HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-01 Transcription#3 Page 1
ITEM 3 OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARD - Mark Twain
Elementary
Lehman: This is a pretty special time for the Council. We get to do this every week
during the school year, and we don't need to be afraid because it's a lot of
fun. We do it every time (laughter) and no one has ever, ever gotten too
excited, except the grandpas and grandmas. They get really excited, and
moms and dads do, but what I'd like you to do is give us your name and
why you were nominated.
Tran: Hi, everybody, my name is Barbara Tran. I was nominated by my teacher
because I play orchestra and I play the violin in it. I also am in steel band
and play the steel drum. I speak two languages, both English and
Vietnamese. I do chores at home. I have second-grade reading buddies. I
really enjoy learning at school. I have been a lunch helper at my school
before. Thanks. (applause)
Visin: My name is Janessa Visin. I'd like to thank my family and Mark Twain
School for helping me achieve this award. I have been in Student Council
and Conflict Manager. I have been at Mark Twain for six years. I have
learned quite a lot. Thank you all for helping me. (applause)
Gonzalez: My name is Ashley Gonzalez. I moved to Iowa City from Arizona in
2001, and started at Mark Twain when I was in the second grade. I was a
Conflict Manager in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade. I had my first reading buddy in
4th grade, and then I had one in 5th grade. This year I'm in Mrs. Berger's
6th grade class. I'm part of my school's Student Council. I have a reading
buddy this year, too. Also, am starting my 5th year as a Janet Long
Dancer. Last summer I was playing volleyball and softball. I got elected
for helping people and following the rules, and also by solving problems
as a Conflict Manager, and being a part of the Student Council, and
making good choices for my school. (applause)
Lehman: Now as Outstanding Students, you're all going to remind your parents that
next Tuesday is Election Day and they get to vote. Just remind them that
opinions don't count - votes do. Now, I have a certificate, which I'll read,
and I'll give you each one of them (reads certificate). Thanks, guys!
(applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#5 Page 2
ITEM 5 COMMUNITY COMMENTS (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
Lehman: This is a time reserved on the agenda for the public to address the Council
on items that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to
address the Council, please sign in, give your name, and limit your
comments to five minutes or less.
Langguth: Good evening, Councilors, my name is Brad Langguth and I'm a resident
here at Iowa City, 1070 Pheasant Valley Street. Tonight I'm here for two
reasons, one to thank you for your allocation of $100,000 through the
CDBG Home Funds to Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity, and on the
Board of Directors behalf, I also am asking that you amend a policy that
was adopted this last funding session, which was to ask for a repayable
loan versus a forgivable loan that had been in the past. We believe that
this will make homeownership unaffordable for the population that we are
serving. We're one of few that serve a population that is at 50% of
median income and less, and with the repayment of say a typical lot in
Iowa City, $50,000 amounts to about $200 a month, in addition to the
principle that they repay on their loan. So, again, I thank you for the
allocation, but I just ask that you review the policy on payment that is
made back to you. I can assure you that our mission is to recycle these
funds. We only serve a population that has less than 50% of median
income and our goal is to build more houses in Iowa City, so we thank you
again. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Champion: Can we put that on an agenda?
Lehman: Yeah, Steve, will you see that makes a work session? We'll look into that
again.
Bailey: Although I was under the impression that we were going to leave it stand
for this next year, and then review it in a year. Was that not .... discussion?
Lehman: ...we're very close to allocation time again, so it wouldn't hurt to look at
it.
Bailey: But we haven't gone through an allocation period with this standing. This
was a decision we made late in the allocation period last year.
Vanderhoef: So this would be the first time that...
Bailey: ... first time we go into the allocation season with this policy.
Champion: Except this group is saying it will be detrimental to them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#5 Page 3
Bailey: I understand that, but it was my understanding that we made a decision,
and I was encouraging us to hold to the decision that we made originally,
and then reevaluate it in a year. I'm not taking it offthe table by any
means, but I thought that was a very clear decision that we made.
Vanderhoefi Uh-huh. There was quite a lot of discussion at that time.
Lehman: Well, we really can't discuss it. We can either put it on a work session or
not.
O'Donnell: Let's put it on a work session. I'd like to talk about it.
Lehman: We can then either reaffirm or whatever. Okay.
Langguth: Thank you.
Haas: Good evening, Councilors. I, too, am with Iowa Valley Habitat for
Humanity. My name is Ray Haas. I currently serve as the Board
President for the affiliate here in Iowa City and Johnson County, and I too
thank you for all that you've done to partner with us over the past eleven
years with CDBG funding. I've been affiliated with Habitat in some
manner or form over the past sixteen years, to the extent that I was a co-
founder of the chapter in another state, our neighbors to the south in
Missouri. Habitat for Humanity builds simple, decent, affordable housing
for hard-working, low-income families. By the end of 2005, we at Iowa
Valley Habitat for Humanity will have built 15 homes within the limits of
Iowa City. Each of these homeowners pays a monthly mortgage as we do
as any regular homeowner. Each of these homeowners qualified for their
home because their income falls within that 30 to 50% range of the
median income for a family of their size, and they're steadily employed.
Each homeowner pays property taxes to Iowa City. Cumulatively, the
homeowners in this 15 homes will pay about $20,000 per year in property
taxes. With the change from forgivable CDBG loans to interest-free
loans, you have effectively created an environment in which Habitat for
Humanity will no longer be able to build affordable homes within Iowa
City. When we asked this Council earlier this year why would no longer
be granted forgivable loans, we were left with the impression that the
change was made to insure that disbursements from CDBG funds would
ultimately be repaid and come back into the City. On the surface, this
seems like a logical idea, but there are two factors that I would suggest are
not congruent with this position. First of all, I believe that Iowa Valley
Habitat for Humanity is the only CDBG recipient that is building
affordable housing for ownership and also required to repay these loans.
Secondly, you have created an option for us, and the option would be to
build a community land trust, which would allow us to continue receiving
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#5 Page 4
forgivable loans, thus not putting any money back into the City in that
sense, but this may ultimately have an adverse affect on homeowners
because they will ultimately own a home on leased property. I encourage
you to reconsider your earlier decision and allow Habitat for Humanity to
build simple, decent, affordable housing in Iowa City that will be
inhabited by tax-paying citizens of this community, and I very much
appreciate your willingness to put that onto a working session.' Thank
you.
Vanderhoef: Could you tell me what the average is on the cost of the homes when you
sell them?
Haas: The average within Iowa City, just the city limits of Iowa City?
Vanderhoefi Uh-huh.
Haas: I believe has been somewhere around $100,00 to $115,000 over the course
of the last couple of years.
Vanderhoef: Okay, thank you.
Patton: Good evening. My name is Mark Patton. I'm the Executive Director of
Iowa Valley Habitat, and I want to thank you all for taking time to listen to
our concerns tonight.
Lehman: Are you discussing the same issue that the other two did?
Patton: Yes.
Lehman: We are...we have put it on a work session.
Patton: We'll come back ....thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Benz: Good evening. I'm Lori Benz. I'm a member of the Iowa City Senior
Center's Commission. I live here in Iowa City at 2012 Dunlap Court. I
would like to just spend a couple minutes giving you a brief update of
some of the recent activities of the Commission and the Center. You
probably heard from last month that the Commission had spent two full
days in a strategic planning session, along with other representatives from
the Center and other individuals interested in activities at the Center. We
finalized the Strategic Plan at another full-day session in October, and
have identified three strategic directions for the Center over the next two
to four years. Specifically, we're looking to build more community efforts
on behalf of the Center. In other words, engaging the community more
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#5 Page 5
directly in understanding what happens at the Center, how to utilize it, and
how it can really be part of their life here in Iowa City. We want to
incorporate new innovation in programs and services, and foster additional
partnerships here in the community. We have some very strong
relationships already with the University, with the business sector here,
and we feel there is opportunity to do even more. And finally, we hope to
expand the capacity of the personnel and the facility, specifically looking
to address interests of not only the current elder population, but the
upcoming group of retirees who will have a different set of expectations
for what it means to spend the...an important part of their life stage here in
Iowa City. I want to also compliment the City on its latest recognition as
one of the national top-ten cities to retire to, recognized by "Money"
magazine. That's not necessarily new to you or surprising. I do want to,
though, take the time to recognize the investment that the City has made in
the Senior Center, which tremendously adds and enhances the quality of
life here in Iowa City. So, thanks very much.
Champion: How many people participated in the strategic planning?
Benz: There were approximately 50 people.
Champion: Wow, good!
Benz: It was led by Jim Swank, primarily. The Center currently has 975
memberships, as of the end of September, and 80 of those were new as
of...from the first of July. So, there...the woman who was quoted
extensively in the "Money" magazine article, Jo Hensh, is a member of the
Commission, transplanted here, and is a big supporter and she's very
much, she exemplified the type of individual moving to this community
who brings with her a lot of new ideas and energy that helps this
community grow, so thanks again.
Bailey: Will we be able to get a copy of the Strategic Plan?
Benz: Yes, absolutely, and it will be posted on the web site, the Senior Center's
web site, and you're going to be hearing more details about the
recommendations that came out of that plan. It's going to be reflected in
the upcoming budget. So, yes, you'll get a full copy.
Bailey: Thanks.
Benz: Thanks very much.
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#5 Page 6
Larew: Good evening, Councilors. This will be, and maybe thankfully for those
who have to listen to them, my last appearance before you on the Public
Power issue. It's been my privilege to appear before you. One thing that I
particularly appreciate about Iowa City is that our political discussions are
lively; they're intelligent, and for the most part respectful of each other. I
know already the positions taken by some of you are adverse to my own.
My comments are directed, maybe not as much to you, as by those in Iowa
City who have not decided how they're going to vote on November 8. It
is my view that analogy can be made to the sport's arena. Many of us care
about how Iowa sport's teams do, and if the University of Iowa this year
were looking at our schedule and comparing rates that communities are
charged for residential and commercial electricity, and took the Iowa
Football Schedule, looking from Muncie, Indiana, to Minneapolis,
Minnesota; from Ames, Iowa, to Cedar Falls, and compare them to the
rates that we pay in Iowa City, and if the losing score were assigned to the
highest rate, in Iowa City we would have with the Iowa Hawkeyes a 2 and
9 season, and if you look backward over the season, the percentage of
win/loss would not change. We would have nearly a perfect storm of
losing seasons. I think any sport's spectator, after that many losing
seasons, would likely say 'Can we at least consider a different strategy?'
And, if things did not improve, could we perhaps even consider a new
coach? I think if we had an athletic director after such a string of losing
seasons was reported to be ready to sign the same coach with the same
strategy to a long-term franchise in the city, there would be rebellion in the
stands, and the athletic director would be booed. This analogy is the way
that at least some citizens felt when nearly four years ago we began
proposing that the City consider an alternative to Mid-American energy,
and about a year ago, the City directed City staff to begin to negotiate
another long-term franchise with the same franchise, Mid-American,
although our rates were the same very high state, the highest in Mid-
American's territory, one of the highest rates in all of Iowa, one of the
highest rates in the upper Midwest. And so petitioners, two senior
citizens, Lavonne Horton and Carol Spazian, began a petition drive,
resulting in 1,200 signatures. We wish that the City Council four years
ago had taken our suggestion that a group of citizens be appointed, across
all sections - University, commercial, residential - to formulate detailed
feasibility plan so that we would have a body of work in front of us that
we could carefully deliberate upon, but sanctioned by the City so it would
have an objective view and not a partisan study by one side or the other.
Here we are in the face of an election. I think some citizens wish we had
more information, but it's clear, that since a "yes" vote is an advisory vote
it does nothing more than to take the temperature of the community and to
advise this group that more attention ought to be paid, that we ought not to
slam the door shut on the muni-power issue, but to keep it open to that
possibility. In Iowa City, like in Lake Woebegone, the average voter is a
little smarter than average and I'd like to close, not with my own words,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#5 Page 7
but with the words of a citizen, someone who's not been a part of our
effort and I didn't meet him until after he wrote the letter. Maybe he's
well known to you. Bob Ochenger is a very nice fellow, he wrote a letter,
and these were his words to the Iowa City Press-Citizen on Monday,
October 24th: 'Okay, what am I missing, he said. If we vote "yes" on the
utility referendum, we form a panel to develop a business plan for the
utility. With all the smart business people around town and at the
University of Iowa, that shouldn't be too hard. And we should be able to
get a second opinion, for that matter. Then the Iowa Utilities Board
reviews the plan another time. Finally, the City Council still gets to vote
on going public with a utility company. That's a lot of input and review to
see if it's a good deal. I have nothing against Mid-American, but consider
these points. A lot of smart investors, such as Warren Buffet, see it as a
good moneymaker. There's more than one or two high-paid executives
whose salaries are increased by making Mid-American profitable, and
there's a lot of yard signs and TV ads saying, 'Vote no!' Isn't that all
money out of our pockets not going for consumer service? As for the
local employees, why can't they hire on with the new company? There's
little public oversight at Mid-American, with what we've seen like the
Ferk report a couple weeks ago - it hasn't been very positive. How is this
much different than those no-big contracts the Federal Government has
been using in Iraq and for the hurricane cleanup? Those sure haven't
favored the taxpayer. In my mind, we've got nothing to lose. If we vote
"yes" and can't put together a sound business plan for the public utility,
we stay with Mid-American. If the business plan is a better deal, we go
public. It's a no-brainer to me. Vote "yes"!' Thank you for the
opportunity and the privilege to appear before you. I'll see you November
8.
Lehman: Thank you, Jim
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 8
ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
a) ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE" BY: REPEALING CHAPTERS 4, 6
AND 9 AND REPLACING THEM WITH THE NEW TITLE 14
ZONING CODE, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 1
AND 5, RENUMBERING CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 AND 11,
AND REPEALING CHAPTER 12.
1. PUBLIC HEARING (continued from 10/5, 10/10 and
10/18)
Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. And before we start, this public
hearing will be continued from tonight to the 7th, which is next Monday, at
7:00 P.M. in the evening, and that will be the last public hearing. We will
close the hearing next Monday night. So, there will be one more hearing
after tonight.
Kammermeyer: John Kammermeyer, 116 Ferson, office 404 E. Bloomington. First of
all, Marian has copies for you. I have composed a letter that I'm certainly
not going to read, but it's elaboration on my brief comments back at the
public hearing on October l0th, and the last sentence in that is the only one
I'll read, and it states, "It does not seem to me that the new proposed
design standards reasonably balance esthetic interests with economic
realities and the value of individual property rights," and that kind of sums
my feeling about that. Tonight I'm going to read a few comments.
Marian has copies of that, and along with it, she has copies of something
that Phelan Law Firm and Tom Gelman did for me. I continue to be
extremely concerned about the potential negative impact the new proposed
zoning ordinance will have on health care office development around
Mercy Hospital. At my request, Tom Gelman has done a side-by-side
comparison, comparing the present and the new proposed regulations for
the CO-1 Zone. I've highlighted in yellow the added restrictions imposed
on the CO-1 Zone if the CO property adjoins a residential zone. These
added restrictions, if the CO property adjoins a residential zone should be
removed, in my opinion. Otherwise they create an added burden and
seriously discourage new office development in the commercial office
zone around Mercy. However, my greatest concern is the statement in the
new proposed ordinance concerning driveway standards as they apply to
the CO-1 Zone. And that's on the 4th page of that comparison. I quote,
"The City will grant lot access to local or collector streets that are non-
residential in nature, based on the size of the non-residential development,
the type of use, the anticipated traffic, the location and the surrounding
land uses, and the availability of cross-access easements or alley or private
rear lane access. Based on those factors, the City will decide the number,
location and design of all access points." This statement, in my opinion,
would allow City staff to deny driveway and parking lot access to a street
in front of an office building, and force driveway and parking lot access to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 9
only be available in the rear, through an alley. This was the issue that
delayed Surgical Services from building their new office building for two
years. City staff tried to insist parking be in the rear, off the alley, but
thankfully common sense prevailed through the Board of Adjustment and
public parking was allowed in front of the office building. The above
statement in the new proposed ordinance concerning driveway standards,
as it now stands, must be removed from the new proposed zoning
ordinance. Any property owner of a lot fronting on a street should be
allowed at least one driveway access to that street. Moreover, for office
buildings, especially medical office buildings, patient parking must be
visible from the street and preferably located in front of the building. If
the present statement concerning driveway standards as they relate to the
CO-1 Zone stays in the new proposed code, it will almost assuredly kill
new private medical office development in the CO Zone around Mercy.
No one is going to be willing to buy land and then spend years battling
with City staff concerning placement of parking lot and driveway access,
especially if it's demanded through an alley. And this is a side-by-side
comparison that Tom Gelman did, fairly quickly, for me, for that one CO-
l Zone. I personally think, and as I mentioned in the letter that was
handed out, that in theory at least the Council here should have every zone
and section of the new and old compared in some summary form like this
in order to make judgments as to what you're looking at. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, John.
Eastham: My name is Charlie Eastham. I'm the President of the Greater Iowa City
Housing Fellowship, a non-profit affordable housing development
organization, that's been working in the community for about fifteen
years. As most of you know, we build basically housing for home renters.
We also have a homeownership program and our interest in the new
zoning code has to do with how provisions in the code, we believe, would
enhance our ability to develop affordable rental housing as well as
affordable owner-occupied housing in Iowa City. I think we are basically
in favor of the new zone, the proposed zoning code provisions, which
reduce minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths in RS-5 and RS-8
Zones. We, I think, are generally looking with anticipation towards the
provisions in the code which allow those smaller lot sizes in RS-5 and RS-
8 Zones with the meeting the density bonus, or the density bonus ideas
that are in the proposed code. We think that those smaller lot sizes will
enable us to develop housing in more parts of the community than we
have been able to in the past, and meet some of the goals that were
expressed by the Scattered Site Housing Task Force to disperse home-
renter housing throughout the community. So, I hope the Council will
consider, or will work to maintain those smaller lot size provisions in the
new code, as you go forward, and consider maintaining the density bonus
provisions also, as a way of achieving those smaller lot sizes, smaller lot
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 10
width provisions. I don't think we have any particular viewpoints on the
design standards and alley requirements. I would say that in my personal
opinion those are things we could work with and things we could work
without. I know it's a little wishy-washy, but that's kind of what we have
to be. (laughter)
Vanderhoef: Say that again, please, because I didn't catch where you are. You say you
could work with alleys?
Eastham: I said I think we could do both. We, obviously, every provision like that
has a cost associated with it. We also understand the arguments both for
and against requiting alleys in terms of garage placement. We actually
wish that we didn't have to build garages, but that's not (laughter). So,
Dee, I think our position is that we can tolerate requirements in either
direction.
Vanderhoef: Uh, I guess I would just ask then if you think you can work with alleys, do
you think your residents will be able to pay additional homeowner fee for
maintenance of that alley, be it snow or maintenance of the surface itself?.
Eastham: Well, we have built a couple houses in Longfellow Manor, which are two
duplexes, four homes altogether, fight? And two of those homes face a
private drive, it's not an alley but a private drive, which I think is
functionally about the same thing, and in those, in that case, the
homeowners, the people bought those homes with the understanding that
they were to have to contribute to the homeowner's association, which
will have to maintain that drive, both keeping it free of snow as well as
(can't understand) repair. So I suppose, I mean to me that's a way of
saying yes that I think it's possible to do that.
Vanderhoef: It's just, it's been a concern of mine that homeowners would be unaware
and that they would take out the maximum loan they could take out and
then all at once be hit with another fee, above and beyond their mortgage
payment and insurance and so forth.
Eastham: In the case, in the example I'm talking about, in this case, the homeowners
agreement, or their application with the bank included the cost of the
homeowner's association fees, so that was all included, all considered, you
know, when their...
Vanderhoef: I'm glad to hear that that was in the consideration for the loan for that.
Eastham: I also realize this is an example of one, so...
Vanderhoef: Right, yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 11
Eastham: Right, okay.
Champion: Charlie, how small of a lot could you build a house on?
Eastham: How small of a lot?
Champion: Uh-huh.
Eastham: How small a lot, and have the lot meet our goals and standards for
livability?
Champion: Yes, yes...the garage was not going to be attached to the house.
Eastham: I think...we've built lots, houses on lots, down in the 5,000 square foot
range.
Champion: I mean width.
Eastham: Width? Lot width? I'm sorry. Well, I personally think that the 40-foot
minimum would probably work in the long range for us. I... as I
understand, there is, the discussion about minimum lot width has to do
with what to do with the garage, garages that are in front of the house.
Okay, and we've heard lots and lots of discussion about how to manage
that in some way or another. And I think we could take the
management.., whatever management scheme most people want to agree
to, I think we could agree with that.
Lehman: (laughing)
Champion: You're easy.
Lehman: Thank you, Charlie.
Smith: Good evening. My name is Dan Smith. I live at 905 Wylde Green Road.
I'm here tonight to represent the Land Development Council and I only
want to take a few minutes to revisit a matter that was discussed at the
previous pubic hearing regarding mandatory neighborhood meetings. At
that hearing, there was some discussion, conversation with some of the
Council, Councilors and myself, about coming up with some alternative
proposal, as opposed to our position, which we stick by and reiterate, it's
unnecessary. We came back and we want to propose a solution we think
that is agreeable, and so I just put it out there for you and for your
consideration. What we recommend is that the reporting requirements be
removed in their entirety. We recommend amending the section to require
a notice be sent to affected residents within the stipulated radius of the
proposed rezoning. More importantly, we recommend that a notice, a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 12
neutral notice, be sent, that's a plain language statement, communicating
the requested change in zoning - something that everybody can easily
understand. We recommend including the property owner requesting the
change and a contact person for the property owner whom concerned
citizens can contact with questions, concerns, or other comments. An
example would be something very simple, such as John Doe, that would
be the property owner involved or questioned, John Doe welcomes your
questions, concerns, and comments regarding this proposal. He may be
contacted at such number or email, whichever is provided. We believe
this proposal offers a balanced response in comparison to what is currently
drafted. The proposal considers the rights, interests, and expectations of
property owners, as well as the public concerns with rezoning nearby
property. It cannot be stressed enough - developers want citizens to
contact them when they have concerns and questions. This dialog serves
to alert developers to any significant issues and concerns that may be in
the community regarding their proposed project. In turn, a developer and
their sound judgment is better able to determine the extent and necessity of
any neighborhood meetings. In fact, the Land Development Council
believes, developers are more apt to engage in legitimate, substantive
community dialog if they are free of owners' mandates and reporting
requirements. If the City wishes to endorse a good-neighbor policy that
the Land Development Council supports, this must not be mandatory. To
do so, we believe, undermines the legitimacy of such effort and creates
disincentives to engage in constructive dialog out of fear that additional
regulatory exactions may be made during the approval process. I will
submit this in writing at a later date. I noticed a couple typos I'm ashamed
to admit to you (laughter). So, I'm going to clean that up, but I'm happy
to answer any questions I might be able to right now. So...
Bailey: So, if I'm following this correctly, there would be a plain-language
statement about the proposed change for development or whatever, a
contact number that includes the developer's information.
Smith: Right.
Bailey: And I would encourage to do phone and email. We still have people who
use both, or who don't use email, and then a notice of when the public
heating is. Correct?
Smith: Well, yeah, the public hearing is published as well, the statute, but it...I'm
sorry, go ahead.
Bailey: ...reiteration of the public hearing meeting, as well...
Smith: That may be appropriate...the only concern I've got is when is that public
heating, it might be a long ways down the road.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 13
Bailey: Sure.
Smith: But at some point, it may be a consideration the Council wants to
consider. And, in case I wasn't clear, I just want to make sure I, do you
want to point out that we think it's appropriate that this comes from the
City, for one of the very simple reasons that if it's incumbent upon the
developer, then it raises the potential objection of 'I didn't get my notice,'
so we think it'd probably be best to come from the City, the actual notice.
So...thank you.
Bailey: And when will we get that in writing?
Smith: I'll probably email it tomorrow, if that's okay?
Bailey: Super.
Smith: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Dan.
Allen: My name is Greg Allen. I live in Tiffin. I have rental property here in
town that I take care of and have for about twenty years. When the
Zoning Department wanted to change Governor Street to RS-8, Zoning
Commission requested that it be changed to RNC-12. They said the, the
Zoning Commission said the RS-8 would grandfather in many of the
houses and have an unfair impact on the RM-12 would change down to
RM-8, RS-8, because of the loss of roomers. Now the new code changes
all R-12 zones basically to an RS-8 occupancy. RNC-20 would go to an
RNC-12 occupancy. So you go from five to four, and from four to three.
This effectively downzones all the R zones by one person. Except, RM-
44. RM-44 is the densest zone, is not only untouched by this, but is being
expanded. So that all of the small houses are expected to have their
occupancy reduced by one, but the most dense zone in the city, where you
have, you know, your parking problems and that, parties and stuff, as
much as anywhere else, is totally untouched by this. The result of this is
people will be moved from single-family to RM-44 apartments. Houses
that have no rental permit, are immediately going to lose 25% of their
resale value. Houses that have rental permits, are going to lose their resale
value to a single-family buyer because if they buy it, they immediately
lose 25% of the resale value. They lose 25% of the revenue of any house
that is rented. This is a huge impact that is, on the houses, and there is no
effect for the larger zones. If this rezoning is going to happen, it should be
equal and fair. There's nothing fair about the new code. The new code, in
effect, is downzoning three-quarters of the R zone, the three-quarters
being all single-family and duplexes, the fourth quarter being the RM-44,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 14
which again, is untouched, and would be much more able to withstand this
hit. If the RM-44 Zone was included in this downzoning, you could bet
that there'd be a team of lawyers down here and they would fight the City
on this tooth and nail, and you would not be able to win this suit. You
cannot downzone property and decrease values. It's been in this court and
all over the nation, it's been upheld that you cannot condemn, inverse
condemn, properties. The same is true of the CB-2 Zone which you
eliminated. All the properties go to the, should go to the same zone. You
have the corporate giants going to CB-5 and your small little businesses
going to CB-1 or other lower zones. If you're going to eliminate the CB-2
Zone, all of that property should be moved to the same zone. Two weeks
ago Dr. Kammermeyer was chastised for complaining about unfair
treatment of the Zoning Department. It appears that the only possible
purpose for your zoning change in code, for rezoning the code, is changing
the lower density and the lower levers, levels. The long-time tax-paying,
small businesses will see some huge losses and the large businesses will
see no loss value, and in many cases, they're going to benefit from this. I
would have to agree that we're being treated unfairly. Furthermore, the
discrimination against renters by telling them that they cannot live in a
house with five people - if you have, if you pass this code, five people
unrelated want to live together, they have to live in an apartment. Five-
bedroom apartments will still be allowed to be built, but a five-bedroom
house will not be allowed to be built. So you're saying if you want to live
five people unrelated together, you're going to be moved into an
apartment or an old house that's grandfathered in, those will be your
choices. The sections of the code that reduce density in the R zones
should be removed from this code, so a fair and level market, rental
market, can continue. CB-2, when it's changed to a new zone, should be
changed equally for everybody. Hopefully, the long-time business owners
and the landlords and the students can receive co-changes that are fair.
Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Bailey: I need to clarify something because I'm not following this. I suppose I'll
ask Karin or...
Allen: I can probably answer it for you.
Bailey: It's my understanding that with a house - has a rental permit and the
occupancy is certified at a particular level, it will be grandfathered in.
Allen: That is correct.
Bailey: And if it continues with a rental permit, it will continue at that occupancy
level, as long as it has a rental permit.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 15
Allen: That is correct.
Bailey: Okay.
Allen: The problem is, when we sell it, if we want to sell it, a single-family - this
is actually a bigger issue for the single-family owners, because the single-
family person cannot buy this house. They're immediately going to take a
25% loss when they buy the house.
Bailey: Why? I don't exactly agree with that analysis, but...
Allen: The market...now this is primarily in the rental zones. If you were over
on Clark Street and you had a rental house and you sold it there, but in any
zone...a lot of these streets are primarily rental. The price of these
houses.., a three-bedroom house, a four-bedroom house that's rented to
three people is worth about right now about $180,000. That exact same
house that's rented to four people is worth about $220,000 on the current
market. You have about a $40,000 to $50,000 difference. Single-family
person buys this house, when they go to sell it, or if they go to rent it,
they're taking a 25% loss over what we would receive.
Bailey: As long as they keep the rental permit, there's no loss...
Allen: The City will not allow you to do that.
Lehman: That's not true.
Bailey: That's not true.
Lehman: It's grandfathered in regardless of...
Allen: No, if a single-family person moves into that house...
Lehman: And changes the use.
Allen: Well...
Lehman: No, changes the use is the key word. If it becomes a single-family
dwelling, if they lost the rental permit...
Allen: A rental permit is a single-family dwelling.
Lehman: I don't have rental permit in my house.
Allen: Yeah, you can't.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 16
Bailey: As long as...
Allen: The City has made it very clear to me that if a single-family person wanted
to move in and maintain their rental permit and pay for it over a period of
time, so that when they sold it they could maintain that, they would not be
allowed to. Is that correct?
Lehman: Well, I don't know. I .... (several talking at once).
Bailey: It was my understanding that as long as a rental permit continued on the
property, that the occupancy level that was grandfathered in would be
maintained. If I decided to move my family in there, and no longer rent
the property and turned it into a single-family use, and then later decided
to move out and rent it, then the lower occupancy standard would apply
because of that gap in rental permit. Is that an accurate reflection of how
the situation is, Karin? Okay.
O'Donnell: And that's exactly what you said.
Allen: Right, but you also need to be aware of that a single-family person does
not have the opportunity to maintain that permit.
Lehman: I think that's correct. It goes with the use.
Allen: Yeah, so...
Bailey: If I move in as a family, but still want to hold out the possibility of using it
for rental...
Allen: You can't do it.
Bailey: ...exactly.
Allen: You can't do it, you do not have that option. Which to me is a hugely
unfair thing to single-family people because they don't have the option to
sell that at the same price and value that they bought it for.
Bailey: But they'll be well aware of that when they purchase.
Allen: Probably not. That's the problem. A lot of the people come in and they
buy this house and they do not realize until afterwards. You know, and
that has happened.
Lehman: Thank you, Greg.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 17
Allen: Thank you.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
Lehman: Anyone else like to speak? Okay.
Lekin: My name is Shirley Lekin, and I live at 830 Walnut Street, and this is, I
don't know all the exact zoning codes because I just came in on this today,
but it's my understanding in talking to the City official that we're
currently RS-8, ! think, we're single-family and, but you can have
duplexes, and she says it's been proposed that the duplexes be limited to
like comer lots, and I just want to say I'm very much in favor of that
because we have a nice neighborhood... I'm going to be shaky 'cause
I'm... (laughter and several talking at once).
Lehman: Don't be!
Lekin: You know, we have several duplexes and I very much would like to not
have more duplexes because you know it's a nice neighborhood and every
time you get in more population, more rental, I think it devalues, to me it.
devalues my home instead of you know the other way around. So, I just
want you to consider, you know, I'm not in it for the money. I'm in it for
the neighborhood. And so...you know, it's I think there's not a lot of
lower income homes for people because when one goes up, it goes fast
because no people want lower priced housing that isn't a lot of (can't
hear). So, please consider that.
Elliott: Ma'am? Was your first name Shirley?
Lekin: Yes.
Elliott: May I call you Shirley?
Lekin: Sure.
Elliott: Is it the duplex, the side-by-side dwelling where there's a duplex, is
there...is it that that you're opposed to or is it the fact that it will be rental
property that is your main opposition?
Lekin: Well, both. The less rental I think the better, plus the less populated. We
already have a problem with cars on the street.
Elliott: So, you would be opposed to the dual, zero-lot lines, even if both were
owner occupied.
Lekin: Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 18
Elliott: Okay. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
McCallum: Mark McCallum, 811 College Street. Well, if I handle the microphone
better tonight...again, I wanted to thank you for your comments at your
work session several weeks ago on my two proposals, the first one being
the plan to increase multi-family diversity in the Multi-Family Zones. I
was reviewing some of the comments during that session. I think Karin
Franklin made an analysis about, you know, the controversy of going units
versus bedrooms.
Lehman: You know, we have decided that issue yesterday.
McCallum: Okay.
Lehman: It's going to be referred back to Planning and Zoning, and they'll take it
up after the first of the year.
McCallum: Okay, so they are going to be looking at that again?
Lehman: Right. We are going to look at that.
McCallum: Okay, and then are they also going to be looking at the universal design?
Lehman: I think that might be part of that then...(TAPE ENDS).
McCallum: ...part of this.
Lehman: There isn't time to work through that with this code. But it will be on
their agenda and we've asked them to do that.
McCallum: Okay. Okay, well I didn't...on the universal design I guess I would say
that I don't see why that couldn't be incorporated, we offer density
bonuses... ! understand the multi-family was more complicated for
incorporating good design into buildings in our PRM Zones, and I guess I
would just leave you tonight saying that universal design accessible units
are an important aspect of our community that we should be encouraging
and just like in our PRM Zone, if we can offer density bonus for design
features of a building, we certainly should be able to offer it for this type
of thing, and I don't think that needs to wait until January to be looked at.
That's something you could incorporate right...
Lehman: We have got a completely full plate with this zoning code. We really
cannot add to this. We need to get through this, and I think you're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 19
bringing up some very good points - a lot of folks are - and there's going
to be a lot of work, I think, for the Planning and Zoning Commission and
if, it will be addressed.
McCallum: Okay, well, I appreciate your time and I will follow up. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Buss: Anna Buss, 525 W. Benton Street. The first thing I would like to address
is, Regenia, a lot of people who are buying houses, if you've bought a lot
of houses in the Iowa City market, you're a pretty savvy buyer and you're
aware that you have to go and check out a lot of things. I've been in the
Iowa City market since 1966. I can tell you it's changed a lot, and I'm a
Real Estate agent at this point in time. I can also tell you that there are a
lot of first-time homeowners that have a very difficult time getting into
this market because of Iowa City's prices. That's indicated by all of the
people who have been in Iowa City, West Branch, Solon, Hills, the growth
in these areas is for a reason. Zero-lot lines are a much-less expensive
alternative to getting into a house. I have a number of RS-8 lots here in
town, and I can tell you that if we can only build on comer lots with
duplexes, many people consider them duplexes, zero-lot lines, whatever
you chose to call them, but they are not all rental properties. Duplexes do
not make bad neighbors, but the thing is with zero-lot lines, a lot of the
people who are buying a zero-lot line home, the next thing they buy is a
single-family home at a higher price. So I, one part of the code that I
would like to see, is that the zero-lot lines still remain throughout the
neighborhood and not just on the comers. So, please consider that. Thank
you.
Lehman: Thank you, Anna.
Swartzendruber: Good evening. My name is Sarah Swartzendruber. I'm here on behalf
of the Land Development Council tonight. I believe that you've received
a brief that we prepared with our comments and recommendations
regarding the code. I just want to discuss with you one of the sections that
we haven't had the opportunity to discuss. It's the open-space ordinance.
The neighborhood open space requirement section provides a procedure
for a developer to dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of dedication for use in
neighborhood open spaces, parks, recreation facilities, and greenway
trails. Our concerns are primarily with the fees in lieu of dedication and
the manner in which those fees are handled. Section 14.5.K.6, on page
343, and again these numbers are all in our brief. Require the City to
deposit the fees in lieu of dedication in a special neighborhood space
account, designated by the name of the development or the subdivision.
Section provides that all payments will be used to acquire or develop open
spaces, parks, recreational facilities, and greenways or trails located within
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 20
the neighborhood open space district containing that subdivision or
development. We believe this use is too broad and does not meet the
standards set forth by the Supreme Court in the Home Builder's
Association of Greater Des Moines versus the City of West Des Moines.
In that case, the Home Builders Association of Des Moines challenged the
City of West Des Moines neighborhood parks dedication fee which was
used by the City to fund neighborhood parks that were located in the same
park district. In that case, the Iowa Supreme Court found that that fee
wasn't a legal tax. The City argued that the fee could be justified as
granting a special benefit to the residents of that neighborhood by giving
them a park, and the Court found that fees used solely on neighborhood
parks are not a sufficient special benefit to fall within an exception to that
illegality. So it's our position that this fee is illegal and should not be
adopted as drafted. We would propose, at an absolute minimum, the fees
be required to be used within the confines of that subdivision or
development, and not within the park district as a whole. Our next
concern is that the proposed code...
Wilburn: I'm sorry, can I interrupt for a second.
Swartzendruber: Yes.
Wilbum: I just want to make sure I understand the Council's position. The sensitive
areas, or the open space ordinance, was a compromise document with lots
of community input. Are you all saying that, and it's provided...I
understand what you're saying about the court case, but we've been able
to put together and fulfill some needed open space areas for this
community to breathe, are you saying the Council's against us having the
ability to create those pockets of open space?
Swartzendruber: We're saying that we believe that the Council using those pockets of
open space probably are not permissible or not legal under Iowa law.
Wilbum: Okay, so if the Council, if the City were to stop doing that, and just
mandate dedication of space, are you against that?
Swartzendruber: As opposed to permitting the fee in lieu of...
Wilburn: Fee, one or the other. Are you against us just saying we'll take the land?
Swartzendruber: I think probably, and I guess I don't know that I have the authority to
speak on behalf of the entire...
Siders: I'd be happy to answer that question. More often than not, we'd love to
give you the land but you won't take it. So the answer to the question is
"yes."
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 21
Wilbum: Okay, just make sure I understand.
Vanderhoef: Sarah, I also would like to question, I've discussed this with different
places with cities and stuff, and...the Iowa City Neighborhood Open
Space plan definitely had a nexus and divided us into very specific
districts where the money or land would be, with a plan of the size and
distance for any residence within that. My understanding was that the
West Des Moines was using it, as you say, in the park district, meaning
the entire city, so it wasn't, the nexus was not there, that what we have
with our ordinance because our ...
Dilkes: Can I just make a suggestion here? It's my office's intent to respond to
the legal issues raised in the Land Development Council's brief, and I
think that's probably a better forum to do that.
Wilburn: Okay, can you make sure she .... because we interrupted. Thank you.
Swartzendruber: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Wilbum: No problem.
Swartzendruber: Our next concern is that the proposed code permits the City to keep the
fees for too long of a period and then also unfairly requires that the
residents of the subdivision or development request a refund of those fees.
The proposed code, as drafted, gives the City five years to use the funds,
with the ability to extend that period for another five years, if less than
50% of the subdivision has been completed. We think this is too long of a
period and would recommend that it be reduced to two years, with the
ability to extend it an additional two years. The second provision is that
the code requires property owners in that subdivision to specifically
request a refund if the fees have not been used within that period, and the
owners are required to request the refund within 180 days of the expiration
of five years or ten years. We think that places an unfair burden on the
residents. First of all, it's unclear how the owners are supposed to know
whether the fees have been used, particularly if they're only required to be
used within the neighborhood park district. If it's not their subdivision,
they have no idea if their fees have been used by the City or have not been
used. Secondly, if the fees are truly placed in a separate account, which is
what the code provides, we think it would be a very minimal burden for
the City to establish an expiration date on that account, when the two years
or four years or five years or ten years expires. Then the fee will
automatically be refunded by the City to the property owners. This
section does not provide what happens if the right to refund expires. If the
time period plus the 180 days expires and people do not request a refund,
presumably that goes into the general fund and I understand this well be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 22
addressed by your office, but we believe that's sort of a backdoor means
of levying an impact fee against those property owners. Subsection C of
this section also specifically requires the developer to put a provision in
the subdivider's agreement about the obligation to request this refund, and
then also to notify successors in interest of the property. We think this is a
difficult thing for the developer to accomplish. First of all we don't think
the owners should have to request a refund, but if they are, we think a
simple statement to that effect in the subdivider's agreement is sufficient.
Anything beyond that imposes unnecessary liability. And then I have two
final issues.
Lehman: You need to wrap this up rather quickly.
Swartzendruber: I will. The first is that we believe that the code should be more
consistent between when the developer can dedicate the open space and
when they're required to pay the fee. We believe that the City should
accept the open space when they accept other public improvements in the
subdivision. And finally, we would like more objective language
regarding what sort of ground cover is required to be made or completed
by the developer before dedicating the land. It says "satisfactory ground
cover' in the code. That's been used in the past to require more than
simple ground cover, landscaping requirements, and we'd like something
more objective so that the developer doesn't have to sort of jump through
hoops to develop that land, or to dedicate that land. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Siders: My name's Glenn Siders. I just wanted to follow up a couple comments
Sarah had, since her time is expired. The fees that she's talking about can
sometimes be very significant. I'll give you an example, special on mind
- a plat that we just recently approved was Cardinal Ridge Subdivision -
has approximately a little over a hundred lots. The open space fees were
in excess of $50,000. So you're talking about $500 a lot for open space
fees. We're not objecting to that $500, we're just simply objecting of that
cost to the consumer. The owner of that lot, and that consumer has no
idea in five or ten years that they need to write a letter to the City and
request that money back. So you lose the funds, so you need to listen to
what Sarah said very carefully. You should have a time limit on it, and
the time limit should be as simple as when that time expires, that the City
hasn't used those funds, it should be returned to the homeowners.
Lehman: Glenn, I have a question.
Siders: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 23
Lehman: That, the funds that you pay in lieu of land dedication, in this case
$50,000.
Siders: Yes.
Lehman: That goes with the lot. Doesn't that $50,000...
Siders: We pay that...we give the City a check.
Lehman: But if the City doesn't pay it, wouldn't the developer get it back?
Champion: No!
Siders: No.
Lehman: It goes to the lot owners?
Siders: Yes, that's the way the ordinance instructs you, I believe.
Lehman: Okay.
Siders: And they have to petition, actually, they have to petition to get that refund.
Lehman: I understand.
Vanderhoef: But unsold lots at ...
Siders: That's built into the cost of the sale of the lot. We pay that fee. It's like
any development fee. We pay that and that just gets tacked on to the cost
of the lot.
Dilkes: I think it's the party making the payment that petitions for the refund.
Lehman: Right. So, the developer, in fact, gets the money back - not the person
who buys the lot. If (can't hear)...
Dilkes: I think so. I'd have to look at the language of the ordinance.
Lehman: I would hope that would be the case.
Dilkes: But I think that's the way it reads.
Siders: That's not the way we read, understand, the code.
Lehman: Okay, all right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 24
Dilkes: I'll have to...
Lehman: We'll check it. Okay.
Siders: So the fees aren't any small thing. It's an expense that goes to the
consumer, so you need to understand that. We're not talking about a
couple thousand dollars over a development or something like that. That's
exactly why those need to be focused to that neighborhood, so that they
can use it for the trails or whatever improvement needs to be in that
neighborhood, and we're not opposed to using those fees for the
improvements, but it needs to be focused for that. Second thing that she
kind of glazed over hurriedly was the fact that when we do have park
ground that should be accepted by the City, there needs to be some
specific standards on what's expected of that piece of ground - vegetation,
so on and so forth. Right now there are no, there's nothing written down
and it's kind of a "will call" thing, we'll call the Parks Department and
they'll go out and look at it and prune trees, plant grass, they'll have you
do a number of things. We think it needs to be a little more specific on
what's expected of you, and thirdly, which is very important, is that those,
that open space of the park should be accepted at the time of the rest of the
improvements for that particular subdivision. There are many times that it
is preferred, and I'm going to say we get instructed to do so without much
recourse to put in our subdivider's agreement that we cannot turn it over to
Parks Department before like 95% of that development is built out, yet we
have to put our trails and stuff like that in there, and they can't get
accepted until three, four years down the road. There's cracks in the trail.
You got to replace those. There's absolutely no reason that the City
should not accept that - if they want the parks and the open spaces, no
reason they should not accept that open space when they accept the streets,
the sewer, the water and everything else in that development. Thank you
very much.
Lehman: Thank you, Glenn.
Swartzendruber: I just want to clarify that the code does provide that the property owner
will be entitled to a proportional refund, based on the percentage of lots he
or she owns. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
McLaughlin: My name is Mike McLaughlin. Over 200 years ago, the founders of this
country drafted a Constitution based on the ideals of life, liberty, freedom,
justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Tonight we consider a proposal that
would make some areas of this town close to 90% noncompliant in regards
to civic permitted non-related occupancy. This proposal doesn't just
affect near downtown, but all areas of town. It eliminates some zones in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 25
regards to occupancy limits, and makes those zones similar to the vast
majority of zones in the entire city. Aren't these proposed property
controls akin to the controlled lifestyles that our ancestors fled to find a
land of new opportunity? Let us consider these facts: Iowa City is the
only community in the State that utilizes conservation districts. The
Historic Review Committee is filled with applications because of civic-
required procedures for remodeling in historic and conservation districts.
At what point do we arrive at too much civic control? There is already in
place a plan to shift the high density living to the neighborhoods south and
east of downtown, evidenced by the areas proposed to be rezoned for
business to high-density residential. As these areas become developed, the
location as well as the allure of new living space will draw the tenants.
The non-related occupancy reduction in the residential neighborhoods is to
insurance that shift of living to the higher density housing areas.
However, this will also draw the life and value out of many neighbors,
neighborhoods, over time by not allowing changes with the rental market
over time. Other explanations were exemplified in my earlier
presentations. Is this second step necessary? Is this the legacy that we
want to be remembered for? Please consider this proposal with careful
forethought and devise a less disruptive plan for our near-downtown
neighborhoods. Let us ponder this paradox as we consider this co-
proposal. We're very protective of our historic districts, many of which
were created with much less civic control and design, if any. With much
more civic control and design, what history will be created? What history
will be prevented? Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Carlson: This may take as long as writing it. I'm Nancy Carlson. I live at 1002 E.
Jefferson, and I'm here to speak to' the occupancy thing, reducing the
occupancy in the RMS Zone from four to three in a single-family housing,
single-family house, but first I'd like to say something that, in response to
Mike McLaughlin's comment about the decrease of values if this is
enacted. We, when we went through out rezoning and were zoned down
to RNC-12, at the time that the Planning and Zoning Commission passed
the ordinance okaying that, Casey Cook, who is an appraiser in town here,
stated that he had found that the more restrictive the zoning, the more
valuable the property became, and all us neighbors looked at one another
and go, and went, 'Well, we'll find out, won't we?' And sure enough, we
did! Our property value increased. So, I'm not sure what the proportion
was. I haven't looked back on it, but as I said, when they say that the
property values are going to go down, an appraiser said that they would go
up, and sure enough, they did! The other...one other thing I would like to
say is, you know, I respect the rights of a developer to come in and
attempt to protect his investment. I respect the rights of people to move
into live in their houses, or to live in those rental properties. My question
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 26
is that we need to weigh those rights versus the rights of the neighborhood
and the good of the neighborhood, and I think we need to look at both of
those things. I read from the Comprehensive Plan last time, and I'd like to
read from it again. Portions of the Central Planning District located to the
north and east of downtown contain older neighborhoods where issues of
neighborhood integrity are of concern. Some areas within the Central
Planning District containing housing which has been more affordable,
when compared to newer subdivisions. Preservation of this existing
housing stock has been a policy of the City and will require required
continued efforts. This District contains many of the older neighborhoods
that can act as models for new neighborhoods. Over and over again when
I looked through all the things, everybody is always talking about
affordable housing. So, I'm not going to talk about that. What I'm going
to say is, we have affordable housing, but what can the City do to make it
attractive so people want to move into our neighborhood to buy the
affordable housing? One of the other things, I looked, in reading through
all the minutes, everybody talks about building affordable housing,
building affordable housing, you know, the half-acre and the granite
counter tops and everything. Well, you know, not everybody wants that. I
didn't want it. My house has this great woodwork. It has a tin ceiling in
the kitchen. It has yellow-pine floors. It has a limestone foundation, and
if I took the tin roof off, I would have a shake roof. Now, how much
would it cost to build that house today? But my house was an affordable
house that I could afford to move into and fix up. And I have stuck it out,
but I have seen in my neighborhood other people who have come in and
gotten frustrated and left. So my question is, if the City values our
neighborhood, then they need to work to make sure that the people coming
in to that neighborhood know that it is valued. When they make an
investment in that neighborhood that they know that they are going to be
safe, that...that they have some expectation that when they move in that it
is going to stay the same, and not suddenly one day have something
completely different change in their neighborhood. If we don't do that,
our City planning is never going to work. It's not going to work for my
neighborhood now, and down the road as other neighborhoods become
older, it is not going to work for them, and our sprawl is going to continue
and continue because nobody is going to take the change of living in an
older neighborhood because they are afraid of what may happen to them.
So what happens in my neighborhood not only affects my neighborhood.
It affects the whole city. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Nancy.
Nowotny: Dennis Nowotny, 511 E. Washington Street, just across the street over
here. I guess the only reason that I came up here again is...it's the same
old issues, but I happen to think, well we've had this little problem with
downzoning to...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 27
Lehman: That comes up later on the agenda.
Nowotny: Oh.
Lehman: That is on the agenda.
Nowotny: Okay.
Lehman: It will be up...in fact, it's going to be pretty soon because this hearing is
going to be continued.
Nowotny: I want to talk about this conservation area, decreasing the value of the
property, basically. Is that not...part of this issue or not?
Lehman: ...conservation area is part of the zone. The zoning code.
Bailey: Can you be more specific, Dennis?
Nowotny: Well, I just want to point out that basically the person that owned my
property across the street there fought, who was.., a member of the
Conservation, or no the Historic Conservation for about ten years or so,
Sue Lekin, basically fought this Historic zoning of this property to a
conservation area because basically she knew that it was going to loose a
lot, oh maybe, several hundred, may a $100,000 on her property. So she
definitely fought that for that reason. And I think she's been basically
driven out...she's living in town still, but...so, as much as I like to
preserve these old houses, unfortunately, their value doesn't go with what
they are or what they were, and so you have to weigh that, I guess, on
what does this person want for his property, and not for what it is. There's
been a lot of people talking to you about preserving two-bedroom houses
and things like that, people from the northside, and I guess, you know, I
don't know that two-bedroom houses are really the norm anymore. I don't
know that the students want to live in them. Obviously, they want to try to
save $150 a month. They think they're going to save $150 a month,
anyway, if they have four other roomers with them. I guess $150 is quite
a bit to them, or whatever. Just for us CB-2 owners, I think we would just
like to be left alone really. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? If not, we're going to continue
this hearing to Monday night at 7:00 P.M. ifI get a motion to that effect.
Vanderhoef: Move to continue.
Bailey: Second.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
//6 Page 28
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing to
November 7th at 7.'00 P.M. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
(pounds gavel)
Karr: Could I...correspondence...
Wilburn: Accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries. We're going to take a short break. (TAPE OFF)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 29
ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
c) REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-
FAMILY (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-12)
FOR LOTS LOCATED ON CATSKILL COURT WITHIN THE
EAST HILL SUBDIVISION. (REZ05-00012)
1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 10/18)
Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. (several talking at once)
Karr: Close it and then the application is withdrawn.
Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public heating is closed. This has been withdrawn by
staff. Is that correct? Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 30
ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING AREAS
CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF
DAVENPORT STREET AND NORTH OF JEFFERSON
STREET. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
1. FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE
TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) ZONE,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (Cig-l) ZONE,
MIXED USE (MU) ZONE AND PUBLIC (P) ZONE
(DEFERRED FROM 10/18) '
Wilburn: I move first consideration of the ordinance.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: I think that I need to read the next item first. We have two choices. One
is from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support
(CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone, Mixed Use (MU)
Zone and Public (P) Zone. This is deferred from the 18th. Now, we have a
motion by Wilburn.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Second by Bailey to approve. This is the one on which we had 85%
protest. This will require a 6 to 1 vote, or a minimum of 6 votes to pass.
Discussion?
Vanderhoef: Well, I won't be supporting this. The CN Zone is not what I would think
is in the best interest of the community so I will be looking for an
alternative.
Champion: I think most of us will.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion fails 5 to 2; Bailey and Wilbum voting in the
affirmative.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 31
2. FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE
TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) ZONE,
MIXED USE (MU) ZONE AND PUBLIC (P) ZONE, FOR
CERTAIN AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2
LOCATED SOUTH OF DAVENPORT STREET AND
NORTH OF JEFFERSON STREET.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Second by Vanderhoef. This deals with the same area as the last one,
except that the CB-2 Zone that had the 85% of the folks objecting to it
remains CB-2. Discussion?
Vanderhoef: Well, I will support this particular ordinance at this time, but I would
request Council send this CB-2 Zone back to Planning and Zoning for
some alterations on it. It will probably take a bit of time, so it probably
won't come back to us until after the first of the year, but I'd like to move
on with the primary code revisions at this point.
Elliott: I will also be approving this because it will remain CB-2, but my
understanding with all parties involved is that it would remain CB-2, the
only difference would be that probably sometime the first of the year, the
height allowance for a building in that area would be lowered - probably
to somewhere between four and six floors.
Lehman: Bob, I think that may be true, but there may be more than height
restrictions. When it comes back to Council you may have other things to
deal with then...
Elliott: That's all I'm willing to go on.
Bailey: Well, and I actually think that perhaps a more judicious course of action
would be to see what we're going, what changes we're going to make to
CB-2. I can't support this without knowing what a CB-2 Zone will look
like. I certainly can't support it with the current CB-2 standards. So, my
preference would be.to figure out what CB-2 is going to look like before
we vote on this, if this is...what it's going to look like.
Wilbum: I would agree with that.
Lehman: My only concern with that, and I don't disagree with you, but I don't think
there's going to be time to deal with that prior to the first of the year.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 32
Bailey: Well, I certainly can't support it because I don't know what we're getting.
I don't know what the zoning will look like.
Lehman: Well, you know what it is now, and I think it will basically be the same.
Bailey: Right, and that isn't the intent of the new map. I mean, there's no
transition and we all know that zoning, the type of zoning that to provide
transition between commercial and residential, it doesn't adequately
address that with the current height standards, which I recognize that
people are willing to change, but since I don't know what we've voting for
it would be impossible for me to support this.
Vanderhoefi Could you support this if we at this point in time did at least the height
requirement change?
Bailey: No, because if...it's just...
Lehman; Excuse me, but this, the thing that we're voting on is only that portion that
is changed to CB-5, MU, and Public.
Dilkes: We're excluding the areas that would be rezoned to CN-1.
Vanderhoef: We're not rezoning it, so it's just staying the same.
Dilkes: We're just taking it out...
Lehman: This is...
Dilkes: ... of the rezoning.
Lehman: Rezoning.
Vanderhoef: So we can't amend this.
Bailey: So we really still don't have a sense of how it will look because we're
excluding an area, correct?
Dilkes: Well, you...essentially you won't be rezoning that area. That area will
remain CB-2.
Lehman: Right.
Elliott: Now, do we need a super majority on this? (several talking at once)
Lehman: Any other discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 33
Bailey: When will we be discussing CB-2? I had assumed that that would come
with this discussion and we would achieve that before the end of the year.
It was probably an optimistic assumption, but I had made that assumption.
(laughter)
Vanderhoefi I would like to see it also done before the first of the year.
Lehman: Let's discuss that Monday night, or Tuesday at our work session to see if
it's possible, and get it...
Bailey: There seems to be a general consensus of the direction we're going. I
don't see why we can't hammer that out. (several talking at once)
Dilkes: I think that the whole CB-2 issue though is going to have to go back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Lehman: Right.
Dilkes: And, these...it depends on what your timing is. That certainly would take
it into next year.
Elliott: I appreciate staff coming up with this alternative to attempt to meet some
of the interests and concerns of the (can't hear) residents and owners of
that area.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion passes 5 to 2; Elliott...or Wilbum and Bailey voting in
the negative.
Wilburn: I'm shorter than he is. (laughter)
Elliott: Not by much. (laughter)
Lehman: Don't have as much hair either. (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 34
ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING AREAS
CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF
JEFFERSON STREET AND EAST OF GILBERT STREET.
(FIRST CONSIDERATION)
1. FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE
TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) ZONE,
MIXED USE (MU) ZONE AND HIGH DENSITY MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) ZONE (DEFERRED
FROM 10/18)
Lehman: This also has a high percentage of folks who have objected to the rezoning
and would require a super majority vote of Council.
O'Donnell: It was also 85% against this.
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Champion: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Second by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Champion: We have an alternate below that, right?
Lehman: We do.
Champion: Okay.
Lehman: Roll call. The motion fails 5 to 2; Elliott and Wilbum voting in the
affirmative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#6 Page 35
ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
k. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY
SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-12) FOR LOTS LOCATED ON DODGE
STREET COURT WITHIN THE JACOB RICORD'S
SUBDIVISION. (REZ05-00011) (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Wilbum: Move second consideration of the ordinance.
Bailey: Move second consideration...
Lehman: Moved by Wilbum; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Champion: This is that little cul-de-sac? Okay.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
//7 Page 36
ITEM 7 DECIDING THE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF THE
DECISION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGARDING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO
ENCLOSE GUTTERS ON THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 5517
GRANT STREET.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Is there anyone here that wishes to
speak to this? This is an appeal to Council.
Dilkes: Maria Duarte, I believe is the woman's name.
Duarte: I'm here to answer any questions, but basically what I have to say is
included in my letter.
Lehman: Okay.
Duarte: Does anyone have any questions for me? I guess I do have one procedural
matter which has to do with the Historic Preservation Commission
meeting where the head of the Commission recused himself, but did take
an active role in the discussion, and I was just wondering if that was
proper.
Dilkes: I'd have to look at the transcript. I'm not, I can't address the question
without looking at the transcript.
Duarte: The minutes state that he, and I have them...
Lehman: I think the...the information we got, the Chairman recused himself and
then proceeded to participate' in the discussion. (several talking at once)
Right.
Duarte: Well, why doesn't the Chair address the issue? Is the Chair here? Okay.
Carlson: Hi, I'm Richard Carlson, the Vice Chair of the Commission, sitting in for
Tim Weitzel because he had recused himself from the meeting at which
we decided this case, because he lives next door to Ms. Duarte and was the
one who stopped the work on the gutters that were being covered. And
my understanding was, based on an earlier incident in which our former
chair Michael MaHarry resigned from the Commission in order to speak
as a private citizen at one of these meetings that my understanding, based
on the discussion after that, was that the Chair could resign, or could
recuse himself or herself, and speak then as a private citizen at the
meeting. I hope this is correct, because this is what we assumed we could
do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#7 Page 37
Dilkes: Yes, and let me give an example. Ifa member of the Council would
recuse himself from a decision that the Council was going to make
because that member of the Council had a private interest, then that
member of the Council, or that member of the Commission, could absent a
by-law that would prohibit it express themselves as a private citizen. I
think that's right.
Lehman: Okay.
Elliott: It's based on the reason for the recusal?
Dilkes: No. I think the issue that previously with Mr. MaHarry was that he
resigned apparently based on the misunderstanding that he had to resign in
order to speak, not as a member of the Commission, but as a property
owner, a neighboring property owner. And that's not the case.
Elliott: I was just asking about the appropriateness of someone who recuses
themselves, and then participate in the discussion. My understanding, if
for whatever reason, you recuse yourself, you do not participate in the
discussion. Am I wrong in that?
Dilkes: You do not participate in the discussion and deliberations of the body from
which you recused yourself, but you can express yourself to the body in
your other capacity as a private citizen.
Elliott: Okay, thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Carlson: I'll be available for questions, as well.
Lehman: Okay.
Dilkes: And again, I'd have to look at the minutes to see how that was being done
in this particular case.
Lehman: I read them, and that's pretty much what happened.
McCallum: Are you going to take more comments? Hi, my name's Mark McCallum.
I'm the College Green representative on the Historic Preservation
Commission. I was the lone vote in favor of the applicant on this
situation. You know, and I voted with the applicant primarily because I
thought the building code did not require a building permit for a re-
roofing, and I was under the impression that... (TAPE ENDS)... sure that
that conversation ever did take place, and she did a slight alteration to her
roof line with plywood, and when you look at the definition in the building
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#7 Page 38
code, which exempts roofs from being required a building permit, it says
it's only required if you are replacing your sheathing by more than 50%.
It does say other structural alterations, so I'm not sure whether this
qualified as a structural alteration, but after speaking with the applicant
earlier this evening, I'm not sure that HIS even reviewed whether a
building permit was needed in this particular case. It was just reported to
by a, our Chair of the Preservation Commission, and aside from that,
whether a building permit was required, a lot of the argument made by
disallowing it went on the page 4.4 of the Historic Preservation
Guidelines, which is part of the zoning code, which says it... it disallowed
original roofline and mass, substantially altering the roof pitch of a
historical building on one or both sides, and I guess the argument became
what you consider substantial and when you look at the photographs of the
alteration that this applicant made, I did not believe that it was substantial.
So, again, I just wanted to give you my lone view on this particular
application, and there were 6 votes on the other side. So I'll acknowledge
that. I guess...
O'Donnell: We still have public hearing open.
Lehman: Public hearing is open, that's correct.
Elliott: Do we have a decision .... this is legally done, it was legally reached that a
building permit was required? Because a legal question apparently has
been raised.
Terdalkar: These gutter changes are considered as structural changes because the
gutters are part of the roof structure itself. So, in case of a historic
building, this will be considered (can't understand), but the permit process
was not followed through as complete, and this is again, I would say a
two-layered process where the Historic Preservation Commission's
approval will then be followed through with the (can't understand) permit.
Dilkes: In other words, the permit won't issue unless there's a certificate of
appropriateness. Right.
Lehman: The previous speaker indicated that they had to be a significant alteration
of the roof line, but according to the memo here, from the Vice-Chair, that
it was disallowed because of altering the roof's slope, period. It doesn't
say substantial, significant, insignificant, or anything else. It just says
"altered."
Carlson: The appropriate section is 4.11 under Gutters and Downspouts, which is
separate from the one that was just cited to you, and this one specifically
says under disallowed, roof slope, altering the roof slope near the gutter
when covering historical...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
//7 Page 39
Lehman: Right, and it doesn't say substantially - I think it just says "altering."
Okay. Are there any questions from Council for...
Elliott: I just have an observation. I walked those streets that were mentioned in
the communication with Ms. Duarte. I walked Summit. I walked Grant. I
looked at the houses that were identified. I just, I feel that the
Commission...I disagree with what the Commission, the decision that they
arrived at, but I can in no way find that it is arbitrary and capricious. I
think it's wrong, but it is not arbitrary. It is not capricious. One of the
definitions of arbitrary is unreasonable. I do believe this is unreasonable,
but it is neither arbitrary nor capricious, and I am bound, therefore, to
approve it, and this is another reason why I would like the Council to meet
with the Historic Preservation and talk about some of these things.
O'Donnell: And I have a lot of the same concerns. If you do walk Summit, Grant, and
so forth, there are many gutters like this. It's going to trouble me to
support this, but I too can't prove that they were arbitrary...or that they
were nonarbitrary or capricious.
Champion: Well, the whole problem wouldn't have arisen (can't understand) permit.
Bailey: Connie, I'm having a hard time hearing you. Pardon?
Champion: I said it wouldn't have been a problem if a building permit had been
procured because it would have had to have a certificate of
appropriateness to give the building permit.
Bailey: You need to step up to the mic.
Lehman: Yeah.
Duarte: Couldn't I get a building permit without permission of the Historic
Preservation ....
Lehman: Right (several talking at once).
Duarte: The Historic Commission said they could not approve this.
Champion: Well, that's what I'm saying.
Duarte: Therefore, I can't get a building permit, therefore getting a building permit
is not a possibility, therefore it could not be a solution. Now, I mean, I...
Champion: But you would have known that you couldn't do this, is what I'm saying.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#7 Page 40
Duarte: Well, yes, I wouldn't now have a half completed roof. I agree with that.
But what I don't understand is if one of the meanings of arbitrary is
unreasonable, and this is unreasonable, and yet it is not arbitrary, I don't
understand.
Lehman: No, no, there is a distinction because I believe what we are saying, or what
some Council people are saying, and I concur, the regulation is arbitrary
that the roof slope cannot be changed even slightly. That is probably, in
my opinion, arbitrary. The application of the rule was not arbitrary or
capricious. They just said 'You changed the slope on your roof and you
can't do that.' So they're...in applying the rule, they did it correctly. The
rule may be wrong, but the application was correct. And we are not
enabled to fault the rule. All we can do is judge whether or not the
application was correct.
Bailey: Well, and I would just like to point out if many of the Council have
problems with the guidelines, this body, I was sitting on it. We just
approved these guidelines last year. So if there are concerns about the
guidelines, I think that we probably should speak to that in another setting
because our decision here is pretty narrowly confined to if the
Commission went outside its bounds.
Elliott: Our hands are tied, I think. The Commission, I disagreed with their
decision, but I understand the basis on which they reached the decision
and there is no problem with that. My concern is if I'm to believe what is
put here, this increases the cost from $600 to $3,000 and that is just
terribly unfortunate.
Bailey: And I'm not unsympathetic. I have internal gutters, so I understood.
Duarte: Do they leak?
Bailey: They were covered at one time .... I'm not in a historic district. I want to
point that out too. They were covered at one time and when we re-roofed,
they're now open, but they seem to be functioning better than apparently
yours are, for the time being.
Duarte: My problem is on the south side because south there's more weather
problem, and on top of that, the wonderful historic builder decided to put a
bumpout under the gutter. This is why as I say I thought it was a design
flaw. I think that building, a part of the interior of a house, under a gutter
is probably not that wise. I don't think (laughter and several talking at
once). But, I guess it is my burden to maintain the integrity of the glory of
Iowa City gutters.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#7 Page 41
Vanderhoef: And it's up to City Council, who made the rules to begin with, that the
Historic Preservation Commission goes by. We approve these rules and
we can changes these rules, if there is will among the seven Councilors.
Elliott: Some of them, some of them...
Lehman: Well, my suspicion is we do approve the standards, but there's no way that
this Council or any other Council is going to be able to foresee every
possible thing. Neither is the Commission going to be able to foresee
everything, and they are, I think, bound to apply the rules as they are
written.
Elliott: I will just add that in my professional life I worked with Human
Resources, and one of the key factors we had to consider was the ADA,
Americans for Disabilities Act, and the two critical criteria there is
"reasonable accommodations" and "essential function," and I think if we
could look at Historic Preservation from that kind of point of view - not
now but some point in the future when we have the time - I think we need
to be much more reasonable about these things, and then we could be
much, we could promote Historic Preservation much more productively.
Champion: I think it's promoted very productively.
Duarte: I just wish that there were some way that this could be acted upon more
swiftly. I feel that, you know, at this point I feel like the poster child for
the wrongly affected resident of the Historic Preservation District, and I
guess it's an honor, but it's one that I would just as soon...
Lehman: Let me ask you just one question, then I'm going to close the public
hearing because I think we've probably.., did you have to approach the
Commission as to perhaps they might want to request a change in those
standards from Council?
Duarte: No, I did not. It was ...
Lehman: I would suggest that maybe you do that. Maybe it won't work, but it
won't hurt, if they came back to us and asked us to make a slight change, I
bet we'd do it!
Duarte: Why is the burden on me on this? You know, I'm really sorry, but I went
before the Commission. It was very clear that one person was going to
support it. We went through a whole discussion where it was all "I can't
do anything," and I really think that if you recognize that there's'a
problem, I should not now have to wait until the next meeting and on and
on and on and maybe by next August, I can have a swimming pool in my
dining room and this will be solved.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#7 Page 42
Lehman: Well, let me just say...
Duarte: I'm sorry.
Lehman: I don't think Council was aware .... at least some of us were not aware of
this situation as the Commission did the only thing they could do, they
applied the rules as they were written. If Council chooses to meet with
Historic Preservation and ask them to change that guideline, they can do
that. That will take some time - there's no question about that and
certainly that could happen.
Bailey: What are alternatives did Historic Preservation look at? Do you know?
To alleviate this problem.
Duarte: Basically the options I listed in my letter, and I...
Bailey: Yeah, I understand, but I mean, they certainly dealt with this before.
These are not unusual circumstances. I mean...
Duarte: No, I can continue what I have been doing...
Bailey: I'm actually asking the Commission if they provided you with...I mean, I
saw in your letter that they provided you with limited options, but I just
wonder if there are other experiences to make these gutters work. I would
just like to find you a solution so you're not swimming in your dining
room, which some people would consider a benefit, but I don't think this
necessarily is (laughter).
Terdalkar: I think one way to repair these kind of gutters is to line them with certain
material. It is certainly feasible. These matters are probably more labor
intensive, that is why they're not more popular, but...
Bailey: Right.
Terdalkar: But it is certainly feasible to do it. There are examples in the city itself
about where these gutters have been repaired in the condition that they are,
but yes, there are ways to do this. Again, the project was already halfway
through when the Commission was made aware of this so we were not
able to intervene before, as in the pre-application process in most cases
this is done.
Vanderhoef: Can you give me any example of cost for the relining versus...
Lehman: $3,000.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#7 Page 43
Vanderhoefi No, that was to cover them. (several talking at once)
Lehman: You need to speak into the microphone.
Duarte: I'm sorry. That was to rebuild if there were no significant other damage,
which we won't know until the gutters are taken apart. Simply relining
them will not work because by now the pitch of the gutter itself is not
sufficient to guarantee that simply relining.., so one would have to go
under and rebuilt. This is part of the problem. Anyway, I think I've laid
out the options, or the reasons why, I eliminated the others.
Lehman: You did.
Bailey: I was just hopeful there was something else out there.
Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is closed. Does...
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence, please.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries.
b) CONSIDERA MOTION
Lehman: Now, we need a motion to affirm the decision of the Historic Preservation
Commission. Do I have, hear a motion to that effect?
Bailey: So moved.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. You
know, we could, if we chose, have a resolution to change that, or make
this a possibility.
Elliott: I would like words such as "substantial" or...
Lehman: No, no, no. Well, I don't ...
Elliott: No, not right now...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#7 Page 44
Lehman: I'm saying we could as soon as the next meeting, make...change that
regulation that would alter, allow the alteration of a roofline as long as it
wasn't significant.
Bailey: I think that that's...a challenging, with Historic Preservation, I suspect that
roofline is a challenging discussion.
Wilburn: And I wouldn't want to see us take one particular aspect, there are people
for and against the Historic Preservation ordinance in general, and so if we
have one case where people may or may not be comfortable with the
decision that we made before will, I guess, not taking them one at a time,
go ahead and if you're unhappy with the Historic Preservation ordinance,
then have a review of the ordinance again, even though we approved them,
as opposed to a case came up, we have to follow our own rules - that's
why this particular ordinance comes up - and then the next time someone
comes up, you know, it would go on for, in perpetuity and I don't think
that's fair to the public to take them on one at a time. Go ahead and take a
review of the ordinance if that's what's wanted to happen, as opposed to, I
mean...if we do that, they'll be three or four more the following, the next
meeting. I...you've got to take into context with the whole...
Bailey: We have to let people know what to expect so to do it in its entirety, I
think, is much more appropriate.
Wilburn: That was more succinct than what I said.
Elliott: The interesting part of Democracy, we should be unfair to the public to
avoid being unfair to the public.
Lehman: I'm not sure what you just said, Bob, but let's (laughter) let's move on to
Item 8.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#10 Page 45
ITEM 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST A CONTRACT WITH TODD HACKETT
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
DUPLEX HOME UNDER THE AFFORDABLE DREAM HOME
OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM. (DEFERRED FROM 10/18)
Champion: Move the resolution.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
O'Donnell: I continue not to support this. I just, ! don't like the idea that we've only
got one bid in and it's not a town bid. I'd like to see some local bids. Plus
the estimate was $220,000; the bid submitted was $288,000. I just can't
see how this is a good thing to do. I would like to see this put out for
rebid.
Elliott: I'm not as concerned about the difference between the estimate and the bid
as I am at the size of the bid. If it is difficult to do one at a time, I would
suggest perhaps the City do one of these every three years and do three at
a time, or every four years and do four at a time. There needs to be some
way to bring the cost down because we're fast getting away from anything
called affordable housing. I suspect I will be voting no on this.
Bailey: I do have a concern about the estimate and the way the bid came in
because I think we're accustomed to seeing estimates that are more in the
ballpark, and so that was a surprise to me and a concern, and so I won't be
supporting this. I think that we probably should rebid this project, which
doesn't mean I... (several talking at once).
Vanderhoefi We have always supported affordable dream houses and so, yes, this is the
first time that a bid has come in so high that we're concerned about
affordability for the homeowner. I too would look at rebidding with an
alternate bid of the second two-plex in the same location, that maybe we
could get some economy of scale by doing four units instead of two units.
Lehman: Are you saying you would wish to rebid it, as well?
Vanderhoef: I want to rebid it, but I want to rebid it with the alternate.
Lehman: 'Okay. Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#10 Page 46
Atkins: Before you do that, remember rebidding it with an alternate requiring two
additional units, our exposure jumps dramatically, from $250,000 to
$500,000.
O'Donnell: I don't think we have to require an alternate, Steve. I just want to rebid
this, and I...
Atkins: I understand the point.
Vanderhoef: We can turn down that alternate, and until we find out what an alternate
will substantially change the bid number per unit. That's what I'm
(several talking at once).
Champion: Let's find out if four of us want an alternate.
Atkins: I'm not being argumentative. I just want to point out that our exposure
financially jumps dramatically, and qualifying families for these projects
is always very difficult, so we could be sitting on it for a little while.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: Okay.
Bailey: No reason that we can't, once it's in the process of being built, that we
couldn't market it as it's being built. I mean, and get (several talking at
once). I understand. I just think, and I think I've said this, but I think a
higher estimate would have given us an indicator that this was going to be
a more expensive project than we anticipated.
O'Donnell: Well, I think more than one estimate would have given us an indication,
right?
Bailey: You mean more than one bid.
O'Donnell: More than one bid, yes.
Bailey: Yeah, but I think if the staff estimate would have been higher, we would
have had a better idea that it would have been a higher project.
Atkins: Please don't forget the bonding requirement as what (can't understand).
Lehman: Well, with the bonding requirement, does not account for the difference
between the estimate and the bid, because we knew the bonding
requirement when we gave the estimate.
Atkins: It's qualifying bidders. They must have bonding.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#10 Page 47
Lehman: Right.
Vanderhoef: But as I understood last night, then perhaps Bob's bid, or idea, is better
that collectively we get up until we can skip that bonding. Doug indicated
something last night about a $1 million, when we did Whispering
Meadow, and then they had plenty of bidders because they didn't have to
have .... because of the size of the project.
Atkins: Always have to have bonding.
Lehman: You have to have bonding, but it was 20 or 30 buildings which is in the
millions.
Atkins: Yeah, you have to have bonding in all... (several talking at once).
Dilkes: The fact that the...the bond requirement is because it's a public
improvement, and that kicks in at $25,000 and over.
Bailey: So at a certain level it seems that bonding makes a little bit...the expense
makes a little bit more sense with a certain size project, it seems like.
Dilkes: I think the difficulty is you're not getting bonded companies competing
for the.., smaller projects.
Vanderhoef: So you have to pay the rate, or the contractor has to pay the rate.
Lehman: I really sense there would a little bit more comfort level from Council if it
were rebid, even if it came back the same.
Champion: I'd find out what we're going to rebid. Are we going to rebid as the
duplex, or are we going to rebid with an alternate? I thought we made it
clear last night it was too much money.
Atkins: Yeah, the lots and .... (several talking at once).
Bailey: I'm comfortable simply rebidding the project. That's the due diligence
sort of thing that we should do, and if it comes in the same, I think we'll
be a little bit more...
Champion: I just want to know what I'm voting on now. I'm going to say yes to
rebidding the project, as it was.
O'Donnell: I think we can decide that right now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#10 Page 48
Atkins: If you would vote no on this, which tums it down, with the direction to
staff to rebid with an option to be bid four units next time around...
Champion: I'm not willing to bid four units. I thought it...that's what I'm trying to
find out.
Bailey: At this point we just have to consider the resolution.
Champion: Okay.
Atkins: The resolution is all that's on the table.
Dilkes: But if you want to give direction, the...if four of you want to give
direction as to whether we bid the alternate or not, you can do that.
Lehman: What we probably should do is vote this up or down. If we vote it down,
then give a directive. Roll call. The motion is defeated 6 to 1; Wilbum
voting in the affirmative. Do we want to give any direction, do we want to
rebid this as it was originally bid?
O'Donnell: That's what I'd like to do.
Champion: Yes.
Elliott: I would also like to have some information on ways that we can avoid
having this kind of expense. If there is savings in quantity, do we need to
wait until every two or three years and do two, or three, or four at a time?
Champion: There won't be any savings because we're going to have that money
laying out there and if these are not easy to sell (can't hear).
Atkins: I don't know how to answer that, Bob, unless we bid the alternate.
Elliott: Or, do we need to do a better job at looking at the property that we're
acquiring for this, because my understanding, part of the expense on this is
the property that is really not terribly suited for this kind of house.
Lehman: We own it.
Atkins: We own it. It would have been marketable, I suspect, in the private
market for, yeah. In this case it's because it's a public project.
Lehman: Well, obviously we want to rebid it. Do we want to rebid one unit or do
we want to rebid it with an alternate?
O'Donnell: I would like to rebid it as it is.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#10 Page 49
Champion: Me too.
Lehman: Fine.
Wilbum: As is.
Lehman: As is.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#11 Page 50
ITEM 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND WHITE BUFFALO,
INC. TO KILL DEER BY MEANS OF SHARPSHOOTING IN
JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2006 AS PART OF THE CITY'S
LONG-TEM DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell, Discussion?
Elliott: I will vote for this. I am disappointed that we aren't allowing bow hunting
and it was recommended by D.N.R.; as was recommended by our Task
Force, but we decided not to do this. I do like the fact that this plan will
financially penalize the hunters if they shoot antlered-deer. I like the fact
because last time they shot far too many and the idea is to...
Champion: How many is far too many?
Elliott: I think it was up to 40%, if I'm not mistaken.
Atkins: Bucks were shot, but they didn't have antlers. That was, yeah, that's
the...
Bailey: Bob, I just wanted to mention to you that one of our neighbors to the north
did use bow hunting and on the news one morning I saw a horrible picture
that I would never want one of our citizens to have to see in their yard
with the deer wondering around with the arrow through it, and I don't
think we should subject...
Champion: I don't think Iowa City would like that idea very much.
Bailey: I don't think so. I didn't like seeing it on the TV.
Elliott: It's most unfortunate.
Bailey: It was most unfortunate, yes indeed.
Champion: Especially for the deer!
Vanderhoef: One of the...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
# 11 Page 51
Lehman: Any other discussion?
Vanderhoef: Yes, the Iowa Natural Resources has limited us to a deer reduction of 192,
and I just was curious why they didn't respond to the change in our plan of
moving downward from a normal 35 per square mile, down to 25 per
square mile, because 35 is at the point of when you start seeing
environmental changes due to overpopulation by the deer and the stripping
of the environment, and so this year, our plan was recommended to us and
Council agreed with it that we were going to move it down to 25 per
square mile so that we would get away from this environmental damage
and at the same time then, the D.N.R. tums right around and says 'You kill
the same amount as you did the previous year.' So, we are not going to be
able to come close to meeting our goal of 25 per square mile, and I find
this very unfortunate.
O'Donnell: Steve, how are we doing? Are we utilizing all the meat from these deer?
Atkins: That's out to bid now, but yes, that meat is processed and distributed.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Helling: Just for clarification, the 192 is a maximum. The fact that we're looking
at fewer than that is because of the access, our limited access, to certain
properties and that was when De Nicola submitted his bid. He specified
that based on his experience here from prior years that he probably
wouldn't be able to get anywhere near the 192 because of limited access to
properties, but he still may shoot more than what he is estimating, but no
more than 192.
Dilkes: I think also, my recollection is is that change in the plan which was done
fairly recently was done after the approval by the D.N.R. for the shoot.
Vanderhoef: Oh, the D.N.R. did it early this year - that approval? Okay. That I didn't
know. Thank you very much. I won't be so critical of them at this point.
Next year, watch me! (laughter)
Lehman: - Next year I will watch you. Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#13 Page 52
ITEM 13 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT AND SALE OF LAND FOR PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY AND PLAZA TOWERS L.L.C.
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Champion: This is just to allow more bedrooms, right? In the condominium area?
Vanderhoef: And extend the time.
Lehman: Extends the completion date. Yeah. Roll call. Motion carries.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilbum: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#14 Page 53
ITEM 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION OF THE
ANGEL OF HOPE STATUE AND APPROVING PLACEMENT OF
THE STATUE IN CITY PARK.
Elliott: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Elliott.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: Well, we haven't had a lot of discussion about this, and I know I'm
probably in the minority, but I really disapprove of an angel being placed
in our park system. I think an angel is not a cherub. An angel is a
religious ceremony, and I'm not a religious .... but a religious symbol, and I
personally, I don't like the idea. I think it's a bad judgment. I'm also
wondering if it's going to be used in a religious sense. Then I think it
would be totally out of line. I think there are other appropriate places for
angels to be placed besides the City Park.
Bailey: Connie, initially shared your concerns - angels are probably not the thing
that I would put in our parks, but the Parks and Rec Commission thought
this was okay. I also have concerns that this would be used, not only for
religious but for political protest, right...antiabortion protests, and I talked
to quite a few people and determined that we can't necessarily control
what people use as symbols in our community. So part of that is if the
Parks and Rec Commission is comfortable with this, we can't control what
people grab onto as a symbol or as a rallying point, for their religious or
political views, and so I'm going to support this. A lot of people have
done a lot of work and I checked with a lot of people about this because I
was very concerned.
Champion: I did check with a lot of people and I, some people are not as concerned as
I am, but I think it's a bad step forward, backward. I think...where do you
stop? I'm going to vote no. I'm not going to carry on and...
Lehman: You're carrying on, Connie. (laughter) Would anybody else like to carry
on?
Vanderhoef: Yes, I just want to comment. I don't necessarily have the same concerns
that Connie has, but I have a concern of it being in City Park, partly
because I'm trying to put my feet into the shoes of someone who has lost a
child and thank goodness I have not, but I have known some people and
the reflective move that comes about by seeing a symbol like this, and in a
happy, active park like City Park, I don't know that this is the appropriate
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#14 Page 54
place to have it, and I had suggested to, after the fact because I didn't
know it was happening, to the Chair of Parks and Recreation, that they
might re-discuss it. One of the reasons they gave for putting it in City
Park is because it was close to parking where they could have easy access
to it, and I would respectfully like to defer this and send it back and
request that they consider Waterworks Park up there in that same area
where a number of years ago we were asked to consider it after the Park
Development Plan was put together, of putting memorial forest, a local
mortuary asked to start something like that, and I would just like a little
more discussion on the location of the angel. I will support the angel
itself. So either defer or just amend to take City Park out of there and let's
talk about it.
Lehman: As a parent who lost a child, I can think of no better part than City Park.
It's a happy place, it's a place where children go. I cannot think of a more
appropriate place.
Bailey: I heard that from a lot of parents. I don't have kids, so I polled as many
people as I could about, how would you feel if you came across something
like this. Would it, you know, dampen your mood, and that's what I heard
from people, that it's a celebration of life and kids and City Park is the
place where people felt this should be placed.
O'Donnell: And that's what I heard too. It's recognition of all lost children.
Elliott: I respect the reservations Connie has expressed, and that Dee and that
Regenia. I think, personally, I believe in, and many other people do also,
that angels go far beyond a religious connotation, and there is the context
within this whole idea came about within which the funds were raised and
within which this is being done. I think it's just so admirable that I will
vote yes very enthusiastically. I do understand those people who disagree,
and I respect the reasons for which they do.
Lehman: Is there interest in deferral?
Elliott: No.
Lehman: Go ahead.
Wilburn: I want to go ahead and act on it, but several of my friends at my own
church will probably...I'm going to go ahead and support this because of
the fact that this is, God-forbid I lose a child, a place around where
children congregate would be where I would want to go, but for me, an
angel is religious symbol, connotation, so my preference is that it would
be something other than an angel, but I understand the history, how this
has evolved, and it' s part of a national trend that it be an angel, and I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#14 Page 55
appreciate that the Parks and Rec Commission going ahead and
establishing a policy for more donations, so please thank, I see our director
out there, please thank the Commission for doing that. And I'll go ahead
and accept it, because of the again, a place where children congregate.
Lehman: Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#18 Page 56
ITEM 18 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Lehman: Regenia?
Bailey: Oh, thanks. First of all, I want to say that North Dubuque Street is starting
to look very good, thank you, and I hope that we can work with Project
GREEN so they can work their magic once we are finally done with it.
Additionally, last night we neglected to talk about legislative priorities, so
I would like to know if we can put that on the work session that we have
scheduled for November 7th? IS that...
Lehman: 7th or 8th, we have a meeting on the 7th and 8th. Is that correct? Public
heating on the 7th? 1:30 work session on the 8th...
Bailey: Is there a time that would work out better? We agreed that we would do
these as a resolution this year?
Karr: Right, it might, if it's okay with you, we put it on the work session of the
7th. If time permits you could take care of that one, quickly, because we
want to get it in your packet for Thursday of that week. It's a resolution
for the following week - action the 15th.
Bailey: Great, thank you. That's all I have.
Lehman: Okay. Ross?
Wilbum: It's Council time! I just realized that. Looking forward to hearing civil
tights pioneer Julian Bond on Talk of Iowa on November 4th - that's
Friday, on WSUI so looking forward to tuning in to that, and
congratulation to City High School varsity football team - going against
Bettendorftomorrow night. Go Little Hawks!
Vanderhoef: Nothing this evening.
Lehman: Mike?
O'Donnell: North Dubuque Street's looking great. North Dodge, one question I hear
quite frequently, do we have any idea, Steve, how far we're behind, or
when the completion date is?
Bailey: Two years.
Atkins: At least a year from now.
O'Donnell: That's if they keep schedule.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#18 Page 57
Atkins: If they keep on schedule, yes.
O'Donnell: I've had several calls on that and people are telling me they drive by and
they see nobody out there. So...
Atkins: I'm going to come across as critical. It's not a project being managed by
(can't hear) City. It's being managed by someone else.
O'Donnell: I understand.
Lehman: Okay. Connie?
Champion: Well, I'm going to remind people to vote on Tuesday. It is going to be a
very important election, and make sure you get out there and vote. The
other thing, I just want to make a little comment about Halloween, in a
positive way. I had tons of little kids at my house last night and I gave
them lots of candy, which I hope their parents threw away today, but
(laughter) what amazed me is how much fun these little kids were having,
despite all these high-tech toys and all these elaborate things they do with
kids, high scheduling...they were having a great time. It was just a lot of
fun to see these little kids doing something silly like Halloween. I loved
it.
Elliott: Well, in addition to six-month-old Kate coming to our door last night and
charming, not quite literally but figuratively, the pants off of us, it was a
great night. Mixed emotions this last World Series (laughter). Obviously,
the Cardinals were not participating. That was sad, but the White Sox, the
southside of Chicago emerged, yes! And one of the discomforting
thoughts was A1 Grady, my friend of so many years who was so long a
White Sox fan, was not here to really enjoy and to take all the barbs we
would have thrown at him, but Pat White was happy, and as a matter of
fact, a long-time friend of mine who was a former school administrator
here in the local public school district, was talking to my wife today that
he'd been a White Sox fan since 1932. He wrote to the owner of the Sox
and received two tickets behind home plate, at the World Series. So,
sometimes it pays to take a leap of faith! That's it, guys.
Lehman: Okay. I would reiterate, Connie, that Tuesday is Council election and the
vote for or against public power. So, vote!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#19 Page 58
ITEM 19 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF.
Lehman: Steve?
Atkins: Nothing, sir.
Lehman: I thought you had a note that you were showing me earlier tonight that I
suggested you share with the rest of the Council.
Atkins: (laughter and several talking at once) Oh no. I was mentioning to Emie
that we just passed another $100 million in construction activity, and we
still have two months to go. It's, it'll be six years in a row now that we've
had over $100 million. (several talking at once) ... get criticized there's
not a lot of activity going on, there's lots of activity going on.
Vanderhoef: Lots of activity going on, and I wish to recoup the benefits of building our
tax base, but when we get a report last night that the state rollback on
residential property has gone down another 2% for next year, which is
equivalent to an $800,000 reduction in general fund monies coming in to
the City, it takes a lot of building just to keep us even with where we were
last year with tax money.
Atkins: Regenia reminded me...
Bailey: It's a commercial rollback as well this year. (several talking at once)
Vanderhoef: Oh, and it's like .1 or something like that. This is the second time since
I've been on Council... (TAPE ENDS)...otherwise they pay 100% on their
appraised value, which is certainly not the way we would like to
encourage business in our community to tax them so heavily and give all
the rollback to residential property.
Bailey: Legislative priorities.
Vanderhoef: It is a legislative phority for cities; it has been for at least the last five
years, and we're not going to quit.
Lehman: Bad news for cities; good news for taxpayers. Eleanor?
Karr: Could we wish the Running Regals luck Wednesday night at the (several
talking at once)?
Lehman: All fight.
Champion: Can I ask one more question?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.
#19 Page 59
Lehman: Please do.
Champion: Marian, why do we have to approve everything we get? Why can't we do
it at the end of the meeting - approve all the stuff?.
Kan': If you want to approve it at a lump you certainly can, but if you want to
approve it as that item on the agenda to match up with the item, that's the
only way you can do it.
Champion: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of November 1, 2005.