hill Park, use gun silencers, suppressors as permitted by existing law which the City management itself solicited, and shoot in closer proximity to residences. All these changes pose imminent prima facie threats to safety. Skepticism about the scores of permissions which would really have to be sought from residence owners is in order. Children, moreover, other unknowing persons and even careless owners might well wander within range of one of the truck beds used for more than half of last year's killings. In opposition to all of this, we ask the Council once again to consider that the City's duty to protect public safety overrides alleged obligations to protect some residents' unfenced gardens. Should another professional untrained in the use of licensed firearms accidentally injure or kill someone, something which has happened in recently memory, the City would have a grave responsibility on its hands. It would then have created a very real and major problem in its haste to eliminate a minor one. Next, a glaring omission. The report devotes only two brief dismissive paragraphs to contraception, a significant omission. We've talked in recent weeks with officials who have begun a contraception program in Elmers, New York, the site of so many buffalo, and who hope to begin one in Upper St. Claire, Pennsylvania, where one is planned, and communicated with Dr. Paul Curtis of Cornell University who has made studies of contraception of male as well as female deer. As City officials know, more information about contraception is also available at web sites such as www.wildelifeprotection.net, and harbor.corn on Fire Island, fairharbor.com on Hilton Head, and Niste Government Public Affairs fact sheet. And in some cases contraception has occurred on up to 300 does. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 42 As you can see from a letter from Dr. Curtis provided to the Council, immunal contraception of female deer is indeed expensive and subject to potential lawsuits from hunters groups, which is one of the principal deterrents in the way of studies of the Humane Society of the United States. But such procedures would be feasible in populations of up to 200 deer. In Hickory Hill Park, for example. Sterilization by contrast might be less expensive. Dr. Curtis' services, for example, appear from his letter likely to cost about $50,000 plus $60 per deer, or about $60,000, $5,000 to sterilize 250 does. And I realize that I may be misinterpreting his letter or that a letter from the City has gone out to him to ask him to clarify. I would point out, however, that the more one investigates the more one sees that this is an open issue and that there are places that have begun partial contraception. We ask you, therefore, in good faith to eliminate or reduce the killing of more deer and set aside $100,000 of the budget which would otherwise be earmarked for sharp shooting, and I hear you say it's just $98,000, so $98,000 which would be earmarked for sharp shooting to undertake a pilot contraceptive project. The present report makes a mockery of the City's claim to have investigated thoroughly the implementation of non-lethal methods. And finally, public accountability. According to the committee's charge reflected in this report, the policy adopted by the Council should be broadly acceptable to the citizens of Iowa City. The evidence of the City's electronic notice board and two listing sessions, both of which we attended, fails to provide evidence that either a majority or a representative cross section of the City's residents favor its sharp shooting policy then or now. The Press-Citizen and the Gazette did indeed endorse last year's sharp shooting, but both also advocated more serious investigation of contraceptive methods, and the Press-Citizen expressed pointed opposition to the use of the new suppressor law. A significant part of the City's establishment has expressed its openness to more extensive use of non-lethal methods. Lehman: Florence, you need to kind of wrap it up, okay? Boos: The committee, by contrast, discussed non-lethal methods at some length in abstract and hypothetical terms, but committed itself to nothing additional and concrete, more costly than a video and the posting of a website. We urge you, therefore, to put money and effort, not lip service, into more peaceful resolutions of a management problem we have created and imposed on a few hundred deer. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Before Florence goes, I was wondering if Tony could comment. Have you had a chance to review this Curtis letter at all or are you familiar with his research on contraceptives and sterilization? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 43 DeNicola: Yes. Boos: You're welcome to comment. Lehman: I would prefer that we take public comment and Tony, we will ask you to speak later. I think we need to get through the public pro... I don't care to get involved in the discussion on a particular issue until everybody has had an opportunity to speak. Kanner: Alright, so then- Boos: That's right, and I'm not a specialist on contraception, but I do think the City should get the opinions of many people, including those who are not paid to kill. Van Allen Okay, my name is Lory Van Allen, and I live at 1639 Morningside Drive. This summer I attended seven deer committee meetings, two open forums and five Civic Center meetings. Though that doesn't make me an expert, I think it does qualify me for making some observations. First, I wish to bring to the public's attention that there took place several meetings devoted entirely to discussions of non-lethal methods. I was impressed and hopeful, given the intelligence and objectivity with which several committee members presented and discussed these methods. Discussed were fencing, road signs, speed limits, reflectors, critter crossings, relocation of deer, selective gardening, chemical deterrents and contraceptive ... contraception. The most viable alternative method for deer reduction seems to be contraception, either neutering males or darting females. But the Deer Committee has neither the time nor the jurisdiction to solicit expert advice and to present a solid contraceptive plan. That's for other people to do, to act on that. I would like to comment also on what I perceive to be the foregone conclusion that overshadowed this year's deer committee proceedings. That the deer management plan of contracting sharpshooters was never at any point, in my estimation, in contention. I offer the following observations to support my beliefs. 1) Several pro- sharp shooting committee members failed to attend those meetings when non-lethal methods were discussed. Did they perhaps feel comfortable that non-lethal methods would never be seriously considered? Conveniently, though, said members reappeared for the final and decisive meeting, the meeting wherein sharp shooting was approved. 2) Members of the committee are purportedly chosen for their unbiased representation of a wide spectrum of views regarding ... just views. They were, for example, a master gardener, a hunter, two animal rights advocates, persons involved in environmental management, etc. Of these members, several indicated having a personal property problem with deer that caused them to have some very strong personal reasons for supporting shooting. Does this indicate unbias or some very biased mindsets. Last spring, soon after This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 44 the end of last winter's deer kill, the state legislature approved, at the request of the City Manager's office, a relaxation of two laws that were requested by the sharpshooters to allow silencers and to reduce the distance from an occupied structure allowable to shoot from. To me this indicates how sure proponents of sharp shooting were that they would be signing another contract again this year. And 4) in my observation of the committee meetings, I never witnessed a meeting that transitioned from non-lethal to lethal methods. There was never a wane of one against the other. one meeting focused on non-lethal methods and the next focused entirely on lethal methods. Not whether to implement them or not, but only a rehashing of how best to kill the deer and who to get for the job. I end with one final observation. At both of the open forum assemblies the question was raised to the sharp shooting proponents, if there were non- lethal solutions that would diminish or eliminate your deer problem, would you support them? The response overwhelmingly was, yes. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Lory. Stritecky: Can I provide the Council with a copy of my statement? Lehman: Sure. Stritecky Okay. My name is Jolene Marie Stritecky. I live at 1121 E. Burlington St. I have carefully reviewed the 2000/2001 deer management plan as submitted by the Deer Management Committee and have carefully analyzed the logic therein. The tone of the plan is one of unfortunate inevitability that it's too bad but there really is no way around killing off part of the deer population this year. But I argue that the assumed inevitability of killing deer is contrived and reflects City Council and committee predisposition toward sharp shooting. The following is the number of points in the plan that are logically problematic, and I'm referring directly to the plan if any of you have copies. Page 5, paragraph 1 refers to "the necessary duty of the City to maintain the health of the herd." Reading down the paragraph quoting, continuing to quote, "Inside the City limits deer have an abundant food supply and no natural predators. Deaths from starvation and disease seem unlikely to stem the increasing numbers." According to the second statement, it seems that we in Iowa City have a healthy herd of deer, so presumably the City has fulfilled its necessary duty. It also seems that our urban environment can support the present deer population and perhaps one even larger than the 35 deer per square mile limit that the City Council has set upon consultation with the DNR. But then, of course, there is the question of damage that large deer populations might wreak upon the environment. Page 5, paragraph 2 states, "It's clear that deer in some areas cause destruction of landscaping and yard plantings and further disrupt already This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 45 altered ecosystems." The assumption here is that a larger deer population inevitably will destroy the natural and cultivated environment in Iowa City. But if these cultivated ecosystems are really so endangered, then why do these healthy deer keep coming back for the rich vegetable diet that our yards and parks offer? According to ecology consultant, Dr. Thomas Evland, deer do not drive plant species to extinction, they merely reduce the amount of biomass. They don't necessarily have to face starvation or decimation by disease to come into balance with their food environment. So let's face the fact that in Iowa City humans are altering the ecology in a way that deer happen to like and that allows them to thrive and reproduce. Then what is logically and biologically inevitable is that we have more deer. So then whether we have the so-called responsibility to kill 500 of these deer is a subjective question of human tolerance, not a scientific question of ecological sustainability but just the opposite of that. Now, regarding the question of car accidents. Page 5, paragraph 1 states that, it's a necessary duty of the City to protect citizens' safety and welfare and continues ... I continue to quite, "It's clear that the number of deer in some areas may endanger lives because of deer-vehicle accidents." But logically, it is never clear that something may happen unless one is willing to allow that it's clear that just about anything may happen. There are no cases in Iowa City of humans being killed in collisions with deer, and if there were then one might just as reasonably argue that the death was due to the high speed of the car when it struck the deer and subsequently crashed. We drive at our own risk and we purchase insurance to cover ourselves and our property in the case of accidents. The City cannot protect citizens' safety and welfare beyond what it already does by providing signs and infrastructure to deter the deer, enforcing traffic regulations. I would also point out that the plan contains some highly problematic logic regarding speed limit enforcement but time won't permit me to address them. Beyond these three provisions, though, the City cannot protect citizens from every imaginable potential danger that clearly may happen. The final logical problem with the plan is the way in which it purports in the box on page 1 that was read earlier. To be a compromise, "the product of our attempt to understand and respect many different voices." Presumably the deer management committee conceives the plan to be a compromise because it provides some non-lethal initiatives alongside sharp shooting. But there are a number of problems that I'd like to address. First the plan's introduction on page 5 states that the members of the committee affirm our concurrence with the goals of the City's long-term management plan. I read the long-term management plan reproduced on page 3. The long-term plan is not merely a target number of healthy deer per square mile. Rather, point 4, which is the longest and most detailed point, is a request to the National Resources Commission to sharp shoot deer. That's the long-term plan, sharp shooting is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, if the deer management committee affirms its concurrence with this long-term plan then the committee is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 46 affirming its concurrence with sharp shooting. Thus, it should not purport to be a compromise or to have considered a truly non-lethal plan of action. The second problem, in the summary of population management options of the committee considered, the committee claims to have considered no lethal action. But yet the paragraph does not say that the committee considered specific non-lethal actions. The paragraph ends with the statement that, "The committee rejected inaction as a management method." If the committee concludes that no lethal action is the same as inaction, then the committee assumes that all actions must necessarily be lethal. Again, there is no evidence that the committee rigorously considered a wholly non-lethal plan of action to manage the deer. Regarding the committee's ... this is the third point, now. Regarding the committee's openness to other points of view, it seems the one point of view the committee is reluctant to hear is that of animal rights activists. On page 11, the plan refers to "harassment by activists and others during shoots." Here the language explicitly frames our civil right to protest this controversial plan as harassment. This language undermines the nice statement in the box on page 1 about respecting many voices. I urge members of the City Council to reject the deer management plan on the grounds that the plan contains serious logical flaws, sharp shooting deer is not an inevitable necessity if we wish to protect our cultivated environment, that the committee failed to exhaust the possibilities for developing a truly non-lethal plan as opposed to a few non-lethal suggestions to be implemented alongside sharp shooting, and for the committee holds a problematic allegiance to a long-term plan that already assumes the need to kill deer by sharp shooting within Iowa City limits and therefore it cannot purport to offer unbiased recommendations to the City Council. I would also urge citizens of Iowa City to inform themselves about this plan to sharp shoot deer and to investigate the plan's inherent inconsistencies as well as any potential motivations behind the plan. Lehman: Thank you. Bill Boos My name is Bill Boos, I'm Florence's husband. I do not have a polished prepared statement. I find many of the things that I was going to say, scribbled on cards here, have been mooted by some of the arguments just made, which seem to me in fact strong enough for you to heed. I'd like to comment though, briefly, as part of a pair who together attended I think all of the deer management committee meetings. On some aspects of the, how to say it, the internal politics of that group of very decent people, as observed by a couple of outsiders who sat quietly through the meetings and made little speeches at the end. I believe they will confirm they may confirm some of the things that have just been said. In particular, the long- term management plan clearly constrains both the charge of that committee and the nature and views of the people who are permitted to serve on it. There' s no doubt about that whatsoever, you can simply read it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 47 off the choices that were made this year. This is something that then led to indeed compromises of a sort. One thing I haven't heard mentioned tonight here by anyone, and in particular by Pat Farrant, is bow hunting. But it became clear listening to remarks made by people during the course of the last two months that there was a split in the committee on exactly this issue over a carefully negotiated compromise with the DNR having to do with whether or not bow hunting was to be the preferred method for killing and limiting the number of deer, reducing the herd as the phrase goes. And so the stand that the people who might otherwise have advocated something other than shooting, the stand was against this, that is against bow hunting, and against hunting within the City limits as a feasible and permissible measure. This was a stand that was fought out quite valiantly as we could tell, and this is the result. But it led to some truly bizarre debates in my view, and I say this with respect for the people involved. It led to debates about the nature of humanness in which some people tried to defend the notion that applies to the slaughter of farm animals and livestock, that it that it be essential quick and painless. Mr. DiNicola's bullet to the brain, in effect, is the model of that it is thought. That one might seem to be of the view would the definition that most of us would find acceptable, but there's another definition, the sporting chance. Think of say for those of you who have seen the film, think of Daniel Day Lewis and Russell Means chasing the deer at the beginning of the Last of the Mohicans, shooting it down with an arrow and then praying over the deer. There' s a mystique to this and this was actually the kind of thing that was brought up by some members of the committee, who sincerely believe that this is humane. So in opposition to that, a committee that was accepting the principal that it would sharp shoot from the start, reached the decision that it reached. I had a number of things that I wanted to say, and as I said, I'll try now to abridge them to one or two minutes, since I've already taken my time really. We tried to address the alleged forms of damage attributed to the deer one by one in the hope that this might in some way influence the course of events. These have to do with the damage to plants mentioned by one of the Council members last night at the working meeting. These have to do with traffic problems. All of these have been addressed by other speakers and they have to do with ecology. There are many things that can be done to allay the righteous anger of some people who, unlike the gardener who spoke here a little earlier, are furious at the deer. You can, in fact, raise higher fences. You can help people build fences. We're talking about a few hundred people in this City. We're not talking about a massive number, certainly not more than those who care about the lives of animals. One could, as Council Member Pfab suggested, appoint a kind of (can't hear). There are many things that could be done. They were referred to actually at one point as a laundry list in the deliberations of the committee. It's understandable why. The main purpose of the committee lay elsewhere. We tried to talk about reductions of speed limits. Most of the accidents occur on Noah Dodge and arterial This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 48 streets coming to town off the Interstate where people actually drive 45 miles an hour in a 35 mile zone. When we did that, we were told that the standard view among traffic managers and engineers is that the people are going to drive the speed they are going to drive and we can't do anything about that. That is a realistic judgment of human nature, perhaps, but there are those of us who find that an interesting observation given, for example, restrictions on speeds in school areas, given the fact that nobody does, indeed, does stop at a stop sign, but we slow down. If you even enforced the speed limit during running season and hunting season, in which most of the accidents take place, it would have a significant impact on traffic accidents. This whole discussion ran into the ground. The one thing that does seem to emerge from that is that this is no longer being prominently discussed as something which requires that deer be shot. I haven't heard anything to that effect in some time. At least with the frequency that we would hear this last year. Finally, ecology. Yes, of course, the deer eat underbrush. But I believe that the dangers to Hickory Hill allayed to some extent by measures such as the incorporation of the 31 acres, lie elsewhere. They lie ... the come from us. The effects of suburban lawns, of chemical runoff, of our development of our notorious ~can't hear). These dwarf anything that the deer could be doing. These dwarf anything that the deer could be doing. For all these reasons, at any rate, we seem to have the impression that whatever was proposed by way of practical measures was really not to the point, and therefore, I ask you to consider the report that you have given as a sincere effort to solve a problem that honest people think shouldn't be solved. People who've never had a chance to serve on that committee. I would also ask you one last remark Lehman: Yeah, Bill, but we've really gotta wind up. You've been almost 10 minutes and we're only going to go until 8:30. Bill Boos I know. I apologize. I would ask you please to forego the use of suppressors and not to make use of the use of the law the City has sought essentially shooting at closer range to dwellings. Technocratic solutions are always impeccable until suddenly they're not. The people who didn't gauge the o-rings right in the Challenger were highly credentialed people. They were professionals. No one doubts the professionalism in Mr. DiNicola. That doesn't mean that there is not significant risk, and I ask you to consider seriously whether you want to incur that risk, however marginal it may be, simply to reduce the herd. I hope that you will also look seriously into proposals such as has been made by Dr. Curtis, and I believe that will be the future course that a deer management committee is likely to take two or three years from now, and I also commend the members of the committee who resisted bow hunting for doing what they did. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 49 Lehman: We're going to continue this discussion until 9:30. We are going to take a break at that point. We will come back and talk to you, Tony, afterwards, but this ... we really ... and frankly if you can keep your remarks to five minutes or less it's going to give more people an opportunity to speak. Jones Okay. I'm Douglas Jones, 816 Park Road, and a long-term member of the Deer Management Committee, which I am rather glad to be coming off of. In part, for reasons that Bill Boos mentioned. He's right about the interesting questions about bow hunting. If we succeed in reducing the deer population in Iowa City to the kind of 30 deer per square mile that we see as a reasonable number for the landscape to carry, bow hunting becomes a very realistic alternative for population reduction, and the economic and practical arguments against it, which have prevailed to this point, will no longer prevail, leaving unadomed a single issue and that is the question of humanness and morality of bow hunting. Next year' s deer management committee, if this year' s plan goes through, is going to have to face this head-on and it's going to be quite interesting to watch. I'd really like to thank Bill Boos and Florence Boos and Lory Van Allen for attending the deer management committee meetings. They have been invaluable contributors to the discussion both on and off the record and in the bytalk that's happening behind peoples' backs as well as regular contributions. They really have contributed a lot and much of what they have said has been very much the truth and valuable. At the same time, though, I have some strong feelings about this issue. A hundred years ago deer were extinct in Johnson County. They were almost wiped out in the stated. A hundred years ago we European settlers created an environmental disaster in Iowa by wiping out essentially all of the native fauna and much of the native flora. That is a disaster. We created a crisis and it's a crisis that's not over. A hundred years ago it looked like the crisis was the elimination of deer, but deer double every couple of years just looking at ... you know, if you start with ten deer on year 1 at 30% a year growth about, by year 3 you've got 23 deer, by year 8 you've got 97, by year 16 you've got ... you're going on 1,000. Deer numbers grow at a tremendous rate because each doe is going to have a fawn or twins every year. A century ago, very few deer. By 1950, there were enough deer to begin thinking about legalizing hunting in Iowa. By 1990, we now have a situation where people are talking about crisis. It's the crisis you get when any urban area population grows in the absence of predators. And every place this has happened in the human race has been responsible for this story again and again and again in place after place, whether it's goats or rats or deer. When a population of animals grows without its natural predators you produce an environmental disaster, contributing ... and it's really a human produced disaster. The question is, do we take responsibility for this? Do we take responsibility for limiting the consequences of the damage we've already done, and my answer is I think it is morally impermissible not to take responsibility and the way one had This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 50 to take responsibility is to fill in for the predators that we wiped out. Whether we do so by birth control, whether we do so by segregating by sex and an enclosure, which is something that indeed is being investigated in some communities and we're considering, whether we do it by sharp shooting, I believe we have to do it or we're going to create the same kind of disasters that overgrazing produces when it's done with cattle; the same kind of disasters that rabbits have produced on some pacific islands. And we're doing it in an urban area this time, which means we combine the disaster of urbanization with the disaster of overgrazing or over blowing in the case of deer. So I strongly support the committee conclusion while at the same time feeling fairly strong that we have to worry about what happens next. I would like to comment on the suppressors issue. I was one of the people living within hearing distance of the shooting last winter and I could easily hear the shooting from at least three different shooting sites. You heard the loud one, the quiet one and the distant one. I don't think suppressors would be a bad idea. I am sort of wary of the idea of eliminating the property owners' right to consent for shooting closer than the 300 feet from a dwelling. Or was it 600 feet? 600 feet. The previous law had been 600 feet; we're now talking about cutting that by a quarter. And I am a little wary; I think the property owner really ought to have a right to consent to shooting 50 yards from a dwelling. 100 yards I might debate; 200 yards seems like it was ... which is the old state law, seems prudent. I think the right of the property owner to consent is valuable and I think the Council should think closely about that. Oh, the other thing is, this is the big warning. Everyone should know that the deer-vehicle accidents peak in November, if you see a graph of accidents versus month, November is really dangerous compared to everything else. If we were to move rigorous enforcement of speed limits on places like North Dubuque and North Dodge in November, it would be a really sensible move. If we had temporary signage, it would be a really sensible move. Because the fact is those are the months when the vast majority of all accidents occur. Late October, mid-November are really dangerous when it comes to deer- vehicle accidents. And I think the more that's emphasized to the public the better it will be. The more people think about driving in November as a different problem from driving at other times of the year, I think the better we'll be. Champion: Why is that? Jones: Because that's the rutting season - when you're a male deer thinking about female deer you stop worrying about cars. Lehman: And with that, we're going to take a short recess. RECESS This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 5 1 Lehman: We're going to continue the discussion on the deer management plan for a few minutes. Again, I would ask you if you wish to speak please keep your comments brief because we aren't going to let this run all night. So if you have (changed tapes)... sign in, give your name and try to be brief. Tony, I'm going to call on you, if you'd like to address some of the issues that have been raised tonight by the public. Or perhaps you could explain precisely what the deer committee is recommending and what your role would be in that. DeNicola: It's really not my place to make comments really on peoples' values in regards to deer management. Lehman Okay, then are there questions for- DeNicola: But technical questions I'd be happy to address. Lehman From Council, any questions? Kanner: Well, we had a proposal from Florence Boos about the idea of using some sort of contraceptive or sterilization, and it seems to me it could be done at similar costs. There's ... to avoid lawsuits it seems pretty easy to tag and mark deer if that's an issue as far as safety after contraceptive, and it was discussed about possibly darting and capturing and then transporting as an option. It was ruled out for many reasons, which I agree with, but that concept of being able to dart the deer and then administer some sort of contraceptive or sterilization seems to be valid, that it isn't that much more difficult than a kill. And so I was wondering if you could address my comments and then the research and the work that's being done by the Professor and Doctor from Cornell. DeNicola: I'm very familiar with Paul Curtis' work and we're actually working together on a suburban deer manual, which will hopefully be published here in early October. Paul Curtis and I ... I work very closely with Paul Curtis and am very aware of his efforts. The misconception which many people have is that manipulating deer is easy. We do our best to make it look easy regardless of whether we're administering fertility control agents where we're capturing deer, or we're killing deer. There is a very distinct difference in the feasibility of capturing a deer, which you have to be very proximate to with the technology that we have to handle an animal, versus being able to kill an animal with the technology that's available. And you're typically looking at least three-fold the effort to capture deer than it would be to kill a deer. And so Paul' s work or some of his proposed work in Kyoga Heights, which is proximate to Cornell University and where some of his costs are being generated, are very much related to a local situation proximate to the University where he is based. And his costs were not-inclusive or does recommend that you're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 52 looking at $250 to $300 per deer when he's working next door to the University. So translate that into moving your whole crew, working in a foreign environment with deer that have behaved differently, have different access issues, and have different technologies and personnel available to work in another environment. So to extrapolate some of Paul Curtis' work to Iowa City is very unrealistic. To make the assumption that you can capture the deer as you would in northem New York as you can in Iowa is something I've done in the past and have looked foolish making such statements. Without actually doing a site visit and being able to appreciate the variability and the site here with access and a lot of the private land issues and making a blanket assumption that you can do it for x-amount of cost I think would be misleading. You still are dealing with capturing deer, which is not a simple task. You have to physically restrain those animals, which would be either with a rocket net, drop net or clover trap device, which is extremely stressful to the animal. Whether it's euthanized or releases subsequent to that capturing procedure, you still have a deer that exists in the environment, so to speak, after it's been handled. So you may be able to sterilize that animal, but many of these deer will live 10 or 15 years. You will not see a population level effect in this environment if you could technically treat enough animals to address the level of mortality relative to reproduction for many years. And that is under the premise that you could actually capture 60-70% of the females in this population. We're not able to do that with the technology we have using firearms. To do that with very primitive technology to capture deer would be nearly impossible. And so to use a proposal that is very theoretical or that was applicable to a local community that was much more confined that what we're dealing with her is not really realistic. So in terms of Paul Curtis' proposal and its utility here, my experience capturing deer, which is far greater than many people, including Paul himself, and trying to conduct that type of activity in this environment at this scale is by no means realistic. Kanner: What about a combination, and possibly, it's been suggested to use semi- isolated areas such as what we call our peninsula or Hickory Hill Park, so a combination perhaps of a small area with a killing of some of the deer but not in such great numbers? DeNicola: The peninsula is about as isolated as you have in your community. Hickory Hill is not an isolated entity. Just because we define it as Hickory Hill Park does mean it has mechanical or geographical confines. Those deer that reside or utilize Hickory Hill Park also utilize all the private properties adjacent to it and they may range up to half a mile likely from that park. So just because you identify that park does not mean you have an isolated group of deer and to identify an area of that size, there's so much ingress and egress of deer into that area so you don't have a closed population that you can target. You can technically go out and capture This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 53 some deer or capture deer in a population, administer a fertility control agent and/or sterilize those deer chemically or mechanically, but the impact of that effort and the cost affiliated with it would have virtually no management effect. Almost all research projects that date with fertility control are just that, they're research. And many people are trying to take research that is very much in the preliminary stage and move it into management well in advance of the technology that's actually presently out there. And so it's hard for me to have you appreciate how complex it is to design an agent that is viable to apply in the field, that is safe to the animals, safe to the public, does not affect non-target animals and is practical to deliver when you haven't really been out and tried to capture a deer, it's not an easy proposition. It's like, we do wish we had solar power versus fossil fuels and theoretically it's nice and we do have it on small scale, but how come we're not using it on a large scale? Because technically we just aren't able to do it, and we just do not have that technology, and I can guarantee any professional that works in the fertility control arena, and I can name every one, would not differ in their opinion if they did a site visit to Iowa City. Because I work closely with these folks, we communicate regularly via e-mail, are all up to date on what advancements are ongoing, and every one that has captured deer and worked with deer really appreciates the limitations when you start working in a free-range environment. So as far as trying to use fertility control in this environment, as someone said earlier, it'd be more lip service than actually accomplishing a goal or being beneficial if the objective here is to manage a deer population. Lehman: Thank you, Tony. Other questions for Tony? Vanderhoef: You've alluded to the cost of doing any of this kind of management without putting a dollar amount. Something else that you said to us last night about the agents that you use in contraception, none of which have been approved, I understand, by the FDA. So when people talking about a salt lick, I would presume that then we would have to say all of the animals that are in the animals who might have used a salt lick with a contraceptive, none of them could be consumed for human consumption? DeNicola: I think we have to take one step further back in that we simply don't have the technology to give any orally administered agent that would be efficacious on a free ranging deer. So that's where a lot of the technology is trying to advance where you could out some type of bait, whether it's a salt lick or some type of liquid bait that would attract deer, hopefully only attract deer which is not necessarily accurate, and then prevent them from reproducing where you could do it on a larger scale. Right now the only agents we have that are efficacious need to be individually administered to every individual doe. So we can't even put ourselves in the hypothetical. It' s all hypothetical at this point in terms of can we put a salt lick out, and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 54 to address the issue of administering any agent, the only agents that are registered for white tail deer are ziozene hydrochloride and carfetinol, which are two immobilization agents that were pursued because of potential economic benefit by the manufacturer. There are no other registered agents - you can't give a deer aspirin technically - it is not on the label. And so any fertility control agent or other chemical that is not specifically for, whether it's deer, raccoon or a dog, cannot be administered without an experimental approval by the Food and Drug Administration. And in order to get approval you have to put together a comprehensive research plan, have it approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and every animal that's included in your study must be clearly identifiable and clearly marked "not for human consumption". So every deer in the study would have to be previously studied and marked before it could actually be included in the study. Lehman: Thank you. DeNicola: Just a ... I guess the only comment I could make is regarding the 50 foot rule and some of the ... I'm sorry, the 50 yard rule as relative to the 200 yard rule. Many states, there are no distance regulations whatsoever relative to depredation work on deer. And it's usually left that way and up to the discretion of the law enforcement ... conservation law enforcement to decide what's safe and what's not safe. If you're shooting away from an occupied structure, whether you're 10 feet or 10 miles, the objective is to shoot in a safe direction. The advantage is, in many of these areas we have much more dense housing, and in order to create a 200 yard zone around every structure you will not have the access in many of the areas where there is tremendous conflict. So it's simply a recommendation to improve the feasibility and potential success to the program. And it's really up to the discretion of those involved in the committee and the public to decide whether it can be conducted safely in that manner, and we've never had, nor has anyone in a sharp shooting program, had an issue relative to safety distance. Lehman: Just one quick question for you. Any activity that takes place on private property requires the consent of the property owner, is that not correct? DeNicola: Correct. So you cannot operate on someone's property regardless of the distance. Lehman: Without their consent. Right. Okay, thank you. Champion: Somebody last year spoke, maybe it was somebody from DNR or, spoke on the destruction of the natural flora. Does anybody here tonight have the smarts to speak about the destruction of the natural flora by deer? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 55 Champion: No? Okay, the other thing that I thought that came up tonight was, one thing that came up by somebody that I thought was probably pretty valid was that if we ever want to get away from sharp shooting we certainly have to start looking at other means of controlling deer, and I'm certainly going to support this year's deer committee request, but I'm wondering if we do need to designate some money toward looking toward alternate ways of controlling deer, that maybe it's not possible to do it by just having you write letters. Then maybe, from what Tony said, it's too early in the ball game to start doing that. I don't know how other Council members feel about that, but maybe we ought to actually delegate some funds to seriously look into non-lethal ways of controlling deer. Maybe there aren't any out there, but I would feel better if we started thinking about that as our ultimate solution even though I know that hunting, being the predator of these deer is essential at this point. DeNicola: I'd just like to make one comment. If there is sincere interest in advancing fertility control technology, the emphasis is really not creating a habitat or a study site, I mean there are endless study sites throughout the nation. The issue is putting money forth towards lab related research to develop fertility control agents that can then be practically applied in the field, so the problem is there is very few resources available, either state or federal, that are allocated for specific development of these agents because, more so because there hasn't been either enough public outcry, and from a commercial perspective, why is a pharmaceutical agency going to put forth all the money for research and development, put forth all the money on the testing and FDA and registration, when you're not going to get your money back. So it really would take a state, it'd be hard pressed, you'd have to come up with well into the six figure or into the million dollar ranges in order to get into the development level of advancement, and that's really what's needed. To create sites to go out and treat a bunch of deer is not the issue. The issue really is we don't have the chemical agents themselves that can be practically administered. So I think people confuse the fact that we don't need to treat more deer in the field, we need to have agents that are more practical to administer in the field. Leh~nan: Thank you. Vanderhoef: Something that came up tonight, someone mentioned some University property, and within the City. Did the deer committee at all address University or University property or make any contact with them? Doug Jones: Do you want me to speak? Lehman: Would you go to the microphone please Doug? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 56 Jones: The Deer Committee has not really succeeded in getting the University interested. We do have a University person here who' s involved but only at the observer level. The feeling has been that initiating any deer population control activity on campus opens up a political world as varied and interesting as the political world doing it within in Iowa City, and sufficient separate that the entire process would have to start over again. And basically it's going to take real interest from within the University to do that, probably not until there's either major financial damage to the Finkbine Golf Course or major environmental damage to the natural areas on campus will we begin seeing a constituency developed to pursue controlled (can't hear). And until then, I mean the truth is the deer population on Finkbine, either the natural areas or the wild areas, is growing but not yet at a level to cause serious concern. My suspicion is in five years there will be significant concem both from groundskeepers and from people interested in environmental consequences of the heavy grazing. Lehman: Thank you, Doug. Thompson: Just to make an additional comment on that, I have been in touch with some of the people at the University, they know what's going on in Iowa City, the surrounding communities, and other communities, too. I've talked with the police department in University Heights, and so the thing is that all these towns here, also talked with Noah Liberty, Coralville, all sort of tied together, and that the deer population in one area is not going to respect your City boundary and not go over into University Heights and vice versa, so it's a more complex problem but it's until those government bodies really want to do something about it, and some of them are and some of them aren't, those issues aren't going to be put on their table until they decide to do it. In terms of flora and fauna, I can't remember, Steve Hendricks might have talked about some of that. Champion: I can't remember who it was. O'Donnell: I think it was. Thompson: Some of that flora just because he is a botanist and I know some of our people in our wildlife diversity section of our department have also looked at the impacts of loss of a lot of that under story in the woodlands and how it affects a lot of the neotropical migrants and a lot of those bird populations have been dropping over the last couple decades. Granted there's other things that come into effect, but when you have a large herbivore out there also in combination affecting that environment, it's affecting that other wildlife and that' s why the Dept. of Natural Resources has looked at some of our state parks and we don't have the issue of eating gardens, etc., it's because we're charged with managing the ecosystem and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 57 when we've seen losses of a lot of plant species and under stories that we've also had some special hunts in some of our state parks to control the deer populations. Lehman: Thank you. We are going to close the public discussion. Pfab: I have one question. Could I ask you a question? Could you go back to the microphone please? Thompson: Yes. Pfab: What do you mean by special hunts in parks? Thompson: "Special hunts" just means that parks when they were set up they were refuges and no hunting was allowed, and so the special regulations allow for specific deer hunt in a specific park. Pfab: You're talking about public deer hunting? Thompson: Right. Pfab: Issuing licenses. Thompson: Right. Where you had, Lake Darling was the first one to open up in the state. And we had some other ones like up at Backbone and some other parks. Pfab: Okay. You answered my question. Lehman: Okay, now, Marian this will be up on the agenda for next week, for action? Karr: It is scheduled for action next week. Lehman: A week from tonight. Kanner: Emie, I have a question for Lisa or (can't hear). Is ... in additional costs are there $35 per deer for preparing them as food for distribution after they're killed? I don't see that in the budget. Mollenhauer: Lisa Mollenhauer. Actually, that is an additional cost and the cost is ... last year it was $45 per deer and you can anticipate something similar. Kanner: Okay, so we're talking another $20,000. Mollenhauer: Yes, $20,000 to $25,000. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #7 Page 58 Kanner: Okay. So at least $120,000 if we do the full 500. Mollenhauer: Right. White Buffalo's estimate and the estimate that I just gave you are based on killing 500 deer, and again that is a very ambitious presumption at this point. Kanner: And what was the total last year, Lisa, for the cost for the whole process? Was it $70,000 or did that include- Mollenhauer: White Buffalo's costs were approximately $68,000. We did have CDBG funding last year that helped incur some of those costs of processing the meat. That is not available ... Steve Nasby will be looking into that further but at this point it does not look like that will be available. Kanner: So the main costs we incurred, extemal cost, was basically the $68,000 last year? Mollenhauer: Correct. Lehman: Okay, we'll be acting on this a week from tonight. Karr: Excuse me, could we accept correspondence? Lehman: I'm sorry, is there a motion to accept correspondence? By O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab. All in favor. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Karr: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 59 ITEM NO. 8 PUBLIC HEARING ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND MGD, LC. Lehman: This is the Sycamore Mall project. Public hearing is open. Frey: Good evening. My name is Kirsten Frey and I represent MGD, LC, the current owners of the Sycamore Mall property. We're here tonight in support of the resolution which is Item #8 on your agenda. I'd like to start off by saying over the past several years when I've been involved in the development of property in the Iowa City area, both at the City staff level, at the Planning and Zoning level and at the City Council level, I've received encouragement to explore the possible redevelopment of the Sycamore Mall area. That's long been a stated goal at both the City Council level, the Planning and Zoning level as well as the City staff level. Recently, that goal has become more formalized and the City has designated that area as an urban renewal area. I think that need is clear and I previously discussed with you some of the statistics that I believe show that need. What I'd like to focus on a little bit tonight is the agreement that you have between MGD, LC and the City of Iowa City. This agreement was negotiated between the City staff and my clients and we worked together quite cooperatively back and forth several times to reach an agreement that both parties felt was a good agreement and would benefit the redevelopment of the Mall. I think that it's important to note that before any rebate, any TIF rebate is available my clients must improve the value of the property. The assessment on the property must increase. If they don't spend any money to improve the property and the assessment doesn't increase, they're not entitled to any rebate. I think that it's important to note that they have to increase the assessed value by at least 15%. That assessed value ... that increase also cannot represent market or other factors that are outside the control of my clients. In other words, it must be an increase in the assessment solely due to the improvements made to the property. We intend to do so, and as a result we believe that the City of Iowa City can assist with the redevelopment of this area and encourage the growth in the Sycamore Mall property. I think that there are several features of the proposed agreement that I'd like to draw to the public' s attention and that is that generally the site plan must be approved by the City staff prior to any improvements; the new access and landscaping needs to be addressed with City staff; before MGD is eligible for any rebate there must be at least a 40,000 square foot anchor store on the premises; occupancy rates must be achieved each and every year during the term of the agreement that occupancy rate increases from 65% in year one to 80% in year three and the subsequent years. In addition, MGD, LC had an affirmative obligation to continue to maintain the property in exemplary condition and that the City at any time can request This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 60 certification from an independent public accountant as to the financial viability of MGD, LC to assure that its conformance with the agreement. We think that this developer's agreement provides the City with accountability and an ability to insure that its goals are being met. As a result, my clients are going to be able to develop an area that is sorely in need of redevelopment and will enable to bring in business to the Iowa City area. I'd also like to point out to the Council and to the public as well, that this rebate exists for only a period of seven years, and after that seven year period is expired, the full assessed value of the property will be assessed and left with the City of Iowa City. As a result, we feel that these private redevelopment goals accomplishes the goals of both the City and MGD, LC and if anybody has any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Kanner: Kirsten? Frey: Yeah. Kanner: Can you tell me who are the developers in this limited corporation? Frey: Yeah, I can. The developer is MGD, LC. MGD, LC is an Iowa limited liability company. Its members are Michael Hodge, David Hodge, Gerry Ambrose, Greg Appel and Dean Oakes. Pfab: I have a question. What do you mean in this case by a limited liability corporation? Frey: A limited liability company is a legal entity that's created under Iowa law. It's an organization similar to a partnership or a corporation; it's just another kind of legal entity. Pfab: What is different about that over the other items that you suggested? Frey: Well, a limited liability company is different than a corporation in that it's taxed more like a partnership than a general corporation. Pfab: So all it's tax benefits go directly to the owners without going through the corporate structure. Frey: No, I'm just saying it's taxed like a partnership is instead of a corporation, so it's a different tax return, a different tax structure. Pfab: So tax losses are a lot easier to move to the individual rather than going through the corporate ... going through the corporation to the individual? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 61 Frey: No, not really. Because the limited liability company still completes its own individual tax return, and it's just a difference in how the taxation is accomplished, and that' s just one of the differences. Pfab: Yes, but you're not answering my question. What is different than that than say a straight corporation? Frey: A corporation is taxed at the corporate level and pays corporate income tax. Pfab: Right. Frey: A limited liability company is generally taxed as a partnership and so any net income or loss is passed through to the individual income tax return. Pfab: Thank you, that was my question. Kanner: Kirsten, who initiated the dance on this agreement that we have here? Was it your clients or did the City approach you, how did this start? Frey: You mean about the TIF rebate? Kanner: Yes. Frey: What happened was, when my clients were interested in the Mall given the public statement that had been previously been made about the interest in redevelopment of this area, we contacted the City to find out what types of programs were available. The City discussed various possibilities and a full range of programs, and we then proceeded with the purchase of the Mall. Kanner: Now, when was the contact made? Frey: The initial contact? Kanner: By your clients, yes. Frey: In the early spring of this year. Atkins: The meeting was March 21. Frey: I was going to say in the early spring of this year. Kanner: March 21, 2000? Frey: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 62 Kanner: And was the purchase of the Mall contingent on a TIF? Frey: No, sir, it was not. Kanner: Were improvements contingent on a TIF? That you presented at the last meeting? Frey: Are you ... I just want to make sure I'm understanding the question. Is the question that, are we going to do this improvements if we don't get the TIF rebate? Is that what you're asking me? Kanner: Well, when you purchased, I'm asking, were you envisioning some sort of improvements without the TIF or with the TIF? Frey: When we purchased the property there was no contingency for the TIF in any way, shape or form. There was also no contingency for the feasibility of certain improvements. That was not tied to the purchase of the property. Kanner: And did you have an idea of doing some improvements when you purchased the property? Frey: We did intend to do some improvements. The exact nature and scope of those improvements had not been decided. Pfab: Okay. I have a question. Are you prepared now or in the very near future to indicate what you will do if you get the tax rebate, what you won't do if you don't get it, or in other words, how do we based our decision on whether it's a fair way to deal with the citizens so it's a ... so there's benefits to both parties? Frey: I think that, at the last Council meeting when I was present I presented a map or picture of the improvements that we intended to do on the Mall property, and those improvements I discussed at that time, we talked about replacing and remodeling the roof, repairing the roof where there were problems, redoing the facade of the entire Mall, adding windows to the north side of the Mall to provide light into the interior spaces, we talked about remodeling tenant spaces, we talked about improving and updating the common areas, and those are all of the things that we've talked about. The answer to your question is, how do we believe that this will benefit the City is, it will benefit the City because with the TIF rebate my clients are going to be more able to attract tenants to the property and fill that Sycamore Mall so that it's a vibrant retail and commercial area. The rebates will enable them to make it attractive to tenants. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 63 Pfab: Okay, let me ask you this. I understand as I've talked to other people that they've told me that, well the City agreed to do this for Marc Moen's building, let's call a spade a spade. But Marc came to the City Council, I understand, I was not present, but this is, I understand he said this is what I got, this is what I'll do, this is what ... if I get this this is what ... Is it possible that you could come to the City Council with those same simple, understandable alternatives? Frey: In other words, present you with a development plan in the situation where there is a TIF rebate and a development plan when there is not a TIF rebate? Pfab: Right. What you will do ... In other words, you're asking the City to make a very strong commitment to you. We would like to know what your alternatives are, what are the alternatives that you are looking at when you come to us asking for that. Frey: I guess the comment that I ... or the response I would have to that is, no I have not done that. Pfab: Okay. Is it-? Frey: Would it be possible for me to do it? Yes, it would. But I don't think that the City's interest is dependant upon how much I improve with the rebate versus how much I improve without the rebate. I think the fact remains that whether those improvements are made or not, with the presence of the rebate we're going to be better able to attract tenants and turn that into a thriving retail commercial center quickly and efficiently and as soon as possible. Pfab: So you are saying, I am not prepared to do what I ask you to do? Frey: I'm saying I have not done what you asked me to do. Pfab: No, no, that was- Frey: If you'd like me to do it, I'll be happy to do it, but I don't believe it's necessary because I think the benefit is there regardless. Lehman: Well, I think the question here is, is that something that the Council would ... wait ... I think the larger question is, is that something the Council wishes to have, that information? Champion: I don't need it. O'Donnell: I don't need it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 64 Vanderhoef: I don't need it because what I have is a commitment of the expenditure of dollars to make improvements and if they don't then I have- Lehman: You don't give them anything. O'Donnell: There's no TIF unless there's been some improvement. Pfab: But- O'Donnell: That's the guarantee Vanderhoef: That's the guarantee- [it] is the increased value of the assessed value above what- Pfab: And how much is the minimum amount? Lehman 15 % Frey: 15% Pfab: Which is $650,000? Is that right? Champion: I don't know. Lehman: 'Cause that's what it is. Pfab: It's 4.6% Vanderhoef: 15 % of purchase price? Champion: No, appraisal value. Pfab: Right now it's assessed at $4.6 million, 15% of that looks to me like it'd be $650,000. Champion: Okay. Pfab: That will nowhere ever get to $2 million worth of rebates. Lehman: Then they won't get it. Frey: Then we won't get $2 million worth of rebates. Pfab: So obviously, it's a very small amount. Okay, there's another question. You're talking about a 40 square foot anchor tenant. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 65 Frey: 40,000. Pfab: I'm sorry, 40,000 square foot anchor tenant. Is that going to be a theater? Frey: No. Pfab: Other than a theater? Frey: The agreement doesn't specify other than a theater, but we already have an anchor tenant who will satisfy that condition. Pfab: Is that a ... is my question a fair question to ask you if that anchor is a theater? Lehman: It's Von Maur. Frey: It's Von Maur. Pfab: Okay. I didn't know, I just asked the question. Lehman: Do we have other questions for Kirsten? Frey: Thank you very much for your attention. Oleson: My name is Clara Oleson, and I better start with everybody taking a deep breath, let's not get testy, just relax. It's late but pretty soon everybody's going to be home snugly warm, okay. I come to you both as president of the American Federation of Teachers 716 and a person committed that economic development based on benefit to the public of all the citizens of Iowa City. I've studied economic development issues for quite a while. I'm also speaking to you as the new national female co-chair of the Alliance for Democracy, which is a national based membership organization 65 chapters in 23 states. Looking at the relationship between corporations and the public good. So I would ask you since this is the first of a new venture in a very long time, this City has not really engaged in an urban renewal effort although, obviously, you've done economic development efforts of other kinds. This is probably the development to the downtown mall. And so I am interested in basically saving your ass, okay? Because you know and I know that we share different assumptions about economic development and I would expect nothing less from you than if I sat in your chair and you said, Okay, Oleson, you're up there making these decisions about co-ops and you're up there making these decisions about public spaces but where's the process. And that's my concern here. One of the things we know about this deal is that it is very difficult for a taxpayer to have the public oversight which is necessary This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 66 when you use public monies. What you're not told about limited corporation, which might seem minor, is that according to the state of Iowa they need not disclose who their officers are and that's perfectly according to state law. So when I call the Secretary of State and say, who's MGD, they say no officers listed. I then called David Schoon and he says these are the five officers and those five officers in this case have disclosed who they are. I asked to see an application blank for $200,000, minimally the first year assuming improvements. Since I'm assuming, everybody assures me that Mr. Ambrose and the rest of these men are men of honor and are men of economic means and are men that know how to make deals, they now have the Wardway Plaza and they've rebuilt Coralville. They know money. Okay. I'm not so sure I have anything on the public record on that. But had somebody applied for food stamps in the state of Iowa they fill out a 26 page application every 90 days. We are on the verge of designating up to $2 million and we have no application form. I understand in this kind of situation there's economic information that may not want to be on the public record. But we should be able to have a simple 2-page document that says, this is the applicant, this is when they formed their corporation. Because the corporation here is less than one year old. It was in February of this year. Those of you with a memory remember that a Council from this City went down the Millard Refrigeration road and jumped off a cliff. We were on the verge of giving a multi-million dollar economic development and you voted it, under Ceba, to go ahead to a corporation which had been convicted of 42 counts of civil fraud in a bankruptcy court. And the City and the State Board of Economic Development went ballistic. We don't want to put you in a situation in which because you're in a new territory you haven't a complete map. One of the maps you need here is, what information do we expect to be publicly available? One is complete disclosure of who's on this. Two is because you have tied this deal to an increase in assessed value and an increased occupancy rate, you're thinking, and I think the question one way or another has already come up, would this happen without the public monies? That' s a very hard question to decide, right. So somebody like me says, alright the corporation was formed in February, the Mall was purchased in April. We have nothing on the public record indicating until this series, in August we have minutes from Ernie going from the City's Economic Development Committee, the three person committee, going to the whole Council saying, you know, we're talking about this and it's looking good so begin thinking about it. That is insufficient. The neighborhood association is not involved here. You don't have information about how this area of the city compares to other areas of the City as basically targets for this kind of largess. Why should not Younkers downtown come in next? You have created an uneven playing field, and I realize I am speaking to a Council which ha business people on it. And if you think that while you're not thinking of business but you're kind of thinking what's good for Iowa City, I'm telling you that as good This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 67 capitalists that you are, I'm trying to educate you into that. You don't create uneven playing fields. You don't target an individual business and give that person the benefit because although we have good, honorable, economically successful men here, we've got good, honorable, economically successful people that are going to come in in the next six months or the next 12 months and say, my business would be improved, where my business neighborhood would be improved, and you have no guidelines to make that distinction, okay? So that you're starting on an insidious process of encouraging kind of the appearance, the appearance of back room dealing. Because on the public record I have no application from these folk, I have no information about these folk, I know nothing about the length of the leases of the tenants there, right? And in the agreement it says on page 6, developer would not undertake its obligations under this agreement without the payment by the City of the economic development grants being made to the developer pursuant to that agreement. That's a very strong statement. It's not being given under oath and it's very hard for me to believe that somebody's going to buy a $4.6 million mall and not try to increase the tenancy when it was running 37%. I have no idea whether this target of 65% and 80% would ordinarily occur in the usual line of business if you're a good developer. Because we have good developers here, we don't have people without experience. Again, how do we begin to address that issue that they don't need our money, they got lots of their own money. Let's support private capitalism, sorry, that was a little snide. Let's support the private sector by what the private sector does best because here you are dealing with public monies. I want to see more on the record, I want to see guidelines for why this business, why this corporation less than a year old, is given this. It looks kind of like the icing on the cake. These guys get together, they got a lot of money, they think they're going to make some more money, otherwise they'd never buy this, right? So they buy it. And now we got the icing on the cake. This is six months after the deal is done. I have no idea whether the bank's involved in this, made requirements for that loan, that listen, in order for this loan to go through these are your target occupancy rates. That would be of interest to know. Or to know that you've looked at it. I'm not saying I have to look at that. Okay? But to know that you looked to see what the duration of the leases were. You looked to see what the underlying loan agreement was with the bank here. Because these people already have their money. Okay? It's not like you've done this simultaneously as you would in an urban renewal area which was blighted. Okay. This is not a blight, this is not designated a blighted area. You have statutory authority to say we want to do economic development in this area without designating it a blighted area. Usually this type of economic development technique is used in a blighted area where the developer and the public sector go in together to the finance market. Okay? That' s absent here. I think I've kind of honed on my point of public access. Let me also give you an example. Whenever you invest money, whether it's in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 68 gateway development, whether it's going to be in the Sycamore Mall, whenever you put $5 million bucks, $10 million bucks, $8 million bucks, you're gonna have an effect. You may have a boom effect, you may have a long-term effect, not everybody will benefit equally. Your responsibility is to ask questions which the private developer does not ask. If we forego this $2 million of revenue over seven years, who is going to lose? How, what people in Iowa City will benefit, okay, by this tax expenditure for this foregone money? Well, we know it's not going to be the job holders because of the nature of the jobs here, and this is not being presented to you as either a job creation, okay, or these are not good, or these are "good jobs". Okay. So we can forget that. As far as I can figure out, the public good here is, this neighborhood has the right, is going to get a public benefit by shopping in a mall. My question is, is the poverty rate in this area going to be one-half of one percent less at the end of eight years? Are we going to have one dozen fewer hungry children in this area? Are we going to have one more public road, one more public park? Are we going to have one more public tree? One more public park bench? Because your investment here is not in infrastructure. And I think as public policy makers, if you were coming and saying, we want $2 million to invest in a park or in an infrastructure which does not target a private business, okay, I wouldn't be up here speaking to you like I am. Let me give you a slight union perspective here. You are using public monies to enhance a private space. This space is now private, it's under the control of very experienced developers, they are going to enhance it more. If I want (can't hear) with a sign that says "register to vote here". If I want to do that in that mall, even though within seven years everything looking good, 2 million bucks of foregone tax money is in there, I have to get the permission of the owners. If I want to set up a card table that says "this is how you form a union- union workers live better lives, work better, build union"- realistically, I suspect not one of these people is going to give me that permission. Nor do they have to under this agreement. Your non- discrimination clause in this agreement covers sexual orientation, covers gender, covers race for the employees of MGD, which is basically construction- the people that are going to enhance this, change the partitions around. Right? They are not under this agreement and that would be a default. That would be a default situation if they discriminated, if they put a sign saying we only want white construction workers. Or, we only want straight construction workers. Because that is in this agreement. They can run this completely and overtly anti-union. They can design this against a person's right to organize. Which they have a right to do under our labor law as a private corporation. Do you want to encourage that with public monies? That is the kind of question that I think you want to look at. And lastly but not least, I think not only the issue of the public oversight, there is no demonstration of need here. Okay? Let's slow the process down- let's do two things. Let's get the neighborhood association involved number one [and] number two, let's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 69 get a series of guidelines, right? So that I don't have to come back or somebody doesn't have to come back and say- well, who was- because the implication here is this is a bunch of rich white guys talking to the city manager, talking to the mayor, making deals. You don't want to leave that impression. That is not good for this city to leave that impression. There is very little to dispel that view. Because the more people talking, they say: well, you know, I talked to so and so, they said you were interested in this. I can't call up you and say, you know, I've got four friends and we are not doing very well. Can you get me higher up on the homeless shelter list? Two million bucks in this town would go a lot of ways to deal with the 10% poverty rate that this town runs. And the 12% poverty rate you run for children. Last but not least, the public purpose should be something other than the right to shop. Okay? There are resources here- you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Okay? You go on the web, there is lots of cities- there is two professional organizations that have guidelines for public entities to designate urban renewal areas for non-lighted areas. Okay? I would be standing here the same as if you decide to build the arena or if you decide to build a rain forest. Okay? I am trying to ask public questions because I want public private/private partnership to succeed. It is not going to succeed when it is done in this kind of loosey goosey fashion. Everybody has good intentions here. Okay? You folks may believe in a little more supply side economics than I do. You think eventually this is going to filter down right? I think it is going to filter through fight the way Mr. Pfab indicated onto the tax return as either a tax loss- to people who are already economically secure. We have a different view of that. Okay? And who knows who is right. But we both have an interest in working with public monies to put as much public information on the table as possible. If I read the paper or I didn't call, there is nothing in this application process that does that. All right? And that is what I think you need to address. Lastly, I appreciate the fact that this draft was made as a public document and I think I contributed to its improvement. Keeping these kinds of documents "secret" until they are final is just plain stupid. Right? Yes, Steve may get more phone calls, right? But one of them is from me to say, you know, this bankruptcy section isn't really clear. You might want to rephrase it. This is two million bucks. We shouldn't have as taxpayers to make- to look at two million-buck deals on less than 10 working days notice. So, anybody have any questions? Kanner: What was the correction that you brought about? In what section was that? Oleson: The original draft indicated that the way it was phrased that bankruptcy was not a default. What it wanted to say was that bankruptcy was a default. Okay? But it did not require a 30-day notice provision. It is not major. It would have been major if you had a default, which I don't think you will here. I don't think that is the problem with this project. (Can't This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 70 hear) these people to go into bankruptcy. That is what I am saying. It is just the accessibility of this. You know, Steve may be thinking about this, Ernie may have been thinking about this for 8 months, right? Lehman: Not really. Oleson: Or, I don't know, for however long. Right? But as a taxpayer, to expect me- and I am, you know, obsessive about this topic- I am interested in this topic. I read agreements, right? To expect me to in ten working days to look through this is really rather condescending to citizens. Right? You have nothing to lose, trust me. Particularly this deal is already made. Right? I mean, it is not like these guys financing is in trouble. They concluded this deal six months ago. Right? So, putting as much of this on the public record will give you the feedback that I think generally goes to better decision making. Pfab: I have one question. Lehman: Go ahead. Pfab: I went through this document rather quickly- do these rights go with the property or do they go to the individuals? Oleson: They transfer- as I read this they can transfer [but] they need the permission to do it. Because one of the things I am looking at is okay, these are local guys and you know, they are going to get this deal and then pretty soon we are going to have a Texas corporation in here. I don't think that that can happen under this agreement with out your permission. You may decide you want to live with that. And I won't even go into the aspects of you may have created a benefit here which is in violation of the general agreement of (can't hear) and services. Be prepared for that craziness. But you have to just do a little more public accountability in putting this- because it is just insidious. You have nothing- you have established nothing here that wouldn't prevent the Old Capitol Mall coming in or anybody else coming in either in this district or another district and saying hey, we want a district, we want that money. Because there is no definition of need here. This deal happened. Now they are getting the money. All right? So, you can do this but you haven't done it here. And that is what I am concerned about, because this is the first one. All right? And I think you need a little more time. I think you should vote "no" on this or at least vote to table it. Send it back and say, listen, this deal is- I mean, what are you going to lose by delaying this and doing it right? It is not like the deal is going to lose. I mean, the deal is already done. This property has transferred. The renovation is going to go forward. I mean- so what you will do by giving yourselves a little delay here is putting procedures and policies in place to send the message to the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 71 rest of the business community that we are going to do this in an even handed way. And we are going to do it in a way that you are going to know what is happening. Lehman: Thank you Clara. Karmer: Steve, could we give out a questionnaire on financial assistance guidelines? Atkins: No. Kanner: Has that been done in the past with any companies? Atkins: Not that I recall. Bob Elliott: I am not Daniel Day Lewis but I do feel like the last of the Mohicians. For the last- that was much longer than five minutes, but during that period of time the two questions I remember are who has need and who will gain? I live in that neighborhood on Dover Street- I am Bob Elliott. And we have need. I was so pleased when the local developers- I don't think any of whom I know or recognize. I was so pleased when the purchased Sycamore Mall. For several years we have been seeing it dying on the vine. If that goes belly up our neighborhood hurts. It is hurting already the east side of town. School enrollment is dropping. If that doesn't go, a lot of other businesses in our part of town don't go. My home, which I have owned- and I made a mistake, it is our home- I am married. Our home loses its value and we have had it since 1966. So I want Sycamore Mall to go. We have need. Meeting that need (can't hear) Sycamore Mall to not only succeed but flourish. And it was going exactly the other way. So, I am so pleased. My neighbors are so pleased that you are looking at this. And I think from everything I hear, you are going to do it. And I wish you well. I wish you Godspeed. I hope you do it. I hope you do it quickly. Because a lot is on the line in the east side of Iowa City. And if businesses go under, the east side goes under. Thank you. Kanner: Bob? I have a question for you. Sycamore Mall value- assessed value- has gone down. Has your house gone down in value over the last ten years? Elliott: I have no idea. Kanner: You don't know if your house value has gone up or down? Elliott: I don't know. My wife pays the bills. I don't know. She hasn't told me if it has. All I can tell you- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 72 Kanner: I do know that in almost all the areas of Iowa City the assessed value has gone up. And I would assume it would be the same for your house also. Elliott: I can tell you exactly what will happen if Sycamore Mall continued the way it did with storefronts boarded up and pretty soon you are going to have nothing but (can't hear) businesses there. It will be (can't hear) on the neighborhood. And I don't know what you know about home values but I know that my home value will go down. There is no doubt about that. If it doesn't go. Pfab: As kind of a testing question, would you be willing to sell your house for the same way that Sycamore Mall did? Elliott: If I could get several million dollars I would sell it right now. Pfab: ...watch the valuation go down in percentage? Elliott: I beg your pardon? Pfab: And watch the valuation go down in percentage? Elliott: Sycamore Mall was dying and i~ow there is hope. That is all I know. Pfab: But that was the event of private ownership. The owner did what he wanted to do. And I mean, so that doesn't concern these people. That gave them an opportunity, which I think is great. So what I am saying- you are making it sound like- I shouldn't- (can't hear). You are trying- you are working on giving us the impression that the place has gone to hell and if it keeps going to hell your house is going to go to hell. Elliott: No. Pfab: The value of it. That was the implication that I got and I don't think that is quite correct. Lehman: We are not here to debate in a public hearing. We are here to receive information. If that is what Mr. Elliott feels then he certainly- Pfab: I have a right to ask or question him to- Lehman: I don't think that we debate the public (can't hear). Pfab: That wasn't a debate. I was just showing a contrast here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 73 Elliott: I don't think my house- pardon me- I don't think my house is going to go to hell. But if that part of the business sector of that area goes bad the way it was headed, nothing good will come of it. Pfab: But that area has had a lot of new investments in that area. And my contention is- is it an urban renewal- is it a need area? And if you go around, there is a lot of new improvements that have been made in that area in the last number of years. A lot of new construction and a lot of- except for one piece of property that was controlled by this one individual, the rest of it isn't bad. Elliott: Well, let's see. Best Buy is gone, the big grocery store is gone. Where Randall' s is is all boarded up. The gentleman who runs the music store- Pfab: Why is Best Buy- why is it gone? Elliott: I have no idea. Pfab: The rent is still being paid. Lehman: Thank you Bob. Elliott: Thank you. Lehman: I appreciate it. Charlie Major: My name is Charlie Major and I live on 7 Blue Stem Court, about a mile away. I bought a place in '97 and I think my value of my duplex has gone up about $1000. And maybe it just has stayed exactly the same- I know they sold a couple of places right behind mine. My property value has not gone up at all in the southeast part. As far as the- I think this is a win-win. I think this is a good thing. I think this is not a (can't hear) group that is going to leave in the middle of the night and move to Indianapolis. These people are going to- they live in Johnson County, they live in Iowa City. They are local developers. Why shouldn't we encourage this development? Why shouldn't we encourage this urban renewal? Why shouldn't we encourage this climate of building? And maybe some of my neighbors will walk over to Sycamore Mall and get a $10 hour job and work their way up to assistant director job and maybe they will join a union and maybe some of the people they will hire to build the facing will be union people. What is wrong with that? I would rather have those- I have a chance with those workers and if I have an empty building like I have now I have no chance. They are going to drive on by and they are going to work in another part of the county. I think this is a good deal. I think it is a win-win. I can't see why we don't- this is what we should encourage. This is exactly what we should encourage. And I want to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 74 thank them for doing it and I don't think they should be abused over it. I think this should be encouraged. This is what I pay my money to the city to do- to encourage this kind of development. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you Charlie. Other public comments? Drew Chabahare: Hi, Drew Chabahare. 125 River Street. Yeah, this is being sort of portrayed like if we don't give tax break handouts to businesses, you know, then they will go under and the world is just going to come crashing down. And so we've got Coralville who competes with Iowa City to which city can give companies better handouts for tax write-offs. And that is just not the case. I mean, yeah, there is a lot of poverty in the south east side. When you make $7 an hour that is what it is. And that is- there is no- this tax break you are going to give out here- there is no requirements on living wage for any of the employees. None of that. There is no- just like with NCS, Emie Lehman, Dee Vanderhoef, Mike O'Donnell, Conhie Champion- you voted for a tax break for NCS and they pay tons of workers below living wage. Karen Kubby had the decency to vote against that, but you know, if you continue with those policies we need to get some candidates that support the workers to vote you guys out of office. I mean, this is just, you know, to people in this room and people watching on TV, my number is 466-1625, email at chab(?~excite.com. We need a workers party to struggle for a workers government. This is handouts to companies. If you are going to give handouts to companies you have got to have requirements on living wages. You say that if you give money to poor people they will just be lazy but if you give money to rich people then they work. I have never understood that. So, you know, there is a lot better things that you could do with public money. You could reduce bus fares, you could expand public transportation. You could start city businesses, you know? Have a little competition. Make the city compete with the private sector. But no, you know? We need policies that support the people, not just the capitalists. Thank you. Holly Berkowitz: Holly Berkowitz. Thank you (can't hear) for investing in the south side. It has a lot of potential as a vibrant community. And I see it being wasted. I see a lot of land and lives being wasted in the United States where we have an urban life- the center of the urban core tends to grow (can't hear) so people move out away from the urban core. And in this case the urban core is (can't hear) down the southeast side and Iowa City downtown. But people think, oh, I just want the big open spaces and so we pave over the big open spaces to get- we pave over it all to get away from it all. That doesn't make too much sense. Let's go back and improve the quality of the world we have got. Okay? And for that reason I think- my husband mentioned- O'Donnell: Holly, I can't hear you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 75 Berkowitz: He mentioned that you had done a nice job with the Fin and Feather (can't hear). Thank you for that also. We really appreciate that. And the southeast side has a lot of vitality and a lot of potentials. Something I would like to see is an agricultural park at the end of the bike path. A working agricultural park. And rip up the- here is another idea- rip up the pavement- Lehman: Holly, would you speak to this agreement? We are talking about Sycamore Mall. Berkowitz: I am talking about the potential of the southeast side. Lehman: But this hearing is on the Sycamore Mall. Berkowitz: Okay, give it to them. Lehman: That was pretty simple. Berkowitz: (can't hear) Champion: That is one of the shortest speeches you've ever given Holly. Berkowitz: This area of town has so much potential. Do you realize how many talented people you have in town and how much potential spirit? But you are not going to get that- you are going to kill the spirit if the place keeps wasting away. You know? An area dies unless people come in and infuse it with vitality. Lehman: Holly, you need to speak in the mike. Berkowitz: Vitality and will. And I think you have proven your record. My only concern is that we are building little monopolies here. We need to be careful of that. The reason I mentioned the- tear up the parking lot at Best Buy is put in a park there. Plant Hickory Hill park. Lehman: Sycamore, Holly. Berkowitz: No, it is all one. Lehman: I know but we are only talking about this little piece of it. Berkowitz: No you are not Ernie. You are talking about the southeast side. Lehman: That is not Hickory Hill. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #8 Page 76 Berkowitz: You can't segregate the two. Lehman: Okay. Wrap it up though, okay? Berkowitz: Okay. You have boarded up buildings which indicate that somebody is just sitting on that land with a value and they have the money to just hold it. And I don't know what they are holding it for. And so we need somebody to come in and I don't know if the city works with you to develop a park in that area. O'Donnell: I can't hear you Holly. Berkowitz: I park in that area. That area needs parks and pleasant places. Special, cool, water fountains and vegetation. Rip out the concrete, rip out the asphalt. And put in a pleasant place where people want to be. Worlds shape lives and lives shape worlds and that is what we are talking about. You can't just segregate it into private or public. And we are talking about the spirit, the community spirit. And thank you for resuscitating it. Lehman: Thank you Holly. Any other comments from the public? The public hearing is closed. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence? O'Donnell: So moved. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? All: Aye. Lehman: Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #9 Page 77 ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED AND COLLECTED EACH YEAR ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE SYCAMORE AND FIRST AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT AREA, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, STATE OF IOWA, BY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF IOWA, CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, BE PAID TO A SPECIAL FUND FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON LOANS, MONIES ADVANCED TO AND INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING BONDS ISSUED OR TO BE ISSUED, INCURRED BY SAID CITY IN CONNECTION WITH SAID URBAN RENEWAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (SECOND CONSIDERATION). O'Donnell: Move second. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Kanner: It has been stated by a fellow Council Member and I think other people in the public that this is an economically depressed area. And I couldn't find any definitions of economically depressed areas. I also inquired of our staff here if they could find anything and there really wasn't anything. The closest thing perhaps to that is a blighted area. And that is one of the criteria that can be used to set up an urban renewal area. And "blighted area" in state code talks about a substantial number slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures, defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness. I don't think the area meets that criteria. And because of that I don't think it is worth setting up this fund for the other reasons that have been stated by our staff and by other council members. I will be voting against setting up the fund for this Sycamore Mall TIF area. Lehman: The only comment I have is the council in our goal setting session and I know the economic development committee for some time have indicated the opinion at least of the majority of this council that the southeast part of town is an area that deserves some attention. That is an area that is somewhat economically disadvantaged. That includes Sycamore Mall. That includes the area where the Wal-Green's was. Also where Best Buy was. And we even mentioned the Towncrest area. And those are areas that have been identified by this council as areas that we believe need attention. And it is kind of like when I was a kid in school- the principal said it may be a strike and it may be a ball but it ain't nothing until I call it. And I think that this council has called it. Is there any other discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #9 Page 78 Champion: Go ahead. Wilburn: Looking forward a few years from now when this is all said and done and hoping this group can really get some activity going on in the Southeast side of (can't hear). I have had friends and neighbors- people of all economic backgrounds- comment to me over the last few years about the decline in economic activity at the Sycamore Mall area. So I am supporting this. I am looking forward to seeing what we can energize happening for the area. It seems to me there is a lot of energy and comments about the use of the TIF rebate as a economic development tool. It seems to me back during the time when we were talking about that goal setting and passing the economic development package, if you had a disagreement with that as a tool that was the time to vote against that. Using that as an economic development tool- I believe you did. The other thing is, in regard to the economic development committee- there seems to be a lot of energy and maybe my perception is wrong but I am going to let you know my perception because I am starting to get angry about it. that the economic development committee is some subversive committee trying to pull the wool over people' s eyes. Trying to push stuff onto the council. It is an open meeting. Each one of us volunteers to be on certain committees. We put- at least I put trust in the fact that you are going to put your energy and time on the committees you are serving so I don't attend those committee meetings. And I know with this committee and the committees that you serve on, I have an opportunity when it comes through the full council to take my vote. So, once again, I am going to be supporting this and look forward to seeing some changes on the southeast side of town. Champion: I just want to say I am definitely going to support it. I have always supported it. Maybe the area is not blighted, but you know it is getting there pretty quickly. The other reason I- I frankly wouldn't care if it was (can't hear) who bought this mall. I don't care about how much money the developers have. Lehman: Connie, that is not what we are voting on. It isn't the contract. Champion: Oh! What are we voting on? Lehman: This is the designation of the area. Champion: I thought this was our first consideration. Lehman: No, this is the second on the one we voted on two weeks ago. Champion: I won't comment any further. It might be the first time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #9 Page 79 O'Donnell: I am going to support this. This area does need help, in particular this- we are talking about a 34% occupancy rate. I will support this. I think this is great. I look forward to seeing the southeast side rejuvenated. Lehman: Other discussion? Champion: This has to be a third time before we vote on the contract? The other thing? Lehman: I don't know. Dilkes: No, this is the second vote on the ordinance. We will do a third reading on the ordinance and the agreement next time. Champion: Okay. I thought it was all- O'Donnell: (Can't hear) Kanner: I had a question for David. I was wondering if you could come to the mike and define about this fund. If you will bear with me for just a minute. It has to do with where the funds will go. Hold on just a minute. Sorry I didn't have this prepared at the right page. Use of other tax increments- Schoon: Is this in the agreement or in the ordinance? Kanner: This is in the agreement. So it relates to, I think, the funds. Setting of the special fund for the Sycamore Mall. Lehman: Wait. We are talking about the urban renewal plan- not the agreement with the developers. Kanner: This is setting up the special fund isn't' this? (Several talking) Schoon: Designating the tax increment (can't hear). Kanner: Isn't this item number nine? Lehman: Yeah. Kanner: Setting up the special fund for Sycamore Mall? Lehman: Which is the urban renewal area. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #9 Page 80 Kanner: Right and setting up the fund into which the TIF money goes to. Or economic grants as they were called. Am I correct in that? Schoon: They are related, yes. Kanner: In section 8.3, is this money only for- it talks about use of other tax increments. And so, I am not quite clear on it. Is this money only for TIF, the urban renewal area, or for the general fund? Can the city use all the money? So it has to do with respect of increases in valuation of the development property unrelated to construction of the minimum improvements. Schoon: What this section is saying is that under urban renewal law you can capture all of the increments whether it is market related or improvement related. And what this is saying is that any increment above and beyond what is designated to go into the special fund for the Sycamore Mall project- any additional increment can be used by the city for other uses. Those increments would have to be used in the urban renewal area. There is tax increment- there is the general- there is tax increment that goes into the special fund for the Sycamore Mall project but there is also a tax increment, which we are not going to collect for the Sycamore Mall project. If we wanted to- this is what this says in the agreement- we could collect it and use it for public improvements in the area. Kanner: Do we have to only use it for that or can it go into the general fund? Schoon: We can only capture increment and use it in the area. Any increment that we do not capture to use in the area goes to the other taxing entities. You can only use tax increments in the designated area. Kanner: So if there value increases not because of improvement but because of- Schoon: Market values. Kanner: -market? Schoon: That additional market value will be taxed as usual and those taxes that are collected will be dispersed to the various taxing entities. Karmer: So it won't go into the TIF special fund account? Schoon: Correct. Kanner: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #9 Page 8 1 Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion passes 5-2. Kanner and Pfab voting "no '. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. # 10 Page 82 ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $12,000,000 SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000. Lehman: We received the bids at 11:00 on September 12. And I think we all have copies of those bids. Interest rates ranging from 5.4646 to 5.5055. the recommendation from the staff is that it be sold through (can't hear) at a rate of 5.4646. Pfab: I just glanced at it. What is the length of those bonds? In just general terms. Lehman: Sewer revenue would probably be 20~year bonds. Karr: Before we discuss it could be have a motion on the floor? Lehman: Do we have a motion? O'Donnell: So moved. Kanner: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Kanner. O'Malley: Irvin, those are 25 year bonds. Lehman: 25. Pfab: Okay. Lelunan: Discussion? Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #11 Page 83 ITEM NO. 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2000 PAVEMENT MARKING PROJECT. Lehman: The low estimate was All Iowa Contracting, $33,976.90. The engineer's estimate was $50,000. The recommendation is with that All Iowa Contracting of Waterloo be awarded the contract. Is there a motion to that effect? Vanderhoe~ So moved. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: Steve, is there a point where you say that is too low a bid? How can they afford to do that? Atkins: No, not when the bids are this close. I think when you have a number that close you generally figure you've got a pretty good bid. Yeah. That is our general reaction to it. Lehman: Yeah, they are pretty competitive. Atkins: And we bid three different products. All we believe were equal. And the one company bid those products. Kanner: I just saw 50% lower than our estimate... Fosse: One of the big differences that we are seeing this year is there is more than one person in Iowa that has got the equipment to put these products down. And that helps a lot. Lehman: That is why the estimate was so much higher than the contract. Fosse: Right, we base the estimate on past prices. And as this technology evolves more people are doing it and there is more competition. Lehman: More people are getting sick of that latex paint. Fosse: It doesn't last. Lehman: No it doesn't. Okay. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #ll Page 84 Atkins: Ernie, before you do the next item. Rick, why don't you introduce Ross as our newest engineer? You will be seeing him shortly I am sure in other projects. Fosse: This is Ross Spitz. Ross came to us from Snyder and Associates in Cedar Rapids. The same place that Kim (can't hear) came from. So we have benefited greatly from a couple of engineers that have come down from Cedar Rapids. Lehman: Welcome aboard. When we don't talk about deer problems or whatever we don't generally stay here until 11:00. Champion: He is lying. We stay here. Lehman: No we don't. Welcome aboard. Atkins: Thanks Ross. Excuse me Emie, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #15 Page 85 ITEM NO. 15 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Lehman: Who would like to be first? Champion: I have nothing. Oh, I have a new granddaughter. That is all. Vanderhoef: Congratulations grandma. O'Donnell: You know, the Deer Committee just got hammered tonight and I think it is uncalled for. They worked hard. It is a very diverse group of people. It is very difficult decisions. There was a lot of thought put into it and I don't believe they deserve what they got. They had listening sessions and I didn't attend them but I listened to them on the television. They listen to people comment- there was a grandmother with 15 grandchildren and the oldest one is ten. And the kids can't play in the backyard because of deer droppings. That is really an outrageous thing to happen. You have people who have a cherry and an apple tree tom down in their yard. And one comment that really sticks with me is a fairly active lady in this community politically said she has lived in her house for 50 or 60 years and her husband and her did their entire yard with a shovel and their hearts. And she is watching it being destroyed. And what called this all about was accidents on our streets- city streets. And destruction of private property. So, I just want to thank the deer committee. Ernie did it earlier but I think they deserve applause rather than criticism. And that is it. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: I just have one thing. In this past week we received a report from the Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. They took a stand some time ago in that they saw a problem with underage and binge drinking in Iowa City. They have commissioned a committee to study it and have come forth with recommendations. I just want to acknowledge them and thank them for their interest in this issue. I fully agree it is a community issue and something that we all have a stake in. and I want to thank them for what they have done in bringing forward their thoughts, their ideas and especially to Maggie Weingarden and her committee for all the hard work they put in. Lehman: Thank you. Ross? Wilburn: The International Department at the University of Iowa, they have a council on international visitors to Iowa City. And I want to thank them for giving me the opportunity to along with Sally Stutsman to talk with some guests from Russia. Some of them involved with human services and some of them involved with government. So we got to talk to them and have an exchange about how we do things here on the Iowa City This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #15 Page 86 council and Johnson County Supervisors. And hear how they did some things back at home. So I just want to thank them for that opportunity. I know we have received correspondence on another matter about a sister city type status but I just wanted people to know that there are efforts with international visitors with elected officials going on currently. Vanderhoef: Just for information, I spoke about a week earlier with a woman from Indonesia who was very interested in human rights and how city government (can't hear) and specifically about women in government. Lehman: Steven? Kanner: Speaking of women in government, a lot of people don't know that our fellow Council Member Dee Vanderhoef works on a number of regional and state and national committees and organizations representing Iowa City. And Dee is now the chairperson of East Central Iowa Council of Governments. And I noticed that in the minutes and I want to thank you for that and congratulations. And that you are also involved with the National League of Cities on a number of committees. So, thank you. It takes a lot of effort I know to do that. And I had a couple of other things. A meeting or so ago we had called a question and a procedure- a parliamentarian procedure- and I wanted to apologize for giving inaccurate information which led in part perhaps to the assistant city attorney making a call about a vote total. I had said that to call the question it took 75% and that would have been 6 out of 7. And in fact it was a 2/3 majority needed. So I apologize for giving that information out there. I thought it was 75%. Champion: We forgive you. Lehman: No problem. O'Donnell: Call the question. Kanner: I wanted to mention, again, to follow up on the consent agreement that we have with the DNR as far as waste water effluent and it looks like it is still in process as to whether the appeal from the City of Iowa City will take effect. And in talking to people involved, it looks like we are doing a good job to make sure that that won't happen again exceeding the levels of the wastewater effluent agreement. And it looks like people and Environmental Advocates and staff in the city are communicating fairly well. And so I hope they keep that up. And we will be kept informed in the future if there is any violations. I wanted to respond to Mike O'Donnell at the work session. He made a remark in response to a op-ed piece that I wrote for The Gazette. And I appreciate the remark because I think that it is good that we question figures and facts. We throw a lot of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #15 Page 87 those out there. And I wrote an article in response to our Fire Chief stating that First Avenue would be beneficial in cutting down response times. And I was making the point that perhaps we can use the money that would be used for First Avenue Extension and possible widening of First Avenue south of Rochester for prevention measures. And I also mentioned that there is projected to be 20,000 cars on First Avenue with an extension going through. And Mike, rightly so, questioned where did I get that information from? And I just wanted to share with the council tonight quickly and with the audience where that was from. I have an overhead and that overhead was provided- I will tell you who it was provided by in just a moment. Let me put it up there on the screen. O'Donnell: Who was it provided by? Kanner: I will just get up there and put it on the screen. O'Donnell: Last night you said JCCOG. Pfab: There is a mike there that you can use. Kanner: I will go to the mike. Lehman: Please limit your comments to five minutes. O'Donnell: Or I will call the question. Pfab: We are getting testy tonight. Kanner: Lights, camera, action. This was provided by- from Kevin Doyle to Jeff Davidson. And I don't know if it was directly as a result of JCCOGs. But those are people that are involved with JCCOGs. O'Donnell: That was your question. Steven, last night you said you got the figures from JCCOG. And anybody in Iowa City or this council or anywhere can question JCCOG. And the figures did not come from JCCOG. Kanner: Let me tell you where they did come from. They came from Jeff Davidson and Kevin Doyle. And right here this is First Avenue south of Rochester. And this is a model analysis that Kevin did for Jeff Davidson at his request to look at if First Avenue is extended from Rochester to Noah Dodge Street and Captain Irish Parkway from Scott Boulevard to North Dodge Street. So Ernie, to answer your question, it includes Scott Boulevard going through. And the projection is right here. This is what we are looking at. First Avenue south of First is 20,000 cars. This is a projection from Kevin Doyle and Jeff Davidson. And it came about- and I will pass this out in just a second- 12/11/98 there is a memo to Kevin from This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #15 Page 88 JD, which is Jeff Davidson regarding a model, run needed as soon as possible. (Reads memo). And so the figures that are being used by myself and other people in the community, came from our staff people Jeff Davidson and Kevin. Now, of course, any figures are open to dispute. But that is where the figures came from Mike. I will stand by them and we can bring up Jeff and Kevin and I assume they will stand by too. O'Donnell: We will do that because I have questioned the same people and my figures are approximately half of yours Steven. Kanner: Okay. O'Donnell: Your whole article I question. I question the value of getting user-friendly defibrillators to cut down on emergency response time. I think that is right on the same level as handing out automatic weapons to neighborhoods (changed tapes) giving shovels and five gallon buckets of sand and salt and we will eliminate the street department. Kanner: I think the point of my article was that prevention, as a number of people have mentioned, is often less expensive. Dilkes: You know- I am going to - Kanner: I am going to respond to Mike's comment. Dilkes: Let me just comment Steven. All right? Kanner: But please, if you are going to comment to what I think you are going to- Dilkes: Do you know what I am going to say? Kanner: I have a feeling but go ahead. Dilkes: You have commented, Mike has commented, we are now starting to embark on an extended discussion about First Avenue. And it seems to me that the appropriate way to do that is to provide notice to the community that we are going to do that. So I don't know where to cut it off. You have talked, Mike has talked. Now if you talk does Mike talk again? Lehman: I will cut it off. Kanner: What I would recommend is that we have- at a work session we put this on the agenda. Because you are questioning figures and I think we should have the staff in here to discuss this. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. # 15 Page 89 O'Donnell: We shall do that Steven. Kanner: So let's see if there is a majority of council to put this on a work session and bring people in to discuss this so we can get this out (can't hear). Lehman: Steven, why don't you join us so you can be part of that majority. Kanner: Okay. And here is the information that I will pass out. Lehman: While Steven is passing that out- tonight we all received an email that was sent by Bob Elliott requesting, and I don't really care how we put this together, but as the election approaches in November that we will be deciding the fate of First Avenue, there apparently is in the opinion of a lot of folks, some misinformation. And I think that probably is on the part of those folks who favor the extension and those who do not. And I have a request from Mr. Elliott that the city somehow put together an information meeting he calls a press conference. I don't care whether it is a press conference or how we label it. But to give out factual information and make that available to the public. Preferably some time I would assume in the first part of October where the actual- and things like what Steven was talking about tonight. But there be an information meeting available to the public. And I do not think that is a bad idea. I guess I would need concurrence if the council is interested in providing or scheduling a conference of some sort to give that information out. Dilkes: Let me just say that there are a couple of ground rules here for any kind of information that goes out. The city cannot spend money and resources etc as you know on advocating for any particular position. I have some concern about doing it in press conference kind of format because I think all of you do have your own political beliefs about First Avenue. Lehman: Could it be done with only staff people and none of the council? Dilkes: I think staff people have their own feelings about First Avenue so it seems to me that if we are going to put out some factual information with city resources, then maybe that needs to be in written form or you know. So we can look at it ahead of time, we can get the ethics opinion from the people in Des Moines that I usually confer with and make sure that it is factual and not advocacy based, and then put it out. Pfab: If we do that I am going to ask that we do the same thing for the urban renewal area. That we have a press conference. Lehman: I don't care. I mean, this is just- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000. #15 Page 90 Pfab: I am just saying- if we go down that road- I am not proposing that we do. But if we do, then I want to go down it too. Atkins: Ernie, would you like Eleanor and I to talk about that? Lehman: Talk about that. If- it would be strictly information for the election that is going to be held in November. Champion: It is a pretty touchy subject. If we are spending any money- Lehman: We can't spend any money. Champion: Staff time is money. Lehman: We can't spend any money. All right, give us an opinion. Steven did you have anything else? Kanner: (can't hear) thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 12, 2000.