HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-11 Transcription June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page I
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session 6:15 PM
Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Pfab, Kanner
Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Fowler, O'Malley, Winkelhake, Davidson,
Trueblood
TAPES: 01-56 BOTH SIDES; 01-58 BOTH SIDES; 01-59 BOTH SIDES
Planning, & Zonin~
A. AN ORDiNANCE CHANGiNG THE ZONiNG DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL
iNDUSTRIAL (I-1 ) TO iNTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1 ) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 12.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 1. (REZ01-00002).
Franklin/To the potential purchaser of this property came to the CotmciI and requested
that there be some changes to the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Those changes
were taken through the Commission and they were approved by the Commission,
you have a copy of the new Conditional Zoning Agreement that was handed out to
you tonight. And basically what that does is it changes the access road, well
any~vay, it changes the access road in the project or allows the for change of the
access road in the project, this is the one that is between Menard's and Wal-Mart.
Lehman/Right.
Champion/Right.
Franklin/And allows them to push it north and west, I'm having a little trouble here with
my technology.
Vanderhoef/North and West, I have trouble with that, trying to figure out where this is.
Franklin/Okay.
Pfab/It's the north area of town.
Franklin/It's north and west because the road is north west, that.
Lehman/Right, moving it closer to Highway 1.
Franklin/Moving it closer to Highway 1.
Lehman/Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 2
Franklin/We still would have to maintain a 30 foot landscaping buffer along Highway 1
and the easement would be 30 feet, there is a provision in this agreement that no
vehicles will be stored or displayed along the access easement or in the landscape
buft~r. There's also a provision that allows for architectural metals to be used on
the building and allows two freestanding signs as opposed to the one freestanding
sign that we had originally had.
Lehman/Now and I read the staff report rather carefully twice.
Franklin/The memorandum or the staff report or both.
Lehman/The staff report basically talking about the two signs and.
Franklin/Okay.
Lehman/And staff is comfortable with allowing.
Franklin/Yes, yes we are.
Lehman/Because I know signage has really been an issue in that area.
Franklin/Yea, that's right.
Vanderhoef/Can you tell me why you think two is appropriate on this?
Franklin/Well we looked, we looked at what had been allowed at the Wal-Mart site
which is two and the Menard's site and I think there was another one along this
corridor and we vary between one and two signs being permitted depending upon
the frontage and basically it came down to distinguish this one from the Wal-Mart
site was not that great a change in terms of the number of lineal feet of Highway 1
and so there still won't be sign clutter which was the issue.
Lehman/Okay.
Pfab/It looks to me like your looking at half the (can't hear) on Wal-Mart which is (can't
hear) and the other one C-1, whatever CI-1, whatever the one that.
Franklin/Well this is t~vo different, this is one zone but there's a lot line in here which is
very faint.
Pfab/Okay so your saying the fact that that unit in the air looks a lot bigger for two signs
as the item in question it really isn't that technicality?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 3
Franklin/Right because there's another lot in here in this one.
Lehman/Okay.
Kanner/I'm not too crazy about going with two signs but it's not that bad a deal I think
all in all it looks pretty good. Two questions, one with the new zoning that we're
looking at in the next year and a half, are we trying to eliminate that provision will
be suggested possibly so the provision does allow more than one sign for the
zoning, is that something we're going to look at to say maybe we only want one
sign? That's something we'll look at.
Franklin/Yes. I think what we'll do is reevaluate the number of signs per lineal feet, I
mean that' s generally the way we approached the number of signs.
Kanner/That's good, and the other thing is because of the airport' s restrictions will this
total height allowed be under our maximum allowed?
Franklin/It has to be, oh you mean in the zone.
Kanner/Yea, what would be shorter anyhow, I would see that as a good thing, it's going
to be restrained by the airport, or does it is my question. Is it restrained?
Franklin/Yes it is.
Kanner/Greater than our zoning would allow.
Franklin/I don't know that it's greater Steven, if you stay up toward this part of the
development, and the use that is being contemplated here, the buyer is a car
dealer, so it's likely it will be a one story structure probably 15 to 20 feet high and
that would be it, the rest of it would be cars.
Vanderhoef/How about the height of the sign?
Franklin/The height of the sign would be, let's see I think it's 25 feet for freestanding
signs and you did something special, it was 26 or 28 feet for those.
Lehman/16 feet, we had a.
Franklin/A wide.
Lehman/A (can't hear) sign.
Franklin/Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 4
Lehman/That was the restriction was 15 and we went to 16, we allowed a 16 foot sign.
O'Donnell/Where was that Ernie?
Vanderhoef/Across the street basically.
Lehman/At Chezik-Sayers.
Franklin/No it's 25 to 26 or 27, yea.
Lehman/The sign they wanted to put up was 16 instead of 15.
Franklin/No, no, but that doesn't matter.
Pfab/It appears you got the first number wrong.
Franklin/The relative but, okay.
Lehman/Okay.
Pfab/Are we finished with the sign? There's a question, I don't understand the idea of
narrowing, we're allowing a narrower space for what, we're facing the highway,
we're inter accessing the highway, is there a frontage road in there?
Franklin/Okay the frontage road previously was say about this location.
Pfab/Is there a reason why it's there to begin with?
Franklin/Yes, it was to connect the frontage road at Westport Plaza where Wal-Mart is
with a frontage road that we had coming out of Menard's and it would have
allowed development along the highway of buildings that would then use that
road, it basically becomes what's called a backage road.
Pfab/Okay, all right so.
Franklin/And it's far enough away from the highway so that when there is an intersection
such as there is at Westport Plaza there' s enough room between that intersection
and that backage road that you can have some traffic cued up without it affecting
the highway and so ~vhat we've said here is that with this development they may
move the road forward here, it will not have an intersection with the Highway,
there's no access to High~vay 1 from this lot. So basically it will come across and
back of Red Lobster and then move up toward Highway 1 and then come back
toward the alignment on the Menard's lot. If this is ever redevelopment such that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11,2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 5
it is a use other than a car lot and there' s an opportunity for development along the
highway that easement needs to be moved back by the current owners.
Pfab/Okay the one thing that I question on it, will it become a parking lot? It says not for
display or for cars not for sale.
Franklin/The access easement, no, it will not.
Pfab/Okay so in other words that was what would concern me, you've already addressed
the fact that it will not be a place to display cars and there was one other item that
you mentioned there it will not display and there was one other statement which I
was thinking.
Franklin/Not for the use of storage or display of vehicles.
Pfab/Well what about just parking.
Lehman/That would be storage or display.
Pfab/Well, no, I'm just (can't hear).
Franklin/The access ease.
Pfab/It's not storage, it's not display.
Franklin/The access easement must remain open to allow traffic to circulate through the
property and may not be used for storage or display of vehicles.
Pfab/Well what about the parking, what about if they park on both sides?
Franklin/You probably could park along both sides, I don't know that that's an issue
except that this is a 30 foot easement, there' s probably going to be about 25 feet of
paving.
Pfab/Well why don't we just let them display on it?
Franklin/Because I don't think it's appropriate that you display on the access easement,
it'sjust.
Pfab/Well is it?
Franklin/It's like, you 'know Carousel Motors right now, too, that is over here, that is a
public right of way on which their cars are routinely parked, the display cars as
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 6
well as in the Highway 1 right of way and I want to just make it clear since it's the
same owner here that this is not to occur on this piece of property, and he signs it.
Pfab/Well, so my point would be, what difference is the difl~rence in park, let's suppose
I'm driving demonstrator cars so I just happen to park out there, it's not display,
I'm just parking it, I mean I think if your going to keep cars off I think you have
to keep them all off. I would say fine if you want to display them I have no
objection but if we're amended if there's a majority who wishes to amend it to
also indicate not going to make that distinction I think we're inviting trouble.
Franklin/Well the CZA could be parking on the access easement.
Pfab/Because you know everybody, every employee can drive a demonstrator car and
you can line them up just like that, they just happen to park them there.
Champion/Oh they won't be doing that.
Kanner/Well then we might as well put it in there, it's a simple thing.
Franklin/We will need to amend the CZA, the signed one that we have, we will need to
go back to the various property owners, this is with the Rupperts, so there are at
least two signatories that are required.
Lehman/Karin let me ask you, that is a public street.
Franklin/It is an access easement.
Lehman/It is an easement. Could the city at any given time if parking becomes a
problem could prohibit parking on that street could they not?
Franklin/It could if it were impeding the flow of traffic.
Pfab/Should we put up parking meters?
Franklin/It's not a public street.
O'Donnell/See if there's four that want to move with that Ernie.
Franklin/I mean if we amend the CZA.
Lehman/All right is there interest in amending the CZA to prohibit parking on that access
road?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 7
Pfab/I think this is one of the very things about the camel' s nose under the tent, stop it
before it gets started, I'm.
Franklin/It may require deferral of this for two weeks, I mean that' s just so you know
that, just so we can get signatures because you've got a public hearing, you've got
the public hearing continued next week. We can't close the public hearing until
the CZA is signed but that, it's not an impediment to it, it just is, you need that
information.
Lehman/What' s your pleasure folks?
Pfab/I'm for whatever it takes to put no parking on it at all.
Kanner/i say it's worth two weeks to look into it, if it can't be done fairly easily in two
weeks then just vote on it next time, maybe it can even be done tomorrow.
Franklin/That's possible, yea, I don't know where the one signatory lives.
Lehman/Well we need some direction here as to whether or not we want that.
Champion/I do not want to change it.
Lehman/All right.
O'Donnell/I do not.
Lehman/All right as it is.
B. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDiNANCE CHANGiNG THE ZONiNG CODE BY
AMENDiNG THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY,
OPDH-8, PLAN FOR ARBOR HILL, AN 8.2 ACRE 17-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NORTH OF WASHINGTON STREET ON
ARBOR HILL CIRCLE. (REZ01-00006)
Franklin/Okay the next item is a public heating amending the PDH plan for Arbor Hill,
this is a development on the east side off of Washington Street, it was originally
proposed for 90 units, on this entire site the 90 unit project is all of what is shown
on this drawing including the single family lots and then you can't see it totally
but this is the existing development. Let me go back. It would include all what is
labeled PDH-8 plus over to Green Mountain Drive and down Washington Street
so that entire piece was originally planned for 90 units, 34 have been built in this
area, there are 5 single family lots along here that were subdivided a year or two
ago.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of Jtme 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 8
Lehman/Right.
Franklin/And what' s being proposed now in the hatched area is 17 new units, 16 of
which are in these duplexes and then one is added to an existing unit so it changes
from 90 units on the whole piece to 56 units total. The open space will be paid for
by fee in lieu of rather than any dedication because there really isn't any land
available. The issue with this project has been and continues to be because we
have 22 percent protest, the drainage along this boundary line, and this is an issue
that goes back to prior to this development and it has to do with the development
in the larger area. When these houses were originally constructed there was not a
storm water management ordinance, when this subdivision was done there was in
subsequent subdivisions here were subject to the storm water management
ordinance. But basically along this boundary right here on the back of these lots is
a natural drainage way. In this project what will occur is that the drainage that
basically, if I can kind of give you a sketch, just follow the arrow, what I'm going
to outline is the area that' s going to flow to the driveway now with this project.
And it goes to the middle of these units.
Lehman/The access offof Washington Street, that' s where it's going to flow down the
street.
Franklin/Yes, this is all going to flow to this development to this area into catch basins
and go down into the storm sewer system. Right now with this all being
undeveloped this flows right down this hill from this entire area flows down this
hill into this drainage area. So in fact with this development project because it is
required to have storm water management, because the drainage of at least half of
these roof tops is going into the storm water management the actual flow of water
to this drainage area will decrease. The people along Westminster continue to be
concerned about the drainage problem in the neighborhood and have protested this
rezoning such that there is a 22 percent protest and will require the extraordinary
majority vote of the City Council. Just to give you some numbers, the five year
storm changes from 2.8 CFS or cubic feet per second undeveloped to 2.6 for the
100 year storm I'm adding some figures in my head here so that' s why it's taking
me a second, it changes from 13.2 CFS to 8.8 CFS.
Pfab/What was the first number (can't hear)?
Franklin/13.2 CFS which is the flow in this area before development, with this
development it will be 8.8 CFS.
Lehman/So it's quite a bit less.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 9
Pfab/But there' s a couple problems here, those numbers are not truly very scientific, also
you accelerate the heck of that water because you have so much more surface that
the water.
Franklin/CFS is cubic feet per second, it is volume and velocity.
Pfab/I think, I said it on some of this and it appears that it's very difficult to prove the
accuracy of those numbers.
Franklin/They were calculated by engineers with MMS and confirmed by engineers on
our staff, I do not have the capacity to second guess those numbers.
Pfab/Okay so you, okay, all right, now what about the water on the street itself?. Is that,
is that going to?
Franklin/On here?
Pfab/Yes.
Franklin/There will be intakes and it will go into the storm sewer.
Pfab/So what your saying is, after you get pass the halfway roof line of those outlying
buildings, everything else will go out to the center, down a storm sewer.
Franklin/Right.
Pfab/Is there any way this other water can be put into a storm sewer? Is there any way
that they?
Franklin/This, back here.
Pfab/The water comes down there and because up above it there' s also a problem, a lot
of that ~vater is offof roofs and it's piped under ground and it's dumped on some
of this property.
Franklin/Irvin there may be some engineering solution, I don't know it, to the overall
problem here in terms of putting in a pipe and taking that water underground.
Pfab/Right.
Franklin/But that is an issue I would make the point that that is an issue that is
independent of this project.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 10
Pfab/Well but is it something that should be solved before the project goes on? I'm not
saying they're connected because there' s quite a bit of water still up above that
right, eventually?
Franklin/Up here.
Pfab/Yea, up there, and once you start accelerating the speed of that water by making the
surface water, rain falls, imperilous or.
Franklin/Pervious.
Pfab/Impervious, whatever what is, okay your creating a problem there.
Franklin/But that building has already occurred up there, it will not be increased by this
construction here.
Pfab/But above it isn't there open space above that (can't hear)? All the way up to
Rochester, to me.
Franklin/This is developed in here, there' s some that is not totally built out in this project
here but these are houses all along here.
Pfab/It appears the city should.
Franklin/There's some over here.
Pfab/It appears to me the city should step forward to do something about handling that
storm water that is eventually is going to be a real problem there.
Franklin/And that may be as a separate issue.
Pfab/But at that point wouldn't it be time to address that before you, or while this is
being developed?
Franklin/That will be something you all will have to judge, I mean whether you want to
do, whether you want to look at it as a separate project and then the timing.
Pfab/I'm not opposed to the development as such but these neighbors here have a right,
the people that are boarding that have a right not to be afraid to go to bed at night
that they might be swimming in the middle of the night.
Franklin/Well the question before you now is whether you will approve this particular
plan development as it is shown to you, and as it is shown to you and as the storm
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 1 I, 2001 Special Work Session Page 11
water has been calculated it decreases the amount of water that is going into this
drainage way.
Lehman/Right.
Champion/Right.
Wilburn/Can we have a (can't hear)?
Franklin/And I think that's the key.
Wilburn/Is there any questions that he may bring up tomorrow night?
Lehman/Will there be someone who can address the storm water thing tomorrow night?
Franklin/I think we could have Ron Knoche and Larry Schnittj er.
Pfab/I think a pro and a con on the engineering part I think that would be great.
Franklin/I don't know that we can have, that we have an engineer that' s a con on this
one, that's an engineer.
Kanner/What I would like to hear, I have some of the same concerns, essentially with the
five year range we're talking about the same flow so it won't really change things
but it does make sense that if now's the time, if their building now might be the
time to ask for some changes that make it even less than that and I'd like to know
what our options are for the city, how can we maybe finesse that a bit, do we have
any options besides voting it up and down because I do see it as a continuing
problem and why not deal with it now when the land is still open before it gets
developed and it'lI be more difficult.
Vanderhoef/Eleanor what would be the position of since the houses to the east were
developed before we had a storm water ordinance to do a special assessment for a
drainage storm water drainage along the back of those lots?
Pfab/I wouldn't be, I would be open to anything.
Vanderhoef/Just a minute, may I get my answer?
Pfab/I thought you were pointing to me.
Vanderhoef/No I asked Eleanor.
Pfab/Oh then I apologize.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of Jtme 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 12
Dilkes/I'd have to take a look at it Dee I don't know the answer to that right now.
Vanderhoef/Because yes I can see that construction wise it would be a whole lot easier to
go in there and do that but we have not planned that type of project and I'm sure
they're ready to move forward with their project right now. But if that is their
concern could we do something like that?
Champion/Karin the new construction that' s going on up there like on Green Mountain
Drive and Columbia and all those streets up there, they are under water
management right?
Franklin/Yes.
Champion/Any new houses.
Franklin/Yes.
Champion/So the problem is old construction like 25 years ago.
Lehman/Existing problems.
Franklin/Yea and I mean there have been different things that people have done in their
back yards along here, there are some flower.
Pfab/Beds.
Franklin/But they're built.
Pfab/Railroad ties built.
Franklin/Yes, thank you, and in the back yard, I don't know exactly what lots they are
Connie.
Champion/Okay but where's Ralston Creek there? Isn't that behind.
Franklin/As I understand it this is a tributary to Ralston Creek which we did some work.
Champion/Creek or something that.
Lehman/Oh yes.
Franklin/We did some work under grounding some of the creek and exactly where that
comes I can't tell you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 13
Champion/Isn't it right behind the houses on Westminster and then it winds up to.
Jerry Hanson/It goes straight down (can't hear).
Franklin/Right down here.
Hanson/Right through there.
Franklin/And then underground.
Hanson/It goes under Washington Street on the eastern edge of that, it's only a 24 inch
pipe (can't hear).
Franklin/Okay.
Lehman/Okay.
Pfab/Is that 24 inch pipe cause a problem at times.
Hanson/(can't hear).
Pfab/Pardon.
Hanson/(can't hear).
Pfab/So in other words it's, it might be a simple time to solve a fairly substantial
problem.
Vanderhoef/(can't hear) and not catching the boys I don't think.
Franklin/Okay.
Lehman/Well I think we can go from here we'll discuss this at the hearing tomorrow
night.
Franklin/Okay.
C. PUBLIC HEAR1NG ON AN ORDiNANCE CHANGiNG THE ZONiNG
DESIGNATION BY DESIGNATiNG THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 307
EAST COLLEGE STREET (OLD CARNEGIE PUBLIC LIBRARY) AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COLLEGE AND LINN STREETS AS AN IOWA
CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 14
Franklin/The next item, disregard that that' s up there now, is the public hearing on the
landmark designation on the Carnegie Library. Basically the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Planning & Zoning Commission have recommended this to you
to meet the moratorium that was set by you setting a public hearing requires that
the, well one option is that the public hearing be closed tomorrow and that you
have your first consideration at a special formal meeting on the 251h and then
collapse the readings on the 261h such that we can publish it in time to meet the 60
day moratorium. If for some reason you do not feel comfortable closing the
public hearing tomorrow night we can continue it to the 261h but will need then
some kind of a special meeting in that, it just kind of scrunches up the time period
because we have to have it done by July 7th, and that means published by July
7th.
Lehman/Okay.
Kanner/I have a couple questions for you on that. Could you sum up the couple points of
benefits and restrictions of a building having an Iowa City historic building
designation?
Franklin/With the Iowa City landmark designation it means that for anything for any
demolition to occur there it must go before the Historic Preservation Commission
for any remodeling of the exterior of the building, it goes before the Historic
Preservation Commission so that whatever adaptive or use words take place or
any changes that took place on the property, on the entire property would be
reviewed by the Commission.
Kanner/And benefits to the owner of the building.
Franklin/You get to go to heaven, I don't know.
Lehman/Everybody likes you.
Kanner/Cars and tax benefits.
Franklin/There are some tax benefits but you know there, those are tax benefits, they're
tax credits if you do certain levels of restoration, I'm not sure they're
overwhelming in terms of compelling one to conserve a building such as that and
that could be done with it designated on the national register it wouldn't need the
local landmark designation. So the local landmark designation does not, I don't
think it necessarily gives you those tax benefits that you have to be on the national
register also which I believe this building is.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 15
Karmer/And I've heard there have been substantial negotiations with the new owner and
the preservationist about being in agreement with some of these. Have you been
parties with these?
Franklin/Yes we've been working with the o~vner on how to preserve the original
building, not the 1962 edition, I think we all agree that that could probably go
away and nobody would be the worse for wear. But have been talking to him
about the restoration about the back curved part on the east side of the building,
how he would put another building in there to that would be a part from the
Carnegie Library but would still have some economic benefit to him, how he
would adaptively reuse the library and it's very likely that we will be bringing you
some legislation to allow us to have this flexibility to work through the project
with him.
Karmer/Will the owner or the owner' s representative be there tomorrow night?
Franklin/I'm not sure.
Kanner/Could you ask them if they would come for a.
Franklin/It would probably be Joe Holland I would think.
Kanner/Thanks.
Franklin/You bet. Okay anything else on that?
D. VACATING HEMINGWAY LANE WEST OF RUSSELL DRIVE.
Franklin/The next item is a public hearing and first consideration on the vacation of
Hemingway Lane west of Russell Drive. What this slide shows you is the original
plat for Southpointe which is where Hemingway Lane is, this is the new plat for
Southpointe which you have approved. We have to go back and vacate
Hemingway Lane because it was, it went through final plat and that's one reason
we're asking you for expedited consideration because this is kind of a
housekeeping, legal technicality thing we need to do and the developer of this area
is anxious to get started with this part of the project and we need to vacate
Hemingway Lane and convey it to him in order for this to happen.
Kanner/Was this something that was our mistake that' s slowing them down?
Franklin/No I don't think it was a mistake on anybody' s part, it was a reconsideration of
what was going to work best in this area. It has to do with, storm water
management is difficult in this area because it's so flat, and part of this goes to the
South Sycamore drainage basin but not all of it does and so this configuration
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 16
deals with the storm water management differently than did this one obviously
because that big, this is for storm water. So I think it's more the natural features
of the land are such that it required some reconsideration after it was originally
platted.
E. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 0.83 ACRES FROM PUBLIC (P) TO CENTRAL
BUSINESS (CB-10) LOCATED SOUTH OF IOWA AVENUE BETWEEN
L1NN STREET AND GiLBERT STREET. (REZ01-00005) (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Item E is first consideration on the rezoning for Tower Place.
F. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED
"ZONING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS
ZONES," TO ALLOW MUNICIPALLY OWNED, MIXED-USE PARKING
FACILITIES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE (CB-5) AND
THE CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONE (CB-10). (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Item F is the ordinance amendment for Tower Place and the near South Side
Transportation Center that basically allows private and public uses in the same
building.
G. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY
PLAN FOR WALNUT RIDGE PARTS 8, 9, AND 10, AN APPROXIMATE
35.15-ACRE RESDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON KENNEDY
PARKWAY. (REZ01-00003) (SECOND CONSDERATION)
Franklin/Item 9 is your second consideration on Walnut Ridge parts 8-10.
H. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE
PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD, A 12.09-ACRE, 47-LOT SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF FOSTER ROAD.
Franklin/And then Item H is the final plat of the Peninsula neighborhood. The dark
shaded area is that which will be final platted at this point, it's the first phase and
oh that's not much better up there than it is down here. Just to point out some of
the features, the single family housing on the entry as you come in, some live
work units in this area, additional single family detached here, row houses and
town houses in this area. This building is one that is being this lot and building
will be an apartment that is the Greater Iowa City Housing Authority project, this
is a green space that will be at the very beginning with some more live work units
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 17
along here. The town square would be in the next phase right down in here. And
that's ready to go. That's all I have.
AGENDA ITEMS
ITEM NO. 7. CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS PENiNSULA
NEIGHBORHOOD, FIRST ADDITION, iN IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO TERRY L.
STAMPER HOLDiNGS, L.L.C.
Franklin/Oh the next item on the agenda Item No. 7 which is conveyance to the property,
we're recommending that you close that public hearing and then defer the
consideration or the resolution indefinitely while we work through the actual
conveyance.
Vanderhoef/Will we have to have another public hearing then when this project comes
back to us for the sale?
Franklin/No you won't have to what this is about is conveying this phase to Stamper at
all and so basically the public hearing part of it is will be finished, it won't be
different.
Lehman/We will have (can't hear) yea.
Vanderhoef/Yea, and we haven't heard from anyone at this point anyway so.
Kanner/It says we're paying per unit.
Franklin/Yep.
Kanner/How many units are we expecting for this?
Franklin/Well it allows up to 410 for the entire project.
Kanner/No for this first one.
Franklin/Oh for this 93.
Kanner/So that would be 93 times the 3,000 plus.
Franklin/Yea, that's correct. Okay.
Lehman/Okay. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 18
Franklin/Your welcome.
Lehman/Okay review agenda items.
ITEM NO. 26. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THAT CITY COIfNCIL
APPOINTEES VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL POLICY AS
ESTABLISHED BY MOTION, RESOLUTION, OR ORDINANCE, AND
ESTABLISHING THAT FAiLURE TO DO SO SHALL BE JUST CAUSE FOR
REMOVAL.
Vanderhoef/I have just a quick question in the whereas and so forth of item number 26.
We're talking about the various Boards that are Council persons are appointed to
and I wondered if we needed to be talking about the chief elected officials and the
representative to the East Central Iowa Council of Government, those are both
appointments.
Champion/I'm fine, ~vhat was your question?
Vanderhoef/The resolution lists JCCOG and a couple of others, that' s on page 268 and I
just wondered if we needed to list the other two organizations the Chief elected
officials and the East Central Iowa Council of Governments.
Champion/Oh I see.
Vanderhoef/Just addition to that.
Jeff Davidson/Just in case it matters Eleanor before you answer the, I believe the way
it's set up is that the JCCOG board makes the appointments to ECCOG and the
one distinction that there might be that might make a difference is there is no Iowa
City person specifically stated in any bylaws as being appointed to ECCOG, we
could appoint four members, or three members of the Board of Supervisors for
example, one's a citizen representative and the other three are elected officials.
Now it's kind of defacto come to be that one person's from Iowa City, one
person' s from Coralville and one person' s from the Board of Supervisor's but I
don't think there's anything that states that those entities.
Vanderhoef/It was changed.
Davidson/Was it changed? Is there an Iowa City person specifically appointed now?
Vanderhoef/Yea.
Davidson/Okay well that hadn't been changed then.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 19
Vanderhoef/Bylaws, and that's true for the Chief Elected Officials I'm not positive that
it's true for ECICOG.
DavidsoW So are the three officials, one from Coralville, one from Iowa City and one
from the Board?
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Davidson/Okay all right well (can't hear).
Dilkes/As I understand it the Council doesn't make those appointments, your telling me
JCCOG does make those appointments.
Davidson/Right JCCOG does.
Vanderhoef/JCCOG doesn't do the Chief Elected Officials.
Davidson/Yea we make the appointment, now we would typically take a
recommendation from the, if you all have a representative we would take.
Vanderhoef/But we don't vote on Chief Elected Official.
Davidson/Yes we do yea.
Vanderhoef/We vote on ECICOG.
Davidson/Right the ECCOG members both citizens and the.
Vanderhoef/But there are two boards I'm talking about, I'm talking about the Chief
Elected Officials which used to be the East Central Iowa Employment and
Training Consortia.
Davidson/Oh okay no I'm talking about the ECCOG.
Vanderhoef/I know and there are two different boards and what used to be the East
Central Iowa Employment and Training Corsortia has been changed and it is now
known as Chief Elected Officials under the WIA.
Dilkes/Okay we're not finding a formal appointment by the Council to that body.
Vanderhoef/What happened traditionally was because these two Boards meet at the
same time, one following the other that historically from when Ernie was the
appointee you were appointed to both of those just because you were already there
for those two meetings and so that' s what I have been attending the last four years.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 20
Dilkes/I think it's important for purposes of the resolution to be clear about what we're
talking about and at least the way I drafted it now we're talking about Council
appointments and we're not finding, I mean you can start making that a formal
Council appointment if you want but that' s not what we're finding in the record.
Vanderhoef/Interesting.
Karr/And I think to go another step further each time we appoint formally we will want
to amend this resolution to include that but right now this is what we have on
record.
Dilkes/I've tried to make it clear and you certainly can change to make it clear what
we're talking about, formal council appointments, to what types of boards and
what types of actions by the Council your suppose to vote consistently with so that
we have, we're very clear on those things and that we're not and I think Marian's
right that if we add formal council appointments to these types of separate entities
and organizations that can take action and vote then we need to add them to this
resolution so everybody knows which specific boards and organizations or entities
we're talking about.
Vanderhoef/We may need to do a little reorganization here.
Kanner/So where does authority come for the Chief Elected Officials and also the other
board, there' s another (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/The work force development board that is a Governor' s appointment, that is
not an appointment from here.
Kanner/So where does the authority come from?
Dilkes/I'm not familiar with, I mean I don't, I don't know. Jeff has just told you that
JCCOG appoints the ECCOG.
Vanderhoef/With recommendation from Council.
Dilkes/With recommendation from the Council, in terms of the elected city official I
don't know how that comes to be.
Karr/Just to distinguish, it's possible what we're looking at is formal Council
appointments done at a formal meeting, it's possible that it was discussed at a
work session via a letter and it was a general consensus for each and that letter
communicated no formal action taken place, that' s a possibility.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 21
Dilkes/And that' s okay, but if you want, my recommendation is if you want a particular
board to fall within this resolution then it needs to be specified so we all know
what we're talking about.
Champion/But right now one' s that are specified are the ones that are formal CounciI
(can't hear).
Dilkes/That' s what we, Marian did a search and that' s what we came up with.
O'Donnell/And that's what we asked for.
Vanderhoef/That's fine.
Item 4g(15) (a) & (b). JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner.
a. Removal of a NO PARKING ANY TIME zone on the east side of Union Road
be~veen the driveway at 2008 Union Road and Arizona Avenue.
b. Removal of a NO P.&RK1NG ANY TIME zone on the east side of Willow
Street between Muscatine Avenue and Pinecrest Road.
Lehman/There is two items in the Consent Calendar that are back by request by some of
the Council people Items G 15 A and B which we have erected NO PARKING
signs on the east side of Union Road and also on Pinecrest Road and there was
Council folks, this was passed as part of a Consent Calendar.
Champion/It was (can't hear).
Lehman/And I'm not sure that we all knew ~vhen we voted for it that it was on it, are
there folks who would like to bring that back up for further discussion?
According to the Consent Calendar as it is now we can pass the Consent Calendar
the way it is those signs will be removed, is that correct?
Champion/Correct.
Lehman/Now the recommendation of the staff that those NO PARKING signs remain as
it was originally passed by the Council so if we wish to remove them we pass the
Consent Calendar as it appears, if not then we wish to reaffirm what we did earlier
we'll have to change the Consent Calendar and eliminate those two.
Vanderhoef/Or amend it.
Davidson/Yea I don't think you have to reaffirm what you did earlier you can just delete.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 22
Lehman/No just delete them I'm sorry, all right.
Pfab/So, so, just by passing.
Vanderhoef/Move to delete.
Pfab/I think I understand it but I want to be sure because I had tripped up the last time.
Okay so if we pass the consent calendar signs disappear.
Lehman/Right.
Kanner/Well anyway we vote we should remove this from the consent calendar, that' s
what I assume is going to happen (can't hear) and this time too I don't know it
keeps getting put in the consent calendar, why don't we just take it tomorrow
since it is there and it gives people an opportunity to discuss without getting all
nervous about when they get up and talk about it.
Lehman/I just want to point that out because (can't hear).
Karmer/From the consent calendar.
Lehman/Because when they come up tomorrow night we'll take them off and discuss
them separately and either vote them up or down.
Kanner/And the public is welcome to comment at that time their feelings on it.
Lehman/Okay other agenda items.
Item 4(b) (3) Iowa City Airport Commission - April 5
Karmer/I've got a few, I'll start with in the consent calendar under #4 (b) (3) and that
would be the airport commission minutes and we had a report of building K with
roof leaks and water flowing into the building is this being fixed do we know?
Atkins/I don't kno~v now, I'll have to find out for you.
Kanner/Thank you yea I'd appreciate it, maybe you could let us know tomorrow night at
the meeting. There were some serious complaints there from some of the tenants.
And also in those same minutes there was talk about wetlands requirements
changing with the Supreme Court decision of a few months ago and we were
going to get a report on that on whether we still have strong enough local laws
regarding regulation of wetlands or do we need to change ours since the Supreme
Court ruling so when we will we be getting a report on that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 23
Dilkes/Well I know staff has been discussing it and working on it I, Karin do you have a
sense of when that might be?
Franklin/Yea, we in fact have a staff meeting tomorrow that we're going to discuss it
again to reconsider our previous conclusion so you should have something I
would think, well probably for your 251h, well not your 251h but in that
information packet the week before the 251h if Sara can get it done.
Kanner/One more thing there was some concem from the airport I think about what' s
required of them and maybe they can be brought into the discussion. I know they
probably have some different roles about what kind of wetlands are allowed and
not allowed in the airport area because of a traction of birds but are they involved
in that?
Franklin/What we are looking at is the, our local regulation of wetlands relative to how
their regulated at the federal level and whether we should be more restrictive, less
restrictive, bring that whole issue back up to the Council as to how you want to
address it but we'd like to give you a recommendation on it. And the airport
becomes a different beast in many ways because it's always more stringent around
the airport in terms of the presence of bodies of water.
Kanner/But can we get included in that report something about what the airport.
Franklin/I'll certainly try and talk to Ron O'Neil about that and get their perspective.
Kanner/Because they are talking that it's a change requirement that little (can't hear).
Dilkes/I think that was in the context of the north commercial area development and their
being less stringent requirements as a rest of the change.
ITEM 4 e (1). CONSDER A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
JUNE 26 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY
FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4 ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF
FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES" OF THE CITY
CODE TO INCREASE WATER SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES IN IOWA
CITY, IOWA.
Vanderhoef/Do we have any idea what cost benefit there would be to the new water
reading devices in the, it's in the consent calendar just for setting a public hearing
but will ~ve be getting a report on cross benefit of that?
Karmer/Number e( 1 ).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June i 1, 2001 Special Work Session Page 24
Atkins/Dee I'm not sure, we talked about it, I'm not real sure how to quantify that cost
benefit other than the demand on staff changed substantially because you'll be
able to read the meter from the street, what is the cost of the benefit or the
advantage of the property owner where we no longer have to go on their property,
those are advantages to the thing. And thirdly we believe we'll get far more
accurate because our readings are going to be kept current. That simply means
from our cash position, we do a lot better, but there' s something really
sophisticated, if you'd certainly like us to do something we can take a ran at it but
I think there's a lot of intangibles in doing this.
Vanderhoef/Well what came up for me on all of this that I read in the memo and so forth
was that we're going to do 3,000 units at $2,550, no $252,000 excuse me and I
don't know how many, you said 6,000 the next year and 5,000 the year after that
and I don't know how many we're putting in but that seems like a.
(END OF 01-66 SIDE ONE)
Vanderhoef/Capital outlay particularly when we're just trying to get our water rates that
we need water rates and so forth down.
Atkins/Yea, it was, it does not require a change in water rates, it does require the $50.00
fee be added for new construction but we have been trying off and on for the last
three years to improve that reading system knowing that there' s better technology
out there. And I've been assured that this project does not require a water rate
adjustment that we have sufficient cash to do that.
Kanner/My concern is we have 21,000 accounts we're going to change over at $50.00.
Atkins/Eventually yea.
Kanner/In the next 5 or 6 years, that's over a million dollars and those households are
going to have to pay that one time fee.
Atkins/No Steve they won't.
Lehman/No they won't.
Vanderhoef/This is only new.
Atkins/We will retrofit all current customers, we'll pick a point in time and retrofit your
house, my house, Connie's house, new construction will be required to buy the
unit and that's where the $50.00 fee comes in.
Karmer/The old will not be charged at all?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 25
Atkins/Right, right, it's a retrofit.
Vanderhoef/That' s why I wanted to know how many because it will take us quite a
while.
Pfab/Can you explain (can't hear)?
Atkins/Basically we read water meters once a month and that requires the reader to go up
to the meter, plug it in and get the information, this is intended to allow the meter
reader in affect to walk down the street, point a device at a home because we have
it in at where they are.
(can't hear).
Atkins/Yea except it's from a far and we no longer have to go on the property to do that,
Ed and Chuck have explained to me that technology may be even so good that you
can do it from a car.
Lehman/Garage door opener, it's the same thing.
Atkins/It's a glorified garage door opener I guess, good way to look at it.
Vanderhoef/But it's a half a million dollars a year the next year.
Pfab/(can't hear) feasible (can't hear).
Atkins/Oh yea if you've got, excuse me more money than God, I guess we could
probably do that.
Pfab/Is there other things, I mean is this going to (can't hear) piddle away the money all
the things we could do with it (can't hear)?
Atkins/Well the only trouble that I have with the consideration with fiber optic lines is it
could be very disrupted to neighborhoods, anybody who's gone through the
process of installing cable understands the difficulties of doing it. Irvin I believe
that this is a system that should, we should enjoy the benefit of it for 10 years and
given the size of our budget I think.
Pfab/Is this (can't hear)?
Atkins/No does not.
Pfab/(can't hear).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 26
Lehman/Right.
Atkins/Right, that' s exactly what it is, it's radio transmitted.
Lehman/And we'll get in to that on the 261h when we have the public hearing.
ITEM 4G(6). LYNN WHISLER (MERCY HOSPITAL) - RESERVED PARKING
SPACES 1N PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY [CITY MANAGER RESPONSE
INCLUDED]
Kanner/I had a question about consent calendar number g (6) from Mercy.
Atkins/What I didn't hear you Steven.
Kanner/Number 4 consent calendar g (6) correspondence from Mercy Hospital they want
more parking spaces and a couple things, I'm wondering if we've heard from the
Noahside neighborhood with any concems because there was a vocal concem
about the office they wanted to go in with limited parking space in the front and
exit onto the street, I think there would be some of the same concerns about traffic
flow and concerns with adding more parking spaces. And the main thing I'm
concerned about is possible loss of trees and green space there, it's a very scenic
street there.
Atkins/There' s a couple things, first of all I wrote the letter which you saw a copy of and
they responded today, have not read it, as soon as, and I'll get it read and get it out
to you in a couple days and then we can deal with it. Secondly I certainly
appreciate the neighborhoods interest and your interest with respect to trees and
the public right of way but we have to remember the purpose of this site it was
intended to serve their emergency room and of course in their view that takes far
more priority over everything. I'm just not sure this is the correct way to do it as
they had proposed and that' s why I need to read this letter and get this information
back to you, so you'll have another crack at it this was just transmitting the
correspondence to you. I wanted to get a response to them pretty quickly because
it was not as simple as just authorizing an agreement and walking away from it.
Vanderhoef/This may be a metered situation if it fits into the traffic (can't hear).
Atkins/And just so you understand and I'm not so sure meters are even, I'm taking my
sick kid to the emergency room I'm not going to be fumbling for a quarter while
I'm trying taking my kid in that's one thing. Secondly ifsomeone is parked there,
who enforces it? Do we require a police to go out and do it and I'm not sure
that' s good for our PR either.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 27
Lehman/This will be coming up.
Atkins/Oh yea.
Lehman/Future meetings.
Atkins/Oh yea, no I'll have it back to you, I promise I'll have it back to you by the next
meeting and I will do that.
Kanner/Well people should know that it's driven by expansion into their parking lot so
it's not a matter of oh there' s a ton of people coming for emergencies and they
need that space, it's because.
Atkins/That's a question you'll have to ask them, they'll make that case with you.
Karmer/I'm sure they will.
Atkins/Okay.
ITEM NO. 4 G (7). JOHN KELLER - GR1NGER FEEDS
Kanner/And then on number 7 the next correspondence there was some concern for noise
from the Gringer Feed.
Atkins/I have that to follow up on I haven't done that but I will.
Karmer/Okay. And our ordinance says it can't go above a certain decibel level across the
(can't hear).
Atkins/We need to check those things right.
Karmer/So it would be pretty easy to.
Dilkes/There are some exemptions though that I think apply one being agricultural.
Atkins/And I'm not real sure what those are but we'll, we owe you a report on that.
ITEM NO. 8. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE
OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY KICKERS
SOCCER PARK PARKING LOT RESURFACING PROJECT, ESTABLISHING
AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING
CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING
TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of Jane 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 28
Kanner/I had a question number 8 on our agenda, resurfacing the soccer fields. Are we.
Arkins/Terry's here.
Kanner/Who's that?
Arkins/Terry's here.
Karmer/And also maybe he has engineering expertise also some of that, but I have some
questions about drainage, when you resurface something it increases the mn off
for water and I'm not sure that it's the best thing to resurface everything and a
little dust maybe isn't that bad.
Trueblood/The dust is only one of the problems down there, the organized, or the lack of
organized parking is the other problem, and drainage is taken into consideration.
What is being resurfaced down there the slope won't change at all over the chip
seal surface that's on there right now. As a matter of fact the two south parking
lots, or actually it's the one second medium sized parking lot that we are putting a
couple drainage lines into that where they drain between the fields which they
were suppose to do the grading in the first place but they don't do that good of a
job so there's (can't hear) but it's not a fancy operation, we're not putting in curb
and gutter, that kind of thing otherwise we'd be talking about a lot more.
Kanner/Doesn't though the, maybe I'm thinking of dift~rent parking lots, my image of
that is that the water drained right into the land where the parking lots are.
Lehman/No.
Kanner/That it's not completely sealed.
Trueblood/No that' s not, it's a chip and seal surface which basically after it gets
compacted it's not as hard as asphalt but it's a lot harder than any dirt or turf that
you'll find anywhere but there may be a very very small amount that drains from
the parking lot but most of it drains off right now.
Karmer/So the larger stones are (can't hear) those continue to get compacted down.
Trueblood/That's correct.
Karmer/Okay. And has there ever been any thought given to buses being run out there?
Trueblood/I don't know.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 29
Kanner/That might be an option that I think we can consider instead of having to keep
expanding the parking which is one of the things we're looking at at making it
better for cars, think about running a bus or two out there.
Trueblood/We've never really had any conversations with transit about that, certainly can
look at that. You know the peak times are weekends, 8 weeks during the spring
and during the fall so Joe and I would or Ron and I would have to talk see what
the feasibility might be.
Kanner/But maybe people sign up in advance with the soccer organization and you get
30 people that' s perhaps 30 less cars that you have to deal with going out there.
Trueblood/Again we'd have to talk about it, I don't know what the.
Kanner/Thanks.
ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER AN ORDNANCE AMENDiNG TITLE 3, 'CITY
FiNANCES, TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4, 'SCHEDULE OF FEES,
RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FiNES AND PENALTIES" OF THE CITY
CODE, TO iNCREASE PARKiNG FEES iN IOWA CITY, IOWA. (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef/I've got a question for Joe if he wants to go to the microphone. When you
put out all the costs it brought up for me who is eligible for a reserved space
permit?
Fowler/Are you talking about in Tower Place, is that?
Vanderhoef/Well in any place, you just list them as reserved spaces.
Fowler/The only places that we, yea, okay the only one that we have that' s a reserved
space would be in Tower Place and that is on the bottom level offof Gilbert Street
because we divided that and part of it is Ecumenical Towers and another part is
reserved for city permit holders, it won't have any general access so we'll reserve
certain, you know like 12 spaces down there that we'll sell to permit holders and
they'll be the only 12 people that will be able to get into that area other than
Ecumenical residents.
Vanderhoef/Fine I just couldn't figure out which of those might be. And then the other
question that came up for me just because we've changed the usage in the
Dubuque Street ramp by putting the short term parking on those two lower floors,
we will be decreasing the number of permits in that ramp so that we'll be sure
there's openings enough for?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 30
Fowler/No those permit holders on Dubuque Street we would hold at the same number
but they have to park on the third level and above as it is so there would be a
buffer area between the permits and the short term parking area.
Vanderhoef/And that ramp can handle that still at this point?
Fowler/Yes.
Vanderhoef/Okay thanks.
Kanner/Joe while your there, there was a report a few years ago from JCCOG's that said
that we could raise the parking ramp rates significantly much more than the 10
cents without significant decrease at all from people using the parking ramps
there's a lot of elasticity there. Have you taken a look at that or any thoughts on
though?
Fowler/I'm not familiar with report, I can't recall that.
Kanner/This is in, they put out an annual report JCCOG's and the state of transit and
parking and transportation in the city.
Fowler/I can get a copy of it and look at it I don't recall it to be honest with you.
Kanner/But, so where are the figures coming from that there will be a 10 percent
decrease with an increase of the parking rates proposal, how long is that projected
for?
Fowler/Well we did, well we did, excuse me, what I did when I put these numbers
together was I went back to the last rate increase we had and I looked at usage
prior to the rate increase and usage al~er the rate increase and we had 10 percent
drop off immediately and then those numbers start to come back over a period of
time but initially there is a drop off and I wanted to make sure that the numbers
you were given would be numbers that you could realistically expect, there may
not be any drop off but I wanted to make sure that it was based on our experience
in the past.
Kanner/Yea I would proposal that we can go 30 or 40 cents higher an hour for that and
not get any significant drop off and then put that money into additional transit.
Fowler/I don't believe we could have that large of an increase and not have a significant
decrease.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 31
Kanner/Yea, I'd like to see maybe a study done with JCCOG because I really have, the
last I heard from JCCOG's is something like that could happen and not really
suffer a major decrease, if any at all.
Fowler/I can talk with Jeff and see about if there' s some kind of study that we can do
now or what we can do.
Kanner/Because I think most people realize it's a bargain what we're charging for our
ramp, it's very significant.
Pfab/(can't hear). Okay if you, last time you had about a 10 percent (can't hear) how
much was rate increase (can't hear)?
Champion/I want to ask a question (can't hear).
Fowler/The Dubuque Street ramp increased from let's see 40 to 45 and then it increased
from 45 to 50 cents, Capital Street increased from 40 to 50 cents.
Pfab/And so a nickel each time.
Fowler/One went a nickel, a nickel and the other one went a straight dime.
Pfab/So was there much difference between a nickel and a dime?
O'Donnell/Five cents.
Fowler/In.
Pfab/In drop off.
Fowler/You 'know I don't remember exactly how much the drop off, how the difference
Pfab/Because now as the numbers get higher the dime (can't hear).
Fowler/True.
Lehman/Cormie.
Champion/I just want to ask a procedural question because when Steven said he wanted a
study about that your not asking for a new study, your asking for a copy of the old
study?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 32
Karmer/Well I don't think he's going to do a study, I would like to see a study and I think
that would be nice if Council would ask for that but I don't expect that we'll get a
study without a majority of Council.
Champion/But you really wanted to see a copy of the other study that was done?
Kanner/Well no I'd like to have our department head to look into those things and to
look and see what' s out there and see if there's any scientific modeling of what
will happen including reports that we have from our own JCCOG's from a couple
years ago talking about how much room there is.
iTEM NO. 18. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDiNG CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LONGFELLOW/
TWAIN PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL PROJECT.
Kanner/I had one last question for Steve about the Longfellow tunnel, and that's number
18.
Atkins/Okay.
Karmer/And talking about how our estimate was below the bids that came in and were
your going to be taking, your proposing that that money be taken from a few
different other funds which makes sense to me but the thing that I had a question
about is that even if the bid came in $50,000 cheaper at what we estimated,
according to your figuring we would still be short in our budget $40,000 short,
your saying now we're short $92,000.
Arkins/Yea.
Kanner/And so even though if it came in at our estimated budget of $250,000 according
to your figuring we would be still short another $40,000 and so I'm not quite sure
how that, if we're doing that with each of our bids if the figuring is like that and
that we're short.
Arkins/First of all we estimate more than a year in advance, that' s one, secondly we're
adding two features to this project that we had not anticipated based upon folks
that came to the microphone and those changed the change. And then thirdly it's
a guessing game at which time we go into the market, your analysis is not
incorrect, it's just a matter of the timing of these things.
Lehman/Didn't we at one time anticipate that the enhancement grant of $196,000 would
basically pay for it?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 33
Atkins/The original estimate about 3 to 4 years was the whole project was about
$200,000.
Lehman/Right.
Atkins/When we adopted the last budget we had to pump it up in order to because of the
consequences that we thought were coming down the pipe because to cover this
thing and it just came in more.
Champion/Well the one up above though is $500,000 less (can't hear).
Atkins/It's al~vays a little luck, it's the matter of when you do your projecting, you often
put a budget together 2 and 3 years in advance particularly in capital projects, we
encourage the staff to put in their best guess on inflation, sometimes we do real
well and sometimes we don't.
Wilburn/It's part of budgeting.
Lehman/Yea.
Karmeff But the budget, I guess I'm still not quite hearing the answer to my question, the
budget even though if it would have come in at the bid at our projected estimate it
still would not have covered expenses.
Atkins/We were still low, we're still underestimated on the, from the expense side, that's
correct, and I can't tell you why I mean without going back and analyzing each
and every bidder you know what elements they found in expenses and we didn't.
Kanner/No but it doesn't have to do with the bidder, it has to do with, even if the bid
came in at what we estimated $250,000, $50,000 cheaper than what we got, it
~vould be still be $40,000 off.
Atkins/That' s correct, we added features to it and the budget estimate was put together at
least a year ago.
Lehman/No but I think the question why was the budget item, how do I say this right.
Why is the budget item, it was budgeted at $250,000 or whatever.
Atkins/Yea. Construction costs.
Lehman/And there wasn't funding to cover the amount that was budgeted.
Atkins/Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June ll, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 34
Lehman/Isn't that what your saying Steven?
Karmer/Yea, if it came in at bid it would still be $40,000 under what was budgeted, we
would still have to scraping from other funds.
Atkins/Okay, I mean I can, I'm not so sure how to answer that other than how I've
answered it.
Kanner/Well we'll talk more privately and I mean I don't want to belabor it in, make that
(can't hear).
Atkins/Okay.
Champion/No it was a good question.
Kanner/But something we can think about.
Lehman/Other agenda items.
ITEM NO. 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SALE OF $11,500,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.
ITEM NO. 13. CONSIDER A MOTION APPROV1NG THE FORM OF TAX
EXEMPTIONS CERTIFICATE TO BE PLACED ON FILE.
ITEM NO. 14. CONSIDER A MOTION APPROVING THE FORM OF CONTINUING
DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE TO BE PLACED ON FILE.
ITEM NO. 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF $11,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND
LEVYING A TAX TO PAY SAID BONDS.
Atkins/I have one for you Emie, on the projected bond sale we received our credit rating
late this morning, and again we're rated Aaa.
Vanderhoef/Yea.
Atkins/However, and there is a big however, the credit rating folks have spoken again
highly of our ability to manage our debt however there is a very serious concern
about our shrinking general funds reserves where we are spending those down to
do certain projects. They see that because when we project capital projects
remember next year we're talking about $31 million dollars about three times the
size and the consequences of that big debt, the general fund support, the staff
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 35
support that has to go with the library and other projects, they see that as a cause
for concern. It's a heads up, our credit rating is still the best you can get but with
the size of debt issue we face next year I think you can expect them to be far more
critical, it's going to be much more difficult for us to finance projects directly
from our reserve, I think your, I know that we're going to have to go back into our
project list on occasion, when you add all the consequences, reduction of road use
tax, reduction of transit aid, all of those things compound themselves in the sense
that it's going to be much more difficult for us to come up with moneys to add
projects without reducing other projects.
Lehman/Okay, any other.
Pfab/I have just a question since Terry's here, I spoke to Steve you about putting a kiddie
swing over in that far (can't hear).
Atkins/Oh yea Terry did check that.
Pfab/What did you, did you have any?
Trueblood/That' s the one we had to (can't hear) over at Highland.
Pfab/Yea Highland, the name slipped me.
Trueblood/Yea it had to be removed because of more stringent safety regulations these
days and but Terry Robinson our park superintendent has already found a
company where we can buy a small baby set and put it in there with that.
Pfab/So in other words that's something (can't hear)?
Trueblood/Yes.
Pfab/Because the neighbors were (can't hear).
ADDointments
Lehman/Okay council appointments, Library Board of Trustees. There are three terms
open.
O'Donnell/We had three apply.
Champion/Three apply.
Lehman/Three applicants.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 36
Vanderhoef/And I think they're all good candidates.
Lehman/The names are.
O'Donnell/Tom Suter is one of them.
Lehman/Suter.
Vanderhoef/David Van Dusseldorp.
Lehman/Van Dusseldorp.
Vanderhoef/Van Dusseldorp, dorp on the end.
Champion/Colin Hennessy.
O'Donnell/I nominate all three of them.
Lehman/Are there four people who concur in appointing these three?
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Wilburn/Yes.
Lehman/Okay.
Kanner/It's a good mix, we have someone who' s younger than the average age which
will be a good addition there, other experienced folks.
Lehman/Planning & Zoning Commission, one appointment and as I recall there were
several applicants.
Champion/Well I'd like to suggest that we appoint Henry Madden, there were two I think
really good (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/Yea, I liked Patricia Moore also I think is also a very good choice, either one
of those two I'd be happy with.
Kauner/Paul Hanley stuck out for me, he's a UI professor in urban planning, he worked
in city planning in Urbana, and I talked to him when he applied previously he said
he'll bring a balance view and he's a transportation planner with some great
experience there I think it would really serve us well to have him on Planning &
Zoning.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June I1, 2001.
Jtme 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 37
O'Dormell/I was impressed also with the application of Elizabeth, I think it's Koppes.
Wilburn/Yea that's correct.
Lehman/Copes.
O'Donnell/Ko.
Wilburn/Koppes.
O'Donnell/Seemed to be very (can't hear) we were very fortunate we had four really
good ones.
Lehman/Well we're going to have to weed, we've got Madden, Moore, Hanley and
Koppes, is that how you pronounce that?
O'Donnell/That's right.
Lehman/Well we can only do one.
Wilburn/I would support Beth Koppes, I've familiar with some of her work with the
Wetherby Neighborhood Association but also I've had some good experience
from folks from NCS on different boards that I've been associated with so.
Lehman/Well why don't we start out first with Henry Madden, how many would support
appointing Henry Madden.
Pfab/Excluded or support him (can't hear)?
O'Donnell/You can only pick one.
Wilburn/One appointment.
Lehman/I'd rather see us, I've got to think this through. What I'd like to do is just start
weeding them out if we don't have enough support.
Pfab/That' s what that was.
Lehman/But I understand what your saying.
Pfab/I kind of suspissioned (can't hear).
Kanner/Well actually there' s been proposals for voting on larger levels of instant run off
voting and it might be appropriate for here where you put your choices 1, 2, and 3
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 38
and if the first round no one gets the majority then your vote counts for your
second choice counts. I don't think it's perhaps the best just to say one and that's
it.
Champion/Well there may be a better way to do this but I don't think tonight' s not the
night we should make that decision.
O'Donnell/Connie who did you nominate?
Champion/Henry Madden.
Lehman/Henry Madden.
O'Donnell/I will second that.
Lehman/How many would support Madden?
Vanderhoef/I can.
Lehman/Well without me that's three. How about Pat Moore? Professor Hanley.
Pfab/I, Hanley, it's either that or Koppes I took.
Lehman/Okay Koppes.
Pfab/I'll go Koppes.
Champion/All right Ernie.
Lehman/We've got lots ofpeople voting twice. Okay just there are four males and two
females, I will go along with Elizabeth Koppes, that will be a little bit better
balanced so.
O'Donnell/And that's important too because I think there's like 5 males and one female
on that (can't hear) even it up somewhat. Excuse me.
Pfab/It's a local person that, regular folk.
Lehman/Okay the next one is the Deer Task Force, we've been asked to, it's been
reconunended that Lezlie Hall and Pete Sidwell fill the current vacancies, do we
concur in that?
Champion/Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 39
O~Donnell/Yes.
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Wilburn/Sure.
O'Donnell/I like them both.
Traffic Calminl~
Lehman/Okay we'll do one more and then I will leave, traffic calming. I think it's on the
agenda because of obviously there's some, whenever we have something that
comes up with traffic calming there' s some concern by the neighborhoods, and
there' s happiness and there' s unhappiness and there' s folks who think we didn't
do it right. And one of the things we've been criticized for that I think personally
has a certain amount of relevance and we do something that' s going to be
significant other than prohibiting parking, we have not given the public an
opportunity to the issue that the action that we're about to take. And I personally
feel that if we're going to take an action that is much more than a parking
prohibition that there should be a perhaps an opportunity for the public to speak
to that. And I think that's why it's on the agenda.
O'Dounell/Within what limitations Ernie are we going to put a specific area around the
affected part?
Lehman/Well I think if we make it up, no, because I really think if you ask, if we would
give, make a time for public input, obviously anybody who wants to can speak to
it. I mean we're all impacted, for example, we put a circle on College Street who
upset a lot of folks who are driving do~vn College Street who should have been
using Burlington Street and obviously their complaints landed on deaf ears
because it was doing precisely what we wanted it to do. On the other hand we had
a lot of folks on College Street who said we love the circle, it really has slowed
traffic down, it's done a really good job, it's doing what we want it to do and we
left the circle there, but I think if you have an opportunity for public input you
probably can't restrict the public from where they happen to live in town from
speaking to.
O'Donnell/Is this going to aft~ct the survey's that we send out?
Lehman/I don't know that it would.
Davidson/I guess I would say that this is a significant departure from your original
setting up of the program, and I think the notion of the program that there is some
ownership of the street by the people who live on it when it is a local or I mean
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 40
staffs recommendation was just limited to local streets, Council also added
collector streets, as opposed to arterials which are more of your community type
streets. So I mean your, if you were to take such an action as to have a heating, I
think your diluting that notion of neighborhood ownership and it's basically
between the Council and the neighborhood as to what we're going to do on this
street. You know I think in the, to take your most recent example and I think that
was some of your motivation Ernie Lexington Avenue you know it was clear that
there was wide spread opposition to the barricaded street from the larger Manville
Heights neighborhood, but clearly there was a great deal of support for it from the
people along Lexington so if you would have, our original motivation of setting
up the traffic calming program was to make it not quite as much of a free for all as
some of these neighborhoods traffic things tend to be and really give it some
structure and some rules. I think your kind of getting a way from a little of that if
your going to have a public hearing on each one of the traffic calming proposals.
Vanderhoef/However I think we are not addressing sometimes the greater issue of total
circulation within a neighborhood and closing a street to me is outside of traffic
calming.
Davidson/We do Dee, Dee we do try and take that into consideration and we did on
Lexington as well, I think you'll recall my statements that when we saw that
traffic count on Lexington that we determined wasn't a great deal of cut through
traffic that the number showed. So when we do give you the traffic data we
include that and I think if we had a situation where we thought there was going to
be a lot of cut through traffic on other streets we would probably not recommend
the traffic calming proposal to you because we're deliberately not suppose to
create diversion onto other streets when we do a traffic calming program. On
Lexington Avenue instead of 230 vehicles a day we had seen 700 vehicles a day
we would have a clear diversion problem that we would have brought to your
attention but the 230 we thought most of that was generated from Lexington
Avenue.
Karmer/I like the brochure that we have and you included in our packet and the
procedure that we have, I think anytime we consider almost any motion or
ordinance to a resolution we look at the greater community so we can't ignore
that. I agree I think what your saying Emie in that we should have a chance for
other citizens to formally speak to us. And I don't think it belittles the
neighborhood involvement if we have it on our Tuesday agenda, we have an item
on the Tuesday agenda we're going to vote this up or down, and this gives people
a time and a place and they know they can be heard. I still like the idea of
surveying only a limited number, I also like the idea of putting up one or two
signs like we do with rezoning so that other people are made a~vare of it in that
fashion because that' s one of the major complaints that I heard especially with
Lexington is I didn't know about this. So we put up on sign for people who travel
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 41
on that street but don't live on that street, they know they can call and get
information that traffic calming is being considered, and call this number to find
out more information and when it might be voted on. And so those are two things
I would say to add to it.
Lehman/How would it be? How would you feel about traffic calming, as of the way we
do it right now at an informal meeting we agree or disagree with staff and say
okay go ahead put the stop signs up, put the speed humps in or whatever. How
would it be if we added that to the consent calendar where it becomes an item that
needs to be approved as we will be doing tomorrow night with the NO PARK1NG
on those two streets? And obviously it's an opportunity for the public to speak to
it if they choose.
Pfab/I think the problem is a matter of time, the fact that we have this work session
tomorrow.
Lehman/It wouldn't have to be the next day.
Pfab/Right is what I'm saying is if we could put a time space between our work session
and in our, I'm not sure how to do that. Okay so in other words, in other words if
there was a space, if we could do it like the County, the Board of Supervisors has
an interesting way but they came at it because they wanted to cut down the taping
of both of them, but they had them together. They had the work session a week
before the formals, if we could make something like that work I think that would
make, but I don't know if that's possible, but I think it would make the citizens a
lot happier because they'd have some warning that this is going on.
Lehman/That might not.
Pfab/I think that's really where the problem is.
Lehman/Other comments, they may very well do it if we had the decision at an informal
meeting that this is something we will proceed with but we won't give Jeff the
final okay for two weeks, that would obviously make the papers, it would make
the news, and those people would have an opportunity to call us individually or
write letters to the Council, would that?
O'Doanell/Jeff the present procedure on Lexington you sent out a survey, what was the
percentage received?
Davidson/Percentage received back was pretty high I'm sorry I don't have that with me
Mike but it was.
Pfab/(can't hear).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 42
Lehman/It was very high.
O'Donnell/74 percent.
Davidson/No it was higher than that 70 something I believe yea.
Champion/It was high.
Vanderhoef/It was 60 percent that.
Davidson/Both the rate of return was high and the rate of approval was fairly high, I
think as high as we've had on a traffic calming project yea.
Lehman/Right.
Vanderhoef/The rate of approval was over the 60.
Champion/The other thing is though that that was a very special situation.
O' Donnell/It certainly was.
Champion/And I mean people, I mean we're probably aren't going to be closing other
streets for traffic calming I can't think of.
Davidson/We would never even consider it unless we did just we did with Lexington
brought it to you ahead of time and said is this a special of enough case that you
want to consider differently than we would typically.
Champion/That's right. So I don't think we should make a big to who about it but I
think it would be, it may be having it on the consent calendar the week al~er we
talk about it here, the next meeting you know the, maybe that is all we need to do
because most the time traffic calming doesn't really affect anybody but a few
people who might get angered except those chicanes.
Davidson/So.
Vanderhoef/Well I think Ernie's idea of putting it on the consent calendar.
Champion/Right.
Vanderhoef/Then is appropriate because if we just talk about it two weeks later and they
still don't have an opportunity to speak that' s the only thing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 43
Wilburn/So do you like the idea of some type of, similar to the zoning change type thing,
some type of posting sign in either the nearby streets or if you could into it where
traffic may or may you know it might impact others.
Lehman/Would you do that for example where you might prohibit parking or something
as well as, but I don't 'know if prohibit parking wouldn't be a traffic calming
measure.
Vanderhoef/Maybe only the ones that are brought to us by the neighborhood.
Kanner/Yea this is a neighborhood generated program so I would agree it would be for
those cases not necessarily where engineers, our engineers are (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/Yea I agree.
Wilburn/Yea.
Pfab/I still have an objecting that I didn't have any input on College Street, I (can't hear)
disappeared and I don't want to even go down that street anymore, go down
Burlington.
Lehman/Obviously that was successful what we did then. All fight do we want to
change our procedures, I mean do we want to do something different than we've
been doing? Now that's the question right here.
Champion/Well I'm willing to trying putting it on the consent calendar the Council
meetings.
Lehman/Two weeks after the work session.
Champion/Two weeks following our work session.
Davidson/So just to clarify, we're not going to have a public hearing at that meeting.
Vanderhoef/No.
Champion/No.
Davidson/But there would be a two week span where essentially as you say the word
would be out through the media that there's a two week period now for you to
provide your comments to Council with, and then it would just be on the Consent
Calendar.
Lehman/And would it be, I don't see it being a big problem to post some sort of a sign.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 44
Davidson/No that' s not a big problem, now we would post those on the street where it
was proposed.
O'Donnell/So we're going to get more input from the city and streets totally unrelated to
the street we're working on.
Lehman/Probably not.
Davidson/Well but possibly so.
Lehman/Possibly yes.
O'Donnell/And then we're going to run a survey on the street and we're going to get 74
percent and that' s our present policy procedure, you know we go with that, so I'm
questioning what are we accomplishing here?
Lehman/I'm not sure we're accomplishing a whole lot except the public will feel they
have an opportunity to speak to it if they choose to.
Kanner/I don't think it's not a done deal because 74 percent say they want it, that's
something we take under advisement.
O'Donnell/But it comes to us and that is our present policy.
Kanner/Right it comes to us and it still will, it still will need that 60 percent to come to
us and then we take that under advisement with the other people that might want
to speak to the issue and I think that would be appropriate.
O'Donnei1/But the most important ones to me are the ones affected by the (can't hear).
Kanner/Oh sure and you can vote accordingly.
O'Dormell/And I always have.
Kanner/Right so but we get more information which is better for us I think.
Lehman/I'm not sure that this would change anything that we have done.
O'Donnell/I don't think it's going to change a thing.
Lehman/No but if it makes folks feel that it's a more.
O'Donnell/Okay all right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 45
Pfab/So now, so we wouldn't vote two weeks after and at that point (can't hear).
Lehman/It would be on the consent calendar.
Pfab/Anyone can speak to it at that point.
Lehman/On the consent calendar.
Davidson/Well that was something I wanted to, that' s what I was chatting with Eleanor
about I'm not so sure what Irvin is saying is true, if it's on the consent calendar it
means it's on the agenda and public discussion is only for items not on the agenda
and if you don't have a specific public hearing assigned to it there won't be the
option.
Lehman/Wait a minute, any.
Dilkes/Remember.
Lehman/Eleanor.
Dilkes/Although Ernie you typically allow discussion on any agenda item whether
there's.
Lehman/That's correct.
Dilkes/A public hearing scheduled or not, that's not always been the case with every
mayor so often if we're questioned as a staff about can I talk when it's just an
item on the agenda our response is that will be at the discretion of the mayor.
Lehman/However.
Dilkes/So we need, we wouldn't normally say that just because something' s on the
consent calendar that people are going to have the fight to speak.
Davidson/Yea. Would you like me to tell people, if I get calls from people and they say
well when can I speak at a council meeting about this, do you want me to tell
them to come to that public discussion that's right before the consent calendar.
Champion/We don't have a (can't hear).
Lehman/Well we don't.
Vanderhoef/It's after.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil meeting
of June 1 I, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 46
Lehman/We have had it, no we've had it during the consent calendar where an item has,
and we've done that a couple times.
Champion/(can't hear) it out.
Lehman/When we come to the public discussion portion of our agenda it specifically
states that public discussion will be limited to items that do not appear on the
agenda.
Davidson/Ernie your right it's after the consent calendar.
Lehman/I guess the question is are, for me are items on the consent calendar part of the
agenda and I think they are.
Kanner/Yea I think traditionally people have spoken.
Lehman/Well traditionally we haven't had but the last few weeks we have had.
Karmer/Have been allowed to, I think for the last two or three years you've had that
tradition, you can technically say no we don't know that your going to be allowed
to speak but you can say that the history is that you should be allowed to speak. I
think it will work out okay and people can come the next night to speak during
public discussion after the work session if they're so moved and they have two
weeks to talk to individual Council Members.
Champion/Right.
Davidson/Okay so.
Dilkes/I think Emie I think Marian needs to address this, we need to make sure we're
being clear with the public that we get questions from.
Karr/I want to clarify Steven when you say the last two years that' s correct but the
previous 10 were not so I mean to say that traditionally you were allowed to
speak, I would be, I think that would put staff in a real awkward spot to indicate
that to a person and then have a different council potentially change their feeling
on that. I think your absolutely right though in another realm and I think the space
between it, if a person heard about it on Monday night or Tuesday what happened
Monday night and wanted to speak and had the opportunity to come Tuesday they
could discuss it at the foliowing Tuesday meeting because it would not be on the
agenda. If however they didn't hear about it until Wednesday it would be just like
Union and Willow that we have discussed a couple of times that was on the
consent calendar where people sat and didn't were not comfortable. And so I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 47
think we need to either single it out in some fashion or be very clear how you wish
to direct people as Jeff said, how do you want people to handle them self?. If they
would let us know their here before a consent calendar item that would be another
matter we would know that people were here.
Champion/But I wouldn't tell everybody in the city that.
Lehman/No but.
Davidson/I've told everybody with the process we have right now is that there is no
opportunity for public discussion at a council meeting that they need to contact
you.
Lehman/Individually.
Davidson/All individually either by phone, or e-mail or letter.
Champion/Well I think maybe we should stick to that.
Lehman/Well I have a little problem frankly with perhaps the consent calendar, could
that be a motion of some sort on the regular calendar instead? That' s a much
better place to put it because I don't think we really want a situation where the
public is invited to comment on everything in the consent calendar.
Champion/No, no.
Lehman/That could get to be a little cumbersome but on the other hand I do think people
should have an opportunity to speak to some of those things.
Davidson/So two weeks later should we put it as an item on the agenda.
Lehman/Agenda item.
Pfab/I think that's better.
Davidson/With a heating attached to it.
Lehman/Well, no not a hearing, not a public hearing, public discussion.
Davidson/Just a resolution.
Lehman/We bring it up a resolution as with any agenda item I'm always allowed the
public to speak to any agenda item and they would be allowed to speak.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 48
Davidson/So we let them know that our current mayor is likely to allow t hem to speak at
the meeting.
Champion/Well I think that' s.
Lehman/Current mayor has never refused to let anyone speak, I have sometimes asked
them to limit their comments but, is that okay with the council?
Pfab/I think that's a terrific.
Lehman/All right let' s put it that way.
Davidson/That's what we'll do.
Lehman/Okay thank you Jeff.
Kanner/There will be sign, one sign up.
Lehman/Well whatever depending on the situation.
Davidson/I assume that at that meeting you will say does anybody want to comment on
this, is that true or not?
Lehman/Probably we will, well there will be a motion to pass it at that time we ask for
discussion, and the council discussion or public discussion.
Davidson/Just for the sake of distinction Madan was referring to shall I tell people to
contact you ahead of time if they want to speak?
Lehman/No not, no if it's an agenda item they don't have to do that.
Pfab/But they still could contact us even before.
Davidson/Oh sure, sure, I think I got you.
Lehman/All right.
Karmer/And you'll put up a sign.
Davidson/Was there a majority for the signs?
Lehman/Yes. All right.
Davidson/We'll do that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 49
Lehman/Thank you we're going to take a quick break at which time we'll come back and
Mike will handle the next item.
Katmer/How long for the break?
Lehman/Be back at 8:00 that's about 7 minutes or 8.
Karmer/Okay.
(END OF 01-56 SIDE TWO)
Harloeke Weebet Land Acclnisition
O'Donnell/Parents of conflict, we have been approached by the Harlocke Weeber
Neighborhood Association and they have approached Parks and Rec. as well with
the idea of purchasing this land in question for park so I'd like to open this up for
discussion.
Vanderhoef/Well I'll start ifthat's okay.
O'Donnell/Fine.
Vanderhoef/Number one money is a very large issue here and both in the park land
acquisition fund and in general fund which is where dollars would have to come
from to purchase this land. I still think is an appropriate development there, I was
pleased with the dedication pieces of land that the developer offered and on top of
that would be paying money in lieu of land since much of the dedication was not
going to be land that meets the standards for neighborhood open space. I
recognize we still have undeveloped land in that neighborhood that when it is
developed it will be, they'll fall under the neighborhood open space plan and will
be required to give us land or money in lieu of land so I think to reach that goal of
the 5 to 7 acre neighborhood park we need to collect as many dollars as we can so
that we'll be able to purchase in that undeveloped area.
O' Donnell/Okay any other comments.
Kanner/Terry I read in the Planning & Zoning, not Planning & Zoning, Parks and
Recreation Commission minutes that there was unanimous on the part of the
commissioners that we should work to, what's the right term negotiate or inquire,
how far did they go in their thoughts on our relationship with this land?
Trueblood/You know I don't remember the exact wording and the exact vote but
essentially they were unanimous in their support to approach the property owner
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 50
to talk with them and either negotiate price or at least find out what they're asking
for it.
Kanner/And have we done that? Or are you waiting on City Council?
Trueblood/That' s correct.
Kanner/So would City Council be opposed to.
O'Donnell/That's what we're discussing now.
Kanner/Seeing if we could negotiate that or find a reasonable price? It sounds like Dee
you're not even open to that idea of doing that.
Vanderhoef/Negotiation is fine Steven, the point is the price of that land I feel is way out
of what we could negotiate down, those folks bought it not in the too distant past
and it's far more expensive than what we can afli~rd and we heard our bond rating
tonight and the heads up we got on those dollars in our reserve fund and that' s
where it would have to come from to make a purchase of this size so I can't see
that this is the time for us to be looking at even negotiating, I think it would be
negotiating perhaps in bad faith if we didn't already have a set amount of dollars
that we knew we could negotiate with.
Pfab/Your saying, so apparently you have a number in mind that the land is worth (can't
hear). I'm trying.
Vanderhoef/The purchase price of the land is far beyond what we can.
Pfab/The purchase price of what they paid for is that what your saying?
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Karmer/Of about $175,000 is my understanding.
Vanderhoef/They'll have to tell you.
Karmer/That' s my understanding, it seems to me it's one of those things that may be that
the seller gives a little bit, we look for funding perhaps from CDBG, next year,
and a little bit from us, or most of it from us and then some from the
neighborhood and even with Miller Orchard I think they're still according to our
formula a great deficit of park land in that area and that' s a very dense area and 1, I
really think it behooves us to look at seeing if there's any way that we can make it
work and I've also heard that there are other property owners that might be willing
to give a little bit of their land for a negotiated fair price or a reduced price to help
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of Jane 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 51
with the trails that might work there and some other space. So I just see a lot of
good energy there and I think it can work if we pursue it from our end on City
Council.
Vanderhoef/What I'm interested in personally is to meeting the goal of a neighborhood
open space of that 5-7 acres, the trail pieces will come along I suspect if we can
get the 5-7 acres of usable space, that doesn't include ravines and so forth as you
recall in the neighborhood open space plan. And so my goal is to go forward in
looking at the undeveloped land and finding where we can get the 5-7 acres of
usable.
Pfab/Okay you have something in your mind (can't hear) what 5 acres (can't hear)
description?
Vanderhoef/I don't have a specific spot no, but I do know that in the development
process that we will be having dedication of land or money in lieu of land and that
money in lieu of land is used then to purchase additional connected land so that' s
how you put together a parcel of the 5 acres, it isn't that we go out and buy 5
acres.
Pfhb/Okay maybe I'd propose a question to you this way. Why is there such a deficit
there now if, why if it was done earlier in the development how is it going to be
easier as more is?
Vanderhoef/Because the ordinance for money or land only took place in 1997, 96, 97
whichever it was, but anyway, 95 wasn't it? Yea it was before I went on Council
just before, I followed this all the way through the years that I was on parks on
recreation and we worked real hard to get this formula so that we would
continuing money or land given to us so that we could create a part but the rest of
that area had already been developed at that point so this is the first one really that
I recall of residential that has come for a development process.
Pfab/Okay so, so, I'm going to try to understand what your saying. Are you saying forget
(can't hear)?
Vanderhoef/I'm saying we would probably be negotiating in bad faith to try and buy this
whole parcel of land that doesn't meet our neighborhood open space plan of 5-7
acres of relatively flat open space for children to play.
Pfab/So because it's not 5 or 7 we just walk away from it.
Vanderhoef/And the point is that if we bought this particular parcel that has so much
sensitive areas in it that doesn't meet the plan it drives up the cost of the whole
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 52
parcel and yet we don't come out with a full area where we can have 5-7 acres of
flat useable play space.
Pfab/Okay I'm going to put this in rather harsh terms, these are my words. So in other
words you, I get the feeling your saying I just turn my back on it, is that what your
saying.
Vanderhoef/You get the feeling what?
Pfab/Am I, I'm kind of getting a sense that let' s just not even look at it, is that what your
saying?
Vanderhoef/I'm saying that this parcel doesn't meet the guidelines of the neighborhood
open space plan.
Pfab/And because of that I'm not interested any way shape or form, is that what your
saying?
Vanderhoef/That' s one of the masons, the other reason is that to buy the whole parcel we
would have to go into our reserve funds to purchase it and I'm not willing to
jeopardize the bonding by keeping spending down our reserves to buy something
that doesn't meet the guidelines of the neighborhood open space plan.
Pfab/I guess maybe I'd ask you this. When was the last time that we had a perfect (can't
hear) proper piece of property available to us to buy as a park?
O'Dormell/I guess Irvin this is going nowhere because your in a disagreement on what a
perfect piece of park land is. So it's not going anywhere.
Pfab/Right and so do we walk away because it's not perfect?
O'Do~nell/No and there are guidelines that have been set, and this doesn't meet it, as far
as usable ground for people to use the park but I think that' s what Dee is trying to
say, as well as.
Vanderhoef/Cost.
O'Dormell/Aaa bond rating and our shrinking fund, and the overall costs. Steven.
Kanner/Along those lines let me ask Terry when Parks and Recreation discussed this did
they say that this is a high priority we're willing to give us this project on our list
the next year or two?
Trueblood/They didn't discuss it in that vane.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 53
Karmer/Do you have any ideas about what might be given up if we had even say the
money had to come from a project that's on our 3 year capital project list?
Trueblood/Well I could probably find quite a few public works projects I'd be willing to
give up, I can't think of any park projects. I have no, I'm sorry no, nothing comes
to mind just off hand but we hadn't thought of it in that vane at all.
Kanner/Maybe that's something we could ask, Parks and Rec. says let's go for it, but
let' s have some, what would you give up on your list if you wanted to put this
near the top, maybe they could discuss that at their next meeting. And in the
meantime we could ask, just inquire about some prices what their asking
Southgate.
Wilburn/I have no problem with staff going ahead and putting feelers out or just having a
conversation to find out what they're willing to do, the money would, the
available source of funds is park land acquisition which is a fund that' s not being
replenished anymore, correct. And there's about $260,000.
Trueblood/No $280,000.
Wilbum/$280,000 left, have Parks and Recreation Commission had any conversations
about what their priority is for park land acquisition fund?
Trueblood/Not to the point where they've actually sat down and prioritized it, they did
discuss you know another parcel that they've had their eye on and to discuss
whether or not which one of them might be more important which is in the same
neighborhood but so that' s the only manner at which they've discussed it as far as
priorities for acquisition.
Wilburn/And that would be the only source of funds that I would be looking for for this
and so then I guess that would be a case where I would be looking at the
Commission to set some type of priority on what are we going to do with the
balance of park land acquisition fund so. And then you know I'd look at that
recommendation and go from there.
Vanderhoef/Yea, the park land acquisition fund is one of those places that could maybe
buy one acre as we are putting this whole parcel of the 5-7 acres but certainly not
to buy the whole huge piece.
Wilburn/Yea that would be something that I would take a look at.
Vanderhoef/Yea a piece of it could be added into it but let's find a place then that meets
the guidelines of the neighborhood open space of the 5-7 acres of usable space.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 54
Wilburn/(can't hear).
O'Donnell/Okay Connie.
Champion/Well I have, I mean I have given this a lot of thought and I know we're trying
to respond to a neighborhood concern here but a neighborhood isn't just one street
or just two streets, a neighborhood encompasses a larger area and to use park land
acquisition money to buy the land to help a particular, people who live on a
particular street be happier, I have problems with that, it's not been a priority of
the Commission and I know they're looking at park land over there, I don't think
this is a parcel they would choose and of course if we want to buy it for them I
know you'll take it.
Trueblood/Probably.
Champion/Right. So I think I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass on this, I think Dee' s
reasons are very valid, the fact that this is not park land that we would ordinarily
buy as park land except for getting pressure from the neighborhood to do it and I
don't think it's where the park commission would choose, this is my own thought,
would choose to put that park money.
Wilburn/Well that' s why I say I'm willing to go ahead and ask staff. ask some questions
so that we can find out what parks and rec. is thinking (can't hear).
Champion/Well maybe Terry could address a little bit.
Trueblood/Well they, just a point of clarification there' s a park and recreation has never
included any acquisition projects if you will in their prioritization of capital
improvements, it's a separate entity, that' s why you wouldn't have seen it on the
priority list per say, those are just purely projects and not acquisition. The other
thing is the commission has done some what I would call quasi prioritization with
respect to park land with the assistance of the neighborhood open space task force
a few years ago, they prioritized the districts that were the highest priorities to
obtain park land and this particular district did rank as their number one priority,
since that time we have acquired two acres of ground in the district and so there' s
now roughly about a 4 acre deficit according to that plan so that' s the
prioritization that they have gone through.
Kanner/Connie I hear what your saying and I think I agree that park isn't just for one
street and actually I would like to know if other people up on Benton would make
use of this and other people in the area, and I don't know if they've been included
or been brought as much as we'd like to into the discussion, but I think it might be
premature to cut off that discussion but this might be the area, we've heard from a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 55
lot of people in the neighborhood at least in the immediate area that they really
enjoy the space and what it brings to them that openness and the nature part of it.
So we should try to (can't hear) for the rest of the neighborhood or try to figure
out if they would use the space there or maybe there's other appropriate space, but
I would just hate to cut it off before we even see a Southgate and others are
willing to kick in some money and how we, if there's a chance that we could or
want to negotiate something there.
O'Donnell/Well any other comments? Are there four of us who would like to pursue?
Champion/Can I just go back to what Ross, Ross what was your? What did you want to
do here?
Wilburn/To have staff in this case, Terry, I'm assuming it would be Terry, I think he's
talked to property owners in that area before, direction to talk to the owners to
find out what their asking price might be. At what their asking price might be for
the whole parcel, part of the parcel, just so we have something to take a look at
and then to discuss it with the commission to find out is this something they
would be, Terry mentioned that there' s another parcel in the area that they were
looking that they identified as a possibility. I don't know if this would interfere
with discussions with that other property owner but to have them kind of weight
the two against each other and then come back with a recommendation.
Vanderhoef/So your, your talking about then Ross not waiting for development to
happen and dedication of land and money for the land to come in your still talking
about an either/or kind of thing with a parcel and still saying that your willing to
go out and willing to go out and buy a whole parcel.
Wilburn/Well I think that probably won't happen given our decision in executive
decision, executive session, and so we can't, I don't see us making a final decision
on that until we know the end results of you know the suit against the city.
O'Donnell/I think there's another part of this too when at a future time if we have a
proposed development in any given area I mean we are not going to be able to buy
everyone a park, it's going to have to be development. I guess I'm not interested
in pursuing this, you know I don't think it meets requirements of park land as Dee
stated, I think the Aaa rating and shrinking general fund has to enter into this
decision and also the prices of ground. And so I think with that are there four
people that are interested in pursuing this?
Wilburn/Are you saying what I had suggested?
O'Donnell/Pursuing, checking out the price and so forth.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
ofJnne 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 56
Kanner/And going to Parks and Rec.
O'Donnell/And going to Parks and Rec.
Vanderhoef/There' s three.
O'Donnell/There are not, what if it's a 3-3 tie.
Vanderhoef/Then you don't go out.
Dilkes/What? Is it 3-3, is that what your saying? It takes four of you to move something
forward.
Vanderhoef/So.
O'Donnell/So then we will not. Okay next item.
Vanderhoef/I'll get Emie.
PCRB (lP2 of 6/7/01 info. packet)
Lehman/Okay the next item is discussion of the PCRB ordinance. As I guess we're all
aware the PCRB present ordinance has a sunset clause which goes into effect the
last day of July I believe of this year and we've talked about this prior to this
evening on a couple of occasions. I asked the Council the last meeting to think
about this, tonight we would discuss what changes if any we would like to make
and the duties of the PCRB and the extension of the time and we've gotten some
comments. I did send a memo to Council, there's also a memo from Steven, there
is a memo from Dee, and I think there's some comments from Ross, now I don't
know how best to do this, I think there is consensus on the Council with the
possible exception of one of our members who feel that the PCRB should be
continued and I've taken that for granted that we will be doing that. I guess we
need to decide from a policy standpoint just what it is we expect the PCRB to do,
if anything that' s different than what they' re doing now.
Pfab/Could I ask Dee a procedural question here (can't hear)? Is this something that, is
this a case where it might be a good idea to discuss this, bring this up to the public
and not do anything tomorrow so we can (can't hear)?
Lehman/We're not doing anything tomorrow anyway, we're just talking about tonight.
Pthb/Okay so it's.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 57
Lehman/What I would like to do is get some direction from the Council tonight so we
can tell staff so that if we're going to make changes to the ordinance that they can
be starting to prepare those changes so that perhaps in two weeks we can have
something to look at.
Pfab/Well my point would be if anything this PCRB should be strengthened and I guess I
ask one question. I don't know what the cost per year to keep this going, but I
also, but it probably is calculable what it costs us to have a very traffic thing
happen in this city a t~w years and I don't, I'm not so sure if this was in affect at
that time this might have stopped that and as a result, no, when I look at the cost
of it I don't see this is an extremely expensive operation but I have to tell you one
other thing, I don't know, maybe some of you did, maybe some of you haven't,
maybe you've served in a police department or police force. I can tell you the
power that police have is unbelievable, I've been there, I've seen it, and that is
probably the one of the reasons that I am such a strong supporter of the PCRB.
I'm not saying there are any bad officers, as far as know there are not, but the
abusive power, I read the paper, I check articles all over the country, all over the
world and this is something that is always fight there, and I think this is one of the
places where you can put a pressure release and also it's good monitoring, that' s
about all I want to say.
O'Donnell/lrvin the power of a Police Department is limited by the law, you have to
follow the law, the laws are very clear, they are written clearly, you know I don't
know where this power thing comes from, I've never looked at it as a thing of
power, but rather protecting the public.
Pfab/Well if you look world wide and you watch what goes on, how many people are
sitting in jail because.
O'Dormell/Where are we looking?
Pfab/Pardon.
O'Donnell/Where are we looking?
Pfab/Look to Illinois, that's close enough.
O'Donnell/Okay.
Pfab/The Governor finally decided hell it's not even safe to continue the death sentences
because there are too many flaws and a lot of those were police brutality, that was
a big part of it, they forced somebody to confess. And they found out later that
that was not true.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 58
O'Donnell/I think (can't hear).
Pfab/So what I'm saying to you is it's a case of an ounce of prevention is worth a lot of
cure.
Lehman/Well I think.
Wilburn/At our last meeting we held this type of discussion and the idea was that we'd
come to tonight and submit specific changes in the ordinance, I would recommend
that we would start with the changes that were submitted in info. packet #4, I
would recommend that we start with the ideas that were submitted, not only us but
we also had from the PCRB itself some recommendations as well as some
correspondence, recommendations about this particular item so that would be my
recommendation.
Pfab/ThaC s fine.
Kanner/I agree I think maybe start with item #2, the Police Citizen Review Board might
be a good place to go through each of those and see ifthere's a majority
concurrent for this in our info. packet, page number 6 in the info. packet.
Lehman/These are recommendations from the PCRB.
Wilburn/Yes.
Kanner/Yes, Ross is that all right to start there at that point and work our way through.
Wilburn/That' s fine.
Kanner/The first one is administrative revision, this.
Vanderhoef/So where do you?
Pfab/Page 6 in.
Vanderhoef/Well I have that, but I don't know where administrative revisions are in the
ordinance presently.
Kanner/Well this, on the next page then they talked about suggested revisions.
Vanderhoef/That's where Fd like to go with.
Wilbum/Yea I think that's more (can't hear) ordinance.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 59
Kanner/But the, it's (can't hear) the first one has to do with how to handle complaints
that go through the Police Chief I think that' s the gist of it.
Lehman/Yea and I think they're asking for but they receive copies of all complaints
rather they were specifically directed to the PCRB or had been settled with the
police department.
Pfab/I think that' s a good idea because they are the people that see the whole picture, but
if they only, ifthat's the whole charge to see the whole picture and they don't see
the whole picture then it's, it doesn't work.
Lehman/On the other hand the public has the option of filing that claim with the Police
Department or with the PCRB.
Pfab/Is that always stated every time they?
Lehman/I think they have the option of. Is that not correct Marian?
O'Donnell/There are two different forms aren't there?
Lehman/There are two different forms, if you choose to have your complaint reviewed by
the PCRB you may choose that form and it would be reviewed by them. If you
choose to have it reviewed by the Police Department you do that, so they have that
option right now.
Pfab/Okay so your saying if they, if they go to the police and I'm going to say this harsh,
but I don't mean it that way, is that they give up the option to go to the PCRB.
Lehman/Oh I don't think they'd ever give that up.
Vanderhoef/No.
Champion/No, they'd never give that up.
Vanderhoef/They're offered either application, they're told they can either leave the
complaint and work directly with the police officer or they can fill out the other
complaint form that sends it to the PCRB.
Pthb/Okay so, let me state a hypothetical which I don't know. Let's say I go to the
Police Department and they're not satisfied.
O'Donnell/Then they can go to the PCRB.
Lehman/Eleanor.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 60
Dilkes/The only thing that would cut off the right to file the PCRB complaint is the
running of the time limit.
Karr/The 90 day limitation.
Lehman/90 days.
O'Donnell/They have 90 days to file with the PCRB.
Kanner/And that might be another because I think basically the way it reads now is that it
says they do get the reports and I think PCRB just wants clarification on that and
make it clear that they get that, those reports and that there' s a new paragraph they
suggest, 8-8-2, the Board will not intervene in the process of with the Police
Department but they will get report. I think that's basically how it reads now the
way I would read it but with some further clarification, I don't think it changes
that much.
Pfab/I think it does change it somewhat in that the Police Review Board would get a
little bit more detail than they are getting right now.
Lehman/What does the Police Review Board, the PCRB get on those complaints that are
presently flied with the Police Department and resolved by the Police Department
instead of being filed on the form with the PCRB?
Dilkes/I believe they get a quarterly from.
Lehman/Quarterly report.
Dilkes/RJ listing some I think pretty minimal information, RJ can you tel1 exactly what' s
in that report?
Winkelhake/What should be, what is suppose to be given is a very brief synopsis
complaint was given, I believe it says the date, what the basis of the complaint
was and then the results of that, I don't believe there's any identification to the
officer that's in that particular report.
Pfab/Can I ask, can I have an example of what item, do you have one that you can put
your finger on, this is a copy of a complaint, this was the information on a
complaint, any complaint?
Winkelhake/Do I have it with me?
Pfab/Do you have one?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 61
Winkelhake/No.
Kanner/Well actually Irvin if I can cut in here, this paragraph, new sub paragraph
basically says that, you look at 8-8-2 new sub paragraph, on a quarterly basis the
Chief will provide a report to the Board briefly describing the issues involved in
any complaints made directly with departments the date and the time of the
alleged misconduct and how the complaint was resolved. Again I would again
state that it doesn't seem like they're asking too much different than what happens
now, is that a clear understanding reading of that?
Karr/If I could also note those reports are on public file in the City Clerk' s office and
have been since they've been started so I mean anyone can see them at any time.
O'Donnell/That pretty much.
Lehman/That doesn't change anything.
O'Donnell/No.
Vanderhoef/I don't think this is a necessary at all.
O'Donnell/Go ahead Chief.
Winkelhake/I'd be concerned that it is exactly the report that we're giving and it's not
turn into another project that we're going to have to undertake such as a written
report on each incident that could turn into being more than many many pages. If
it's simply a report as we're now turning in, that' s what we already do, my
concern is that it may turn into more than what we have, I just want to make sure
that City Council says exactly what it is that' s expected here.
Kanner/Could we have John come and?
Lehman/No we're not going to get started into that.
Vanderhoef/No, no.
Lehman/Because if we're going to do that we're going to have to get anybody, we pay at
some point.
Kanner/I don't understand Ernie, what do you mean get started with that?
Lehman/I want to get through part of this, we may have several questions that we want to
go through before we're through and Eleanor.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 62
Dilkes/My understanding is that the administrative revisions suggested by the PCRB are
essentially intended to conform the ordinance to the current practice.
Lehman/To do what?
Dilkes/To conform the ordinance to what is currently the practice. So the practice would
not change it's just that the ordinance would be more clear about that.
Lehman/So what this 8-8-2 is actually making the ordinance conform to what is already
occurring.
Dilkes/What currently happens is the PCRB only investigates the complaints that are
filed with the PCRB but they do obtain this quarterly report from RJ so they have
a tracking of all complaints that have been filed against the Police Department and
as I read this revisions anyway that it's just basically to make the ordinance clear
about that.
Wilbutn/Okay.
Champion/Okay.
Lehman/So that represents no real change from the present procedures.
Vanderhoef/From practice.
Dilkes/Not in practice.
Pfab/Okay that' s good.
Lehman/You know before we go into these individually I guess if there, if support for
this fine, if not we may be able to save ourselves some time. Philosophically I
believe that the PCRB should be available to review complaints that are directed
to that Board, very much the same way the Board of Adjustment handles
complaints that are otherwise able to resolve within the City. I feel that is the
primary purpose for the PCRB and that their activities should be limited to
reviewing complaints that are specifically given to them and then whatever such
items for comment, review or recommendation is asked for by the Council, Chief
of Police or City Manager which is a little different than the way it's set up right
now. Now if there is, now if we don't like that and we want to continue, if we do
feel that that' s a good way to proceed, we probably can eliminate some of the
discussion that' s going to be going item by item.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 63
Vanderhoef/Okay Ernie I'm glad you said that because that was basically the intent that I
was going through and the changes that I suggested are in keeping with that kind
of a philosophy.
O'Donnell/Ernie I thought your comments hit it right on the head, I thought they were
very, very good.
Vanderhoef/What I'd like to see happen and why I did it the way I did it in making these
little changes all the way through is that if we can agree on this wording then it
won't take long to bring this to the Council for a vote and we can stay on the time
line of having this ordinance passed in time to get our recommendations done and
before the sunset.
Lehman/Well my only thought is that I believe if we give the City staff in this case the
legal folks a basic thumbnail sketch of what we'd like to do that they probably
could put something together rather easily. I don't care to ~vrite the ordinance but I
do think that if we could give them philosophic idea of what we'd like to do that
they can probably draft that rather easily.
Dilkes/Well it depends on philosophically what you want to do but.
Lehman/As opposed to (can't hear).
Dilkes/But I think it's a good approach to tell us philosophically what it is you want to
do and then we'll try and get the language right and bring the language back to
you to look at.
Lehman/Well there's definitely a difference in philosophically between what I perceive
as the function of the PCRB and for example you Steven, you see different things
than I do and I do think that we can move along quick, more quickly if we decide
which direction we want to go.
Kanner/But let's, Ernie I think perhaps we don't agree but what your agreement with the
Police Citizens Review Board, our appointed representatives who are ones we rely
on, I think we should say whether we agree or not I don't see how your statements
would disagree with what they're proposing up to that new sub paragraph. And if
you do, if you could articulate it I would appreciate that. Your basically
confirming what' s there, what' s happening now in many ways.
Pfab/I believe that this is something that had, this is a dynamic situation a lot difference
than the Board of Review or Board of, what is your referring to?
O'Donnell/Board of Appeal.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 64
Vanderhoef/Board of Adjustments.
Pfab/Board of Adjustments, this is something that, this is an ongoing interaction with the
citizens of Iowa City and the Police Department which are both, they're dynamic
living entities here and I think that you need someplace as a neutral place that
people can come and go to if they have a complaint.
Champion/Well that's the purpose of the PCRB.
Pfab/Right so what I'm saying is continue basically the way they are and they've made
some suggestions as to how to tighten it up a little bit and I think we're on, I think
probably is pretty much what they had in mind I think is a good idea.
Lehman/Well how does?
Vanderhoef/Well their philosophy obviously is different than what Ernie and I have been
articulating.
Pfab/Right.
Lehman/It may not be as much change as you think thougJn.
Vanderhoef/There are some places where the clarifications are identical.
Pfab/Okay that' s fine.
Vanderhoef/And that part is okay, I saw some redundancy in the ordinance that we could
do elimination on, one of the things though that I'm real clear about for me
personally that would help me support this is the fact that I don't think we need
the level of staffing, I think we have duplication of staffing fight along in that a
half time staff person and then using our Clerk's office anyway for all the filings
and for the other half time that the staff person is not there, our Clerk' s office
takes care of any complaint process so that is an off site from the Police
Department and I would highly recommend that we do not staff with an
administrative assistant.
Pfab/No administrative is that what your proposing?
Vanderhoef/Well when I looked at the salary line that goes with administrative assistant
that is going to be over $18,000 for this coming year then I find that for two
complaints that' s pretty exorbitant as compared to what we spend for other
commissions.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 65
Pfab/Would you rather have that and two complaints and one wild eyed one that we've
gone through before?
Vanderhoef/No you didn't hear what I said Irvin.
Pfab/Yes I heard you.
Vanderhoef/What I said was that I don't agree to staff that, that does not say I am not
going to support the ordinance but what I'm saying is we have staff that can take
care of this without hiring a specific administrative assistant for this Board.
Pfab/Okay where is the non city organizational person that' s going to make contact with
the public if the public feels that they're in jeopardy or they're out objecting
should the way the system work?
Vanderhoef/It is in the Clerk's office and the Clerk already does this all the time that the
staff person is not here that other half of the time so it's not any different it's just
eliminating one salary line shall we say and letting Marian assign in within her
own office.
Pfab/Well when I look, when I went through what you went through here I saw that you
had a lot different philosophy than just that, I could you see you taking the whole
thing and throwing it out and saying forget it and if we ever need one we'll call
them, we'll invent a new one.
Vanderhoef/No that isn't what I did when I went through.
Pfab/It was pretty close, it was.
Vanderhoef/Well that' s your interpretation and that is not my intent.
Lehman/Let's do like as Ross suggested, on the, on page 2 of the recommendations from
the PCRB, 8-8-2, oversee a monitoring system for tracking all receipt of all
complaints, lodged and swom police officers either with the PCRB or the Iowa
City police department, that represents a change by adding the Iowa City Police
Department, is that correct?
Dilkes/Yes.
Lehman/And I do not see that, I believe that people who need, who are making
complaints who wish to have the PCRB review those complaints have that option
of filling out that form and complaints that are filed with the Police Department
do not require the monitoring of the PCRB.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 66
Dilkes/It's a change in wording, it is not a change in practice, this is not saying that
they're going to investigate those complaints, it's just saying they're going to
track them because they're going to get this quarterly report from RJ.
Lehman/Okay so that represents no change from the present operation.
Dilkes/No.
Vanderhoef/And what I.
Lehman/Wait a minute.
Karr/It's not a change from practice, it is clarifying the current practice. Now if you
don't like the current practice or we should clarify it or we should eliminate it,
then this would be the time.
Vanderhoef/Then you add only what I did which was PCRB.
Karr/Correct.
Lehman/And remove the ICPD.
Karr/So the practice is there, the clarification is needed.
Vanderhoef/See neither one is in the ordinance right now if you look at this.
Pfab/So when your looking at the suggestions that the PCRB made.
Vanderhoef/This is what presently is there and what I'm saying is insert PCRB to make it
clear, they're saying add Iowa City Police Department and PCRB.
Dilkes/I really, if I can suggest, we can not do this sentence by sentence, I think we need
to do it topic by topic. The topic is the current practice that exists is that the
PCRB investigates, or reviews investigations by the PD at the level that they deem
appropriate only for complaints that are filed with the PCRB. They do however
receive a report from RJ as to complaints that are filed with the police department
and they keep track of those.
Champion/I think that's probably (can't hear).
Dilkes/That' s the current practice so the question is do you wish to continue that current
practice and if so we should make some ordinance changes to make it clear that
that' s what we're doing or do you wish to change that practice?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 67
Pfab/So what your saying, if I understand your, correctly Eleanor is that you would be
quite comfortable with the changes that were suggested by the members of the
PCRB.
Vanderhoef/No.
Dilkes/It's not my decision to decide whether I'm comfortable it's.
Pfab/On this item page where we're on.
Dilkes/No what I'm saying is that if you all eu-e comfortable with the current practice
then yes I'm comfortable with the changes that are being suggested.
Pfab/Okay I have no problem with that, that's fine. And I think that at minimum the
minimum we should do is keep it at the current level.
Wilburn/I'm comfortable with the current practice.
Champion/I think that' s a healthy practice actually.
Lehman/Now we're talking only about reviewing of complaints, the way that we're
presently handling complaints we are presently pleased with that practice, is that?
Pfab/And then we can go onto the next one, is that what yon want to do?
Lehman/Is that what I'm hearing?
Pfab/Yes, that's what I hear, ifI see.
Wilburn/Yes.
O'Donnell/Yes, that's fine.
Champion/Yes.
Lehman/Okay.
Dilkes/So yes okay.
Lehman/So the way we're handling complaints is presently acceptable to the Council, we
feel that is being appropriately and we wish to continue basically the same way we
have in the handling of complaints. All right that's.
O'Donnell/I think that's fine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 68
Lehman/All fight.
Kanner/And we would accept the proposals as basically as it's spelled out on this second
page of the PCRB.
Vanderhoef/No.
Champion/No, Eleanor can figure it out.
Lehman/Well I think until you get down to 8-8-2 N that has nothing to do with
complaints, down to that I believe all of those items are relative to complaints.
Pfab/Okay so in other words we are in pretty much agreement until we get to 8-8-2 N.
Kanner/(can't hear).
Vanderhoef/When I read what they wrote here on 8-8-2 L though then they're saying
they shall all be reviewed by the Board and reported to.
(END OF 01-58 SIDE ONE)
Vanderhoef/Now that word reviewed to me says what kind of review? Are they talking
about as presently done.'?
Dilkes/Well I think that's, what you have told me is you are comfortable with the current
practice, and you want the ordinance to reflect the current practice, and so I need
to review this language again. I will work with the PCRB's attorney to make sure
that the language reflects the current practice.
Lehman/Okay.
O'Donnell/Good.
Dilkes/I'm not saying that I'm going to, I would be comfortable with every word that's
hear but that' s the concept.
Lehman/Well we need to give you our intent.
Dilkes/That' s right and I.
Lehman/Which we're trying to do, okay.
Dilkes/And I get that, and I will work on the language.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 69
Pfab/Now can we go to 8-8-2 N?
Lehman/Yes that' s fine.
Pfab/Okay so it says (can't hear) Board shall review police practices, procedures and
written policies (can't hem'). I think that's great, I have watched the Police
Department and the PCRB interact and I think today we have a greatly improved
Police Department because of a number of things that took place because of the
interaction between both. I think the Police Department is probably sitting at 20-
30 percent both in efficiency and service.
Lehman/I would change that where at the end of that sentence where it says the
procedures relate to the Police Department performance as a whole when
requested by the Police Chief, the City Manager, or the City Cotmcil.
Pfab/Okay. I have a question, when?
Vanderhoef/And then take the rest of that off, is that what your saying Ernie? And then
drop the last sentence (can't hear).
Lehman/It would be okay, if we ask them to do it we'd certainly want a report.
Pfab/Okay before we do that I have a question. I've been on the Council now about not
quite a year and a halfI have made several attempts to ask the police chief to
come and visit and make a report or any other interaction with the Council, I have
never seen one interaction in a year and a half, now if you take this away then I
have some questions, then I'm going to get really uncomfortable. I mean this is
the way you walk.
O'Donnell/Irvin say that again, what did you say.
Pfab/I have on several occasions suggested that the Police Chief and visit and tell us
what' s going on and what not, and it was no, no way.
O'Donnell/What's going on about what?
Pfab/Anything, what's going on in the department, does he have any problems? When it
came time for a budget review, nothing.
Vanderhoef/Did you ask questions, specific?
O'Donnell/Did you ask a specific question?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 70
Pfab/Yes he said it was going to be taken care of later.
Kanner/Well I think this, Irvin it might be separate from paragraph N, we got some
comments from Karen Kubby and she talks about, I ~know the Council reviews the
PCRB annual report, what annual assessment is done regarding the annual
performance of the ICPD? This is a critical last step that may be overlooked, I'm
just checking in to see if this last step is being done. And so I think what your
talking on this issue relates to this point of a final review. I have a feeling there's
not a majority that would want to incorporate this into this ordinance but as far as
N is concerned Emie your saying that instead of saying the Board shall report that
it should, that the Council can call for a report.
Lehman/Well I think they should review policies, practices, procedures, whatever when
requested to do so by the Council, the Police Chief, or the City Manager, it could
relate to grants, it could relate to whatever policies, but I do think they should be
available for to come up with reviews on any of those things when requested to do
so by the Council, Police Chief or the City Manager.
Vanderhoef/And that' s all we need to put in there because when we make that request
then we will let them know what we expect in the report.
Lehman/No they, we can'k
Vanderhoef/They will have direction on what their charge is what to do and how they
will report to us. All we have to do is ask them to do it.
Pfab/Okay Dee I'd ask you this, when was the last time you made a request to the Police
Department? And there's been an awful lot of good changes, are you aware of
what they are in the Police Department, the procedures or manuals? But to say
we're going to wait until this happens.
Vanderhoef/No that' s not.
Pfab/Well we have in a year and a half we have never made one question that I'm aware
of.
Lehman/Well we did ask that the Police Department go through the accreditation process
which I think we're in the process of doing right now and that's at the direction of
Council.
Pfab/So this was perceived, but I think the Police Review Board also helped in that area
too.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 71
Lehman/Well the Council made the direction, it cost us a lot of money, I can't remember
what it cost us, but it was strictly at the direction of Council that we go through
the accreditation process which goes through all the policies and procedures of the
Police Department.
Pfab/And when, was that a request by us or a request by someone else?
Lehman/I think that came from Council. That came at the same time that we were
discussing the whole concept of the PCRB.
Pfab/Okay so your saying approximately when then?
Vanderhoef/Back in 96.
Atkins/It's been a couple of years ago, the whole.
Pfab/Okay that' s fine, I'm speaking from my year and a half.
Vanderhoef/The request came and then we had to budget for it.
Lehman/Yea.
Atkins/Well let' s do this, I would remind the Council we ask on three different occasions
to do it and you turned us down twice.
Lehman/Only because we didn't have the money, because it's costing a lot of money to
do this but we're doing it.
Pfab/Money well spent I think we're getting a terrific police force out of it.
Lehman/Well, in any event on this 8-8~2 N do we wish to leave it the way it is or do we
wish to have those reviews at the direction of the Council, the Police Chief, the
City Manager?
O'Donnell/Yes.
Champion/Yes.
Vanderhoef/Yes, at the request.
Pfab/I would support this, and I'm not going to support, I couldn't support what your
saying.
O'Dormell/I heard four.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 72
Vanderhoef/I heard four for a request.
Lehman/Well let' s make this, at the request of the City Manager at the request Ross.
Wilburn/I think that' s fine and I think I would be comfortable with Commission
members bringing something up to me as well as, yea.
Lehman/Well absolutely, no I think that's right.
O'Dormell/That's part of it, that's part of it.
Atkins/Folks I want to remind you that I'm your instrument here.
Champion/Right.
Atkins/And I can assure you and I think anybody sitting here, if you've ever asked me to
do something or report back to you or research assuming there's a majority
support regardless of the department that's involved you' 11 get that information.
Lehman/I think that' s exactly right Steve but I think that.
Atkins/I mean I need some comfort that I can ask for certain things to get done.
Lehman/Well this in addition to anything you do now.
Atkins/Okay.
Lehman/No, no, let' s say for example we have (can't hear).
Atkins/If you wish.
Lehman/That we have a question about and rather than just say okay look PCRB we'd
like you to this grant or we say that, RJ say that or you say that and they come
back and we recommend that you accept the grant or you don't accept the grant or
whatever, (can't hear) called upon to do that.
Champion/But where are they going to get their information from Ernie? I've got to
think about this, I mean is, how many Police Citizens Review Board do they.
Lehman/They've got some pretty good folks.
Champion/Yea I know, but do you want them making decisions about the Police
Department?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 73
Lehman/They can't decisions, they can recommendations to the Council only. But then
we would then receive their recommendations and those folks really do work
pretty doll gone hard.
Karmer/Ernie I think that it will work that your proposing and it seems you have majority
but I'd just like to put out there that it seems to me it's sort of like levels of having
to prove something which actually is another point that we're going to get to later
on. On one level having to request something is different from expecting
something yearly. I feel more comfortable when there's the expectation out there
in an ordinance that says we want this so we don't have to depend on us
requesting it for some reason it being overlooked in some ways, I prefer to have
shall review police practices and shall report recommendations if any to the Chief
and the City Council, I like that proactive term in there and it puts more owness
on us to react to that because we're going to be getting it instead of the Council
saying we're going to maybe request something. Even if we have this as the
PCRB wrote it with the shall report we could still request things.
Vanderhoef/Well when you put in the shall then for me what happens there is that ~ve are
asking for oversight by two legal groups because any, as I understand it any.
Pfab/Point of clarification (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/New practice or procedure that the Police Chief is proposing has to go
through our legal staff through Eleanor' s office before it's adopted so it has
already been reviewed in that respect so to put it out for a second review with
another legal.
Dilkes/The stan, they're policies as we've been going through the accreditation process,
we've been reviewing their policies that's correct.
Vanderhoef/Yea, they're all being done with our legal staff so to have a second review
by another legal person to me is duplication of effort and this is also one of the
places where we increase the cost of the administration of this Commission.
Kanner/Dee the procedure that we had that part led perhaps to Eric Shaw being shot was
legal, it passed legal muster even after the fact it passed legal muster, the point of
the Police Citizens Review Board is to have a community extra legal, I don't
know if that's the correct term, body that will help us that will help us and guide
by putting procedures in that will avoid those kind of things and we have a
procedure that change after Eric Shaw got killed that will make it safer for people.
And perhaps if we had a Police Citizens Review Board ahead of time that was
advising us on policies and practices this tragedy wouldn't have happened. So I
think we have the legal advice, we want something beyond the strictly legal
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 74
advice and that's what the Police Citizen Review Board is our eyes and ears into
the community is there for. And that's why I think we need something like this as
far as reviewing police practices and procedures to see how the force can be made
even better and how, interact with our community even better.
Vanderhoef/But we're saying we are already doing that in this accreditation and that was
how we were addressing it so to have it go through the PCRB is has certainly
redundancy.
Lehman/Well but what we're saying here is that we'd like the PCRB to give us their
expertise and study a policy or practice that we're contemplating that and direct
them to do that, if they will do that bring it the Council, Police Chief or City
Manager.
Vanderhoef/Yea and that does not include shall.
Lehman/Well no.
Vanderhoef/It is a may.
Dilkes/Now.
Pfab/Okay.
Lehman/Just a minute, Eleanor.
Dilkes/This is, I have this down kind of under the broad heading of policy review, there
are a number of places in the ordinance that reference that, that basic review
authority of the PCRB so I'm going to take that to mean that we need to address
all of the sections of the ordinance. Is that right?
Vanderhoef/Yea.
Lehman/That that review would be at the direction of the City Council, the Police Chief
or the City Manager.
Dilkes/So for instance the section there's a section in here that says may hold general
informational hearings concerning Police Departments practices, procedures, or
written policies, you want those to be only at the request of Council?
Lehman/Right.
Vanderhoef/Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 75
Dilkes/Or City Manager.
Kanner/What's that (can't hear) Eleanor what section is that?
Pfab/(can't hear).
Dilkes/8-8-8 B7.
Pfab/What was it again?
Vanderhoef/8-8.
Dilkes/8-8-8 B7. I'm just using that as an example.
Kanner/B7.
Vanderhoef/Yea, next to the last page. 8-8-8 B7, and that was what I had put in here to
delete.
Dilkes/I'm just using that as an example, there are a number of places in the ordinance
that talk about policy review. And I'm assuming that your direction, your giving
me the general direction that you want that to be at the direction of Council and
we're going to need to address all the parts of the ordinance that relate to that.
Wilbum/I'm sorry, hold on a second, I don't have the right section. 8~8-B.
Dilkes/8-8-8.
Wilburn/8-8-8, okay I didn't hear that third 8.
Vanderhoef/It's actually the last page Ross.
Dilkes/8-8-8 B7 is an example.
Vanderhoef/The Board shall hold general information of.
Dilkes/8-8-7 C.
Vanderhoef/It' s another one.
Dilkes/B3 is another example, I'm just telling you there are a number of places ~vhere
this policy review is mentioned because it's kind of the other function of the
Board over the complaint review, so I'm assuming you want me to address in
drafting the language all the sections.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 76
Vanderhoef/Yes please.
Pfab/Okay Dee.
Dilkes/You need to tell me if I'm assuming incorrectly.
Wilburn/And that example, the first example you sited, the Board may hold general
information hearings (can't hear) in that case I personally know of Dee is this the
part where you were disagreeing with, I'm thinking about.
Vanderhoef/The forum.
Wilburn/The hearings here, the forum. See I personally have no problem with that just
as any, I mean I don't.
Vanderhoef/Of the forums would be the same kind of thing that we are taking up front
and that' s why I think Eleanor is trying to address them. At the direction of
Council, the Police Chief or the City Manager if we have a subject that we would
like a forum held on we wil make the direction that that' s what ~ve would like to
have happen.
Wilburn/Reviewing policy I have no problem with, in terms of policy I'm still supporting
us giving direction, in my mind if the Board wants to, if they want to sit down and
have a listening section or whatever you want to call it just to get public input I
don't have a problem with that.
Vanderhoef/Well they have a public time at everyone of their meetings anyway so that's
always open at their meetings but to do a general forum to have a subject for
instance the last one that was, the community policing.
Wilburrd But they're not making, I mean a forum, they're not making a recommendation
from that, I'm looking at.
Vanderhoef/We aren't even getting a report from that.
Wilburn/And that's fine to me, I don't see that as a, if they want to go out and listen
about whatever, I don't have a problem with that, that's another avenue for a
commission member you know if someone approaches a commission member on
the street, e-mail, telephone call, I just see that as another possible opportunity but
in terms of formulating specific policy and again being open for us to give them
direction then I'm comfortable with limiting that that way.
Vanderhoef/I respect that opinion of yours and I would like the direction come from us.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 77
Wilburn/(can't hear) for Eleanor that's what I was can't hear).
Dilkes/No I think that's.
Pfab/Dee I have a question.
Vanderhoef/What was that Eleanor?
Dilkes/I'm just saying I think you need to, if you see a distinction between taking public
input on a particular policy or practice as this section talks about and making,
reviewing a policy and practice and making recommendations to Council then yea
you need to.
Wilburn/I see those as two dift~rent things and that' s my only point.
Dilkes/Then I need to know that.
Vanderhoef/Because there certainly are opportunities at every commission meeting, there
is a public time to receive input so that all of our commissions no matter what
Commission it is in the City they can receive public input at their regular meetings
as we do and as we get on phone, and e-mail's and letters and so forth but just the
formal forums I would prefer that we give the direction that we would like, we see
a need for, and they can recommend to us that they see a need for and we can
agree or disagree but there is a public forum I think it needs to be approved by the
Council.
Lehman/I think it would be very difficult for the, I would find it very difficult if they
came to the Council and requested a public forum on an issue to say no.
Pfab/But at the same time is there a requirement that they do? Now I'm going to ask Dee
were you at the last forum when the community?
Vanderhoef/Yes I was.
Pfab/Okay that was one of the finest things that the Police Department and the PCRB did
in a long, long time, it was an outreach to the community and a number of people
came and spoke, some were not most friendly but I think it was a very valuable
interaction between the Police Department and some citizens that were not terribly
happy with some things that were going on. But everybody walked away, they
understood each other, and it was their, we didn't ask them to do it, they did that
on their own and I think that was one of their finest hours. So now you want to
take it away from them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 78
Vanderhoef/Well you think your terminology, I respectfully disagree with you.
Pfab/You disagree with what? I mean what part?
(Can't hear)
Pfab/I was just talking about that forum.
Vanderhoef] That forum.
Pfab/What was it that you disagree with my comments?
Vanderhoef/That I didn't think it was well done, I was very disappointed, I felt that the
police officer was put on the spot in fact it was referred to at one point as the hot
seat, I felt like there was no direction, I don't think the audience was kept on task.
Asking questions without making public statements, and inferences that put the
police officer in the mode of having to "defend himself' or "defend the police
department."
Pfab/Do you think the police officer left that thing (can't hear)?
Vanderhoef/I thought he did an excellent job.
Pfab/That' s my point.
Vanderhoef/And I felt like it was very poorly run and I felt very sorry for the police
officer and that's why I'm, one of the reasons why I'm not real fond of the forums
and yes this is the first one I have attended, I saw, I have talked to a few people
about them and I thought it was time that I go and listen to one of them, but I was
very disappointed in not keeping the audience on task.
Pfab/So you, your, if I'm going to articulate what you, I think your telling me.
Vanderhoef/Well just let me just say it and then you don't have to say it thank you very
much.
Pfab/Okay so your saying that you think the police officer walked out of there thinking
he had been broadsided?
Vanderhoef/I don't know what anybody else thought, I am stating what I thought.
Pfab/What if you would have talked to the police officer how it was, I did, and he was
pleased.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of Jane 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 79
Kanner/Dee I think one of the things in your statements here, we haven't had reports
from the forums that I can remember, I guess I would agree to a certain extent and
I would say we should put that in the ordinance that we should get reports that we
would require reports from forums, I think that makes sense so we can act on
them. And it does seem to me that other boards and commissions sometimes hold
hearings without our okay. Isn't that the case?
Champion/If it' s part of their ordinance.
Kanner/Parks and Rec. don't they go at a, they have a tour. Isn't that in a sense
something like that?
Pfab/Trails.
Lehman/Well but I think that' s a whole different situation.
Vanderhoef/That's an informational for Council and commission members.
Kanner/Yea so it's the same type of thing to gather information because they have a
different responsibility in different areas they do it in a different way, this is the
same thing I would think as Parks and Rec. collecting information.
Lehman/Well I you know, the question do we, shall the PCRB conduct public meetings
to on their own to solicit information or shall they be requested if they want to
hold public meetings they can make a request from the Council to hold those
meetings or be directed by the Council to hold those meetings. The question is
will they do it at their volition or they do it the request of Council or permission of
Council.
Vanderhoef/Or Council just does their own or the Police Department does their own.
Lehman/Well it would be a shame to have the group if your not going to let them do, if
your going to have a meeting then certainly they could put it together.
Pfab/So then I back in the last 18 months how many requests did we make to have them
have a forum?
Lehman/We didn't have to.
Champion/We didn't have to.
Pfab/Well no, so.
Lehman/If we change this we will have to, so what' s your pleasure?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 1 I, 2001 Special Work Session Page 80
Champion/I like the fact that it can be requested by them or by us or by whoever.
Pfab/So as it is now.
Champion/No.
Vanderhoef/No.
Champion/Now they're directed to do it twice a year isn't it?
Kanner/No, no.
Lehman/The question is do we want them to conduct public meetings without being
requested by the Council or being with the Council' s permission?
Champion/No.
Kauner/I like that independence, I think it's a good thing.
Pfab/And that' s where the public can feel comfortable but their, that' s the (can't hear).
Lehman/Well that' s a philosophic discussion.
Wilburn/I just go back to (can't hear) when I want to listen and just open the doors and
listen and I'm fine with that.
Pfab/So as they are now that's we just continue on. In other words what the ordinance
says but what the policy is.
Wilburn/If they wish to, the last forum was that advertised about a specific policy topic?
??? / Yea.
Wilburn/Okay, if they wish to listen, have a general listening open, I guess it would be
called an open forum, open discussion, I would be fine with that.
Vanderhoef/Open discussion.
Wilburn/Yea.
Lehman/But any topic, not a specific topic.
Vanderhoef/Not a speaker.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 1 I, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 81
Wilbum/Right, fight.
O'Donnell/I guess I really don't have a problem with a form.
Wilburn/That takes away any concern about or it's not a.
Vanderhoef/A listening session is different than.
Wilburn/It's not a burden on staff resources, time taken.
Champion/Okay.
Wilburn/That' s what I'm, if they wish to, if their out there they can listen, it's another
way to gather input to educate themselves.
Pfab/And interact with the public also.
Lehman/We need to say this though in a way that we know what we're saying, what your
saying is that the Board may from time to time have public.
Vanderhoef/Listening.
Lehman/Well how do we want to state that?
Wilburn/Is it, is it stated, I lost the section it's stated, hearing (can't hear).
Dilkes/It currently says the Board may hold general informational hearings concerning
Police Department practices, procedures, or written policies and such hearings
will be public. The Board shall then report the results of such general
informational hearings to the City Council as the Board deems appropriate. Much
of the policy, the stuff in the ordinance about policy review is permissive or
discretionary on the part of, on the part of the Board, there aren't a lot of, they
shall do this, they shall do that with respect to policy. And I think when Dee was
talking about the, you 'know there being some duplication of effort, it's my
understanding that, it's not like their legal counsel goes through each policy that
we review for the police department, I don't think they're doing that kind of
systematic review are you?
Vanderhoef/So, but it happens at a meeting where there is other legal counsel.
Dilkes/The informational meetings you mean for hte?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 82
Vanderhoef/Well at, wherever they are reviewing policy and procedures they have
another.
Dilkes/Sure, if the Counsel is there and they're talking about policies then there would
be, I'm just saying that I don't think they're doing, they're not going through all
the policies of the Police Department in reviewing those for legal correctness and
community con'ectness and that kind of thing? Am I correct about that? Okay.
So I'm just telling you as an informational matter that it's right now fairly
discretionary on the part of the Board what how much time they devote to policy
review, what policies they choose to review. I think right now they're, they have
been taking a look for instance at the racial profiling issue and that kind of thing
but that's the way it currently stands. So I guess I need to know, it seems to me
you've identified, you've kind of broken out receiving input and making
recommendations, that's kind of the distinction that Ross was making. The
section as you would expect talks about receiving input and then reporting back, I
mean it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it seems to me to receive input and
then.
Champion/Not do anything with it.
Dilkes/Do not do anything with it, so I guess it makes some sense that those two would
either be at their discretion or your discretion or they would go hand in hand.
Wilburn/Well I don't know.
Pfab/Well it states here it says at the Board' s discretion.
Vanderhoef/I think I'll have some cofl~e, do you want some coffee?
Lehman/Yea decaf. So how do we want to say this? How do we want to do it? Do we
want that the Board may from time to time have general informational meetings
relative to police matters?
Pfab/Basically like it states here. And is the actual activity much different than the way
it says here in 77 8-8-7. That's really, in fact.
Dilkes/I guess essentially.
Pfab/Yea Eleanor.
Karmer/8-8-8-8.
Pfab/8-8-7.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
Jtme 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 83
Kanner/No 8-8-8-B.
Dilkes/Except for the report I don't think there's been a report.
Pfab/Oh 8-8-B7.
Kanner/8-8-8 B7, three 8's, and a B and a 7. Ernie I think the question and maybe we
can just take a vote is whether or not they can do it on their own (can't hear) and
or not for 8-8-8 B7.
Champion/Yea I agree they can.
Vanderhoef/This one.
Champion/You know I don't like those forms because I think they turn into police
bashing and I find them an embarrassment, I find them embarrassing but on the
other hand I like the idea of the public (can't hear).
Wilbum/That's fine, that's fine.
Pfab/You like the idea of what?
Champion/Of the public being able to talk.
Pfab/Right and well just the other night there was how many 25 officers over at a what
was a, the public thing over at Broadway.
Winkelhake/Neighborhood Center.
Pfab/Neighborhood Center, officers were visiting with all the block party type of thing.
Winkelhake/That was at our initiative (can't hear).
Pfab/Yea but I mean that's great.
Champion/But that' s different.
Pfab/The outreach is them, I mean they're doing a great job.
Lehman/All right we are saying ~ve are going to leave 8-8-8 B7.
Vanderhoef/If we take it out and go with the original first statement we'll be okay.
Lehman/We can leave this alone.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
ofJtme 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 84
Vanderhoef/Then we can take it out.
Lehman/I beg your pardon and everybody just said they wanted to leave it in.
Champion/We've had such a long night that none of us are thinking clearly.
O'Donnell/You know I think what we're trying to say is it's okay to go out in the
community and talk to people.
Champion/Right.
Lehman/All right so you leave 7 in? Yea right it's in. All right now on page 3 of the
memorandum from the PCRB.
Pfab/Page 3.
Lehman/Of their memo which I don't know what it is in the packet.
Pfab/It looks like it's page 8 on.
Lehman/This is relative to the review process where the conclusions of the Chief can be
have to be evaluated under three criteria, unsupported by substantial evidence is
one, unreasonable arbitrary or capricious is two, contrary to policy, practice or law
is the third, but the Board suggests that the review for standard be made more
simple and clear to allow the board to agree or disagree with the Chiefs findings
and separately to agree or disagree with comments made by the Chief with regard
to the findings. This would provide the Board with some latitude to comment on
their observations or concerns, complaints are rarely clear cut and officer's
behavior may not rise to the level of misconduct but other aspects of the situation
may merit comment.
Wilburn/I have a question about the reasonable basis standard of review. My question is
as I read through that, I mean 1 thought about what the PCRB was saying about
that but as I read through it give deference to and the reasonable basis, does that
mean that they can't look at anything if, does give deference mean that you can't
look at it all or does it mean we recognize this, we can review, we can't
recommend a change unless those three conditions are meeting but can't we
comment on a decision that was made? I guess my question is, is this eliminating
as they are perceiving it to be or? You know what I'm asking.
Dilkes/I know what your asking.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 85
Lehman/I believe they may either sustain or not sustain, and if they sustain the findings
I'm not sure that they can go through and comment and say boy this was a close
call, I mean this was a 48-49 and it was close but we have to sustain the position
of the Chief.
Dilkes/I'm looking for a purpose section I think that explains the section.
Vanderhoef/A purpose.
Wilburn/Can they not sustain but express an opinion.
Lehman/I don't know that they can do that.
Wilburrd That's what I'm asking.
Lehman/Yea and I'm not sure they can do that.
Dilkes/Well let me just basically as I've explained before the standard of, the ordinance
and I'm looking for a purpose section that I read today that kind of, it seems to me
that when the Council passed this ordinance, and if I could find that one section it
would help.
Karr/(can't hear).
Dilkes/Yea, thanks. No I'll find it in a minute, but it was based on the premise that the in
the first instance the Police Department should review itself, should investigate
itself. And the standard of review was based on that premise of the ordinance,
that being that if there was a reasonable basis for the Police ChieFs decision then
the Police, the PCRB would not reverse that decision. And it is a pretty strict
standard of review meaning their discretion is narrow.
Wilburn/In changing it, reviewing it, or?
Dilkes/I think they have at times commented, they have agreed with the Chief based on
the standard of review, but have commented with a concern they might have. And
in fact I think there was a discussion at some point in amendments that we made
to this ordinance where we clarified that the name clearing hearing for instance
that had to be offered to a police officer would be offered if the board was critical
of the performance, it didn't hinge whether it was sustained or whether it was
critical. So I do think they occasionally cornrnent on something that they think
there should be maybe some training on this or they have some concern about this.
But when it comes to sustaining or not sustaining they're bound by that standard
of review.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 86
Lehman/But what I read in this request is that not so much that they not be bound to a
standard of for sustaining or not sustaining the complaint but they have the ability
to have some Iatitude in making comments and observations. What I thought I
just heard you say is that they perhaps are exercising those latitudes right now in
making those observations.
Dilkes/Well that' s not how I read this comment by the PCRB.
Lehman/Well tell me how you read it.
Dilkes/Well it says the Board suggest that the review standard be made more simple and
clear to allow the Board to agree or disagree with the Chiefs findings and
separately to agree or disagree with comments made by the chief with regard to
the findings. I mean.
Kanner/That seems to be what Emie is.
Lehman/It seems to me that it says they can agree with the Chiefs findings and disagree
with his comments, meaning the Chief is right and we sustain it but we don't
agree with his comments.
Dilkes/Well I think on occasion they do that now.
Lehman/That' s what I just said, I mean is.
Dilkes/That' s not how, well, that's not how I understand, I think they have a bigger
concem with the standard ofreview than that, and maybe I'm wrong. Leah's
nodding at me, yes.
Wilburn/The concern is about being able to reverse or modify a decision.
Lehman/But we can't.
Dilkes/I think they're ask, I think my understanding of the PCRB's comments in this
memo and in the past with respect to the standard of review is that they would like
to have a broader discretion with respect to review of the Chiefs findings.
Kanner/And it seems to me that simplicity is often, if you have a choice between
simplicity and complexity go for simplicity and there' s some sort of law about
that (can't hear) and this is what the PCRB is suggesting to go for simplicity, it
makes sense to me that they have this kind of freedom and why I've not heard a
good reason, maybe Eleanor will give, there's a legal reason why it is good to be
complex in this situation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 87
Champion/You know I.
Lehman/It's pretty simple.
Champion/That's pretty simple right or wrong, you know your sustained or your not
sustained.
Vanderhoef/And the number.
Kanner/No agree or disagree with the Chief they're saying.
Champion/Okay, I know so the thing that worries me when you start expanding what
they can agree and what they can't agree with as far as how the Chief has reached
his decision is that he is the Police Chief, he is in charge of those police man and
that is the way it is. Now if he starts getting undennined his decisions start getting
undermined by the Police Citizens Review Board this whole power, well (can't
hear) power, but his authority starts to get diminished and then when he tells some
policeman he can't do something then that policeman or police~voman, aren't
police children would say I really don't have to listen to him. I mean I think
you've got to be careful that you don't undermine the power of the Chief of
Police, that's a very important decision, it's very important.
Vanderhoef/To send, I agree.
Champion/And you can not send a message that he can be undermined, I think, but I
don't, I also do, I also want the Police Citizens Review Board some way to maybe
this procedure might be changed or this might be changed because you wouldn't
have made this decision without that decision but I don't, you know this is why I
can't really change this, I want it to be, you are supported by substantial evidence
or you know what I, I want the two that we have, (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/The third one.
Champion/I've been on the go since 7:30 this moming I'm really getting worn out, but I
really don't want that undermined, that's very important. Do you see what I'm
saying?
Kanner/Yea but I don't see how this undermines the Chief's.
Champion/I think it could, I think it could, I think it could but I also like the idea that
they also can make other suggestions that maybe those just have to be done in
some other way where I don't know, I don't know, I just can't think.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 88
Lehman/Well I don't hear us changing the three standards of (can't hear) we have in
place.
Wilburn/Can I ask one last question? Maybe they can go by it this way. The reasonable
basis standard are those three points of disagreement, are those the only three that
are that further clarify, are those the only three, are those three points what you,
what our legal definitions reasonable basis, those are the only three points or is
that just an attempt to try to provide a some sort of definition?
Dilkes/You could have a different standard of review, there's nothing preventing you, as
long as you don't, as long as the PCRB doesn't have disciplinary authority, there' s
nothing preventing you from changing that standard of review.
Wilburn/And what's the, what's the language, what is the phrase that would provide that,
what would be a lower standard and what is can you (can't hear) definition?
Dilkes/Maybe I can give kind of an example.
Wilburn/Okay that would make, yea.
Dilkes/When a court for instance, let's say an administrative agency be the you know the
job service that makes an unemployment decision or DNR makes an
administrative decision or any of the administrative agencies that we have that are
I believe to have some kind of expertise, when a court reviews a decision made by
one of those bodies it, the standard of review is very similar to this.
Wilburn/Okay.
Dilkes/In other words, the court is not going to overturn the decision of what they've,
what the law views as a an administrative agency with some expertise in an area
unless the court finds that it simply, there's no evidence to support the decision or
there's not substantial evidence to support the decision or that they acted arbitrary
and capriciously and unreasonably.
Wilburn/Okay.
Dilkes/That's a very different standard of review for instance then what you typically
find in appellate court reviewing the decision of a lower court, it's often a (can't
hear) review, the appellate court looks at it a new.
Wilburn/They look at it.
Dilkes/They look at it a new.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 89
Wilbum/Okay.
Dilkes/And they say here' s the facts, we'll accept the facts as found by the trial court but
we are going to make our decision, that's a very different standard of review and
you all could choose either of those.
Kanner/The reason I think to keep it simpler as proposed by the PCRB folks is that this is
not a decision making board, the PCRB, they're a recommending board, and that's
I think a very good reason to keep it simple and common sense, that' s what we
want of them, that' s what I want of them, again a citizen's perspective of
complaints that might come through.
Dilkes/I have to comment on that, I have to comment on that Steven, this is not a
question of simplicity or complexity, this is a question of philosophy and policy
and how you view the role of the PCRB.
Kanner/I think it is a matter, in my opinion.
Dilkes/And I think the Board would agree.
Kanner/Of simplicity and examining something as opposed to a complex legal standard
and perhaps simplicity is not the word but there' s maybe different standards of
looking at something.
Dilkes/Well that' s what I was trying to explain that there are different standards of
review but you need to articulate what they standard is so everybody knows what
it is.
Kanner/Right and I'm saying I'm articulating what the PCRB is, that' s what I continue to
say Eleanor, what the PCRB is putting out here is for their standard of review is
suggested that the review standard be made simple and clear to allow the Board to
agree or disagree with the ChieFs finding and separately to agree or disagree with
the comments made by the Chief with regards to the finding. To me that makes
sense.
Lehman/Okay guys what are we going to do? We have the three standards that we are
presently requiring the Board to use.
Pfab/I would say let's go with it there.
O'Dormell/What do you think?
Lehman/Well.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 90
Vanderhoef/I think we should go with one and two and be done with it.
Lehman/I don't understand what the problem you have with number 3.
Vanderhoel7 The problem of number 3 here again is that any time the chief writes the
report or review of the policy and procedure it is reviewed by our legal staff so
why, if our legal staff doesn't pick it up already whether it's contrary to policy or
practice, I don't think probably the PCRB will.
Lehman/No but the Chief could for example make a recommendation contrary to
practice or law or policy, and if he made that recommendation it would incumbent
on the PCRB to point that out.
Vanderhoef/And it would be caught.
Lehman/No it wouldn't be caught.
Vanderhoef/At the legal before it goes to the PCRB.
Lehman/This is the recommendation of the Chief based on a complaint.
Vanderhoef/But she reviews all of them.
Lehman/No.
Dilkes/It would be appropriate.
(END OF 01-58 SiDE TWO)
Lehman/For reviewing the conduct not the policy.
Dilkes/Conduct of somebody, this says that the conduct being reviewed is contrary to the
policy, practice or law.
O'Doanell/I'm fine with these, and I think there's four of us that are fine with it.
Lehman/All right, all right, I think we're all right with the way it is.
Karr/The way it is currently.
Vanderhoef/Just the way it is.
Lehman/There' s one thing that I would like to see the PCRB do that is not come up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 91
Wilbum/I just want some clarification on that because I would support a lower standard
where the Board could give deference meaning respect and recognize the
expertise of staff but they can give their own opinion, in my mind that's, yea it's
an opinion, it's something that, it's something that would give us a basis for
discussion with the City Manager as to in terms of policy or policy
recommendation or change, I think it's another matter of input for us as Council.
O'Donnell/(can't hear).
Wilburn/I don't support and I'm not looking at that as for PCRB to make personnel
decisions but more policy type things.
Champion/Well that' s the problem I have with this too, I agree with you, I would like if
they see a problem that they have some way of communicating that but I guess I
don't like it in this section.
Lehman/I sense that and maybe I'm reading between the lines, and I sense that there are
complaints where they sustain the position of the Police Chief but are basically
not really happy with the way the procedures gone and even though based on
these three things they have to sustain the Police Chief, they feel that perhaps it
could have been handled in a better fashion.
Champion/Right, that' s exactly what they're after.
Lehman/And that's what I think I'm reading.
Champion/Yea, I think yea, I agree and I'd like them to have that option somehow but
not by changing the standard, I don't know if we can put that in here.
Wilbum/Well I think you have to change the standard to do that.
Champion/I'm not sure.
Lehman/Well I'm not so sure we want to change to be able to change whether they
sustain or not sustain the claim but I do believe they should have the opportunity
in making a report to keep the procedure.
Vanderhoef/I agree with you that it doesn't belong in this location but where it could
come up is in the report that they make either in the annual report or an interim
report about how a certain policy procedure can or may or may not I guess is a
better way.
Wilburn/Eleanor was going to.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 92
Karr/I recall that on a couple of occasions they, if I'm not, I can't remember the exact
clause, but at the very end they would say not related to this complaint but this
matter has and it's been a footnote, right John? Yea on the end of some of the
reports that have come to you. Right Leah is agreeing to, and so I think that that
premise has been exercised not under the (can't hear) under the review process
though.
Champion/So how do we get it in here?
Lehman/Leah will put footnotes on.
Karr/Well no but I'm wondering.
Dilkes/But we could work some language to leave the standard of review the same and
that with respect to whether they sustain or not sustain a complaint but provide
some language that would give them some latitude to comment about how they
feel about the situation.
Champion/Because I think if there are, I think are aspects of the policies, that's where
they're going to show up is when they're investigating a complaint and if there's
no way for them to get that out then might as well not have it.
Dilkes/Do you want me to work on some language along those lines?
Champion/Yea, does everybody else like that?
Wilburn/Yea.
Pfab/I find it very difficult in proving what they have here but I guess we're all entitled to
our own exercise.
Champion/We're all after the same thing we just want to get there in different ways.
Kanner/I guess what I'm seeing 8-8-7 as someone files the complaint and about perhaps
a police officer perceiving that happen, the Police Chief investigates and so it's
not that much about policy per se but I don't see Connie maybe you can tell me
what do we get by leaving this in here and not allowing the PCRB to say yea the
Police Chief is right but here's a little thing that should be done differently. Or
the Police Chief is wrong, here's a little something that we agree with. I don't see
what' s wrong with that, what do we gain from keeping what's in here?
Champion/I think you need to separate the two.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 93
Lehman/But I think Eleanor, what Eleanor just, if she's able to so we have to, we sustain
the finding of the Police Chief, we kind of aren't happy with the whole situation
but we have to sustain it based on these things. However, ifthere's a method by
which they can, I hate to call it a minority opinion or whatever, at least a comment
on it, and I mean if we can do that that' s not a bad idea. And the other thing that I
would like to see us have the Board do and I think it would only would have
happened a couple times in the last four years but any time a complaint is
sustained I believe it should be the responsibility of the PCRB to look into the
policy, procedure, rule or whatever that led to that complaint being filed and make
recommendations to the Chief or to the City Manager. I mean it's like the Board
of Appeals that if we have a rule that's a bad rule, and it's causing us a problem
and the Police Chief can not be sustained then I think that Board should
recommend it back to the Chief what changes should be made to see to it we don't
have another complaint that.
O'Dormell/A bad rule Eruie what are you talking about?
Lehman/We have a procedure that leads to a complaint that is sustained, a complaint is
sustained, we did something wrong then I think it should be the job of the PCRB
to look at that role, come back with recommendations, rules, procedure whatever
we want to call it and make a recommendation to the chief so that particular
complaint.
(All talking).
O'Donnell/This is why I favored, this is why I favored listening to citizen complaints
Emie because you could have somebody riding a bicycle in the ped mall one day
and sit him on the Police Citizens Review Board the next day, he was appointed
by the Council and you are dealing with law, and you're dealing with attorney's
and they can make an opinion but I just you know, when your talking setting
policy, a policy is don't throw your gum on the sidewalk or don't ride your bicycle
downtown.
Lehman/No, I'm not, and I'm probably not choosing the right type of words but if we
have a policy, for example, (can't hear) if we are doing something the way it
should not be done.
Pfab/I think with about 6 or 8 hours of sleep a lot of these would be a lot simpler.
Vanderhoef/One of the things that strikes me when you are trying to articulate this is the
fact that no matter how many policies and procedures we have we wilI have some
folk at some point in time not follow the policy so even when it is sustained it
may be an isolated case.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 94
Lehman/Oh but that doesn't mean we change any policy or procedure because that's
misconduct on the part of the officer.
Vanderhoef/That' s exactly right, that' s what I'm trying to get at that there may not need
to be a change in a policy or procedure.
Lehman/No.
Vanderhoef/It just happens an officer maybe did not follow policy and procedure.
Champion/But they are only humans.
Vanderhoef/That' s right.
Lehman/Actually we would pretty much provide for that if we weren't able to do the
comment section that your talking about.
Dilkes/I think so.
Lehman/All right.
O'Donnei1/So Eleanor have we been very clear on what we want?
Pfab/Oh clear as water.
Karmer/Iowa City.
Vanderhoeff No, no, no, we have (can't hear).
Kanner/I'm saying it's clear.
Champion/It's clear if you don't put it in a glass.
Lehman/Well do you have any idea what we've done tonight? I mean I think we really
have said a few things that you can. Marian what are you grinning about?
Karr/I'm admitting that you said a few things.
Dilkes/If I can't remember or figure it out I' 11 ask Marian.
Lehman/That would be much better than asking one of us. Are there other things we
want to? Yes I am serious because I think we need.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 95
Wilburn/We never did answer about the sunset clause issue though because, do we
formally have to go through this again? Do we eliminate it? Do we?
Vanderhoef/My experience with reviewing the PCRB over the last four years and even
when we got a heads up 6 or 7 months ago about getting going we are at the crash
end hour doing the review so if we're going to make some changes here I think it
behooves us to review it a year from now and then one way to make sure that we
do that is to leave the sunset clause on it.
Wilburn/You mean put a new sunset clause.
Vanderhoef/Put a new sunset one year and so that we review the changes that we're
making, after that then I would suggest that we put it in every two years to be sure
that it does happen and why I say every two years is because every two years
there are elections and Cotmcil changes and as I look arotmd the table right now
Ernie and I are the only two sitting here that were here when the ordinance was
adopted and there's not been a total review of it in all of this time, and the sunset
clause is the only thing that made that happen.
O'Donnell/Makes good sense.
Pfab/I think I would respectfully disagree with you, I think for the Board to go through
this every year I think that would become uninterest.
Vanderhoef/Well I'm not talking every year, what I'm saying.
Pfab/Well you are, next year.
Vanderhoef/I'm saying next year if we make considerable changes right now and then
after that every two years so that we're sure that each new Council Member has
the opportunity to review it in their first year of Cotmcil.
Lehman/Yea but you can do that without a sunset clause.
Vanderhoef/You can do that but what happens is just what happened this time that we
put it off and put it off and.
Lehman/Well then you put it off but if you have a policy or requirement of a biannual
review, is that every two years? The Council does it that's fine if they choose not
to do it they must be happy with it.
Vanderhoef/Or don't understand it.
Pfab/I would say get rid of the sunset clause period or go for four years.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,200i Special Work Session Page 96
Lehman/Well I think that' s going to be something we'll discuss when we get back
something to look at.
Champion/I don't know if we got anything done.
Lehman/Oh I think we did get some things done.
Pfab/You didn't get any sleep.
Lehman/Your not about to either.
Karr/Can I clarify?
Lehman/Yes.
Karr/I'm sorry I realize it's late but just a couple things, so you want staff to prepare an
ordinance for your consideration or with the sunset clause in them not in there?
Vanderhoef/In there I vote for.
O'Donnell/I don't have any problem with it being in there Emie.
Lehman/I don't have a problem one way or the other.
Pfab/But what four years.
O'Donnell/Four, then we'll review it at the end of a year, there' s some changes being
made.
Champion/But we can review it anyway I mean.
O'Donnell/No but if you put a sunset Connie you must review it.
Champion/Yea your going to drive people crazy.
Karmer/Well if you say, if you put a phrase this shall be reviewed every two years you
must review it in the same sense to and I agree with what Irvin was saying to put
folks through this, I think it's a good idea to do a review and on some annual or
biannual basis but I think we need to let the community know this is going to be
here and that we back it. I don't think (can't hear) is going to come anytime soon,
I think we're going to need this Police Citizens Review Board for a while.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 97
Champion/And you know what if we decide we want to get rid of it we can always get
rid we can always get rid of it, I think we need to.
Wilburn/Would you accept two years Dee?
Vanderhoef/Truthfully what I was trying to do also in the one year was to get it in an off
year, I don't think this is something that belongs in an election year, I think it
belongs a review, belongs in the year following the election so I was trying to get
it to an off year.
Pfab/Dee I have a perfect solution for you, let' s make it five years that would be an off
year.
Vanderhoef/Oh gosh no.
Lehman/I don't have a problem with having it election year, why don't we just make it
two years?
Vanderhoef/No what I'm trying to do is to have the review in the first year that new
Councilor' s are seated, that's why if we go next August, then we will have seated
a new Council in January.
Lehman/If you go two years they'll at least have 18 months under their belt and (can't
hear).
Pfab/And they'll (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/That makes it a little long.
Lehman/It would make a lot easier.
O'Donnell/Review it every other year.
Lehman/Every two years.
Pfab/I think five years, I think five years.
O'Donnell/(can't hear).
Champion/Well we're going to review it every two years.
Pf~ab/I move that it be 5 years.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 98
Champion/I don't think it's necessary to put a sunset clause, just say it should be
reviewed every two years.
Pfab/Okay that's, I would consider that a motion and I'll second that.
Karr/So you just.
O'Donnei1/We just did that.
Pfab/No wiggling two fingers around, I don't 'know.
O'DonneI1/Let's take a break.
Vanderhoef/Absolutely.
Lehman/Well we only have one item left.
Pfab/We want to go home some time.
Vanderhoef/Well we've got Council time.
Lehman/All right we have one.
O'Donnell/Be very easy.
Lehman/Yea it's getting that time.
Lehman/Smoking in Restaurants. Eleanor you've prepared a letter.
Dilkes/Did we make a decision on the sunset clause?
Lehman/Are we?
Karmer/I didn't hear that either, I like 6 years was what I like.
Lehman/I like review every two years with no sunset clause.
Champion/(can't hear).
Kanner/All right.
Pfab/Down to a two year review, review every two years.
O'Donnell/Or every other year.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 99
Pfab/Can we make that a motion? Should we make that a motion?
Lehman/You can't make motions.
Pfab/(can't hear).
O'Donnell/Instead of two years, we'll do it every other year.
Pfab/No, no, review every two years but no sunset clause.
O'Donnell/Okay every two years.
Lehman/Are there four people who would agree with a review every two years with no
sunset clause?
Pfab/Right here.
Lehman/You've got it. Sold.
O'Dormell/I think it would have been better.
Karr/And is there any decision?
Pfab/A lot better that you stayed with us.
Lehman/I'm sorry Marian.
Karr/Was there any decision made on staffing?
Champion/No.
Lehman/All right let's do that.
Pfab/Next time.
Lehman/No I don't think, we need to decide that right now.
Kanner/Well actually Emie I think people are getting a little tired and I think it would
behoove us to wait until next time or there's nothing that says we can't look at it
after we've enacted it the way we have it, I think it is in our best interest to hold
off, people are getting a little punch, punch strung here.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June l 1, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 100
Lehman/Well do we want to discuss the staff at all because I think you suggested and I
suggested and some others perhaps.
Vanderhoef/And I suggested that we.
Lehman/That the staffing could be accomplished through.
Vanderhoef/The Clerk's office.
Lehman/The Clerk's office and that a half time administrative permanent administrative
assistant would not be necessary is that?
Wilburn/That would be fine.
Pfab/I would propose that but.
Lehman/Well we've got that, that' s eliminated.
Karr/What's eliminated?
Lehman/The staff person.
Vanderhoef/The staff.
Pfab/Now who's the contact, who's the.
Lehman/We just got four and yours was the fifth one in your note.
Kanner/No I agree with that I think though that it would be better for us to talk to the
people before we make a proposal.
Lehman/No I agree with you but I also think when we get this two weeks from now
obviously there are lots of loose ends, we can look at it and there maybe some
pretty. But I think the more we write down the easier it is to deal with it in two
weeks.
O'Donnell/Did you hear that?
Lehman/Quit laughing.
O'Donnell/It's late Ernie let's.
Kanner/My proposal's in there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 101
O'Donnell/Let's get into cigarette smoking.
Smokinl~ in Restaurants (IP5 of 6/7 info. packet)
Lehman/Okay Smoking, Eleanor has prepared a letter that' s going to be sent to all of the
establishments that serve food is that correct Eleanor?
Dilkes/I'm sorry I missed the end of that smoking?
Lehman/Yes. What are you asking us to do?
Dilkes/Approve the letter, approve the draft letter.
Lehman/Do we agree with the letter that Eleanor' s proposing to send to aI1 of the
restaurants?
Champion/I saw the letter and read it but.
Vanderhoef/Yes.
O'Dormell/I agree with it.
Wilburn/I have a question about this though. What is the, I'm a little concerned about
the, I'm willing to move forward with drafting, constructing of an ordinance, I
know that we, there was finding out which restaurants this would, who this
impact, I'm a little concerned, I can see us sitting here in at the end of a month and
having t~vo responses back or you know so what, Eleanor maybe. Why can't we
just, in fact I had put out the 50 percent as a place to start, why can't we talk to a
couple, for example restaurants that have already gone smoke flee just to you
know get a picture of is 50 pement in? How is that affecting them that ball park
and then moving forward with drafting of some ordinance? What will this, how
does this information how is that going to impact whether or not we move forward
with just the general purpose of trying to ban smoking in restaurants?
Dilkes/This is being done at your request, the last time we met.
Wilburn/Right and I'm asking is that something we really want to do?
Dilkes/No there' s not, you don't have to do this, no.
Pfab/I would.
Lehman/Let Eleanor finish.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 102
Dilkes/At the last meeting Council expressed interest in finding out what types of places
would fall within the smoking ban or be exempted from it based on this 50
percent criteria. That information is not available from either the Alcoholic
Beverages Division or from the Department of Public Health, the Department of
Public Health does this classifies kind of more like a bar, more like a restaurant
initially on the reporting of the establishment, then does some checking about a
year later where they have to follow up with statistics but they won't give us any
of that information.
Wilburn/I guess my, go ahead.
Dilkes/So I guess then based on the Council's direction I drafted this letter to go out to
the establishments in the form of a survey because I don't know how else to get
the information.
Wilburn/I guess my, what I'm looking at is to make it not quite so potentially a long
drawn out process. Can't we get a same affect if we simply do a sample survey,
pick a handful of places that we think would be that restaurant or bar just to find
out from them?
O'Dormell/Because I bet, I think more are covered and you'll never have that one coming
back and saying you've never asked me.
Wilburn/So how will that inform your decision about whether or not the 50 percent
benchmark is a route to go?
O'Donnell/But I guess I'm saying we need to wait and, I think the letter is good, I think
we need to get in as many as we can and that' s going to help us in.
Wilburn/The letter' s fine I guess just are we really going to get what we hope that we're
going to get to make a decision?
Vanderhoef/We may not, we may not but if we go ahead and have Eleanor draft
something for us now and use the number of 50 we can change that number but
we're in, that' s falling in there with the definition of restaurant, but as far as the
rest of the ordinance it may be that that' s the only number that will change and if
we get that out that's the sooner that we'll start getting public input and we can
still send the letter and we know it's the choice of the owner's whether they
choose to answer the survey or not so we can hope they'll all participate with us
then if they don't why we'll use the information we have if we thinks it's
significant.
O'Donnell/I think there will be a good response on this for.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11,2001 Special Work Session Page 103
Pfab/How long are we going to wait for respond?
Dilkes/I had put July 20th on here given that it's the summer and I think I coordinated
that with a Council meeting that we follow that.
Pfab/That seems like a long time but.
Dilkes/Let me just give you my, I kind of coming off the alcohol ordinances, I think
although it's a month it may be a month that' s well spent, I think the more
systematic we can be the more clear we are about getting input from a class of
people in this case the establishments and getting it from everybody. Perhaps the
less problems we'll have down the road ~vhen you start doing the readings and
that' s when people start to come out of the woodwork and start having objections
and then your trying to deal with them at that point when you've already and so
that's just kind of my perspective on it.
Vanderhoef/Getting the first draft out I think is important because that' s ~vhen we're
going to get response.
Pfab/So what kind of a time table are we looking at?
Lehman/She said the 20th of July.
Pfab/No, no, so we get it back the 20th of July, how much processing does that take?
Dilkes/Well do you have the calendar Marian?
Kanner/Well I would say that we could, our first meeting in July we can start discussing
proposed ordinance and then at our next meeting we'll have these figures for the
most part so I think that would move things along pretty well.
Pfab/So we have, our next meeting, our July meeting is, I'm sorry.
Karr/July 9 and 10 and 30 and 31.
Pfab/It's not July, it's August that we look at.
Karr/We have one meeting scheduled in August 21.
Karmer/(can't hear).
Pfab/Well no she said (can't hear) when ~ve get the things back from them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 104
Kanner/I'm saying let' s look at a proposal 50 percent July 9 so we move things along and
then we're not going to make a decision that night and then we get the returns in
at our next one or t~vo meetings we'll have those returns and we can adjust that 50
percent up or down if we'd like to do that.
Dilkes/I can tell you what, I'm sorry Steven.
Karmer/I was just going to say Ross answer the question that you put out there, in my
mind if I find that this ordinance is not going to affect 95 percent of the people at
that rate if we find most of the restaurants are selling more alcohol than food you
have to rethink it.
Wilburn/It's not the figure I'm looking for, I guess to summarize my question is can't
we, ifthat's the only information that we're waiting for, that (can't hear) can't we
proceed with drafting of an ordinance and adjust it.
Pfab/Fill in the blank.
Kanner/So then you agree with that at our July meeting?
Wilburn/Yea.
Kanner/A July meeting we could have a proposal.
Champion/I would like this finish this Police Citizen Review Board ordinance first and
then start working on another ordinance.
Lehman/Well I think the two of them can go pretty much the same time.
Dilkes/I 'know what I was thinking in timing now when I look at the schedule I was
thinking that we would get responses by the 20th which would be the Friday
before the agenda week, before the meeting of the 31st so that I could compile
these things and get the information to you for your meeting on the 31 st. You
would make any adjustments that you believed appropriate based on the
information that we got and then we would get the ordinance to you at the next
Council meeting.
Wilburn/Which would be?
Dilkes/Which would be August 21.
Wilburn/Okay, all right.
Lehman/All right let's go for it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.
June 11, 2001 Special Work Session Page 105
Kanner/I have b,vo questions Eleanor about getting information. Does sales tax
information something that might work? They have to report alcohol sales or
sales tax separately from (can't hear) sales?
Dilkes/Not that I'm aware of I could, I don't think so but I could double check.
Kanner/That might be worth looking in, and the other thing is instead of the yellow pages
for restaurants would the Health Department have a listing of all licensees for
restaurants that might be a little more accurate.
Dilkes/Yea I'll check that too.
Lehman/Okay, we're going to send the letter. Are we going to wait until tomorrow night
for Council time guys?
Champion/Yes.
Pfab/Yes.
O'Donnell/I'd like to know what all the ICON boxes are still out on the street?
Pfab/We'll let you have first crack at council time tomorrow night.
Lehman/We're not all still there. Tomorrow night folks.
Adjourned 10:15.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting
of June 11, 2001.