HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-03 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM NO. 2. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS
a. The Great City Hall Tune-In- April 2-6
Lehman: (Reads proclamation).
Karr: Here to accept is Bob Hardy, Program Coordinator for the City of Iowa
City.
Hardy: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. Every week thousands and thousands
of hours are cablecast throughout this country of public meetings,
meetings like this one. And we just wanted to thank you and to recognize
all of those people who do this, making it possible for people at home to
participate in their government when they can't make the meetings.
Thank you.
Champion: Thank you Bob.
b. Fair Housing Month- April
Lehman: (Reads proclamation).
Karr: Here to accept is George Klein, Century 21. And Mr. Mayor, if you
would like to come around front he would like a picture if he may.
Lehman: You don't recognize me without a bowling ball.
Klein: I want to thank you Mr. Mayor on behalf of the Iowa City Area
Association of Realtors for the proclamation. We will display it proudly.
And we just wanted to mention that local realtors have long been
supporters and leaders in the fair housing issues and we will continue to
do so in the foreseeable future.
Lehman: Thank you George.
c. Medical Laboratory Week- April 15-21
Lehman: (Reads proclamation).
Karr: Here to accept is Norma Ward.
Ward: Thank you very much for this proclamation. As a member of the
University Health Care System we certainly will celebrate National
Medical Laboratory Week.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#3 Page 2
ITEM NO. 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: OUTSTANDING STUDENT
CITIZENSHIP AWARDS- Shimek Elementary.
Lehman: So if the students from Shimek would come forward please. This is really
a pretty special time on our agenda. We have this throughout the school
year. And I know the Council enjoys this just as much as I do although
not all of them are grandparents. I guess most of us are. So, if you would
give your name and then read why you are nominated.
Elvers: (Reads citizenship nomination).
Rocklin: (Reads citizenship nomination).
Richard: (Reads citizenship nomination).
Lehman: (Reads award). Let's give them all a hand. There are some more chairs
up front here. We have to keep the doorway- at least an aisle open for fire
regulations. So you can move up along the wall or take chairs up front but
we can't block the door.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#4 Page 3
ITEM NO. 4. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Champion: Move adoption.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Pfab: One piece of correspondence I had a problem with. It was something
about 75% and 75%, and I didn't know how you could add that up. I
don't know.
Karr: I have a clarification of that. That is on page 2 of the February 13 HCDC
minutes. And that was a typo. The pementage should have been a dollar
amount. So it is $75,000 is grants and $75,000 is loan, making it a
$150,000 project.
Kanner: I am not clear on what you are referring to.
Karr: Page-
Pfab: Page 28.
Karr: Page 28 in your packet, page 2 of the HCDC February 13 minutes midway
down there is a one sentence paragraph referring to 75% grant and 75%
loan. That was a typo. The percentage should be a dollar amount.
Kanner: Okay. Oh, for the application from the City Economic Development?
Karr: Correct.
Karmer: I thought maybe it was page 3 or something. Also, it should be pointed
out the name change for the new road that is going in from Captain Irish to
Scott- a continuation of Scott Boulevard. That is part of our consent
calendar also.
Lehman: Right. And there is also setting a public hearing for the next meeting,
April 17, for the CDBG money proposals from our committee. Other
discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#5 Page 4
ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
IUNTIL 8 PM].
Lehman: This is the time that is reserved for folks to address the Council on issues
that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you would like to address
the Council please sign in, give your name and address, and limit your
comments to 5 minutes or less.
Elliott: I am Bob Elliott, 1108 Dover Street. I appear tonight at the risk of great
personal peril. My wife has made it clear that I have already talked at too
many Council meetings so I will enjoy her wrath when she gets home. I
did want to bring your attention to a piece by Nathan Hill in the Sunday
Gazette of March 25. It was a bylined feature on the front page of Section
D. And it pointed out that over the past, especially, couple of decades,
Iowa City has earned or at least received a reputation of not being not very
friendly and not very receptive to economic development, to business, to
anything related to that. It indicates that several of you have been quoted
indicating you would like to change that image. I hope that goes for many
if not all of you. I am a little tired of the fees on my house going up for
taxes each year. And I very much appreciate the swimming pools and the
ball fields, the soccer fields, the schools, the bike paths and hiking paths-
everything that we have in Iowa City. I think we should not go blindly
into economic development but something that is well planned. I hope it
starts from the top down and that you folks are not only receptive but you
nurture and you are very interested in encouraging that kind of
development, which is good. Again, not anything but that which is
planned and beneficial for Iowa City. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you Bob.
O'Donnell: Thanks Bob.
Lehman: Would anyone else like to address the Council under public discussion?
Pfab: I believe there was somebody trying to work their way through.
Lehman: Okay, you'd better get up here because we are moving along.
Davis: I had to push through the crowd. I am sorry. Brian Davis, 427 S. Johnson
Street. I am here because, like many, many of the City's younger
residents, I am very concerned about the effect that the alcohol ordinance-
Lehman: That comes up later on the agenda.
Davis: Okay. Just let me know. Sorry about that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#5 Page 5
Lehman: You bet. Anyone else who would like to speak to something that is not on
the agenda?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#6d Page 6
ITEM NO. 6d. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION BY ESTABLISHING A CONSERVATION
OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET ALONG GOVERNOR AND
LUCAS STREETS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION).
Champion: Move first consideration.
O'Dormell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: Well, I think this is one of those zoning- this overlay zone is going to
further protect the older neighborhoods of Iowa City, which really give
Iowa City their character and also have a lot of affordable housing in these
areas. I totally support this. I think we have done a lot in the past four
years to protect our older neighborhoods and I think this is just one of
those things that moves that forward.
O'Donnell: Well said.
Lehman: Other discussion? Yes.
Karmer: I have some concerns about this. Overall I think it is a positive to our
community. Some of the reservations that I have are that at times I think it
is a bit too picky in terms of design and repair- repair not necessarily
having to do with the health or the safety of the neighborhood. And some
of those things get a little too detailed in my mind. And it makes it a bit
harder to do some things along the lines of energy conservation and
efficiency. We were told that perhaps to put in energy efficient windows
that meet the design standards is going to be more expensive than if one
didn't have that. But having said that I think- I am assured by the
Commissioners in the Commission that we have that they are aware of
some of these issues and they are going to take these into
accommodations. And I think they work with people and I think we might
need to fine-tune it perhaps in the future. And I will be looking at this as it
goes along.
Lehman: Other discussion? First consideration passes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#6e Page 7
ITEM NO. 6e. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, RM-44, TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY, OSA-
44, FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.01 ACRES OF PROPERTY TO
ALLOW 39 DWELLINGS IN THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF HARLOCKE STREET. (FIRST
CONSIDERATION).
Lehman: Item e- I must excuse myself from this. I have a conflict of interest and I
would like to apologize to the Council and to the public. I did conduct a
public hearing a week ago- two weeks ago- and unbeknownst to me I have
a conflict so I will turn this over to Mike.
O'Donnell: (Reads item). At our meeting last night we decided at the neighbor's
request to set a second public hearing. And that will be for April 17.
Kanner: I would like to move to-
O'Donnell: I am not finished yet Steven. And we are also going to be voting on First
Consideration that evening. Okay Steven.
Kanner: I would like to move to reopen the heating for April 17 for the rezoning.
Champion: Second.
Dilkes: Really technically we just want to move to set it for April 17, not reopen
it.
Kanner: Set it? I move to set.
O'Donnell: Okay, moved by Kanner and second by Champion. All those in favor?
Carried.
Karr: Could we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Kanner: Is that in our brown envelope?
Karr: The correspondence was received in your Council packet in association
with the item. I just need a second.
Champion: Second.
O'Donnell: All those in favor? All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#7 Page 8
ITEM NO. 7. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, ENTITLED
"ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "GENERAL
PENALTY," SECTION I(B) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR SIMPLE MISDEMEANORS TO $500
AS AUTHORIZED BY STATE CODE. (FIRST
CONSIDERATION).
Vanderhoef: Move first consideration.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: I think we should have Eleanor explain to the public what this means.
What unscheduled fines means.
Dilkes: An unscheduled fine or a fine that- for an unscheduled offense or an
offense for which a fine is not specified in the code creating the offense, is
what this will apply to- the $500 maximum.
Pfab: Could you give an example please?
Dilkes: Serving intoxicated persons, for instance, is an unscheduled fine under
both the state law and the city code. It currently- if the charge is a state
offense it would have a maximum of $500. If charged as a city offense- if
this code- if this ordinance was not put in place it would have a $100
maximum.
Wilbum: That is a maximum-
Dilkes: There are some other examples.
Wilbum: It is a maximum and a judge still has discretion?
Dilkes: Yes. It is a $50- $50 is the minimum up to the maximum and the judge
has discretion.
Pfab: Has the minimum changed?
Dilkes: No.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 9
ITEM NO. 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, BY ENACTING NEW
SECTIONS NUMBERED 4-2-3, ENTITLED "LOCAL REVIEW OF
APPLICATION/INVESTIGATION OF APPLICANT"; SECTION 4-
2-4, ENTITLED "NOTICE AND HEARING"; AND SECTION 4-2-5,
ENTITLED "CIVIL PENALTIES"; REVISING SECTION 4-5-4
ENTITLED "REGULATION OF PERSONS UNDER LEGAL
AGE"; ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4-5-6 ENTITLED "SALES
TO INTOXICATED PERSONS"; AND ENACTING A NEW
SECTION 4-5-7 ENTITLED "LIMITATION ON SALES," ALL OF
WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF ALCOHOL
SALES. (FIRST CONSIDERATION).
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. And before we start
discussion, Eleanor would you explain the changes that have been made to
this since we had the last two public hearings?
Dilkes: Yes. At the Council's direction the number of drinks that one person can
purchase for- let me put it this way- the number of drinks that can be sold
or delivered to one person has been changed from one serving to two
servings. The City Council chose not to exempt from the out-of-sight
sales provisions alcohol sold in quantities such as pitchers, bottles of wine-
that kind of thing. In order to- it has been our understanding that the
Council' s interest in those types of sales is in assuring that they are- that
that quantity of alcohol is being delivered to persons who are of age to
drink. So we have included a provision that allows the sales of those as
long as the server determines that it will be consumed by persons who are
of age, leaving the mechanism by which the bar chooses to do that to
them. Really that is- that is really an obligation they already have under
state code but this kind of puts that into effect for the out-of-sight sales
provision. And then finally, the change that I have made since last night
that we talked about is to add what now appears as number four, which is
really kind of the inverse of number three but some discussion that we had
today made me think that we should call that out- number four now
essentially addresses the situation where for a short period of time the
price on the alcohol is reduced. For example, $1 draws from 4-7. That is
specifically called out as being prohibited in number four.
Lehman: But there is nothing in the ordinance that sets the price at which alcohol
will be sold?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 10
Dilkes: No, that provision reads that selling it at a reduced price from that
normally are customarily charged by the licensee or permitee.
Lehman: Discussion? We are going to take a little bit of public discussion. We
have listened to three hours of public discussion before this. Everyone has
had an opportunity to address the Council, so we are going to take about
15 minutes of public discussion and then the Council will have our
discussion. So go ahead.
Blizek: Thank you. Obviously it is no question whether or not this ordinance will
pass. I mean, you have all publicly come out saying you are in support of
it and you will favor it. I would just like to point out that you are doing
this despite widespread opposition from the two groups that actually know
the problem first hand which is the students and the youth of Iowa City
and the bar owners. You are doing this [can't hear] massive citizen outcry
that you cite as the reason for this, remember is also been a large part if
not a complete part of the efforts of the Stepping Up Coalition. I
remember when we had the public forum before the only person who
spoke in favor was a member of Stepping Up. So I would like you to keep
that in mind. And also I would like to urge Council after these three
readings of this are done, don't just drop this issue and leave it dead in the
water. Because obviously a lot of you yourselves have doubts whether or
not this will work. I think this needs to be treated as a health issue more
than a law enforcement issue. So I would like to see Council and
members of the community in general coming together and get more
discussion on ways to effectively solve this problem that don't necessarily
include increased law enforcement. I am thinking more along the lines of
increased health services, increased treatment, maybe increased transport-
late night transport for students to decrease the number of drinking and
driving. And of course, as we said before, providing incentives for other
late night non-alcoholic activities. I guess in closing I have heard many of
you say that we are doing this so that the bars don't have to go 21 and if
this works, supposedly, the bars will not go 21. But, I mean, I am asking
you what do you want the students to do in this? What would- what do
you expect us as students to do to comply?
Lehman: I don't think we expect you to break the law. Whether it is a drinking law,
a speeding law, or any other law. We all know the law. Okay? I think
that is what we are asking you to do. We wouldn't be talking about this if
we weren't breaking the law.
Blizek: Basically what you are asking is you are asking 30,000 to 50,000 18-21
year-olds not to get drank.
Lehman: 1 am asking them not to break the law.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 11
Blizek: Okay, well for many of them you are saying getting drunk. Consuming
too much alcohol is not against the law. That- you said yourself- this is
not an underage drinking problem, this is a over consumption of alcohol
problem and that is not against the law. Most students they will go out,
they are of age- the majority of students who go to the bar are of age.
They drink in proportion and they cause no trouble and they go home.
They are not breaking the law.
Lehman: Then this won't affect them.
Blizek: Yes, this will affect them.
Lehman: Very little.
Blizek: This will very much affect them. This will affect their social activities if
there are undercover cops in the bar. No one wants to go out to a social
activity when you know the person next to you could be there to ticket or
arrest you at the slightest misstep you might do.
Lehman: Okay, we did hear you.
Karr: Sir, could I have your name for the record?
Blizek: Matt Blizek. Thank you.
Davis: Brian Davis, 427 S. Johnson. First let me apologize for addressing this at
the wrong time. I was concerned because I didn't see a public discussion-
Lehman: It is quite all right. You are not the first and you won't be the last.
Davis: There are two issues here that you are trying to address with one bulk
piece of law. One is what the buzzword has as "binge drinking" of those
people that are of the legal drinking age. And the other is any kind of
consumption by people under the legal drinking age. Let me address that
first one first and say that as our legislatures you have no right whatsoever
to tell me as a citizen how much I should drink, how much I should pay
for it and etc, no more than you should be able to tell me what I am having
for dinner tonight or for breakfast tomorrow or how much sleep I should
get or what I should watch on TV. The second problem is more
substantive which addresses underage drinking in Iowa City. And I don't
think this legislation will be effective in curbing that, and here is why. I
am worded that it will have a detrimental effect on our community. Some
bars which double as venues for music, dancing, entertainment- often rely
on drink specials and advertisements to get their message out. And they
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 12
often rely on cover charges by underage patrons to turn a profit. Not
everybody that is under 21 that goes to the bars goes to drink. Often they
are just looking to socialize or to see a band. The second and more serious
reason is that it does present a safety issue. I think that patrons of Iowa
City bars will now be driven to Coralville and drive back drunk whereas if
they were in downtown Iowa City it would be easy to hail a cab or walk
home. And I am worried that underage patrons will be diverted to house
parties and private locations where there are no bar staff, no bouncers, no
police within shouting distance to address any problems that may arise.
And I think you will see more instances of alcohol poisoning. You will
see more instances of violent crimes like fighting or even Rufies slipped
into drinks or something like that. You will even see more rape in this
town. That is obviously not something that any of us want to happen and I
hope that you guys will consider those effects when voting on this
ordinance later on. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Major: My name is Charles Major and I live at 7 Blue Stem Court. And I hope
you won't enact all of these regulations. I don't think they are going to
solve the problem. I guess my only solution would be to raise the PAULA
fine from $140 now to $500. I don't know if you can do that. I think that
that maybe above you- the state. And also I think that at 9:00 the bars
should be 21. I hope that you will work to provide an alcohol smoke-free
alternative, something in downtown Iowa City and hope you don't pass
these. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you Charlie.
Moore: Mayor, City Council-just a couple of quick questions on the ordinances. I
am very happy you guys have changed it to two drinks instead of one
drink so it won't penalize people going out on a date and buying drinks for
their female or male, or whatever, companion. One question I have is on
the specials. Are we talking about a weekly special, monthly special,
daily special, when you talk about no specials? Because there are certain
nights we might run a dollar bottle of Bud Light and another night $2
bottles of Bud Light. Are you telling me that we have to just have one
price all of the time all year long or once a week or once a night or have
we made a decision on that?
Lehman: Eleanor, I don't know how we are going to be interpreting that.
Dilkes: I think it is going to- I mean, I think it is going to be a fact question. The
way the ordinance currently reads is that you cannot reduce your price
from that you normally charge. If you have a standard price that you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 13
charge for a draw, then you can't reduce that price. That is how it reads.
And I don't have any doubt that there is going to be some- I mean that is
going to be- the normally and customarily charged is going to be a fact
issue- a fact question that is going to have to be looked at. I don't know
how better to define it other than trying to look at the bar owners pricing
scheme and go from that point because we don't want to get into trying to
set the price at which they charge.
Moore: That is the question I have I guess because for example, on Monday nights
we have $1 bottle of Bud Light. And on Saturday nights it might be $2.50
or $3. And if you are talking about don't change from Happy Hour to
nighttime prices that is fine but are you saying that I am going to have to
sell my bottle of Bud Light for $3 all the time or $1 all of the time or what
do you think?
Dilkes: If the $3.50 bottle is the price that is your base price- your normal price
and the one you customarily charge and then you reduce from that when
you have a Happy Hour or a special, then yes, I think that is what this
ordinance would tell you you had to do.
Moore: Okay, then I would assme that if we are going to do that I saw the private
catered events that is listed that we can sell alcohol then for unlimited
amounts? The very last number 6 1 think it is. And I need a definition of
that because a fraternity party could be considered that or a wedding party
or, I mean, is the city going to give me any direction at all of what that
will entail?
Dilkes: The way it reads is "providing a fixed price for an tinlimited or indefinite
amount of drinks for private catered events". And what is your question?
Moore: Would you consider a fraternity or sorority party a private catered event so
I could charge them $100 a keg and let them drink unlimited if they are all
21 or over?
Dilkes: And it is- that is a private party that only certain people can come to?
Moore: Yes, they would be identified and stamped as fraternity or sorority
members and they would be in there drinking alcohol.
Lehman: In your bar?
Moore: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Mixed with the other customers?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 14
Moore: No, if we had them either downstairs or upstairs at the Fieldhouse. They
could rent out the College Street Billiards Club and Dell, which they have
done before. I mean, I understand I think you are talking about wedding
receptions and things like that but I just need to get a clarification of what
exactly a private catered event is because I could have a softball team
come in and say hey we want to have a party up in your balcony Saturday
afternoon at 2:00, we would like to buy a keg of beer and get some hot
wings and burgers. We have done that numerous times. So is that illegal
or can I do that?
Dilkes: My sense is that the intent of the Council is that that is not allowable but,
you know, that is going to be- that is subject to interpretation. But let me
say this, we have been talking about these specials provisions now for
months and I would welcome any kind of constructive criticism that
somebody has to offer. But it would have been very nice to have had that
kind of comment and this kind of construction and this kind of discussion
earlier than now. And, you know, if you want us to go back and try and
provide more definition about a private catered event, I am happy to do it.
I can't help but express a little bit of frustration. This thing has been in the
works for so long now and I don't run a bar so I think your question is
very- it makes a lot of sense.
Moore: I know that and I put in 60 hours a week trying to keep them under control
and running them within the city guidelines and state guidelines. And you
all know the alcohol industry is the most regulated industry in Iowa. And
I guess my only question is I just want to make sure everything is black
and white and I have examples of every ordinance law. I don't think that
is in the stuff that I have gotten from Council- I am reading a lot of gray
area and I don't want the police to come in and cite my servers while I am
at home with my family eating dinner saying I have done something
wrong. And I really think we need to slow down and not vote on this
issue tonight because there are a lot of unanswered questions and I have
talked to some Council Members and have been here and done all I can
with the limited time I have and I don't want to take up any more time of
the other people here that might want to talk so I will definitely write
another letter, maybe make time to talk to you. But I just have a lot of
questions.
Dilkes: What I think would be helpful is to have a list of your questions. Give us
the facts situations and have us take a look at them and-
Moore: It will be a small book.
Dilkes: Pardon me?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 15
Moore: It will be a small book.
Dilkes: Well, you know-
Moore: There are probably 100 questions that I have on these ordinances.
Dilkes: You have to start somewhere and I think that has been the intent of the
Council is to try and do that over these few months. Now we are at the
point of voting on this and it is certainly up to the Council what you all
want to do. I am happy to go back to the drawing table and sit down with
Mr. Moore or whoever or whatever bar owners and try and redraft these
things. But I need some direction from you all.
Champion: We did talk about private parties and catered events as not being part of
this ordinance so we never thought about one taking place in a bar.
Moore: And we have many, many private parties in our bars.
Lehman: I don't think there is any question that there is going to have to be some
tweaking of the ordinance. No matter how carefully or how long we
spend on this there is going to be things that we are going to have to tweak
it later. And I have no problem in addressing those things as they come
up. On the other hand, this is something that we ask you to start drafting
last September as I recall. You got it in December and this has been a
long process.
Dilkes: Let me say this. I do think that particularly with criminal prosecutions- no
so much so with- but with criminal prosecutions that the judge is going to
err- should err giving the beyond the reasonable doubt standard on the
defendants behalf but I know that is not all that comforting because you
still want to know what it is saying. And I think we should try and be as
clear as we can. And I think the Council didn't think about private events
in a bar. That isn't what you were thinking of when you (can't hear).
O'Donnell: That is a very good point.
Champion: That is a good question.
Wilburn: I would also add that we talked about the effective date of this being
Julyl- a period of time for education and this type of question and answer
that you are talking about. I would also add that some of the things that-
not to pick on Dave- but some of the things that were brought up like the
drink specials at about this time last year when there was the meeting and
input (can't hear) attempt by the liquor license holders themselves to come
up with some creative solutions which they admitted they were unable to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 16
come to a consensus. Some of these ideas did come out. In fact I did
appreciate- I noticed that at the Fieldhouse you have gone to an ID
bracelet so we appreciate owners who have heard what we have been
trying to do and made some attempt. But as you all admit yourself, you
weren't able to come up to consensus and so we have been asked- I will
save other comments for later.
Moore: And that is perfectly fine. I want you people to know that we are trying to
be part of the solution and not part of the problem. So there may be other
bar owners that don't think like I do but I just want to make sure
everything is black and white and I have a list of things we can and can't
do because I am really confused after reading this whole ordinance. And I
understand that you have taken a long time to do it and I am not saying
anyone is at fault but I think we need to slow down the process. We have
had underage and binge drinking in this town since it probably was
incorporated. So let's take a couple more weeks and maybe slow down
the process just so we can tweak the laws and get them right and then I
would advise them to vote on it. And the last thing I would like to say is
we to also go after the lawbreakers. I see no reason to fine my bartenders
$500 if they get caught serving somebody with a good fake ID when we
are not turning around and serving that person and then saying whoops,
that person needs a $500 fine.
Champion: You need to talk to the state about that.
Moore: Or public intox needs a $500 fine, or simple assault, or vandalism, or
public urination. We need to raise the fines on all these things because I
think Council basically wants to get rid of the behavior problems without
alcohol. Am I correct? I mean, I think I am. So let's look at raising the
fines on those things, not just punishing the bar owners and servers.
Dilkes: With respect-
Lehman: (Can't hear) you bartender serves a person with a good fake ID that
bartender is not responsible.
Moore: Well, I would hope so too but there is, you know, every situation is
different.
Lehman: I don't think that part is (can't hear).
Dilkes: Since this is the second time this comment has been made tonight about
raising the fine for possession of alcohol under the legal age I really
should state again that that is a fine that is set by state code. I don't think
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 17
we have the authority to change that. You would have to talk to your state
legislature.
Vanderhoef: As far as slowing down on this, as we do with all ordinances in this city,
we must have three readings. And there is obviously two weeks between.
I think we can take a look a couple of these questions that you have about
the private parties but I think we can go forward with the first reading this
time and we can bring back a change if we see a way to do that.
Moore: Okay, thank you.
Lehman: Dave, hold on a second.
Pfab: I have a question here and I don't know if it is the right time or not. What
is the process of- now we are getting down to where the rubber hits the
road and what is the process for making some of these gray areas more
definite as we go along here in approving these? What is the process? He
has brought up some good examples. I mean, these are great.
Dilkes: Ideally you want your ordinance to be clear when you pass it. I mean-
Pfab: Can we- can someone sit down with he or other people like that and come
up with some changes and clarifications as we go along?
Champion: (Can't hear) make that decision.
Dilkes: The Council can certainly do whatever they want in that respect. You just
need to tell me what you want me to do.
Kanner: Actually, I think a way to deal with this to make it clearer is to do an
amendment to take this exception out and that means you couldn't have
any of these parties and then to look at it and have Eleanor look at it and
see if we can come up with a clearer definition and then we can put the
exception back in at a later time. I think that might be the way to deal
with it.
Champion: I don't think so, that would mean another public hearing and I don't think
I can take another public hearing on alcohol.
Moore: I definitely have better things to do than come down and talk to you guys
all the time too, so I understand.
Dilkes: Technically it would not take another public hearing. There is no public
hearing that is required on this ordinance.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 18
Vanderhoef: We have done it because-
Dilkes: You did it because you chose to do it.
Vanderhoef: -to allow folks a special time to speak to us.
Champion: We just need (changed tapes)
Pfab: -booklet with some of us with all the questions?
Moore: Yes I will.
Pfab: We would appreciate that.
Moore: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you Dave. Council discussion? Obviously, I don't think any of us
presumed that we would have an ordinance that would cover absolutely
every possibility. It would appear tome, and Eleanor ifthis is incorrect let
me know, but there is nothing to prevent the Council as we go along from
making adjustments to this ordinance to fit situations that it does not
appear to address as we would like to have it addressed. Is that not
correct? I mean, we can amend the ordinance at any time.
Dilkes: You can although I have to say I am concemed about Mr. Moore's
comment about the private catered events. I mean, frankly it did not occur
to me and it doesn't sound like it occurred to you and I think that we need
to- I don't think we should pass something that we don't know what it
means.
Champion: I agree.
O'Dounell: I agree with you.
Dilkes: And so I think Steven's suggestion is a good one- taking out the exception
completely you could do. Or we need- you need to tell me what it is you
all want to accept and I can, as perhaps I should have already, give a
clearer definition of what that means.
Lehman: If I understand correctly Steven, if you would make an amendment to
eliminate the item under exceptions in number two it would then- the
ordinance would apply to private parties until such a time as we made the
correction or make a new exception that would cover this.
Kanner: Starting in July, yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 19
Lehman: July 1.
Pfab: Is this something that we can do as a motion here?
Lehman: Yes, we can make the amendment to delete this. However, that will then
make every private party have to comply with the regulations of this
ordinance.
Pfab: If we make that exception or if we take away this exception maybe by that
time we will have some good solid facts to get rid of that gray area.
Dilkes: It doesn't apply to every private party. The limitations on sales provisions
apply to license holders, permit holders and their employees and agents.
So, if you don't have a liquor license- I mean-
Lehman: It doesn't apply to you anyway.
Pfab: I would make- unless you would like- would you like to make a motion
Steven?
Kanner: Go ahead Irvin.
Pfab: I would make a motion that we eliminate this exception at this time.
Lehman: The amendment is to eliminate-
Pfab: Exception number 2.
Lehman: -B-2. Is there a second to that amendment?
Kanner: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Mr. Kanner. Discussion. My understanding is you are
making that amendment with the understanding that we will come back
with some more clear exception that might address what Mr. Moore
brought up.
Pfab: I believe this would encourage the- defining that precisely by causing an
action something to happen there.
Kanner: And actually I think we should be able to clarify it and do three readings if
we want to put it back in by July 1.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 20
Dilkes: Yeah, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to pass it without this- to
do the first reading tonight and say we want to mess with it and put it back
in because then you are going to have to do three readings anyway. So if
you want to take a look at that exception and provide more- and make it
clearer, and I think we should in light of Mr. Moore's comment, then we
need to just defer this.
Champion: I really am not in favor of the motion- Mr. Pfab's motion because I don't
want to pass this ordinance until everything is in it. I don't want to come
back and change it. I think we might end up changing it in a year anyway.
So I would rather that we didn't pass it until we had everything in it that
we wanted.
Lehman: We will never act on it if we wait for them to get everything (can't hear).
Kanner: We changed it last night Connie.
Champion: I know.
Pfab: Can I withdraw my motion? (Can't hear).
Champion: We changed it last night but that was before the first reading. So I would
rather since we know this is an obvious problem with this ordinance that
we shouldn't vote on it until we have that part cleared up at least. That
shouldn't take- we might be able to do it right here. Why couldn't we just
say a private party- this doesn't apply to a private party that is held within
an isolated area that limits who attends it? I mean, just some wording like
that.
Dilkes: But we are not- we can't- we are not going to draft it tonight I don't think.
Champion: Okay.
O'Donnell: So are you putting something in the form of a motion?
Champion: Yeah, well we have already have a motion on the floor.
Lehman: We have an amendment on the floor now. Did you withdraw your
amendment?
Pfab: If you withdraw the second I will withdraw the motion.
Kanner: No, I don't think it is- I don't think it is that difficult. I think we can
delete it and we can come up with something good by the next meeting or
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 21
the meeting after that and we could add it back in at that time as an
exception. I don't think it is that hard to do.
Champion: Let's just vote and see who wants to do that.
Lehman: All in favor of the amendment say "aye". Opposed same sign. Will the
people who voted "no" please raise their hand so we can get a count?
One, two, three- well we have- the motion is- the amendment- you voted
for the amendment? The amendment is defeated 4-3, Wilburn, Kanner
and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Now we are back to discussion on the
original motion.
Champion: I move to defer the first reading of this ordinance until the next City
Council meeting.
Vanderhoef: April 177 I will second.
Lehman: Motion by Champion, second by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Pfab: I would speak in opposition to my honorable fellow Councilperson here. I
think that we have gone on this long enough. I think we have to keep this
train going heading to the station. Now we may have more passengers or
some less passengers but I think the train needs to keep moving and go
from there.
O'Donnell: Irvin, we may have to miss that train. Okay?
Pfab: We may?
Lehman: Well Irvin, I am on the same train you are.
O'Dormell: We tweaked this thing last night. I had several questions on it, Emie had a
question changed- it is clear to me that we need some more discussion on
this right now so I am going to vote in favor of Connie's amendment.
Wilbum: I am not going to support deferring this. I think that the motion that was
just defeated would have taken care of that. You know, I think that we
have (can't hear) several members of the public, several of you have said
well I don't think this is the answer or I don't want to move until we can
come up with all of the answers. You can say that for every ordinance that
we draw up. We have been asked to deal with the problems associated
with public drunkenness and underage drinking, the drunk driving, the
fights and the vandalism. If we had the magic answer- I kind of jokingly
said this to the press, then we could write a book and we could make
millions here for every community. This is part of one component that the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 22
community, individuals, the University, all of us can do to try and reduce
some of these problems. We are asking the license holders to be a little bit
more responsible. We heard from students that a year ago when we talked
about the 21 years that we heard that they still want access to the
entertainment and the recreation. They can still get in. It was said outside
at the protest that we are not allowing people under 21 to get into the bars-
and that is not part of this. That was removed perhaps some- perhaps
some of Council Members own comments added to that confusion or
misinformation. I don't know. But I am willing to move forward on this
and I still think we could have worked it out with the prior amendment
that failed.
Champion: I don't really feel that putting this- deferring this to the next City Council
meeting will change the effective date of it. I mean, the effective date is
not going to be as soon as it has its third reading anyway. What
postponing the first reading will do will allow us to just tweak it a little bit
more and I am not suggesting that we defer the enforcement date.
Wilburn: Until someone else comes up with another item that is not clear in their
mind or that they disagree with or (can't hear).
Champion: I don't disagree with you.
Wilbum: -have a total answer for.
Champion: I think what you have said is absolutely true.
Pfab: I think I am reminded of something here that at lot of lawsuits are settled
on the court house steps on the way to court. And I think we are trying to
get to that point now so anybody that has any questions or suggestions it is
time to come forward. But I still think we are going to go to court so to
speak, to use that analogy.
Vanderhoef: Well I truly am frustrated with this coming up at the last minute. This has
spent- we have as a group spent a lot of time on this and our legal staff has
worked overtime on this. To have something as clear as this I will take
my share of blame in that I didn't spot that either and I wasn't aware of
private parties in the bar mixed with the regular patron kind of thing. I
think we were thinking in where you rent a space and that space is where
the private party takes place and there is no one that comes into that
private space. That was my intention when I thought of catered parties
when we were talking about wedding dances and receptions and those
kinds of things for anniversary parties and so forth. I wasn't thinking in
terms of the bar. This does bring up a good question. I am willing to put
it off for two weeks and that is it. I will move forward in two weeks and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 23
in that time I think we will be able to define what a private catered party is
and what the parameters are for holding a private party.
Lehman: I concur with you Ross. I think that in two weeks we probably will have
another question that will not be answered and there will be another
deferrat and another deferral. And I think that we are going to have to
deal with a number of aspects of this ordinance as time goes on and make
changes to that ordinance. I don't think it is possible to come up with all
of the possibilities and address them all prior to the passage of the
ordinance and I don't see deferring it is really going to accomplish
anything.
Wilbum: When I looked at it- we talked about let's try this, let's see what effect it
has, modify it. We have also talked about- well, I have already said
enough.
O'Donnell: But we have been advised by the City Attomey to clear this thing up and I
think that we should take that advice.
Lehman: Is that something that cannot be cleared up after this ordinance is done by
a change to the ordinance7 You know, I think there is a lot more to
private parties inside a bar than we are thinking about. I think if you are
going to designate- and I don't want to get into this discussion because I
think it is something that is going to be matter of some discussion- I think
we have to be extremely careful about which parties inside a bar are
private parties and which ones aren't and we could spend 6 weeks talking
about how you define a private party in a bar.
Vanderhoef: Or we could just say no private parties in a bar as long as-
Lehman: That is what we have said fight here.
Vanderhoef: -as long as there are no other customers there.
Lehman: I just think that that is a discussion that may take some time. What is your
recommendation7 Or do you have one?
Dilkes: "Private catered events" is a broad term.
Lehman: Right.
Dilkes: And a lot of the private catered events that I think you are intending to
exempt are going to be at a licensed premises. You know, the licensed
premises that provides the wedding reception.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 24
Lehman: So you are saying that we have covered it anyway?
Dilkes: I think absent clarification that is going to be- should be construed by us
and should be construed by the court as broadly as possible. If it is
private, i.e. members of the public are not free to come and go, whether
that is in a portion of the bar or not. But I think we should be clear about
what- and I think it should be written clearly. I was not aware that there
are-
Wilbum: Some of the bars if they have multiple levels they only let you up if you,
as Dave was saying, if you have some type of identification or you have
paid some type of fee or the organization has paid something.
Dilkes: I think that is probably a private catered event.
Wilbum: Or they have just called and reserved. They physically- I have seen them
physically separate the population.
Dilkes: I think that probably is a private catered event.
Lehman: Which would be exempted under this ordinance anyway.
Wilburn: That is correct.
Dilkes: Yes.
Lehman: So what seems to be the problem?
Dilkes: Well, I don't know what you all want to do. What is- do you want to
allow that? Do you not want to allow that? What do you want to do?
Wilburn: In my opinion that provides some coverage.
Dilkes: That is okay with you?
Wilbum: That is okay. And in that case if there is people allowed into the private
party that- well let' s say someone is allowed into the private party and
they get- if they are underage and they are drinking or if they are of age
and drunk and are served alcohol what happens in those two cases?
Dilkes: Well this- then the serving to underage persons and the serving to
intoxicated persons law would still apply in both situations. The only
thing that wouldn't is the not allowing specials.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 25
Wilbum: That is my point. So, I mean, if that is what we are trying to do then I
don't see that this- I don't see that allowing that to happen in a bar, the
private event there, I don't see how this would change the intent.
Dilkes: Then if that is okay with you I think we can leave it the way it is.
Vanderhoef: Would it be helpful to have a clearer definition of the private catered event
meaning a space, is what I am thinking about, so that- I guess that is my
concern. That if there is a space that can be controlled that there will not
be intermingling of the public with the private space.
Lehman: The word private does that, doesn't it?
Vanderhoef: Well, I am clear about that.
Pfab: I think my mythical camel is now approaching the tent.
Lehman: We have got the camel back in the tent folks. Now, we have got to take
care of this puppy. Any further discussion on the motion to defer?
Champion: Well, if what Eleanor says is correct then maybe we are okay with the way
it is and that will have to be explained. One reason we have this interlude
between passing the ordinance and enforcing it is to educate license
holders on what the ordinance really means. So, I don't know, whatever
people want to do.
Wilburn: In the (can't hear) someone from- another license holder contacts the City
Clerk or the City Attomey's office and says, "does this cover private
parties in my establishment?"- if that is what Council agrees to that it
applies then the answer is yes and then they have been educated which is
part of the process that we are going to go through anyway.
Lehman: All those in favor of deferral say "aye". All opposed to deferral say "aye".
The motion is defeated 5-2, Champion and O'Donnell voting in the
affirmative. Discussion on the motion?
Dilkes: I do want to- Mr. Moore not only raised the issue about private catered
events but mentioned he had a hundred other questions or something to
that effect. Do you want me to sit down with him and go through his
questions and make sure that the ordinance- I mean, when we put these
things in written form months ago we didn't get a lot of comments on the
specials or the particulars of the specials. We got a lot of comments on
generally don't do this, do do this, that kind of thing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 26
Wilbum: In my opinion that is part of the public education process. City staff
sitting with- if someone has a question about a City ordinance or proposed
City ordinance or an existing City ordinance or a City rule they contact
City staff and say tell me what this means.
Dilkes: But the education- yes, and I can- you can give me a fact pattern and I can
say I think that applies or I think that doesn't apply. What I am concerned
about is I don't know the fact- I don't- there is some kind of, you know, a
drink that comes in a different form or that the private catering issue that
he identified. I don't know those particular fact situations that it sounds to
me like we would be posing. Because I don't know how-
Lehman: Wouldn't it be possible for you to visit with him and if you conclude
between now and the third reading that we have a problem you can come
back- and we have done this before- and say "folks we really need to redo
this one"? I think we need to show our intent, which is why I really feel
we really need to move forward with this. If you find problems that you
feel are not addressed in the ordinance and we need to address it to the
point that we have to have a first reading all over again I don't think that is
a problem.
Dilkes: Well, it is not effective until July 1 anyway so that is not going to be a
problem. So I would be happy to sit down with him and do that.
Vanderhoef: I will go along with moving forward tonight and then we will- we can
defer at a later date if we need to or we can bring it back.
Lehman: So you will Eleanor discuss this with Dave and if you have significant
problems with the way it is worded you will relate that to us and we (can't
hear)?
Dilkes: I will and I guess I would urge other bar owners who have similar types of
issues to bring those to my attention.
O'Donneli: That is exactly what it is going to bring up. You are going to discuss it
with Dave- you know, we may have a half a dozen or a dozen more people
that come back with just as valid questions.
Pfab: I believe at this time I would call the question.
Lehman: You really want to call the question before the Council discusses the
ordinance?
Pfab: Are we not finished yet?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 27
Lehman: I don't know that we have discussed the ordinance. We have discussed an
amendment and we have discussed a motion to defer. Is there a second to
calling the question? I suppose I should ask that. There is no second?
Discussion on the ordinance, to move along.
Wilburn: I think- go ahead.
Karmer: I will say one thing and then I have others (can't hear). I know that Dave
Moore is a good person. Where is Dave? He is a good person and I know
that you are not- when you have these private catered affairs I know that
you are going to make sure that people aren't getting drunk there and
people aren't underage and you are going to make sure it is a private
event. And I think that is the key thing, that it is a private event and that is
our definition that it is pretty well private. And that it is not just going to
be a loophole for people coming in and out of the bar. So I have faith that
you are going to do that and work with us on that issue. I have some other
things to say but I will hold off.
Champion: Go ahead.
Lehman: Go ahead.
Vanderhoef: This is it.
Kanner: No, but go ahead, I have got to collect my thoughts.
Wilburn: The only other thing I was going to add is that there is some comments
about concern about people going to other communities. You know, look
at the arrest records. Some of these are from out of town. They are
coming here because they know they can over consume. They know they
can get in and drink if they are underage. So, that is happening now
without this ordinance. People are on the road drinking and driving. The
other thing I would add is that, you know, this is something that we are
attempting- the University is starting to look into something. we are still
asking for individuals and groups to try and help us just tone down the
problems that have occurred with the drunkenness. And let's see what
happens. Let's try and move to- not try and stop people from partying or
having fun- but community members have communicated to me that we
don't want the fun had at our expense- the violence, the vandalism, those
other types of things. It is all yours.
Kanner: I am going to be voting for this ordinance. Matt, like you had mentioned,
I don't think this is the answer to everything. I think most of us agree to
that. I am going to keep working to find other ways to deal with the
negative effects of excessive drinking that we have in our society. It is a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 28
big problem and it is going to take big solutions that will be a part of here.
But I do think the positives in these proposals outweigh the negatives.
And I would like to ask people, going along with what Ross was saying, to
help us if people are concerned that it is going to move to house parties we
have to find ways not necessarily draconian police measures to deal with it
but other ways to deal with the problems of the house parties. I think it is
a problem now and I can't see it increasing exponentially. Perhaps it will
increase but we have to work and find ways to deal with that. The one
major problem that I have is the reliance on excessive undercover police
officers. I realize we do undercover police work now. And I hope that in
the future over the summer that we can talk about striking a balance of
other trained personnel to observe what is going on in case we want to
administer civil penalties along with saying that we have to have
undercover police there on a regular basis. I think there is another way-
Lehman: We are not really saying that are we?
Kanner: Well, not specifically in this ordinance and that is why I am supporting it.
But that is one of the measures- that is one of the administrative things that
we are talking about of how to enforce this is to put undemover police
officers on a regular basis-
Lehman: That doesn't change from what we do now.
Kanner: No, but I am saying this is- I would- I am not going to defeat it because of
this but this is a concem of mine that I am bringing up for the record that I
would like the Council to consider discussing at a future date. I think it is
an important thing because I don't think we do want to be known as a
town where there is a good chance there will be undercover agents in the
bars. I think it happens that we have undercover that work the bars at
different times on sporadic- they have leads. And police officers in
uniform go into the bars. And I am okay with that. It is the idea of on a
regular basis having undercover police officers enfoming this. And that is
something I think we have to work on.
Lehman: Okay, Dee?
Vanderhoef: This has been a real education number one. Number two I can remember
when I was a student. I can remember when my children were students.
And I think about personal responsibility. And we have an opportunity
here in our community to show how well we can be good citizens. I didn't
want to jump straight into a 21 law, although I had some Council
Members and the City Manager encouraging me to do that from another
University town in this state. I felt like this is an opportunity for young
folks to have a place to socialize, a place to dance- I think dancing is a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 29
wonderful activity. I love to dance personally. And I did all through
college and the bars were not 21 bars at that time although drinking age
was 21. It is one of those things that I don't care if they are in the bars as
long as you have behavior that is consistent to a good citizen. I don't care
if you walk home as long as you don't tear up the place on the way home.
I think this is also an opportunity for our bar owners, licensees, servers, to
say I can say no because this person is not old enough. We can give this a
try. And I am hoping that everyone will be responsible for themselves.
When you talk about parties out in the neighborhoods you still have to get
home safely whether you walk or where you are. The same thing is if you
happen to have a drink while you are downtown. You still have to get
home safely. And you have to take care of each other if that is part of
being a good citizen. I am going to support this measure. I will tweak it
as we need to tweak it and if we have severe problems with this I will take
a look at 21 again.
O'Donnell: I said early on I didn't think this would be effective unless it was area
wide. Coralville is not participating with this, North Liberty, Tiffin. I
think that is very important if you are going to do this. One of my reasons
for doing this is because I did not favor not allowing- Irvin to have a little
voice box.
Lehman: I will second that motion.
Kanner: That is camel talk in (can't hear).
O'Dounell: That is under the tent.
Lehman: The camel is under the tent.
O'Donnell: But I do think it is important for students and not every underage person
goes downtown and gets drunk or drinks for that matter. And not
everybody that is drinking and getting drank for that matter is under 21.
There are many over. It is clear we have to do something. We changed
this thing as late as last night. And I was still uncomfortable at the idea of
not having a husband being able to go get a drink for his wife. You know,
we did change that.
Champion: What if he has two wives?
O'Donnell: We will talk about that later.
Lehman: Then he has got bigger troubles than booze.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 30
O'Donnell: Then he has got more trouble than we think. But you know, it is an
ordinance that I believe is going to go through. I think there are many
things that have to be addressed and we are going to have to look at them
as we go on this (can't hear).
Lehman: Connie?
Champion: Well, I am going to support the ordinance. I don't- I personally don't
think it is going to be very effective but I am going to support it because I
feel like we need to do something. I hope that as a City Council we will
constantly look at this ordinance, look for changes that need to be made in
it or that can improve it. I am willing to look at all aspects. I think as one
thing that has been positive about this whole ordinance is it has made the
town and the University aware of the lack of non-alcoholic venues in this
community. And I am hoping that something will come of that. That we
will see some things downtown that are alcohol and smoke-free that can
keep the kids entertained. So I am going to support it. I don't know- if I
had my whole choice I don't know what else I would do but I am going to
try this and I am going to watch it closely and I am willing to listen to
changes that need to be made. I don't- I think it is important that students
understand that there is very little in this ordinance that already is not state
law. That we are not creating really a new thing here. We are looking at
enforcing the laws that are on the book and trying to make sure that you
grow up to be 30 and a little more conservative. And it is tough to be 30
but it is a lot harder to be 60 and trying to pass this ordinance. So I am
going to support it.
Lehman: Irvin?
Pfab: I believe that- I am going to support it and I will leave the preaching to
those at church.
O'Donnell: Amen.
Lehman: I am going to support the ordinance. I really feel badly that we have found
that it has come to the point that it is necessary to pass an ordinance like
this. This is something that has been talked about in this community
since- I have been on the Council, this is my 8th year- and certainly the last
two or three years there has been a lot of talk about some of the difficulties
associated with alcohol. And at any time during that period of time this
problem could have been addressed by those who are creating the problem
or those who are contributing to the problems. And those folks chose not
to address those problems. If there was as much interest in controlling the
problem as there has been in trying to prevent this ordinance we wouldn't
have the problem. I don't know this ordinance is going to solve the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 3 1
problem. I do believe that some of the behaviors that we have seen on the
part of all you can drink specials or whatever am irresponsible. They are
the sort of thing that this community should not tolerate nor should they
have to. Nor should the vast majority of the folks in this community,
including the students who are very fine citizens- these aren't the folks
who are downtown becoming intoxicated and getting arrested. We have
got a wonderful group of folks in this community and we are very, very
proud of them and if we weren't proud of them and weren't proud of the
community I don't think we need to be looking at this ordinance. So, I am
going to support it as well.
Dilkes: I have one question before you vote. Marian and I have kind of been
chatting here about this talking to Dave Moore or talking to other bar
owners who have additional comments. As you recall at the beginning of
this process we did a mass mailing of the proposed ordinance, which
included the specials legislation, to licensees. What we might want to do
is go ahead and send it- we've got that whole database ready to go- is send
this whole thing again and say contact us by a certain date if you have-
and what I am mostly- for instance, there is apparently a drink called a Dr.
Pepper or something, I don't know what that is-
Lehman: A soda.
Wilburn: (Can't hear).
Dilkes: And then having them respond by a certain date and so that you are able to
say that when you get ready to do this the next time- and this may take
more time then two weeks but when you get ready to do it the next time
you will be able to say we sent this again, blah, blah, blah.
Lehman: Fair enough.
Dilkes: I am a little reluctant to rely just on the input of one bar owner.
Lehman: Good.
Pfab: I really question whether that is necessary. They know where you are. I
think now the reality that this may pass is coming- bubbling to the top.
And I think if they have something they can come forward. We are not
going to go out chasing and we shouldn't. They are adults.
Lehman: Send it out.
O'Donnell: I think it is a very good idea.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#8 Page 32
Champion: So do I.
Wilburn: The fact that people even tonight thought that 21 was in the ordinance
(can't hear) to remind you.
Kanner: I would say then expand who we are sending it to to the people who have
spoken before us. I think if you are going to single out the bar owners or
the licensees I think we ought to include others so we have this dialog with
them also.
Wilburn: People who have spoken at the public hearing?
Dilkes: I think the input that we are getting fight now is from bar owners who are
concerned about- specifically concerned about the specials legislation and
how it might apply to a particular drink or a particular this or a particular
that. And I want to make sure the ordinance is as clear as it can be in that
respect.
Wilburn: The logistics and how they can comply with the law.
Lehman: And those are the ones that are regulated.
Dilkes: And they are the ones that are regulated.
Lehman: Right, so you will send that out?
Dilkes: That is right.
Lehman: Okay guys, let's do a roll call. Motion passes 7-0. We are going to take a
break until about 25 till 9:00.
(Break)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#10 Page 33
ITEM NO. 10. 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. (PASS AND ADOPT).
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
O'Dormell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: We had a note in our packets saying that there are 80+ complaints per year
with the general issue of too many cars. But I would still say that I am in
favor of regulating unlicensed or inoperable cars and I think this is a
different situation. I still haven't heard more than one case where there
are licensed and operable cars beyond the one house on First Avenue that
this is a problem.
Lehman: Steven, what difference does it make if they are licensed and operable or if
they aren't and if they are just parked and stored in the yard?
Kanner: Because I think there tends to be health nuisances. I think it is a true
nuisance. When one is operable and licensable that means it is more likely
that it is not leaking oil, more likely that it is not going to be rusting out. It
means that it can move most likely.
Lehman: But if it is stored it isn't being moved, or they wouldn't complain about it.
Kanner: What is that?
Lehman: If it is being stored in a front yard, which is what I think it says, "stored,
placed or kept," I don't know that it makes any difference as far as the
neighbors are concerned whether it is licensed or not.
Kanner: Well actually with this particular case there is movement of cars and one
could assume that if it is licensed and that it is operable that there can be
and might be some movement of the car. My main concern in looking at
nuisances is the environmental effect and the health effect. And I think
when you have inoperable cars and non-licensed cars there is a greater
chance of a health and safety effect.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#10 Page 34
Wilburn: I would also add that if I am not mistaken, the concerns that you are
talking about like the junk vehicles type thing, that if I am not mistaken,
that can be enforced or covered by an existing ordinance.
Lehman: I think that is true.
Vanderhoef: The inoperables, yes.
Kanner: That is my point.
Wilburn: So I would just add again, to my knowledge, this is crafted around one
episode, one experience. So just again, I will not be supporting it.
Lehman: Other discussion?
O'Donnell: I am going to support it. Maybe we are wrong with the 22 cars but there
was certainly 15, 16, 17. I think it does effect your neighbor's property
values. There is certain zoning that allows for that nmmber of cars to be
there and it is commercial. And I will support this.
Lehman: I don't like this sort of an ordinance but I will say that after last meeting
where the owner of the property that we are discussing stated before the
Council that the number of cars in his property would be reduced before
this ordinance would have come to affect him certainly makes it easier for
me to support it. Roll call. Motion carries 4-3, Wilbum, Kanner and Pfab
voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#11 Page 35
ITEM NO. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DEER TASK
FORCE.
Lehman: As I think we are all aware we have had a Deer Committee for the last
three years and they have worked very, very hard and now we are being
asked to establish that as a task force and probably continue their efforts as
they have the last two or three years.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: I have some concems with the way the ordinance is crafted. I think that
not having a limit on the terms and letting the current members serve for
the full three years before the sunset clause kicks in I don't think is in the
best interest of deer management. I think it would be better to have some
of them at least have limits of one or two years so that we could circulate
new people and get different perspectives in there. And I also think that
when it talks about the Deer Task Force recommending new people for
any open seats that might come up because of resignation I think that gets
too inbred also perhaps. I think it is not the best way to do it. I think we
should have it like we have other appointments where the community is
made known and they could apply. And I think we get a broad range of
people that apply for these positions and I think that is a healthier way to
do that. And I also think that in some way we need to tie the Task Force
into Planning and Zoning Committee in the same way that we tied some
parts of Historical mission into Planning and Zoning. I think there is a
connection between the deer and how development happens to a certain
extent. And I think it is worth making that connection in a more formal
way between Planning and Zoning and the Deer Task Force and/or
Committee.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Vanderhoef: I will say that I think this Council has gone forward and looked very
carefully to be sure that we had a broad representation on the Deer
Committee and it will go forward in this Task Force that there will be two
animal welfare advocates, one gardener, one hunter, one
biologist/scientist, one non-governmental conservationist, and three
members at large. So that gives us a pretty broad range. We have had
some resignations. We have had some turnover on this committee and
likewise will continue to have. In fact, we have been notified that there
are two spots that will be open right away so here again we will be getting
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#11 Page 36
two new members and there will be seven continuing on to continue the
work and revise and review the plan and make recommendations to the
Council. On terms of the Planning and Zoning Committee I asked last
night, I didn't actually get an answer from you, but I am asking you if you
think we can create ordinances that will limit the density of our
community and changing the density just so that we can accommodate
deer or whether you are saying you are going to leave habitat around the
city for deer? I don't understand why you want to put this into P&Z. It
just doesn't make sense to me. So I won't support that kind of activity.
Kanner: Dee I think that, to answer your question, not to put it in P&Z but to have
some sort of relationship. And I think yes we can start to get suggestions
from P&Z of ways that development might affect deer habitat and maybe
that if we are talking about taking away more habitat or making something
that a suburban lawn more attractive, that we might need to look at certain
regulations in our zoning. So I would like to hear those kinds of things
and I would like to have that conversation happen between P&Z and the
Deer Committee on some level. I am not saying I know exactly how it is
going to be but I think there should be some because in my mind there is a
connection. There is a lot of things that drive the population of the deer
and I would venture to say that a significant portion of that is how
development is happening. Old development and new development- and
so in my mind I see a connection and I would like to see a
recommendation. I would like to see the Deer Committee that exists now
explore that for a little bit and come back to us with a recommendation
and see if there is some way they can make a connection formally between
the P&Z and the Deer Task Force that does work.
Pfab: I believe slightly in a different approach than what Steven has. I believe
that the Deer Committee should have some input and at least look over
developments and say well hey have you thought about this or what about
that or would this make it any better? I don't think they have a veto power
or anything like that but as an advisory I think they would be great. I have
one other question, how are these vacancies going to be filled?
Lehman: Council appoints them.
Karr: No, they are not.
Lehman: We don't?
Karr: No, they are not going to be Council appointed. The proposal is that it
would be a Task Force where the current members continue on and that
any vacancies that would occur would be recommendations from the
Committee similar to what you get fight now when the Animal Control
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#11 Page 37
Advisory Board has a vacancy from one of their members. You have
certain appointments from Council and then the members decide what
their weakness, what their concern may be, or some emphasis that they
would like to be investigating and that they would solicit then.
Pfab: I would like to see the- a more open way of replacing or filling those
vacancies. And because of that and a couple of other things I would make
a motion that we defer this until at the next meeting and see if we can
work out some of those things with the people in the Deer Committee I
guess it is.
Lehman: We have a motion to defer, is there a second?
Kanner: I will second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to defer. All in favor say "aye". Opposed
say "aye". The motion is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the
negative. Other discussion?
Champion: They voted in the positive.
Lehman: I am son-y, the other way around. They voted-
Pfab: We didn't have any discussion either though.
Lehman: Pardon?
Pfab: And we didn't have any discussion after the motion before we voted.
Lehman: Well we have discussion now. Do you want any more discussion before
we vote?
O'Donnell: Let's vote on this.
Lehman: Is this a roll call? Roll call.
Karr: It is a resolution.
Lehman: Motion carries, 5-2, Karmer and Pfab (changed tapes)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#13 Page 38
ITEM NO. 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2001
ASPHALT RESURFACING PROJECT.
Lehman: We had two bids. The engineer's estimate was $931,610.00. The low bid
from L.L. Pelling Company for $832,763.33. Public Works and
Engineering is recommending the award to L.L. Pelling Company.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Pfab. Discussion?
Kanner: I had a question for Rick as long as you are here. We have seen our next
resolution that we are be voting on is about innovative bridge replacement.
We are going to get some grant money for that. It talks about possible use
of carbon or glass fibers. What is new with asphalt? I hear there is also
talk about fusing glass and asphalt. There is a way to reuse that. So I
assume there is other things. And is there grant money out there for
innovative asphalt use?
Fosse: Not that we found available. In the early '90's glass was looked into in
quite a bit of depth and what resulted was concern about the workers who
were working with the asphalt and the ground glass and then the
subsequent release of it as the pavement wears. One of the technologies
that they are looking at more carefully now is incorporating used tires into
the asphalt. And that is not to a point yet where it is economical for us to
do it locally here. But our concrete mixes for instance incorporate fly ash,
which is a waste byproduct of coal combustion.
Champion: The only question I have, and I am certainly going to support this, is the
winter has been really hard on a lot of roads in Iowa City. I mean, we
have lots of problems. How much is this going to cover those problems?
Fosse: We have got 13 streets included for asphalt here and about 10 more for
chip seal. And that will leave a lot of problems still existing out there.
The streets crew is going to be very busy doing some pot repairs.
Lehman: You are doing a good job now though. I see those guys have been out and
patched a lot ofpotholes in the last few weeks.
Fosse: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#13 Page 39
Champion: Have we allocated enough money to cover all of those potholes we got
this year?
Atkins: What we do is that we generally budget on a normal year a lump sum of
money. And what I suspect will happen- and most of the work I think you
are suggesting Connie is not so much what Rick is suggesting. These are
overlays. That work will be undertaken by our own crews. And right
now, and Rick can help me on the technology, but the bottom line is
you've got to be a little patient yet. They need to get all of the frost out of
the ground. They will go back and take many of those potholes and cut
them out and put a hot mix patch down which will have a lot more
wearing capacity than the simple cold patch that you see them doing
around town now. This bid buys us a lot of room for some additional
work.
Champion: Are we going to be in trouble with all of these roads that have big holes
and stuff in them?
Arkins: No.
Champion: No? Okay.
Atkins: One of the things that- to Rick's credit he is very good about keeping these
projects on cycle- you have to have a little historical perspective.
Remember on June 29, 1998 the wind storm?
Champion: Do I ever.
Arkins: Right7 Well, we lost a whole construction season of maintenance
projects. And so it takes a couple of years to continue this process. So if
you pray for good weather we should be in very good shape by the end of
this construction season.
Champion: I didn't mean that as a negative thing, I just was wondering if we were
going to be able to cover it up.
Arkins: Well we do get, when are you going to fix this, when are going to fix this.
And again, the first thing you have to have is it has got to warm up a little
bit more before we can put a permanent patch down.
Fosse: This is the first time in 17 years that we have gotten more than one bid on
this project.
Lehman: Good job!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#13 Page 40
Fosse: That is good news there.
Vanderhoef: That is good news and it is a good bid. $100,000-
Fosse: It is probably longer than that. I have only been here for 17 years so this is
the first time I have seen two bids on that.
Atkins: Rick came here right out of the 6th grade.
Lehman: You came when you were three?
Kanner: Rick, don't sit down just yet. But just to comment also, I had someone
complain to me about a pothole and I found out that this was on State
Route 1, which is not our jurisdiction, so people should be aware that the
state highways are not our jurisdiction for fixing. We can get on their case
but it is up to the state to fix those. Is that correct?
Atkins: Yes, we found- folks, if you get a complaint give it to us and if it is not
ours we will get it to the state. I mean, so the folks don't have to scurry
around. But that is correct.
Fosse: There are some parts of Highway 1, Governor Street for instance, that we
do maintain. So, as Steve said, get it to us and we will sort it out and get it
to the right people.
Kanner: I had another question. It technically has to do with the next ordinance but
while you are here can you tell us about carbon or glass fibers? I am a
little bit interested in what that is.
Fosse: We became interested in it for this project specifically because this
currently is only a 16-foot structure. So it is not eligible for the usual
funds that we apply for to replace a bridge. It has to be at least 20 feet
wide. So this is an opportunity to get some money to pay for something.
This bridge would be made out of a fiber reinforced polymer that
hopefully is going to have a good fatigue life and also be resistant to
corrosion from road salts and that sort of thing. So there is a lot of interest
in this nationally and we will see what we can develop locally to fit into
that.
Pfab: How is that thing going to wear? What about maintenance equipment
being hard on that?
Fosse: Part of the grant is monitoring this bridge after it has been constructed to
identify some of those issues and deal with them as they come up because
as with any new technology we don't have all the answers to start with.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#13 Page 41
Pfab: So it apparently is expected to have a reasonably long life in spite of the
equipment and what not?
Fosse: Yes.
Lehman: Rick, let me just interrupt you for a second. I would like to do a roll call
on this so the public at least will know what we are talking about. And
then we can go back to the bridge. So, roll call on the asphalt resurfacing.
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#14 Page 42
ITEM NO. 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK ATTEST AN IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
AGREEMENT FOR THE FOURTH AVENUE BRIDGE
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IBRC-3715-619)- - 8E-52.
Lehman: Which is the one we have been talking about. Is there a motion?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Go ahead.
O~Donnell: I think we are finished.
Champion: We have already had the discussion.
Lehman: I mean, has everybody asked Rick everything they wanted to know?
Kanner: Not everything.
Champion: Enough.
Vanderhoef: Just- do we bid this project or does the state?
Fosse: This one will be bid through the state.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Lehman: Okay, roll call. Thanks Rick. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#16 Page 43
ITEM NO. 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOT 2, SADDLEBROOK
ADDITION, PART 1, IOWA CITY, IOWA.
Pfab: Move the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Kanner: Eleanor, can you explain what is meant by this easement? I didn't quite
understand all of that.
Dilkes: It is an easement that we would typically get as part of the legal papers in
a subdivision. But during the installation of the infrastructure we
determined that we need an additional sanitary sewer easement and so this
takes care of that.
Kanner: Why do we need an additional sanitary sewer easement agreement?
Dilkes: Probably because there is sanitary sewer in an area of the ground that we
didn't think there would be before.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#19 Page 44
ITEM NO. 19. CITY COUNCIL INFORNIATION
Kanner: I have just two things. One, now we can start talking about regulating
cigarette smoking and I was wondering if we had any ideas on when that
might start- when that process might start?
Dilkes: I anticipate having a memo to you for the next Council meeting. What I
intend to do is in a memo outline some of the various ways that have been
dealt with it so that I get direction from you as to how you want to proceed
and then I will draft the ordinance.
Lehman: So basically in two weeks we will get a memo?
Kanner: Will this be in our work session is it anticipated?
Dilkes: Yeah, I think we anticipated putting it on a work session.
Atkins: It is pretty well planned that we were going to cover that at the meeting of
the 16th. That will be on your agenda for a work session discussion. A
memo in your packet the week before.
Dilkes: Yeah, it will be in your packet for that Thursday. Not this week but next
week.
Kanner: And I just want to let people know that my favorite holiday is coming up,
Passover, which people (can't hear) a good Passover. And also a Happy
Easter.
Champion: Good.
Wilbum: I just want to- excuse me- I just want to acknowledge a guest, a friend,
from Germany observing us in action tonight.
Lehman: Welcome.
Champion: Welcome.
Lehman: Dee?
Vanderhoef: There was something in the packet that brought a question to my mind and
this is probably for Eleanor and Steve, but evidently the federal courts
brought down a ruling on the sighting of cellular towers and I wondered if
there was anything that our ordinance presently doesn't address.
Dilkes: That was in the packet?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#19 Page 45
Vanderhoef: Yeah, I think it was probably-
Dilkes: That was addressed by the consultant.
Vanderhoef: Well, I think probably it was in the minutes of the broadband.
Dilkes: Oh, there have been- I think basically our ordinances are up to snuff. We
did that a couple years ago and took a look at that. There have been some
subsequent federal court decisions that may affect that a little bit but there
has been nothing monumental.
Vanderhoef: That needs to have our attention to review our present ordinance?
Dilkes: Yeah, I don't think it is required.
Vanderhoef: Okay, well I just wanted to be sure that we weren't missing something.
Dilkes: I will take a look at it again.
Vanderhoef: And if so maybe just a memo to tell us what we can and can't do. Thank
you.
O'Donnell: I just had a couple of quick things. Steve, I had a call on the sand that we
are putting on the roads and the possible recycling. We touched on that
briefly and do I understand that because it is- sand is polluted it has got
like gasoline and trash and so forth that it is more expensive to try and
recapture than to buy new?
Arkins: I understand that it has been explored the possibility of basically trying to
sift it but it is so expensive. To my knowledge Mike we have DNR
regulations that require us to clean it and in fact the new stormwater
regulation will reinforce that. And then it is disposed of in the landfill.
O'Donnell: The second thing is I attended a St. Bridget's Spring Concert and we had
the Newman singers out there and if you haven't heard the Newman
singers you should hear them because they are tremendous.
Wilbum: They have a Spring Concert coming up and I will playing with the
orchestra.
Champion: Will you?
O'Donnell: They are absolutely tremendous.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#19 Page 46
Pfab: Do we get passes?
Wilburn: Hey, I have to pay for my kids to come.
Lehman: So we don't get any.
O'Donnell: And finally I hope everybody watching understands how much time and
effort is put into each decision that the Council has to make. You have to
weigh everybody's concems but ultimately you have to make a vote and
you just go with your best feeling on how the majority of Iowa City feels.
But it is a very difficult decision and I hope people saw that tonight and
understand it. That is all I have.
Champion: That was a really good comment because being a Council Member is not
being a special interest group. You have to look at the whole community.
I don't really have anything except I did tell one of our constituents that I
would bring a letter and I forgot to bring it so I will just put it in your next
information packet.
Lehman: Okay.
Pfab: I have a couple of things I would like to ask Steve if he can give me the
latest update. What is the latest update on the school crossing at Weeber
School?
Atkins: I haven't heard from the schools yet.
Pfab: You wrote a letter to-
Atkins: I wrote a detailed letter making a proposal and they have not responded.
Pfab: And who did you address the letter to?
Atkins: The principal of the school.
Pfab: The principal of the school, okay. All right, so that is waiting. Has there
been any new information on intemet bidding on municipal revenue
bonds?
Atkins: Nothing other than what I have given you.
Pfab: Pardon?
Atkins: Nothing other than what I have given you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#19 Page 47
Pfab: So there is nothing moving on that.
Atkins: Nothing new.
Pfab: What about putting out bids for purchase and sale of city products either
on the web page or-
Atkins: City products? Help me on that.
Pfab: Used vehicles-
Atkins: I do know we do some of that. I couldn't give you specifics on it but I
could certainly find out for you.
Pfab: Would you find out? I think that is something that I have talked to other
people and there seems to be some difficulties of getting this to happen.
And so I just thought-
Atkins: I can find out for you.
Pfab: I appreciate that. That is all I have.
Lehman: Our next meeting, work session, is that a pretty full schedule?
Atkins: Well, you are going to start the tobacco discussion.
Lehman: The conference board is also at 6:30.
Atkins: I will know more tomorrow Ernie when I run- I can run the agenda by
you.
Lehman: Would you like to put somewhere on the pending list the discussion that
we started last night regarding Council folks when we attend meetings as
official Council representatives? I think we need to have that discussion.
Steven mentioned that- sometime when we can work it in. The other thing
is we did talk last night about there are a lot of questions about the recent
assessment mailings from the Assessor's office, which by the way is a
effort of the part of- that is done by state law and the city really doesn't
have anything to do with how those assessments come out. But because
there are so many questions I talked to Dan Hudson the assessor today and
there is tentatively a meeting scheduled for April 18 with Mr. Hudson and
someone from Vanguard. It will be at the Johnson County Administration
Building in the boardroom. We are going to try to have that videotaped so
that it can be shown on the Government Channel. The details are not
worked out yet but that is going to be an opportunity for some information
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.
#19 Page 48
for the public particularly those folks who have some serious questions
about how those assessments came out. So that meeting is scheduled.
Vanderhoef: And that is not a place for people to bring their complaints. It is more
information.
Lehman: I don't think the format has been done yet. My guess is that it will be an
explanation of what is going on and then perhaps, and I would certainly
encourage them to do this, if people have questions those questions could
be written questions received by those folks and they could address those
questions.
Atkins: Normally Dan would prepare the agenda for you on the 16th. Marjan and I
spoke today and we asked Dan to put that item on so you would have a
chance as a conference board with schools and county to talk about it.
Then you can kind of decide where you want to go from there. That will
be on the-
Champion: That is a good idea.
Lehman: Okay that is all I have.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of April 3, 2001.