Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-16 Transcription#2 Page 1 ITEM NO. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS- LONGFELLOW ELEMENTARY. Lehman: If the students from Longfellow would come forward. While they are coming forward, all of you folks who are dedicated to watching this on television, you should know that Iowa is ahead in the game. Champion: I would just like to point out before the students get up here that Longfellow is my neighborhood school and cutest brightest kids all go there. Lehman: Okay, if each of you would like to give your name and then read why you were nominated. Susan Zoeckler: I am Susan Zoeckler. I have fun during the things that make me a good citizen. At school I am on student council and for the student council I am a kindergarten representer. I am a sixth grader who represents the kindergartners by telling them what we have decided in student council and getting ideas from them. I am also in a group at school with my friends and we do things for the homeless shelters and the Mary Coldren home. I am on safety patrol and after school I help serve treats for the after school language program. I am also in Math Olympia, which is like a second class of math after school but more fun. After school sometimes I baby-sit. I just started volunteering at the public library on Monday. I help stamp envelopes at the homeless shelter with the director who I am very proud to say is my mom. I am also in soccer, basketball, and girl's choir. At home I help with the recycling. If my parents hadn't encouraged me as much as they did I probably wouldn't be standing in here in front of you all but at home watching TV. Thanks to all of my teachers and family. Abby Mason-Marshall: My name is Abby Mason-Marshall. I am very honored to be receiving this award. I enjoy taking part in a number of different activities in our community such as acting and Girl Scouts. I act at places like the Iowa City Community Theater and the Robert A Lee Recreation Center downtown. I have also been a Girl Scout for a year. I enjoy taking part in activities at my school as well like Feed the Children, safety patrol and student council. Feed the Children is an organization which helps kids in child labor situations. One way that I helped was by raising money to build a school overseas for those children that have been rescued. I am also the president of Longfellow Student Council and by doing so I help think of ideas for fundraisers and food drives that my school takes part in. Once again, I would like to thank my peers and community for this award. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #2 Page 2 Jacob Cambridge: My name is Jake Cambridge and I am in the sixth grade at Longfellow Elementary. I have always enjoyed being involved in lots of activities both in and out of school. At school I am a member of the Longfellow Student Council where I hold the office of Community Representative. This means I help Ms. King with community projects like our Ronald McDonald wish list drive and University Hospital May baskets. I am a part of the Math Olympia team and I used to serve on the safety patrol. I am a big buddy to a kindergartner in Ms. Klinemeyer's class. I really enjoy helping younger children at school as well as my friends. I am very active in sports. I played Iowa City baseball in both the summer and fall leagues. I am currently in the University of Iowa Future Hawks wrestling program. I also plan to play football and wrestle once I go on to Southeast Junior High. I also try to help my parents at my house and enjoy helping my dad at work when he needs an extra hand with projects. I would really like to thank my classmates for nominating me for the award and also thank the City Council for recognizing good citizens in our school. Lehman: You know, City Councils do a lot of things that are important and sometimes people think we do things that aren't really important, but one of the things that we do that we really, really enjoy doing is this- recognizing the folks who are going to be sitting up here sooner than you might think. But we really are very, very proud of you folks and your accomplishments. And I have to say this every time- your parents are proud of you but your grandparents are really proud of you. I know that. The award states (reads award). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #3 Page 3 ITEM NO. 3 MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS. Lehman: (Reads Proclamation). Karr: Here to accept is Human Rights Commissioner, Charles Major. Major: I am supposed to be here subbing for Heather Shank. Lehman: Could you speak into the microphone please? Major: Okay. I am here subbing for Heather Shank and Laz Pittman and I don't want to take all of the credit, but we have a great team that we make a real strong human fights commitment. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. Page 4 ITEM NO. 4. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Champion: Move adoption. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Karmer: I have a couple of things Emie. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: One is I would like to make note in the Library minutes- we get the minutes from the Library Board- there was a mention by Jim Swain about the closure of part of the library at the jail. And he was displeased with that. There is going to be a new system but the open browsing won't be there. And I think that is something in the wrong direction. I think that is an important component of the jail. When I took a tour of the jail I was impressed that there was that full-stocked library and that they keep that somewhat up to date. It is not just 30-year-old books that no one is interested in. And it would be nice if we sent a letter perhaps to the County stating support for the library. And that is something that I would ask the Council to consider. So, is there any kind of interest in that? In supporting the library in the sense that Jim Swain talks about in the minutes? Lehman: This is a decision on the part of the county? Kanner: Yes. Lehman: Okay. Other Council Members? Wilbum: I would support it. I don't know what influence or sway we would have with them. I certainly support the spirit of his comment. But I don't know if there is interest or not. Lehman: I would have no problem indicating to them how important we feel the library is. Obviously, the decision to continue or not continue with the library is theirs to make. But we can certainly write them a letter. Champion: Yes, we should. O'Dormell: I don't have a problem with it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #4 Page 5 Lehman: Okay, we will do that. Kanner: Can we ask Jim maybe in some sense to help us with that letter (can't hear)? Lehman: I think we are perfectly capable of writing the letter but do you want us to write the letter to the Library Board and have them write a letter? Kanner: Either way I guess. Just I guess in some way to show the County that we support the idea of the library there. Champion: I think the best way to do it is for the Mayor to write a letter to the County. Lehman: We will see to it that the letter is written. Kanner: Okay, thank you. Lehman: Any other discussion? Kanner: The other thing- this is a tradition that I have done for the last couple of months- is to note the number of PAULA's (people under the legal age) that were cited at bars that are up for renewal. And we have two that are listed on our list that we had for December year to date. One was Mike's Tap, which was one visit and zero arrests. And then we had One Eyed Jake's which had 61 visits and 101 arrests for 1.66 arrests per visit. And the total for the city for all licensees listed on our list is .94. One Eyed Jake's is way over and since the council did not- there was not a majority to delay consideration for licensees with similar rates- for extra consideration of One Eyed Jake's, I am not going to withdraw it from the consent calendar at this time. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #5 Page 6 ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). [UNTIL 8 PM]. Lehman: This is a time reserved on the agenda for items that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council please sign your name, give your name and address, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Dieterie: I am Caroline Dieterie. I am here to talk to you about the proposed budget for fiscal 2002. I, as you've probably realized, attended the meeting that you had with the City Manger regarding the General Fund for that fiscal year. And I was there all morning from 8:00 or shortly thereafter until it was concluded near noon or slightly after. And the reason for my attending it in the first place- the principle reason- was to hear what kind of discussion there was forthcoming about the proposed police budget. And I sat through a long discussion of the budget by the City Manger and heard a great deal about the scarcity of funds in the General Fund, the danger to our bonding rating because of the debts that we will be taking on with the Library for example. And generally got the feeling that money was somewhat tight. At that point I really had not had a chance to look further into the proposed budget, but I have since done that and I also got a copy of last year' s figures for the- you know, same document last year to compare with it. And what I found I found quite interesting and somewhat dismaying as a citizen. The final budget as listed for fiscal '01 from last year's summary book gave a total of $6,698,015 for the Iowa City Police Department expenditures. This year's stunmary, fiscal '02 to fiscal '04 gives an actual estimated, in other words closer to what the fiscal '01 actually will be, of $6,754,622, which means that there was an overage of $56,607 in the fiscal year of '01. Then looking at the proposed budget for fiscal '02, which was proposed apparently, the City Manager's figure for fiscal '02 to '04 we see that it is $7,412,273, which would mean a $657,651 increase in the police budget in this fiscal year from last year. That is a lot of money. This includes over $300,000 in capital expenses. But even so- even if you just think about it that they need new squad cars and radios and other gadgets, that is an incredible amount of money when you think about the context in which the fiscal year coming up was discussed at that meeting about the General Fund. Worrying about our bonding capacity and how we were going to have to be very careful where we spent money in every other place. The other department that was not mentioned at all that morning was the Fire Department. I think that considering what I hear on the street, people are concerned about fire protection. And they are also concerned about the police department and the police department policy. And I am wondering whether you have been briefed since that meeting on those two budgets? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #5 Page 7 Lehman: No, that will come at a later time. Dieterie: When will that be? Lehman: We have budget discussions, I think, two more this month or maybe three. Vanderhoef: Three more. Dieterie: The next one is on capital projects. Lehman: I know that. I don't know what they are about but I know that we've scheduled three. We did not discuss the police budget the day you were there. Dieterie: I hope that you will do that and that you will think carefully about the police budget in the context of the rest of the General Fund. And this whole thing was sort of brought to my mind today especially when I heard on the news about the proposed new ordinance on underage drinking. And while I do not like the idea of people drinking when they shouldn't, either, or getting drunk- I am a fairly abstemious person myself. Yet I don't really think that this proposed ordinance will solve the problems that you are hoping to solve. Number one, I think that enforcement will be a problem. I think that if you are going to have undercover people in the bars it is going to scare people away. And it means that the draconian penalties that you have for this sort of thing are going to lead to a loss of business because people will simply not go downtown to Iowa City. They will go somewhere else- to Coralville or wherever. So that the intent of the ordinance will not be filled. People will drink anyway. And in the event that you do get an elevated number of arrests because of this ordinance, that is not going to have a good impact on the jail policy or the jail population if the present Iowa City Police Department policies are not amended. And in a time when we are trying to solve that and relieve the burden on poor Sheriff Carpenter- because I think he does try very hard to run a good jail and try to keep everything done the way it should be- it really isn't his fault that he had got overcrowding if we have this kind of ordinance being passed and we have a police department that is encouraged to do this. I don't know what the current population of Iowa City is but I think that it would be interesting for you to do a proportion that if there are 16,000 traffic stops- 16,000- and you think about the numbers of people picked up for public intoxication and you do the percentages, I think you are going to see why people aren't very happy. I do have a copy of these figures, which I will give you. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Other public discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #5 Page 8 Karr: Can we have a motion to accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilbum. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6a Page 9 ITEM NO. 6a. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SOUTH DISTRICT PLAN, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA SOUTH OF NAPOLEON PARK AND WEST OF SOUTH GILBERT STREET FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL (APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES) AND COMMERCIAL (APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES) AND TO DEPICT THE GENERAL LOCATION OF AN EAST- WEST ARTERIAL STREET, WHICH WILL CONNECT GILBERT STREET TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE IOWA RIVER. Champion: Move consideration. O'Dormell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I think we should just say that this is updating our Comprehensive Plan because we changed our original thoughts of where we would be putting the Public Works facility. And now we have moved it into the South District area and we need to reflect that on our plan and on our maps. Lehman: That is correct. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the lowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6b Page 10 ITEM NO. 6b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE USE DESIGNATION FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (1D-RM) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) FOR APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF GILBERT STREET AND SOUTH OF NAPOLEON LANE (REZ00-0021). (FIRST CONSIDERATION). Vanderhoef: Move adoption. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Vanderhoef: This also connects with that change in the plan in that once we move the Public Works down there this lets a 2 acre property fight next to Public Works that had originally been scheduled to be multi-family residential and it is now going to be at the crossroads of two arterial streets for the city and it is most appropriately used as commercial development. Lehman: Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6c Page 11 ITEM NO. 6c. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REVISED SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD, AN 82.1-ACRE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONTAINING UP TO 410 DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF FOSTER ROAD. [REZ00- 0022] (FIRST CONSIDERATION). Champion: Move first consideration. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Kanner: I am going to vote for this with some apprehension. The way I figure it is we have given the developers close to $1 million subsidy and that we are selling the land at the cost that we bought it for a few years ago plus reduced interest rates. And I wonder are we getting enough back for that? We are getting a development in the new urbanism style, which has some nice things to it. And I brought this up before, I would like to see more of a break for land cost for lower income housing to have a better mix. We will get to some of that I think with what we have here but I don't think enough. And especially with the subsidy that we are getting. I think the positives do outweigh the negatives and we have gone through this for a couple of years. I will vote for it. Lehman: But Steven I think you may have an opportunity to discuss your concerns later. This is strictly land use and a preliminary layout of the plat itself. Kanner: Well, in a sense that Mr. Stamper talks about the- the developer talks about how market forces are going to determine certain things- for instance, in the Planning and Zoning discussion I heard talk about why not make things more handicap accessible? And Mr. Stamper talks about market forces. But in effect we are putting these restrictions that we are voting on here and saying this is what we are going to put out that is going to be out to the market. So we are not leaving it as just a bare ground and say build whatever you want. We are saying there are these restrictions. And we could put other restrictions too. I wish we would put a few more restrictions and say we want to have more things handicap accessible. In fact, I think we will find the market likes those kinds of things. And perhaps they will pay for it to a certain extent. But I think it would be good to put in those requirements like we are putting these other good requirements in there also. Lehman: Mike? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6c Page 12 Dill: I am Mike Dill, 572 Foster Road. And good evening. My first question is there was a letter that was sent to Mr. Atkins from Mr. Gregg Geerdes our attorney and I wondered if that had been presented to the Council? Atkins: No, the letter arrived in final form just today and I turned it over to the City Attorney. Dill: Okay. I guess I would like to bring this up and ifI may read this to the Council. Would that be okay? This is sent by Mr. Gregg Geerdes attorney at law to Mr. Steve Atkins. This states that if the city desires a further meeting to discuss the safety hazard caused by the Peninsula project, please contact Mr. Geerdes with some dates when you or the staff or interested parties may be available. I do not know how feasible moving T-boxes as suggested in your recent letter may be, but there are potentially other options to consider. The Elks also wish to notify the City of additional concerns regarding the easement, which we own, and a density limitation resulting from this easement. As you know, the city conveyed to the Elks a permanent 24.01-acre easement for its golf course operation. For your reference, enclosed is a copy of the agreement which establishes this easement and which incorporates the auditor' s parcel of 97099 as the legal description for this easement area. By its clear terms, this easement is to be permanent and exclusive in favor of the Elks. With limited exception of the city's right to install water mains, a right, which is not an issue. The Peninsula development as proposed by the city consists of 82.1 acres. Enclosed is a copy of a plat of that same, for your review. The Elks have no legal interest in 58.09 of these acres, however the city without the Elks consent has combined the Elks 24.01 acres with the city's 58.09 acres in order to reach the 82.1-acre figure. This is an obvious breech of the easement agreement under which the city promised the Elks that the easement would be an exclusive in favor ofthe Elks. We further believe that because of the exclusive manner of our easement with the city it is prohibited by building and zoning codes from using the easement area to satisfy the land area that it needs to satisfy its density requirements. As you know, the city is limited to a maximum of 5 units per acre on the Peninsula. The 58.9 acres, which the City owns free of the Elks easement, can therefore only support a maximum of 290 units and not the approximate 400 units of what the City apparently desires to build. The Elks do not consent to their exclusive easement being used to satisfy the City's density requirements or any other use by the City other than for water main purposes and consider any attempt to do so as being a violation of the Elks contractual rights. A violation of the City' s own code of ordinances and taking of the Elks property without compensation. We request that further action by the council regarding the Peninsula project be deferred until we have an opportunity to continue our discussions regarding mitigating the hazards caused by the Peninsula project. And This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6c Page 13 also Mr. Geerdes has asked that if there are any questions please contact him as soon as possible. So, you do have copies of this. Lehman: Regarding a meeting with the Elks- as you recall, a week ago tonight we invited the Elks to if they wish to discuss this to call the city and set up a meeting. We would be glad to discuss this with the Elks and the City Staff and if necessary some of the Council folks, the issues. So I think the ball is in your court as far as getting together with the city. Call us and whatever. What you just read is a matter of legal questions, which obviously will have (can't hear). Dill: That is a little bit different than what I came prepared to talk about this evening. This was not what I came prepared to talk about. But since you had not received this letter it really makes my opinions really moot. I guess the matter will be discussed legally and not by my protest. Lehman: What that letter refers to is a legal question and obviously the City Attorney will have to address that. But as far as discussing issues of mutual interest to the City and the Elks- as we said a week ago- the invitation is open. Contact us and we will sit down and we will see what we can work out. Dill: Indeed. You know, and in good faith, the Elks really want to resolve any safety issues- once again- for this Peninsula project. We are not against the project, we are just concemed of the safety for the people who may be purchasing this property. And rightfully so, that if- in my personal opinion- that if we would go ahead and pass this and not talk about these safety issues when we have already brought them up and just let this go through would we be putting our self in some type of liability position? To where we knew that there were problems and we allowed this to go through without correcting any of these problems and then someone gets hurt- we knew about it but we chose not to do anything about it. And that is my fear. Is that it won't just be one person that will share this liability- that it will also be the Council. And so I just hope that we can get this resolved as soon as possible. Kanner: Is it Mike? Lehman: Eleanor? I am sorry- go ahead. Karmer: Go ahead. Lehman: Eleanor I think had a con'anent. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6c Page 14 Dilkes: I just think it is important to make clear for the record that Steve Atkins sent a letter to the Elks dated December 28, a two page letter, outlining a number of things that staff had considered ways that we could address the safety concerns. And we have not yet received a response to those specific points. We have however received two letters- one dated January 9 and one dated January 12- essentially threatening litigation. And at that point Steve really had no choice but to tum those things over to me. I think it has always been clear that the council is receptive to talking about the safety concems. But those specific issues raised in Steve's letter of December 28 have not been responded to. Dill: I would say that we did receive the proposals to realign the golf course. That is certainly something that we don't feel that we can do right now. Lehman: Mike? Dill: Yes? Lehman: We will be happy to discuss the issues. Dill: I mean, if there hasn't been a response I am just basically trying to give a response (can't hear). Lehman: No, no- but I think the response really that we are looking for is we need a request from the Elks to sit down and visit with the staff. And if you wish, the Council, or whatever. Dill: Correct. Lehman: And these are the kinds of things that would be discussed at that meeting. Dill: We are looking forward to it. Atkins: I feel compelled to comment. Are you sure you want me to visit with someone until Eleanor has had a thorough chance to review-? Lehman: That would obviously be at Eleanor's direction. Atkins: Okay. I mean, the opening sentence of the letter sets the standard of the meeting that the safety hazards were caused by the Peninsula project. Lehman: That is Eleanor's call. Atkins: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6c Page 15 Dill: Thank you. Champion: We do have a threat of litigation here and I am not so sure we should have a meeting until them is some different letter from the Elks that- I mean, it does kind of bother me that they haven't responded to our willingness to meet. Dilkes: I think there is a tone that is set up by Mr. Geerdes' letters and I think what has been frustrating is that it is certainly fine to make statements about what they believe their legal position to be but when we have those and we don't have any response to the specific points that staff made about the safety issues that were originally raised by them, that is when it becomes disconcerting. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6d Page 16 ITEM NO. 6d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14-6J-1 THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, TO REQUIRE ONLY ONE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE FOR SMALL ONE- BEDROOM SINGLE-FAMILY, TOWNHOUSE, AND DUPLEX DWELLINGS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION). Champion: Move first consideration, O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Vanderhoef: Yes. I have no problem with the intent of this ordinance. What I have a little problem with still is the wording on it. And it just seems to me that we have extraneous information in here. It reads "one off-street parking space for units with one bedroom and 1000 square feet or less of floor area. Two parking spaces for each dwelling unit over 1000 square feet of floor area". I think we could stop right there and stop this discussion of whether it is one, two, three, or however many bedrooms. If it is over 1000 feet it is over 1000 feet. Lehman: It could be under 1000 feet and have two bedrooms though. Vanderhoef: Okay. (Can't hear). We are talking about one bedroom and 1000 square feet or less of floor space for the one parking space. Where my concern is is that when we start talking about two parking spaces for each dwelling trait over 1000 square feet of floor area or with two or more bedrooms- so it is the "or" that implies back to the one bedroom but it doesn't say that. Franklin: I think in that second provision the reason it is "or" is because if you had a unit that was less that 1000 square feet and had two bedrooms, that you would want to have the two parking spaces required. And that is making it analogous to our parking requirements for apartments. And that is kind of where we were coming at this with. Vanderhoef: Then why don't we say one bedroom- when we start talking about over 1000 square feet why aren't we saying one bedroom or more? Then that would be all inclusive and it wouldn't leave that gray area between where we are talking about one bedrooms under and only talking about two bedrooms when we are talking about over. Lehman: Well, it could be one bedroom over too. If you had 11 O0 square feet you would have to have two parking spaces. Franklin: That is correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6d Page 17 Vanderhoef: That is right. Franklin: So that there is- Vanderhoef: But it doesn't say that because it- it implies it but it doesn't say it because then they are only talking about two and three bedroom. That is my point. Lehman: It says each dwelling unit over 1000 square feet or with two or more bedrooms. Champion: (Can't hear). Franklin: It is the "or" that is really the operative word there. That there are two criteria that you use to require those two spaces. That it is 1000 square feet or more or it is two or more bedrooms. So that you can't have something that is less than 1000 square feet with two bedrooms and only have one parking space. And likewise when- Vanderhoef: But you put the "or" following talking about over 1000 square feet. Champion: Right. Vanderhoef: So I don't see where it refers back to what you are saying in terms of a two bedroom that was under 1000 square feet. It is just the wording. I know what the intent is. Franklin: And I thought we got the intent by the way we did it. O'Donnell: I am not reading it the way you are. Lehman: I am not reading it that way either Dee. It says one bedroom with up to- Vanderhoef: If it is clear to everybody else fine. Lehman: -to 1000 square feet requires one space. If it is more than one bedroom, regardless of the square footage it will have more than one parking. But if it is over 1000 square feet and one bedroom it will have to have two. Vanderhoef: That I understand. Champion: Then what it your problem? Vanderhoef: But why don't we just say one over 1000 square feet whether it be one or three? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6d Page 18 O'Donnell: Because obviously this is a lot clearer. Vanderhoef: Thank you very much. If everybody else understands it then it is me the way I am reading it. But I think it would be clearer. I think we should be saying one- Lehman: We hit it twice but we got it dead. Other discussion on this? Vanderhoef: Thank you. It is a little wordy. Lehman: Other discussion? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6f Page 19 ITEM NO. 6f. 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: Karen? Franklin: I have had discussions with Mr. Wolf and Mr. Downer about this and I expected that I would have received a withdrawal of this rezoning request. I have not received anything formally from either of them about this. But I am aware that at the County Mr. Wolf has amended his rezoning request to diminish it from the 125.43 acres to something like 1.75 acres, which is just to deal with an error along the west boundary of Lake Ridge. So, we have this rezoning request before you. I think that it would do no damage if you were to act on this- Lehman: Defer it. I mean, deny it. Franklin: Yes, please. Lehman: All right. I would agree. Franklin: And that will put this one to bed. When we get the notification from the County we will go forward with the 1.75. Champion: Okay, but when we vote we would vote to- Vanderhoef: Yes for denial. Franklin: You are voting to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that this be denied. Champion: So you want a yes vote? Lehman: A yes vote. Franklin: Right. Lehman: Do we have a motion to that effect? Champion: Yes, I move that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6f Page 20 Lehman: Seconded by Champion, seconded by O'Dormell. This has been on the agenda longer than almost even the word Iowa City Council on the cover. And we were told- I think we had- the last time we met Mr. Downer and Mr. Wolf they did indicate to us they wanted this postponed until this evening and having not heard from them I certainly would go along with the denial. Is there any other discussion? All in favor of the letter? Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6g Page 21 ITEM NO. 6g. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF HOLLYWOOD MANOR PART 7, A 5.32 ACRE, 20-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED WEST OF SYCAMORE STREET, SOUTH OF BURNS AVENUE. (SUB00-0024). Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Kanner: I had some questions for Karin. Can you explain the hydric soil situation there that was mentioned? I wasn't quite clear on that. And the drainage corridor project- the south Sycamore regional green space and drainage corridor project. Franklin: Okay. In this area of town there is an issue with hydric soils. And what that means basically is that the water table is high. And so as a consequence it is difficult to dig basements and not have water come in. So, in most of the subdivisions that we deal with in this part of town, we require some kind of a tile drainage system around the basement or a crawl space which is what is done in most instances. The South Sycamore drainage project is a project that is a regional storm water detention project which is on the east side of Sycamore Street. And it drains a significant area that runs along the east side of Sycamore- some on the west side of Sycamore- up to Highway 6. And as newer developments are done in this area what will happen is the developers will pay a fee that will cover the cost of their share of that detention basin system. What that means is that they don't have to put it in their own project. They have it in this regional detention basin. Part of this Hollywood Manor part 7 will drain to that Sycamore detention basin and the fee will be paid accordingly by the developer. Kanner: So what is the limit that this basin can handle? Franklin: It is a water shed that is defined- I don't have a map with me tonight to show you- but basically it is- this is a very flat part of town, another reason why the water table is so high. And so the way this system will work is it will be a series of small almost constructed wetlands in which the water will pass through as it reaches a progressively lower level and finally will empty out into the conservation easement in Sycamore Farms down by the sewage treatment plant. And as part of the whole system too, eventually there will be trails that will go through this area because it has the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6g Page 22 potential for being a quite pleasant park-like area. Particularly when it is not raining. You don't want to be out there in the rain anyway. So I can't define exactly but I can give you a map at any time other than tonight of what the watershed is for the drainage area. Does that answer your question? Kanner: As far as building houses development- is there some limit that (can't hear)? Franklin: What this does is it basically trades off the obligation to put the storm water detention basin in the development with putting it in this regional basin. And so by doing that where the detention basin would have gone on in the subdivision can be occupied by lots. But there is a fee then that is paid for that transfer of the obligation of detention. Kanner: So how many acres do we have now and do we have planned for the drainage basin? Franklin: I don't have that figure Steven. Kanner: Just roughly. Franklin: It is hundreds of acres. Kanner: Hundreds? Franklin: Yeah. Vanderhoef: It is big. This is a project that we have been working on for a number of years and I think this is the very first one that is paying the fee now to be connected in? Franklin: Frantz has paid it on the east side of Sycamore in the subdivisions over there that he has. Vanderhoef: This was a real collaborative effort as far as I was concerned because it put the developers working with the city to make this a viable part of town and make a livable area down there and to have them all sign off on the fact that they would be willing to but into the (can't hear) that helps us build this whole drainage way and have the (can't hear). Franklin: It will add a significant amenity to the area. Vanderhoef: It will be gorgeous. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #6g Page 23 Franlklin: Yeah. Kanner: We are doing- isn't there a project that is north of the sewer treatment plant that is collaborating with someone at the University for wetlands? Franklin: Yealn. Kanner: In part of that area? Franklin: That is- actually it is in the Synder Creek watershed, which is south and southeast and then goes over to the river. That is with Lon Drake, and Julie Tallman in the Building Dept. has been working with him on that. Kanner: Is that a separate project7 Franklin: Yeah, uh-huh. Kanner: Thanks. Franklin: Sure, you are welcome. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #7 Page 24 ITEM NO. 7. CONSIDER A MOTION APPROVING A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND AFSCME LOCAL 183 FOR A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2003. O'Donnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion.'? This is a two year contract, which is I think probably good for AFSCME and for the city. It gives us a lot better basis for planning in the future. With a 3.25% across the board increase in each of the two years. Kanner: And it is noteworthy also that insurance cost to the employees haven't gone up. In fact, benefits have gone up slightly. And I think that is a good thing to have. Lehman: Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #8 Page 25 ITEM NO. 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 1 (NUISANCES) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY BY ADDING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED, STORED, PLACED OR KEPT OUTSIDE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. (FIRST CONSIDERATION). (Changed tape side) Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Vanderhoef: We talked about it when we first had a work meeting about this nuisance ordinance, whether six was too many for the straight out each family home. And then we had a request from one citizen at the public hearing part of it to drop it down to five. And the more I think about it the more I think I would be inclined to agree that five would be great plenty for the basic home and then the additional per licensed driver over 4. I would make that as an amendment. Lehman: Is there a second to the amendment? Champion: You want- Lehman: The amendment dies for a lack of second. Is there more discussion? O'Donnell: You know, a lot of study was put into this I guess nationally and six is an average. In some rare circumstances there is four cars. But six- six seems to be a livable number to me. Wilburn: I would reluctantly support it at six. I hate to get in the habit of creating an ordinance for essentially what boils down to one case. This has been going on for quite some time. It is very unfortunate this couldn't be worked out in the neighborhood itself. But apparently it can't be. So, like I said, I think for folks in the neighborhood who are wanting even fewer than what we have here- the six plus those other exceptions- perhaps they can look at it that they are getting a reduction. But like I said, you don't know when you might be on the tail end of having an ordinance brought against you. You know, or one case if you are unable to work it out. Like I said, I will reluctantly support it at six though I will not support it for fewer. I don't want to- it will be a penalty for some larger families like the Connie Champion families out there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #8 Page 26 Lehman: I think the numbers will really not be a penalty for anybody. Vanderhoef: It won't be penalty for anyone because there will be one for every licensed driver over four. So you are getting six for the first four and then you are getting one more for every licensed driver (can't hear). Lehman: It should be adequate. Wilburn: I think it is restrictive enough as is and I am going to hold to it. Champion: I also have problems with this ordinance although I am going to support it that it bothers me that whenever we have to do an ordinance that covers a very small problem that hasn't been- that couldn't have been dealt with at the neighborhood level. And although whether it is five cars or six cars, I really- or vehicles, I guess it isn't just cars- this kind of ordinance bothers me and it bothers me even more that we have a need that we have to have this ordinance. Lehman: That is what bothers me. Kanner: Huh? Lehman: No, what bothers me is the fact that we need to have the ordinance to start with. That is the part that is really is troublesome. Vanderhoef: That is very troublesome. Kanner: I would argue that for the reasons that Connie and Ross stated and others, that we don't need this ordinance. That it has been one problem and we haven't heard of other complaints and that I still believe that we can work through mediation and other ways of bringing neighborhood people together and that it is very bad policy to make an ordinance for one case. Lehman: Do you know how long they have been trying to work this out? Wilburn: That is why I kind of view this as- Lehman: Do you have any idea? Kanner: Well, I haven't heard how long the City has been involved in trying to work it out and trying to bring people together. Has it gone through mediation at all? Have we said to the parties that are involved, let's have mediation? Have we asked them? Because we have got a treatise of sorts from the person who the complaint was registered against talking about This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #8 Page 27 claims of racism and hostility from the neighbors. And so I think it would behoove us to further explore these issues and try to work it out. Even if for some chance we couldn't I don't think it is worth making the ordinance for one person. I don't think the bad that is happening- and I am not a big fan of excessive cars as you know- but I don't think the bad that is happening outweighs the good that might come from this possible ordinance. O'Donnell: You know, they've tried to work this out for two years. I don't disagree with you totally. I think I am the one that initially brought up I don't like an ordinance for something that has rarely been a problem in Iowa City but when we do have a problem this will be used as a tool to address it. So I am going to support it. Lehman: Hostility might very well result from parking 16 cars in your yard. Champion: Right. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 5-1, Kanner voting "no'. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #9 Page 28 ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT A PERSON MAY CONTRIBUTE TO MUNICIPAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION). Wilburn: Move second consideration. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum. Karmer: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Kanner. Discussion? O'Donnell: Here is another one where most of us have set our own limits. We have been- I know that everybody has had a $50 limit per person, that I have ever spoken to- with a couple of recent exceptions. This is another case where we just feel it is the right thing to do. So I will support it. Lehman: Other discussion? Wilbum: I will reiterate from last time that I think this is important to help provide some guidance as a cormnunity statement as this is where we allow people with greater resources to have their free speech, but it will keep persons of lower to moderate income- it will keep their voice and their contributions meaningful, I think. And again, putting this in context with national campaign finance reform. Champion: Does the national campaign have $100 limit? O'Donnell: $100 million. Lehman: This insures that- Kanner: I heard W. was considering it. Lehman: This kind of insures a broad base of support, which I thoroughly agree with. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #11 Page 29 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 TIlE CITY OF IOWA CITY CABLE TV DIVISION OFFICES PROJECT. Lehman: The architect's estimate on this project was $250,000. The low bid is $256,000. O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: We are being asked- Karr: Could we have the motion on the first? Lehman: The recommendation is we accept the bid- is that correct? Helling: That is correct. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion to accept the bid. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I like this a lot better than the first bids that came in. And I think it is time to move forward. O'Donnell: Definitely. Vanderhoef: This is the one- oh, this is cable. Excuse me. (Several talking). Vanderhoef: You and I are thinking of the same one. Helling: Yes. Just for your information, there were 7 bids. Kumi has got the details. But I think three or four of the other bids were under $260,000 and the other two were above that but fairly close. We think these are exceptionally good numbers because all of the bids came in within very close to one another. Champion: I think it is amazing (can't hear). Lehman: That is with Knutson Construction of Iowa City. Discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #11 Page 30 Kanner: I was encouraged- some of the discussion that I brought up and that was brought up at the previous meeting around this issue was the idea of the pass through money and how that was going to be spent- the cable pass through money. And I was encouraged, Dale, by your response to Renee Paine and Greg Thompson and I think that the discussion is perhaps open for future use of pass through money of how that might be spent. And that the different access channels will be part of that discussion. At least we can say that. And will continue to be part of that. And I think that they are talking- they have had a meeting or two and hopefully we will be getting some recommendations in the near future on that. Helling: I believe that the Access Channel representatives have met. Your charge to us was to refer this back to the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission for a recommendation on the remaining $125,000. Our intent is to get that to them at their next meeting, which is next week. Vanderhoef: Good. O'Dormell: Very good. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #14 Page 31 ITEM NO. 14. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. Lehman: The current vacancies are the Historic Preservation Commission with two vacancies for three terms ending March 29, 2003. The Civil Service Commission with one vacancy for a four-year term ending April 4, 2005. The deadline for this application is February 28. Previously announced vacancies are the Airport Commission with one vacancy for a six-year term ending March 1,2007. The Parks and Recreation Con'anission with one vacancy for an tinexpired term ending January 1, 2004. The Public Art Advisory Committee with one appointment for a three year term for an art professional ending January 1, 2004. The Telecommunications Commission with one vacancy for a three-year term ending March 13, 2004. These appointments to be made at Council's February 6 meeting. And we certainly would encourage anyone who wants to become involved in city government to visit the Clerk' s office and get applications for those boards and commissions. Lehman: City Council Information. Vanderhoef: What is the deadline then for that last group that we will be appointing on February 67 Karr: Because you decided to do the deadline procedure after this was published, that will be the last one that will go right up at the last minute. Vanderhoef: Okay, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 32 ITEM NO. 15 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Champion: I would like to suggest as part of City Council- what do you call this time? Lehman: Information. Champion: Information. That we take that meeting that you are going to be missing- the budget meeting- and not have it but move it to the Monday work session night. And although I hate to have this be a custom, that way we already have that- all of us already have it on our calendar. We don't need to try to find another date when everybody is going to be in town and can be here because I think it is important that especially the Mayor is here when we vote the budget. I wonder how everybody would feel about doing that? O'Donnell: I would agree totally with that. Lehman: You are saying have the formal meeting on Monday? Champion: And the work session. I like this format. O'Donnell: I do, it is good. Kanner: Can we go to 4:00 for the first session, so that we don't feel so rushed? Champion: Yeah. Sure. Lehman: Is that- O'Donnell: I don't feel rushed. Lehman: Is there a concuncence? Atkins: Can you back up and run these dates by me again? Lehman: Cormie is suggesting that the formal meeting for February 6 be held on February- Karr: No, March 6. Lehman: Or March. I am sorry. Be held on March 6, a Monday rather than a Tuesday. Karr: Moving the formal from the 6th to the 5th of March. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 33 Lehman: With the work session at 4:00 in the afternoon. Atkins: My only observation is we have a very strong Tuesday night tradition. Champion: I know, but we have had Council meetings on a Wednesday night before and this is kind of an exception because none of us have our calendars with us tonight- well, at least I don't have mine- and we do have to have it because we do have budget constraints with the state. Arkins: Yeah, you must vote at that meeting. Champion: Right. So trying to find backup and find another day when we are all going to be in town- that would solve that problem for us. O'Donnell: I think it is a good idea. Champion: I think it is very beneficial that we do that. Does that work out with the administration? Atkins: We must have the budget voted on certainly no later than that- than the 6th- because Marian has publish requirements and we have to have it in the state' s hands. Now, if it was on the 5th I am just saying that the community has a strong tradition of every Tuesday nights. But the 6 of you can certainly decide what the tradition will become. O'Donnell: Well, this is just an exception to the tradition. Champion: Traditions are meant to be broken. Atkins: Yes ma'am. O'Donnell: That is a promise. Lehman: How do the people feel besides Connie and Mike? Kanner: I think that would work for me. Vanderhoef: It will work just fine. Wilburn: On the 5th, correct? Champion: We all already have that date on the calendar. Lehman: We just have changed the meeting Marian. 4:00 work session on the 5th. 7:00 special formal. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 34 O'Donnell: We made a decision. Lehman: Anything else Connie? Champion: No, that is it for tonight. Lehman: You were pretty successful on that one. (Can't hear) go for seconds. O'Donnell: You did a good job. Lehman: Okay. Mike? O'Donnell: I just- it has been an incredible winter so far and I want to remind people to shovel their sidewalks. I shovel my sidewalk. Also, on the west side over on Mormon Trek the outlet by McDonalds- is that Westside? What is the name of that street? Atkins: There is a Westside Drive over off Mormon Trek. O'Donnell: Westside Drive. We have it in the plan, I understand, for a stoplight and a street light there. Atkins: At Westside and Mormon Trek? Lehman: Westside Drive and Mormon Trek. Atkins: A traffic signal? O'Donnell: By McDonald's. Atkins: I don't recall but I can find out for you. O'Donnell: And I think that is scheduled for the spring. I had a call on that today and I wanted to know if we were still moving forward. Atkins: I will find out for you. I will get back with you on that. Lehman: The weather has probably slowed us down. O'Dom~ell: I mentioned that earlier Emie. And that is all I have. Lehman: The weather has slowed me down. O'Donnell: I know. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 35 Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: Okay. Just this evening Council had a lengthy discussion on alcohol issues and we decided that we would be having a public hearing time at our next regular council meeting, which is February 3. Karr: 6th. Vanderhoef: 6th, excuse me. Karr: Did you change it? Vanderhoef: No. Lehman: Not yet. Vanderhoef: We were talking about 3rd on- okay, on the 6th. What I am trying to do is give people a heads up. It obviously will be published again and come out with our agendas and so forth. But this gives folks an opportunity to think about it. That is all I have. Lehman: Ross? Wilbum: Eruie, I want to thank you the Mayor for reading the proclamation earlier about Black History Month. Forme, Iknow it is atime oflooking back not only at the African American communities' accomplishments, successes, trials and tribulations that- and even just a fun time to look back at my own genealogy. I know that my- I am a distant cousin to a gentleman who was the first African American to perform a piano recital solo at Carnegie Hall. And so finding little treasures like that, but also trying to look to our next generation to have them have a tie between the past and looking forward to the future. So, it is a meaningful month for us. That is it. Lehman: Thank you. Steven? Kanner: Two things. One, I went to hear Professor Angela Davis last night and I very much appreciated her remarks. She talked mainly about issues of the penal system that we have here and its racist nature. And how that racism is encoded in the history of the penal system that we have mostly brought on in the United States. So I think it is incumbent on us to work to change that system and see how we can make it better. And also she gave great hope for working in an activist role. So I was encouraged to hear her and it was very great to see Angela Davis as a keynote speaker for Martin This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 36 Luther King Day at the University and in the connnunity. Another thing I wanted to bring to Council was the idea of the Iowa Child Project, which we have all been reading about and hearing about. I think it might be good for City Council- Iowa City City Council- to consider taking a position pro or con on it. Perhaps examining some of the pros and cons of it and how it is going to affect us. I think it is like the big 200 pound gorilla that is going to be there if it comes through and one possible consequence that has been raised is how it is going affect the wells- the water sources that we also use. So, with that alone I think it will be worth it for us to discuss it and to see if we have a position pro or con on it and how it is going to affect Iowa City in terms of development and the environment. So I would ask the City Council if they are interested in pursuing some discussion on that and whether we want to draft letter of resolution. O'Donnell: I don't think anybody knows enough about it at this point to take a stand on it. This is Coralville's project and I guess before I will say anything I will wait until I hear from the people who know what is going on. Vanderhoef: I was approached by one Coralville Councilor who asked just informally if Iowa City would be interested in having them come and do a presentation to the Council. And I said I think we would all be willing to listen. And if anyone else is interested we might contact them for that purpose. Lehman: Steve, can we sell water to them if they put this in? Can we put a pipe out there to sell water to them? So there would be no concern about the wells? We've got the capacity. O'Donnell: Ernie... Atkins: You really don't want me to answer that do you? Champion: I have very strong feelings about the rain forest. I would like to keep them separate from my position as a City Council Member in Iowa City. Vanderhoef: I am not sure how we can do that. Champion: Why, if I don't want- I am just saying I don't think we as a group (can't hear). Vanderhoef: I think we are going to be asked for money. That is what I think we are going to be asked for. Lehman: I can answer that one right now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 37 O'Donnell: Why don't we wait until we find that out for certain? Champion: Right. Vanderhoef: And I guess that is why I am saying have a presentation. Kanner: Also Mike, I think there are state funds that are being asked for. So they have a presentation and I think if we found difficulties with the project I assume the vision board would be pleased to hear from a neighboring community what our opinion was if it was going to affect our environment and how it is going to affect our economy. O'Donnell: That is a good point Steven, but at this point in time we don't know that. And until we do I am not ready to give an informed opinion on it until I hear all the facts. So that is- Lehman: My understanding is that they are going to be asking the state sometime in the next 6 weeks or less- maybe it is 4 or 5 weeks- for the $75 million from the state. And that decision I believe- Mr. Atkins do you know? I believe that decision is due in 5 or 6 weeks from the state. Arkins: IfI recall how they are going to do it Ernie I think it something to the effect that all of these people- Lehman: Make their presentation? Atkins: Put together their presentations. And they have indicated how they are going to fund them. Now if I recall, there is two separate funds and which one is Iowa Child and which one is something I am just not that familiar with. We could certainly- if you are interested- we can get a package of information together. It doesn't require any presentations or anything. And hand it out to you and let you read it. Wilburn: It was on public access- they have been playing the meeting they had out in Coralville with the presentation. Atkins: I think there is an inevitability that you are going to find something at your doorstep as a Council. And I don't know what it is- whether it is a request for money, support for the policy, provide water- I mean, I really don't- I don't think so. Just to make you feel good. But I- Lehman: Could we offer the water? Atkins: I really believe you are going to have something at your doorstep. And I think represented by the diversity of opinions you have on the thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 38 Lehman: May I suggest that we do try to gather some information? Atkins: I would be happy- Lehman: I don't- the problem that I have with this is I feel that most of the information that I have seen is so political and as far as just getting plain facts as to what is really going to happen there or what they would like to happen- I don't know if I have seen anything that (can't hear). Atkins: I understand- Vanderhoef: Those are the things we need. Atkins: I understand the political issues but I think we need to understand that it is a political issue. You know, that they are competing with other- Champion: It is money. It is not political. Atkins: It is a political issue when political jurisdictions, various cities and counties etc., are competing for a limited amount of money. Lehman: Why don't you gather some information together and based on the information you get maybe we should perhaps after we read it decide whether or not we want to take a position. Atkins: Let me see what I can come up with. And I will get that all out to you. And you can decide what you want to do from there. Champion: I think I will not be at that discussion. Lehman: Anything else? I have- Steve, you have got to give a heads up and a ata'boy to the water boys. When we got here tonight- Atkins: Men and women. Lehman: People probably wonder why we haven't taken a break. Actually, there was a broken water main and our crews had that water main repaired by what- about 6:30? It was kind of a miserable day out there. And those guys got it turned on. Atkins: That is about one of the worst jobs. Lehman: It is terrible. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #15 Page 39 Atkins: Up to your chest in water. Lehman: Muddy, cold. Tell them we appreciate it. Atkins: Okay. Vanderhoef: Yes, we do. Champion: I move we adjourn. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001. #16a Page 40 ITEM NO. 16a. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. City Manager. Lehman: Steve? Atkins: Before you go, let me understand that the February the 6th Tuesday meeting- on that evening you are going to have a public discussion on alcohol related issues? Is that what I understood? That you want that on the agenda? Lehman: Yeah. Dilkes: On the ordinances that- the proposed ordinances. Atkins: Whatever- Wilbum: -was presented to us tonight. Atkins: Because we will get requests for that packet and I intend to give them the ordinance and really any other support information. So that is what will go out and then you are intending for people to come in and comment on it? Lehman: Right. Atkins: Okay, that is all I need. That is it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 16, 2001.