HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-10 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM NO. 2. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Champion: Move adoption.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion7
Kanner: I'd like to remove two items for separate consideration. Under #C, for
renewal of licenses, Vito's and Malone.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: And then I have some other comments.
Lehman: Go ahead.
Kanner: Okay. I just would like to note that we do have a hearing that's coming
up for to hear about $300 fines for stores that their employees sold
cigarettes to people under the legal age, and that is due to happen on July
31 st. Hopefully, I' ve heard some good things that some store owners are
taking extra care to instruct their employees to make sure they check 1Ds
and not sell to underage people requesting cigarettes. And hopefully
we'll have more success with the threat of a fine in stopping underage
smoking.
Dilkes: We should make it clear since when we typically refer to hearings we're
talking about public hearings, and that is not a public hearing, it's a due
process hearing for the permittee.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Karmer: And I did want to point out a public hearing, as opposed to what Eleanor
just explained, is going to be happening on July 31st for redrawing the
boundaries in the precincts in Iowa City, and the boundaries will be not
for this election coming up in 2001, but for the 2003 City Council
election so there' ll be some slight differences based on the population.
So look for that on July 31st. And then the final thing I have is, we got a
letter from a citizen concerned about the National Guard aiming rifles at
their road vehicles near the airport. I don't know if anyone else read that
in the packet. And I was wondering if we can perhaps send a note saying
that we're a bit concerned about that. If they are aiming it at the road, I
can imagine that's a bit of a frightening experience for anyone driving
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#2 Page 2
by. That perhaps they can be a little more cautious in how they deal with
their weapons.
Dilkes: I guess what I would suggest is that we contact them and find out the
situation from their perspective and then decide what we will do.
Lehman: Or maybe even send a copy of the letter that we received to them. I think
that might explain it pretty well.
Dilkes: That's a good idea.
Kanner: That's a good idea.
Lehman: Can we do that, Steve?
Kanner: Sure. Thank you.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call on consent calendar with the two deletions. Motion
carries. Do we have a motion to consider Item C-2 and C-77
Champion: So moved.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Discussion?
Kanner: I pulled those from the consent calendar because, unlike the other
renewals for alcohol licenses or the new licenses that we just passed,
Vito's and Malone had high rates of arrests or police visits for people
under the legal age, possession under the legal age, and although that in
itself does not warrant denying renewal, I think it does warrant a closer
look and perhaps we ought to, I would move that we delay approving
renewal until the next meeting. And so that we can see if it warrants
further investigation. Vito's had 36 visits and 61 arrests, or 1.69 arrests
per visit ratio, and Malone's had 57 visits and 76 arrests, or 1.33 arrests
per visit ratio. And, Ernie, we were talking, we were saying yesterday
maybe it's going down, but when I looked at our figures for May, Vito's,
in fact, has gone up. The figure I just gave was for the year ending
December. For the five months up to May this year, the figures for
Vito's actually have gone up.
Lehman: The last, I think you and I were talking, I was referring to the last 30
days.
Kanner: Maybe they have in the last 30 days, and maybe that will veer out if we
took a little closer look to get, to see all sides of it, but I think those are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#2 Page 3
high rates or above the average for the year 2000 for the whole City,
which was .94.
Lehman: Do we have a second to the motion to defer those two until the meeting
of the 31st?
Wilbum: I have a question for Eleanor before I decide. Do you know
conversations that Andy had had with, is it Lynn Walding? From the
State? Yeah. Do you know if they gave any indication whether or not a
rate of arrests would be considered, not just, I mean we've been told it
may not be enough to look at an arrest, but is there, you see what I'm
saying, there is a high rate or an increasing rate. Is there any indication
from ,..
Dilkes: You're talking about the number of call or charges? Possession under
legal age charges?
Wilburn: Yes.
Dilkes: It has always been my position that that number in and of itself would
not be sufficient to deny license. I think we've talked about that a
number of times. We've had some discussions with Lynn Walding, one
of which the Mayor was at, at a kind of a round table discussion some
time ago where he talked, I believe, about using that as some sort of
corroborating evidence if you had other problems going on, if you had
convictions or evidence of sales to anderage persons. But in and of itself
it's my position, anyway, and I believe he concurs with that, that it's not
sufficient.
Wilbum: Um hmm. And I remember one of the things we had talked about,
perhaps if there was a high number or high rate perhaps that would be a
flag, not necessarily to not approve the license, but a flag for police to
make close observation, that type of thing. I don't know what else we'd
call that.
Champion: Well, that was one of the things from the number of visits. I think this is
bearing out that they are, and I haven't seen month by month now since
December, but I hear one report that it has gone up at least for one
establishment, and then I hear another report here that for at least the last
month it has decreased. However,
Lehman: Before we discuss this any further, we need a second to the motion to
defer.
Pfab: I'll second it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#2 Page 4
Lehman: Now we have the second. Is there discussion on the motion to defer to
the next meeting?
Kanner: Again, I think this is perhaps a canary in the mind that we're using it as,
we're not going to say that we'll deny it but it deserves a closer look
instead of just being in the consent calendar and passed like these other
places, Green Room and Drag Town, which have lower figures or are
not listed, or the new licenses like Lou Henri, which we put through on
the consent calendar. I think when we see these figures we might want to
take an extra two weeks to say, is there anything else we ought to
perhaps to the police chief and
Wilburn: Do you have an example of what, are you talking perhaps a closer look
to see if they are doing adequate checks at the door, or do you have an
example of what ...
Kanner: Well, I think we might
Wilbum: Other than law enfome continuing watching.
Kanner: Well, we might want to ask, is it the bar themselves that are calling these
in because that's been raised here, that maybe they're doing the job and
that's why they have higher rates, which we would commend them to a
certain extent, and so we'd want to find out if that's the case and then
say, keep up the good work and you're doing the job and that stuff. We
might want to say, ask the police chief, what have you observed about
their process of letting people in? Is there something wrong with that?
Or, a lot of these bars, in my opinion, or not a lot but some of them seem
to be out of control as far as checking things and who gets drinks. Are
there just too many people and too few staff there? And so that's
something I think bears looking into a little bit.
Lehman: I wouldn't disagree with what you're saying, Steven, except that
irregardless of how, what we find looking into it we can't basically deny
the approval based on the number of calls.
Dilkes: I think, just to note that when the new ordinance becomes effective
August 1st, I think the idea of focusing on the sales to the underage
drinkers, it's my understanding from the police department that in that
enforcement that they will take the number of callers at different
establishments as indications that there may be some problem and may
focus their enforcement efforts in those places.
Pfab: I have a question. By delaying this for two weeks, or deferring it to the
next meeting or whatever to our next meeting, what effect does that have
on the process or the peoples running the business?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#2 Page 5
Dilkes: They continue to operate.
P fab: They what?
Dilkes: They continue to operate.
Pfab: So it really has no effect on them? I think that this may not be a bad idea
to start some dialog, maybe, with the public or with the operators or the
owners. You know, this is something that we, as City Council and
representing the public, are not too interested in knowing. As for how
they have some discussion with the owners as to what they're going to
do to improve the situation.
Champion: Well, as of August 1 the new ordinance will be there and
Pfab: What is going to change as far as, in the sense
Champion: Well, the penalties, number one, are going to change.
Pfab: But is there going to be penalties for the problem that we're talking
about here or the borrower?
Champion: Yeah.
Wilbum: Civil penalties.
Wilburn: Civil penalties will be.
Vanderhoef: Well, I think as we have always said, the idea behind the ordinance is to
reduce, or one of the ideas is to reduce the number of tmderage persons
drinking, but that is going to take some time to play out. It's going to
involve an enforcement effort by the police department, it is going to
involve charges against employees of the bars for serving to underage
persons, followed up by civil p~nalties or by review at the time of
renewal. It is also going to involve, in connection with renewals, a due
process hearing for the applicant. So, and that' s all stuff that we're
working on now to get in place but it's not like August 1st is going to
come and
Lehman: Ta da.
Vanderhoef: Ta da. We got, you know, Nirvana or whatever. So it's just going to be a
process that's going to take some time.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#2 Page 6
Pfab: And one of the, isn't one of the things in the mix of change in the
behavior, is public opinion, public discussion? And this is what I think is
possible with this idea of deferring this for a televised meeting.
Lehman: The only problem I have with deferring it is if we're deferring it when
there's little or nothing that we can do about, I don't see the point in it. I
do think it's important to point out that renewal of a license is a totally
different standard than getting a new license. We recently had a license
that went through quite an extensive renew, a new license. Renewal of a
license does not go through that same process. These are, I believe, all
renewals.
Karmer: The two that we're looking at, yeah.
Lehman: Well, I think all of those that we have here are renewals.
Kanner: There was one new one.
Dilkes: The process is currently different. The standard is the same, the standard
for granting is the same. The good moral character.
Lehman: The process is different. Alright.
Kanner: One of the few powers that we have as City Council is to (can't hear). I
think that' s one of the things that we have to make use of because we
have very little other tools to help the owners of these establishments
change this behavior.
Champion: I don't think our delaying this for two weeks is going to change the
behavior. I think it's a waste of our time to discuss it again.
Lehman: These have all been reviewed by all of the ... by the time we get them
these have been recommended for approval by all of the appropriate
folks who have reviewed the applications or whatever.
Dilkes: Right.
Lehman: Okay.
Pfab: Is that a recommendation of approval, or nothing in the way to keep it
from ....
Dilkes: It's an approval or a disapproval, I believe is the way the form reads. Is
that right, Marian?
Karr: Correct.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#2 Page 7
Wilburn: If I remember right, that was by the police chief, the County
Dilkes: Currently the County Attomey does not review renewals.
Wilbum: Okay.
Dilkes: They will when the new ordinance takes effect.
Lehman: After the first of August they' 11 do that.
Wilbum: Okay.
Lehman: But he does review new applications?
Dilkes: He always has reviewed the new ones.
Lehman: Alright. So there is some difference.
Dilkes: Right.
Lehman: Alright. All in favor of deferring this for two weeks, say Aye. Opposed?
We'd better show hands. My take on this is that we have 2 in favor of
deferring, is that right? Deferrals raise your hand please. And opposed to
deferring. We have a 5-2, Kanner and Pfab in the minority. Now, is there
a motion to, do we need a motion to approve the calendar?
Dilkes: We already have that.
Lehman: We have that motion. Is there further discussion? Roll call? All in favor
of approving these two, raise your hands ... a hand, not all your hands.
Motion carries. The next item is public discussion, and this is for items
that are not on the agenda. Before we do that, I would on behalf of the
Council like to recognize Nathan Hill from the Gazette. This is his last
evening of covering Iowa City Council meetings. He will be off to
graduate school in Massachusetts, and I know I speak on behalf of the
Council and wish you the best of luck. You probably won't be spending
your Mondays and Tuesday nights the way you have been, but.
Wilburn: Is that why he's growing that beard now?
Lehman: Hard to tell from here, but anyway, the best of luck to you.
Boberg: Good luck.
Wilburn: Bye.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 8
ITEM NO. 3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). [UNTIL 8 PM[.
Lehman: Okay, Item 3 is for public discussion, this is for items that are not on the
agenda. If you wish to address the Council please sign in, give your
name, address and limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
Becky Soglin: My name is Becky Soglin, I live at on Sheridan in Iowa City. I'm here
representing Environmental Advocates and IWIN which is Iowa
Wetlands In Need. This is a new organization.
Lehman: Becky, could you pull that a little more, I can't hear you. Just tip it down,
there you go.
Soglin: Is that better?
Lehman: That' s fine.
Soglin: Sony. I'm here representing Environmental Advocates and Iowa
Wetlands In Need, which is a new organization. And I'd like to address
the matter that was brought up in yesterday's memorandum from the
First Assistant City Attomey's memo. This is regarding the United States
Supreme Court decision known as Swank that removes protective status
for isolated wetlands, which are those not connected to a waterway such
as a river, and this decision obviously affects isolated wetlands in Iowa
City that were originally targeted for conservation by the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. And several of our wetlands have already lost their protective
status due to Swank, and I have a statement here I can give to you that
lists those. And as you know, wetlands, isolated wetlands included,
provide flood abatement, enhance water quality, wildlife habitat, so they
are important environmental resources for our community, and I'd like
on behalf of the two organizations, I'd like to ask that you prevent a
rollback from the community' s original expectations of the SAO by
restoring at a minimum the level of protection that the wetlands had
before the Swank decision. Obviously, it's kind of a complicated matter
to try to sum up in a few minutes, and we recognize it might require
additional discussion. But I would like to note that governments in other
states have taken action, at least at the state level. Wisconsin's governor
in May signed into law regulations for isolated wetlands due to the
Swank decision. Ohio has issued an emergency order, and I believe
that' s in effect until later this week, I'm not sure what they're doing next,
but they obviously took some action. And some other states have taken
action as well. So we would like the SAO to be reviewed and we think
there should be a revision so that the definition doesn't simply refer to
the Army Corps' definition of wetlands. And IWIN would be available
for discussions. We do have some wetlands specialists on our
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 9
organization, and we'd all be happy to talk with you, and we have the
endorsement of several organizations for our statewide effort including
Audubon, Iowa, Sierra Club, more locally we've had the Iowa Valley
Resource and Conservation Board. So again we hope you can consider
this and I can leave a handout here that tells you a little bit about IW1N
and also some news releases that describe what Wisconsin and Ohio did.
Wilburn: I'm sorry. You're saying that's your recommendation to the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance? Okay.
Soglin: Yes.
Lehman: Our Sensitive Areas Ordinance refers to jurisdictional wetlands as
defined by the Army Corps of Engineer. A recent Supreme Court
decision changed that designation for some of the areas that prior to that
time had been considered jurisdictional wetlands. So those that are
associated with streams are still jurisdictional from the Army Corps of
Engineers' viewpoint. Other wetlands that we may have in the City are
now not jurisdictional wetlands and would not be covered by the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Unless we make a change. I believe that's it.
Vanderhoef: Are there examples of where those are at in this letter?
Lehman: Well, I'm sure we'll get them.
Champion: One of them is down at the north commercial airport area, that was one
of them.
Dilkes: Um the Braverman-Kennedy commercial development on Southgate and
South Gilbert Street. They're all public improvement projects. The
Aviation Commemial Park. Captain Irish Extension.
Lehman: Right.
Dilkes: And I don't know if you' ve identified more.
Soglin: Just those three as of yet. So.
Lehman: Thank you.
Wilburn: Accept correspondence.
Lehman: Do you have new correspondence?
Dilkes: It's a memo from Sarah Holecek that we got last night. I think it's
something you all
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 10
Wilbum: Them' s this.
Karr: Moved by Wilburn and seconded by Vanderhoef.
Lehman: Vanderhoef. All in favor? Okay.
Wilburn: Two things. One, I think it behooves us to have a work session on this as
soon as possible, and hopefully we'll have agreement on the Council.
And two, we might want to consider a moratorium on us as a public
entity filling in any more wetlands. From this memo we got, and it's just
explained to us, there are three places that would have qualified as
wetlands under the Corps of Engineers' old standards that were filled in
in part, or perhaps all the way. And so I would say that we should have a
moratorium, ask our staff to put a moratorium until we've had our
discussion at a work session from filling in any more wetlands.
Vanderhoef: Didn't we do an exchange on the aviation commercial park?
Lehman: I don't have any idea, but if we want this
Champion: Didn't we do a what, I'm sony?
Vanderhoef: Well, I called it a
Wilburn: Mitigation?
Vanderhoef: Mitigation, that's the word I'm looking for, thank you.
Dilkes: I don't know what the status of that is. I mean, I think if you're going to
talk about doing moratoriums you're going to have to have the
discussion about where those projects are at and what's going on with
them, and those are questions I know I can't answer tonight.
Vanderhoef: I would like to have Julie Tallman look at it and bring us some ideas and
recommendations and then have a discussion.
Pfab: Is that something that could be prepared for the next work session?
Dilkes: I don't know, Steve
Atkins: I can't tell you. I can tell you that the staff has already engaged
themselves collectively to discuss the issue in anticipation of making
some sort of a recommendation to you. Now whether it's amending the
SAO or some other, I do know that they're discussion and Julie Tallman,
our development regulations specialist, is involved in those discussions.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 11
Dilkes: Well, and I think there may be divergent views among the staff. I think
ultimately it's just going to be a political decision for you all to make.
Atkins: There is a divergence of opinion on the part of the staff.
Lehman: Well, I think it would be appropriate to let this happen, and we'd
probably like to hear from them as soon as
Atkins: Let me get you an update. I'll check back with staff in the next week or
so and I'll at least give you an update on where we are with the
discussions.
Lehman: A bit of an update.
Atkins: Yes.
Pfab: I have a request, ifI might. Could we get whatever kind of an update we
could by the next work session?
Wilbum: We don't know.
Atkins: I don't see why not.
Dilkes: I think staff has talked about this and pretty much knows where they're
at, whether that's
Pfab: Just bring us up to date with what they know.
Lehman: Irvin, I think if you read in the packet this time was a memo from Karen
Franklin listing, no it was from Sarah, and I think also with, I don't want
to use the word recommendation, indicating that if no action is taken by
the Council whatever, they will continue to enforce the ordinance as it is
written, which means it would apply to jurisdictional wetlands only.
Dilkes: Maybe what you need is more clarification about the practical effects of
staying as we are or changing it.
Lehman: Right.
Dilkes: And then you are going to just have to make a decision based on that.
Wilbum: Couple things. Dee, I think you're right. I think there was supposed to be
mitigation for that, but I think it was based on the fact that the Corps of
Engineers said this is defined as wetlands and you have to mitigate. And
I don't know the facts since then, but apparently what Sarah is saying is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 12
that since the Corps of Engineers no longer has those standards, we don't
have to mitigate and we're filling in Aviation Commercial Park. That's
my reading of it.
Dilkes: I don't think that's what this says. I don't think this memo goes that far
as to what has actually happened, and I think if you need more
information about that, we need to get it to you.
Wilbum: Well she says it's being filled or has been filled since the court's opinion.
That's pretty clear to me that it's being filled because of the court
decision that wouldn't have been filled, and I think we really need to
have a moratorium. I think we can just say, use the standards that were in
place before the court decision. It wouldn't be that hard to do, and we
can say, put that moratorium in place. We as entity are not going to fill in
wetlands that were subject to the Corps of Engineers' previous standards.
And then we have our work session and decide if we want to keep those
previous standards or go with the new standards.
Lehman: May not be that simple.
Franklin: If I can give you a piece of information about the north airport or the
aviation commemial park. The decision was made before the Supreme
Court' s decision that we would do basically wetland compensation
through the South Sycamore drainage project because we didn't want to
have a wetland near the airport because of the birds and you don't want
to have water. That decision was made totally independent of the
Supreme Court decision and nothing has changed.
Wilburn: And what about the other two?
Franklin: The Kennedy, what was that?
Dilkes: Braverman-Kennedy Commemial Development. Southgate and South
Gilbert.
Franklin: Okay. Braverman-Kennedy, there's a compensatory wetland that's
supposed to be installed north of Napoleon Park that's our responsibility.
What were the other ones?
Lehman: Captain Irish
Franklin: Captain Irish, there's the potential for change because we're in the midst
now of doing the design on that. And it would mean that we would not
have to potentially do mitigation, but that's in the design phase right
now. What's the fourth one?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 13
Dilkes: I think so, in fact I think that's the reason that we divided that project up
as we ended up doing, so we would have time to deal with those
wetlands.
Franklin: Right. So that one is still, it's still in process, we're still in the property
acquisition-design phase of Captain, or Scott Boulevard, because that's
what we call it now.
Wilburn: So the plan, my understanding then from what you're saying is the plan
for these three projects is to continue with mitigation as was previously
planned?
Franklin: No, the plan for the aviation commercial park, the plan for the
Braverman-Kennedy property, is to proceed. They're so far along that
there' s no sense in going back on them.
Wilburn: Proceed with mitigation as planned?
Franklin: Right. Right. With Scott Boulevard, that could change if we don't have
to address the wetlands. I don't know the extent of wetlands that we're
talking about there. And then the Foster Road, I'm assuming that's
Foster Road between Dubuque and Prairie du Chien,
Lehman: We don't have that. You know, this discussion really needs to take place
when we have some information form the staff. So, Steve, I would
suggest that we do try to get a staff report and get it on a work session so
we can talk about it.
Atkins: Yes.
Wilburn: And perhaps we can make use of Becky's group and the experts she was
talking about. I assume they'd be willing to be part of a work session?
What' s the name of that person?
(Unintelligible)
Wilburn: Lori Goetz, she says? A local person?
Lehman: Well, let's just put it on a work session. We'll get a staff report. If we
feel we need further input we can certainly request that. We'll try to get
it on a work session so we have some information so we know what
we're talking about. Okay. Any other public discussion?
John Fitzpatrick: My name is John Fitzpatrick. I live at 721 N. Linn Street and I chair the
traffic and parking committee for the Northside Neighborhood
Association. Honorable Mayor and City Council, I wish to augment the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 14
information that you received yesterday in the work session in regard to
the alley problem in Block 73 of the Original Town. The problem with
the alley was first addressed with City staff in the fall of 1999. At that
time, following a visit from City staff, the suggestion from City staff was
to proceed with a procedure to vacate the east half of the alley. That
recommendation was made because there were only two residences with
cars each with one car on the alley and the property on both sides was
owned by the same individual. In following the good neighbor policy set
forth by the Planning and Development Department, the neighborhood
communicated with all individuals, both renters and owner-occupants
within a 300 foot radius of the alley. That was the area that was
determined by the City staff recommended to us as those folks who were
immediately affected with the alley closure. We followed those
procedures for well over a year. At that point, the protocol changed when
a new owner of one of the commercial properties objected to the
procedure and the protocol changed to an alley calming suggestion. And
that's the procedure we have followed with input and communication
with all of those folks within the 300 foot radius. At your work session
last night, I'm not sure what the final directive was to staff in
communication regarding the traffic calming gate, but I would suggest to
Council that there is an awkwardness if at this point we exclude those
individuals within the 300 foot radius who have been involved in the
process for almost two years. I would also like to point out that the alley
in question in Block 73 is 75% within a medium density single-family
zoning and 25% within a multiple family high density zoning. The
suggestion that the survey be circulated only to those properties
immediately adjacent to the alley puts the majority of census or
consensus within a single high density multi-family apartment building
in the high density section of the alley. That particular building I know
from having taken care of a number of the communications over the past
two years, has changed over considerably twice since we began the
procedure, and many of the residents in that high density building at the
west end of the alley are those guilty of the speeding in the alley as well
as blocking the alley. I would suggest that there's an awkwardness to
putting control of the situation in that one residence, and not knowing
what the final directive was to staff, express the hope that we would
continue with input from those folks within a 300 foot radius who are
directly affected by the decision. Thank you.
Lehman: The directive to the staff was to poll the people on the alley only. I guess
we'll wait and see what' s coming from that, and obviously we can go
from there, but that was the directive of the Council.
Pfab: I have a question. How many people are in the alley again? How many
people would be affected by this?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 15
Fitzpatrick: Residents on the alley itself, I own three of the lots on the alley and I
would have, as I understand, one vote. There is a four-plex. There is
another single family residence on one of the lots. One of the lots has no
residents but it's a single-family lot that' s being used by a fraternity at
the comer of Ronalds and Dubuque Street for parking, which actually
they're planning to increase. The transitional housing is located at the
west end of the alley, and then there is an apartment building, a large
white building with columns in the front many of you would recognize,
that contains 13 units.
Kanner: John, just to let you know, just because someone has a postcard vote that
does not determine what will happen. We as Council will determine, and
anyone can always have input into the process by speaking as you're
speaking, coming to a public hearing, coming to the night when we
discuss this or sending us correspondence. They don't have to have a
postcard to be heard by City Council.
O'Donnell: John, you said this process started with, it's been going on for two years?
Fitzpatrick: Yes, in the fall of 1999, which is when the problem started. It's a
problem that prior to that time there had been no issue. At the time the
residences were built, and you know this from previous correspondence,
the alley was not a through alley. In fact, every building on the alley was
built prior to its being a through alley. And the residences are built either
directly up to the right-of-way of the alley, or in one case projecting into
the alley fight-of-way. It was, I believe, during the 1950s at the request
of Chester Phillips that the alley was paved through. At that time he was
very influential within both the University and the community and was
having difficulty sliding off the side of the hill in the mud as he tried to
access the garage, which is now my garage.
Wilbum: But your home is one of the ones that's right on the alley.
Fitzpatrick: Yes. My home, in fact, the ... we have a ground level bedroom that is
fight there and the windows of our great room are right on the line with
the alley right-of-way. Twice last winter we had cars skid within inches
of coming through our windows. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Dawn Mueller: Good evening, Council. My name is Dawn Mueller. I just wanted to do a
follow-up on the comment that the gentleman from the Neighborhood
Association submitted. One is that I think that the Council should take
into consideration, and I just wanted to bring this up as a reminder, that it
would be good to know the number of children who might be in that
area. I would like to see any survey done potentially consider those
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 16
families in the area who have children who might be in the alley. So
perhaps the gentleman from the Neighborhood Association might be able
to tell us if there are families with children in that vicinity. Also, I
wanted to comment about last night in they're talking about gating off
the alley. There was some suggestion made of possibly using some sort
of speed bump or speed hump in place of some sort of blockade. I just
wanted to bring to the awareness of the Council that there are bicyclers,
cyclists who go through that area, and hitting a bump going down that
hill, a bicycle could be pretty jarring. So I just wanted to
Lehman: We did not direct staff to pursue that.
Mueller: Right. I just thought I'd bring that to the awareness, so thank you.
Lehman: - Sure. Any other public discussion?
Caroline Dieterie: I would like to put in a couple of questions.
Lehman: Would you give us your name first?
Caroline Dieterie: I'm sorry. I'm Caroline Dieterie, and I'll write that in. I would like to
know briefly a couple of things. I'd like to know where the idea first
surfaced of loaning ACT the amount of money that they're asking for.
Where did that come from?
Lehman: That will be coming up on the agenda later tonight.
Dieterie: And you can't, well I'm asking three questions. One about that, now just
a minute. One about that. I'd like to know whose idea it was to give the
$700,000 loan to the Peninsula developer in light of the fact that no local
developers and no local bankers wanted to have anything to do with it,
and I'm wondering how you can see your way clear to do that kind of
financing of those expensive projects in view of all of the moaning and
groaning I heard during the budget discussions about the shortage of
funds and the nearing of our limit on our protection of our Aaa rating and
so on, and then you can turn around and refuse $125,000 for PATV
which is something that many, many, many citizens of Iowa City use and
depend on as opposed to, you know, the ACT and the Peninsula
developments.
Champion: We have not refused them the money.
Dieterie: You haven't?
Champion: No.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#3 Page 17
Dietetic: Okay, well then I'm misinformed from the paper. I'm glad to hear that
you have not refused PATV. Thank you.
Kanner: And the other two items. Both of those items are on the agenda tonight
actually.
Dieterie: I know. But they're not tied together. They're all separate.
Kanner: But please bring up those issues again for either one tying together.
Fitzpatrick: Would you like me to address the number of families with children in
that block at this time?
Champion: You know, John, the reason I object to that is there may not be any
children there now, there may be 10 children a year from now, and three
year old children very quickly become 10 year old children. And people
without any children suddenly have two. So I think it's irrelevant and I
don't think it should influence our decision because there might not be
any now but in five years there could be 20. Do you know what I'm
saying?
Fitzpatrick: I traderstand.
Champion: That's my personal opinion.
Fitzpatrick: I'll just quickly say there are seven fight there fight now.
Champion: Right.
Lehman: And the idea is everybody should be safe. Feel safe.
Champion: Right.
Lehman: Any other public discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4e Page 18
ITEM NO. 4e. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION
14-6E~8 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONE, TO ALLOW
DWELLING SON OR BELOW THE GROUND FLOOR OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK BUILDINGS BY SPECIAL
EXCEPTION.
Lehman: This is a public hearing. Heating is open.
1. Public Bearing
Lehman: Folks, we discussed this lat night and I know there's, at least last night
there was some sentiment that this ordinance perhaps should be a little
more stringent than it is. Because the Harming & Zoning Commission
did not pass this ordinance, it is recommended by staff but it was
defeated by a 2-5 vote of planning & Zoning Commission, we will be,
if we choose to support this ordinance or a similar ordinance we will
be asked to meet with the Planning & Zoning Commission which I
would recommend to occur on the 30th, which is our next work session
at perhaps 6:00 in the evening before our work session. And my
personal feeling is that we probably should continue the public
heating. If we close the public heating and make changes of any kind
after our joint meeting with Planning & Zoning, we'll have to reset
another public hearing. Is that correct? Start the process all over.
Champion: I'd like to make an amendment. Can I do that?
Lehman: You may do what ...
Dilkes: Not ... we're on the public hearing.
Champion: OK.
Lehman: We're in a public hearing now and this is obviously an oppommity for
anybody in the public to speak to this. Basically, for the public' s
information, this ordinance was brought about by the purchase of the
old Carnegie Library building, and the ability to turn that building into
a useful property for downtown. Apparently, it's very difficult, if not
impossible, for the first level or two of that property to be used as
commercial. And the present zoning ordinances prohibit residential in
the central business district. This ordinance would allow by special
exception, it would have to be a special request, would have to be
heard and then allowed, by special exception residential uses would be
allowed in historic buildings. So that's the whole reason.
Vanderoef: On the first floor?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
g4e Page 19
Lehman: On the first floor.
Kanner: And actually any allowable use in a CB-10 would be allowed?
Lehman: But it's primarily directed at being able to use residential. There's
some question on the Council as to whether or not properties that are
presently being used as commemial should be allowed to perhaps
change to residential. That's one change we were talking about
making. So ifthere's any comment from the public we would certainly
welcome that comment.
O'Dormell: Well, didn't we also determine, Emie, that anything being used as
commercial under this new wording would continue to be used as
commercial?
Lehman: Yeah, but we didn't require it.
O'Dounell: But I think we should.
Dilkes: After your discussion last night about Council perhaps wanting to
narrow the applicability of this special exception, staff has come up
with some different ways to approach it but I think there's a number of
ways to go at it, and since you have to meet, you're gonna need to
meet with Pla~ing and Zoning anyway, my suggestion would be that
you continue the public heating so we have time to work on that
language.
Lehman: And I would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to July
31st'
Vanderoef: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to continue the public
heating. All in favor? Opposed. Motion carries.
2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)
Lehman: We then will need a motion to defer first consideration to the same
date.
Pfab: I move that.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4e Page 20
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell to defer first consideration. All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries.
Lehman: Item f.
Kanner: Ernie?
Lehman: Yes?
Kanner: Can l just get this straight? So the plan is to meet with Planning and
Zoning before our next work session.
Lehman: Before our work session.
Kanner: On the 30th then?
Lehman: Right. I believe that maybe I talked to ... I think that is the regular
meeting night for that, and this would just be a little earlier for them
and a little earlier for us, and I sense that this discussion probably
should not take more than a half hour.
Pfab: So do we want to set a time frame
TAPE CHANGE
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4g Page 21
ITEM NO. 4g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO
INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) FOR APPROXIMATELY
12.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 1. (REZ01-00002). (PASS AND ADOPT)
Champion: Move adoption.
Vanderoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Franklin: Mr. Mayor?
Lehman: Yes?
Franklin: We would suggest that you defer this to July 3 1st. We are now
considering the subdivision plat for this outlot and are having some
discussions with the buyer of this property about the actual alignment
of the access easement that was a point of discussion in the conditional
zoning agreement. We'd like to work through that and have your final
consideration on the 3 1st.
Lehman: So you are asking us to defer?
Franklin: Yes.
Lehman: Would the person who made the motion to approve this re ...
Dilkes: We can just make a motion to defer.
Lehman: Oh, okay. Alright.
Champion: Move to defer.
Lehman: Is that satisfactory?
Pfab: I just, point of information here. It is ... is there going to be changes?
Are we going to have to go through this?
Franklin: I don't think so. We're trying to avoid that and use the same language
in the CZA but we just want to make sure that we're on the same track
when we're talking about the alignment of this access easement.
Pfab. So what you're saying, more than likely it will just be a third reading,
but there is a possibility it could be a first reading.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4g Page 22
Franklin: Possible. But unlikely.
Pfab. Okay.
Lehman: Well, this ordinance changes the zoning designation, does not change
Franklin: This ordinance changes the zoning designation but you remember we
also had to go back to Planning and Zoning and came back to the
Council because they wanted to move the access easement farther
north and west up toward the highway and we're just working through
some difficulties of exactly where that's going to go.
Lehman: Does this ordinance affect the plat?
Franklin: We would like the strength of the ordinance in our negotiations.
Wilburn: Evidently this is a staff initiated change?
Franklin: Yes. Well, no, it's ... I think we were envisioning two different things
when we agreed to the access easement being moved.
Pfab: I have another question. I drove by there and I noticed that there was a
large number of cars parked along the highway on another lot.
Franklin: Yes.
Pfab: And I didn't see any parking places them. And so I'm curious. Now I
had asked about whether there was going to be parking permitted if the
highway was there and that kind of disappeared off into the sunset
without an answer.
Franklin: Okay. I think what you were observing is the car lot to the east of Wal-
Mart.
Pfab: Right.
Franklin: And you were not observing cars parking there, you were observing
the display and storage of cars for sale on that right-of-way.
Pfab: Right.
Franklin: Which is expressly prohibited in this conditional zoning agreement, so
it's taken care of.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4g Page 23
Pfab: That's what I was thinking that was what was the possibility of what
we were leading up to by calling it parking when it could turn out to be
display.
Franklin: What we have prohibited in this conditional zoning agreement is the
display and storage of vehicles. Those are the cars for sale. If a
customer comes onto this access easement and parks their car there
while they go and look in the lot, no problem. But what we are
prohibiting is the display and storage which is what you were
observing at the car lot that currently exists. We're trying to avoid that.
Pfab: Very much so. We're on track.
Franklin: We're on track.
Lehman: Parking will not be prohibited but you cannot display the cars there.
Kadn, is the applicant aware of this request? And this is okay?
Franklin: Yes, yes.
Lehman: Alright. Do we have a motion to defer this to the 31st?
O'Donnell: Move to defer.
Lehman: By O'Donnell.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Pfab to defer to the 31st of July. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4i Page 24
ITEM NO. 4i. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.83 ACRES FROM
PUBLIC (P) TO CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB-10) LOCATED
SOUTH OF IOWA AVENUE BETWEEN LINN STREET AND
GILBERT STREET. (REZ01-00005) (PASS AND ADOPT)
O'Donnell: Move to adopt.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Kanner: We were going to get a reply on the fence?
Lehman: No, that's the next one.
Dilkes: That's the next one, I think.
Lehman: Right.
Kanner: Oh, I'm sorry. We're on i. now?
Lehman: Yes.
Kanner: I jumped ahead, I'm sorry.
Lehman: Roll call.
Pfab: Which one are we on again?
Lehman: i.
Dilkes: We're on i.
Lehman: Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
Page 25
ITEM NO. 4j. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN UNDEVELOPED
PORTION OF WOOLF AVENUE FROM MCLEAN STREET
SOUTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET. (VAC97-00002)
(PASS AND ADOPT)
Champion: Move adoption.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Pfab. This is the one we had a question of whether or not
there could be a fence built on that easement, or if a fence constitutes a
structure, I think.
Dilkes: Yeah, I gotta, let's see. The easement would prevent structures but
would allow fences with the City' s permission. That's a blanket
easement that covers the whole property.
Lehman: That would require permission from the City to erect a fence?
Dilkes: Um hmm. That's typical for our easements. Because the fencing
doesn't ... it's a permanent sanitary and storm sewer easement that
covers the entire vacated property because nobody wanted to go to the
expense of having it surveyed to see exactly where the easement is so
it covers the entire property. You do need permission for fences.
Pfab: My question is, suppose, I think the idea was to preserve the vista
there, right? Is that what the question
Lehman: I think the idea of the easement is to be able to go in and repair the
sanitary and storm sewers.
Pfab: But I think there was another conflict, or another question there was to
allow the view to be open as much as possible, is that right?
Kanner: In part, yeah. Well, continue (can't hear).
Pfab: So what I was going to say is, now let's suppose someone decides
they're going to put up a 6 or 8' solid fence, that would ...
Lehman: Can't do it without the permission of the City.
Pfab: So is there any instructions that go with that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4j Page 26
Dilkes: Well, I think the intent of the easement is as it's written now and as
has been contemplated during the negotiations is that it would ... the
permission would be granted unless there was some interference with
the easement. I mean, the purpose of it is to protect the easement.
Pfab: But at the same time, you could destroy the vista there or whatever it is
by somebody putting up a spite fence, let' s say.
Dilkes: I suppose so.
Champion: But the fence would be on private property, isn't that correct?
Dilkes: Once the conveyance would go through, yes.
Kanner: Right, and it seems to me that's a nice, open green space that people
can sort of hang out in the woods a bit down there and I'm questioning
the whole idea of conveying this. Why not just leave it public space? I
know there's some places we have in the City where we conveyed
something because it'sjust out of the way, but this is something that
seems to be a neighborhood asset and a City asset, and I think we
ought to perhaps leave it public land that anyone can feel flee to walk
down and just enjoy the area there. Anyone else have any thoughts on
this?
Pfab: It appears to be kind of a neighborhood asset, and I mean, that's why
with the fence, you know, it's maybe a boundary fence but at the same
time if someone, if there' s no restriction on what kind of a fence can
be put up there, you know then that destroys that site.
Franklin: I think we need to go back a little bit. Because this is old. It's been a
year anyway since we talked about the vacation. The vacation was
done at the behest of the neighboring property owners, who wish to
buy this property and so when we started through this process the
whole issue of whether it was public property or private property was
one that the Council addressed at that time. The reason you haven't
seen it for so long is because we were in the process of negotiating
what the price was going to be and working out these easements and
exactly where the easements were going to be. So if at this point you
decide that, in fact, you want it to be public property, that' s a different
directly from where this whole thing started, and I think you probably
want to have that discussion with the people who requested this in the
first place, if there's a majority of you who wish it to be public
property.
Kanner: Or keep it public property?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#4j Page 27
Franklin: Keep it public property, yes. Because the road we're on right now,
pardon the pun, is to change this fi'om public to private but retain the
sewer easement, and that was all we would retain for public use.
Lehman: The majority of the Council twice passed this vacation ordinance. It
requires one more reading with the understanding that it would
become private property. And that's the direction that Council gave
staff. Now, is Council interested in changing that direction now after a
year and two months and telling the public that the property that they
want to acquire, that we agreed they could acquire, they no longer can
acquire?
O'Donnell: No.
Champion: No.
Wilbum: No.
Lehman: Alright, is there any further discussion before we vote?
Champion: Somebody I think from the audience wanted to address this. Did you?
Audience: (Can't hear).
O'Dounell: I think I remember a year back it was an intention to preserve this
property and that' s what we have to keep in mind.
Lehman: It's the property. They buy it, it's theirs, it's private property.
O'Dormell: Absolutely. So I'm in favor of this.
Kanner: Well, Mike, that doesn't necessarily deserve it in the state that it is
now, they're able to do what they want and they can put up a fence
with the permission of Council and down the road Council might
approve that fence then. Why not just leave it the way it is now?
Lehman: Why did we pass this twice?
Pfab: That's why we have three readings to vacate it.
Kanner: Well, why do we have three votes so we can perhaps change our
mind?
Lehman: That's correct.
Kanner: And see another side.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
g4j Page 28
Lehman: Any further discussion?
O'Dormell: Let's vote on this. We're ready to vote.
Lehman: Roll call.
Pfab: The question is what?
Dilkes: Whether we' re going to vacate this piece of property.
Lehman: Third consideration. Motion passes. 5-2, Karmer and Pfab in the
negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#5 Page 29
ITEM NO. 5. CONVEYANCE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2000121 TO ACT,
INC. IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO. 2000122 TO CITY BY ACT, INC.
Lehman: Public hearing is open. I guess, just a short explanation. This, and
correct me ifI am wrong, Steve, but I believe this was a realignment of
road to accommodate the expansion that ACT was desiring to do and it
also worked into our plan for the extension of Scott Boulevard, so it
was kind of a mutually beneficial situation.
Atkins: It was much more our initiation than theirs.
Lehman: Okay. Anyone wish to speak to this? Public heating is closed. Do we
have a motion7
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Roll call.
Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#6 Page 30
ITEM NO. 6. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND
ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE
CITY PARK TRAILS, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID
SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND
FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
a. Public Hearing
Lehman: Public hearing is open. Estimate cost of this project is $275,000.
Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion?
b. Consider a Resolution Approving
Champion: Consider the resolution.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Vanderhoef: This is just long overdue.
Lehman: Yeah, you're right. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#7 Page 31
ITEM NO. 7. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATE
OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HUNTERS RUN PARK,
ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY
EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE
FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
a. Public Hearing
Lehman: Public heating is open. Estimated construction cost is $245,000. This is
another one that, frankly, is overdue.
Vanderhoef: Absolutely.
Lehman: Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion?
b. Consider a Resolution Approving
Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Wilburn: This is the one where the neighbors worked with parks and rec there to
come up with a design?
Lehman: Right.
Kanner: This is a pretty good price for 22 acres. Isn't this a pretty good price?
Atkins: There are minimal physical improvements, they've really done, I think, a
pretty good job of trying to preserve what's already there. Fix it up and use
that.
Lehman: This is going to be kind of a minimum maintenance sort of park, most of it?
Atkins: Yes.
Pfab: So there isn't much to be done to a lot of it.
Atkins: There's a trail system that will have to be maintained, but ... the pond.
Vanderhoef: The pond will be a nice (can't hear) out there. The park shelter.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#8 Page 32
ITEM NO. 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED
"CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4
ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES,
BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES" OF THE CITY CODE TO
INCREASE WATER SERVICE AND FEES IN IOWA CITY,
IOWA. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef: Move first consideration.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Wilburn. This is changing the fee for new meters, an
increase of $50. And this is frankly kind of necessitated because many
of our older meters are in need of replacement and will be replaced by
a far more advanced device that will make reading a more economical
procedure, is that not correct, Steve?
Atkins: Absolutely.
Lehman: Alright.
Champion: I think it's important to point out to the public that your water bill is
not going to go up by $50 a month. Because I ...
Lehman: No, this is only new construction. And all meters will be changed at ...
the cost will be taken care of by the water department, which I guess
indirectly is going to be, we're all going to pay.
Vanderhoef: But the $50 also makes it so they can read these meters without
walking a whole system. Hopefully they'll be able to do it from the car
at some point in time soon.
Pfab: I had a question and it probably was answered and maybe not. Is the
new meter, the transmitting meter, is that going to cost $50 more than
the old style meter or the equivalent without the radio?
Atkins: I understand it's $50 more. In addition to.
Lehman: Further discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#9 Page 33
ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8
OF THE CITY CODE ENTITLED "POLICE CITIZENS
REVIEW BOARD" TO DISTINGUISH, IN ACCORANCE
WITH ACTUAL PARCTICE, BETWEEN COMPLAINTS
MADE TO THE BOARD AND COMPLAINTS MADE TO THE
lOW CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, TO ALLOW THE
BOARD TO COMMENT ON OFFICER ACTION AND POLICE
PRACTICES, PROCEDURES AND WRITTEN POLICIES
REGARDING AN INCIDENT NOTWITHSTANDING ITS
AFFIRMANCE OF THE POLICE CHIEF OR CITY
MANAGER'S REPORT IN ACCORANCE WITH THE
REASONABLE BASIS STANDARD OF REVIEW, AND
ALLOWING THE BOARD TO REQUEST THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL HOLD GENERAL INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS
REGARDING POLICE ACTIVITIES. (PASS AND ADOPT)
Champion: Move to adopt.
Lehman: Motion by Champion.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Kanner: I'm going to vote for this, although I do feel that it could be stronger.
And one thing I would like to change in the future, although it doesn't
seem there's a majority that's inclined to do that, is some of the
wording in Section 5.b when it talks about the police's, in the way that
the Board reviews and analyzes the police chiefs report to the Board
in finding and that there are certain levels that the Board can examine
those. We did allow them to make other comments with those
findings, which I think is a step in the right direction, but since the
Police Citizen Review Board is not a judiciary board in the same sense
that the Board of Adjustment is, in my mind it would be better just to
keep it simple. We want these folks to say, Yes this makes sense, or
No this doesn't make sense, and here' s why. I don't think we need to
have these different levels of legalese that are put in in this section
necessarily since they are not a judicial review body, they are not a
judicial body.
Lehman: Steven, I think this ordinance is probably a compromise in some of
what many Council folks viewed as being a perfect ordinance. I think
it does represent a compromise that probably no one on the Council is
totally satisfied with, but I do think, I guess I'm kind of proud of the
Couneil's ability to put this together. Again, not all of us ... none of us
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#9 Page 34
are probably totally happy with it, but I do think it represents the
ability to put something together that will work. Other discussion?
Pfab: I would concur 100% with that statement, Mr. Mayor.
Lehman: Thank you, lrvin. Roll call. Motion carries, 6-1, Vanderhoefvoting in
the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#10 Page 35
ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 "CITY
FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4 "SCHEDULE
OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND
PENALTIES" OF THECITY CODE, TO INCREASE
WASTEWATER SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES IN IOWA
CITY, IOWA. (PASS AND ADOPT)
Vanderhoef: Move to adopt.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Let me just say this is the last
programmed planned increase that we have and is necessary to retire
the bonds that were necessitated by changing water treatment
standards, and we will hopefully be in compliance ~til they change the
rules again. But this is the last planned increase.
Vanderhoef: Don~t even mention changing rules.
Lehman: Right. Roll call. Motion carried.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#12 Page 36
ITEM NO. 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LICENSE
AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT
OF WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWACITY AND KLDP
INC. D/B/A ONE TWENTY SIX, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFI~.
Pfab: Move the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Wilbum: It will be nice to have sidewalk cares appearing, little pockets around
tOWI1, SO.
Dawn Mueller: Hello Council, Dawn Mueller. I wanted to just comment, last night
Dee Vanderhoefmade a very good point that the allotment for the
distance form the curb for this being 8 feet seemed insignificant
especially because there was a tree well there. I looked at the property
today and I would agree with that. I think that in the interest of
maintaining mobility for persons with disabilities through there, that 8
feet is insufficient and I would recon~mend increasing that.
Lehman: Thank you. That's something we would have to look at because I think
that pertains to all of the sidewalk cafes by ordinance.
Vanderhoef: Um huh. It's in the ordinance.
Karr: That is what it currently reads.
Lehman: I think it's probably something we should be attentive to, if we. My
understanding last night was we have had complaints with non-
moveable fences which we have talked to those folks and they have
moved them back, but I do think we need to keep track if we do have
complaints, to keep an eye on it.
Pfab: Is it also possible that a different type of tree well cover could be
installed that would be solid that would be equivalent to a ...
Atkins: It can't be solid - it'll kill the tree.
Pfab: No, no. This is, it's the big part and in other words you cut across the
circle at least on a temporary basis.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#12 Page 37
Lehman: That's something we probably should look at. If we start getting
complaints that's something we probably should look at.
Pfab: I would suggest that you look at it before you get complaints in the
sense of see if it's possible and what it would cost, things like that.
Karr: Just to clarify, the grate itself allows for the water to go through and
then it's open to the tree trunk. The 8 feet that is passable is a solid
surface that a person could walk or a wheelchair or stroller could ride.
We don't calculate into it the open area for the tree itself.
Pfab: I think that the speaker just made a comment that it wasn't 8 feet. Is
that right?
Lehman: No, her comment was that 8 feet is not sufficient.
Pfab: Okay, okay. I withdraw what I had to say.
Vanderhoef: I think what we ought to do is just be aware of it with lots of traffic
downtown and see what happens through this season and then address
it during the off season before we re-issue it in the spring.
Kanner: And there's a few problems with some of the sidewalk sales, a few of
the stores come out a little too far. So people have to keep ...
Vanderhoef: I agree.
Pfab: We'll probably have to get some display police. Never mind.
Kanner: Work on that Irvin.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#13 Page 38
ITEM NO. 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN AND CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
IOWA CITY KICKERS SOCCER PARK PARKING LOT
RESUREACING PROJECT.
Lehman: We've received three bids. Engineer's estimate was $299,700, the low
bid was received from the L.L. Pelling Company of Iowa City for
$227,316.50. Parks and Recreation Director recommends awarding
that contract to the L.L. Pelling Company. Do we have a motion?
Pfab: Move to approve the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Kanner: I'm going to be voting no. We heard a few weeks ago a cry from the
folks at Harlock Weebet about parkland and we said, a number of
reasons we said no, but one of them was we don't have money. I think
our money could be better spent in other areas at this time than
resurfacing. I think we need to look at other ways to get people out
there. I think it's very feasible to do some sort of charter bus system
with our buses. People pay in advance $20 for the season, we have a
few stops along the way, and so we know what it's going to cost us
and we charge folks that amount. Kids could even bring their parents
on for free on the bus if the parents want to come. I think we could
work out something else and delay this resurfacing. I'm told the main
reason is there's some dust and we can't put lime down on the surface
we have now. I think people get by pretty well now. I've talked to
parents who drive out there and a lot of them don't see a problem, so I
think we should hold off on spending the money for this and put it in
other areas that need parkland.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion canies, 6-1. Kanner voting in the
negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#16 Page 39
ITEM NO. 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED
POSITIONS IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE
CONFIDENTIAL / ADMINISTRATIVE PAY PLAN BY
DELETING THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT TO THE POLICE
CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD (PCRB).
Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Doanell. Discussion?
Kanner: I'd like to make a move to defer this.
Lehman: We have a motion to defer. Is there a second?
Champion: I'll second it.
Lehman: Discussion on the motion to defer?
Kanner: Two things. One, when I said I was leaning toward eliminating this
position, I didn't realize we would eliminate it the next day after we
talked about this. There was some misunderstanding from my part, and
I thought we were going to, we voted informally to put this on the
docket with the rest of the PCRB, but instead what happened, we
eliminated the position right away. We told the person that there would
no longer be a position. Then we also got a memo from our City Clerk
saying that, who's going to do this work? The work would essentially
be the same, so I have some concerns about that, and that' s why I think
that we should defer voting on this, I don't want to eliminate this
position until we decide what we're going to do with this work that's
going to continue to be there and who's going to be doing it?
Champion: I don't really care about whether this position is maintained but I agree
with you that there's some concern from the City Clerk's office on
how this work was going to get done. Has that been addressed at all,
Madan?
Karr: No. I want to clarify a couple of things, though, just to put it in
h
perspective. On June I 1t at your work session, when the informal
decision was made, and it was reported in the paper, the person who
had the position was offered another position and based on that
discussion took another job. So she was not told she didn't have a job.
I just want to clarify, she read in the paper the informal decision, she
interviewed and decided herself to change positions. I then did the
memo and then asked for clarification on June 25th and again it was
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#16 Page 40
clarified the position was eliminated. So based on that, then I prepared
the resolution, and to my knowledge we will just give it a best shot we
can and come back to you with other issues as they arise.
Vanderhoef: One of the things we did eliminate and was accepted by the chair of
the PCRB was that all future research types of things would be done
by the Commission members.
Karr: That' s correct.
Champion: And that's what a lot of the time this person was doing?
Karr: And that was on June 26th.
Champion: So my concern is that we don't overburden the City Clerk's office any
more than it is but I guess they'll let us know if we are.
Vanderhoef: Well, I understand obviously that we will have a minute taker in there.
Karr: We are advertising currently for a minute taker to relieve that
responsibility. We will still be responsible for staffing the meetings as
well as all the executive sessions.
Kanner: I think another reason to defer, before we eliminate this position I'd
like to get a piece of paper and get the PCRB and get the Clerk
position. We're hearing some things now, I'd like to have it written
down what are the responsibilities that we're asking of the PCRB and
the person that assists them. We've heard sort of informally but I think
it does a disservice to the Clerk's office to, from City Council to not
formalize what the responsibilities are, that the person assisting PCRB,
whether it's going to be 10 hours or 20 hours, I think we shotrid get
that information the best we can, what PCRB would like to see, and
see if we need to keep a 20 hour position. We might have to keep that.
Or it could go down to 10, it cotrid go down to 5. And that we don't
need it. But let's get some more information.
Lehman: That position is presently not taken, is that correct?
Karr: I'm sorry.
Lehman: That position is presently not occupied?
Karr: No, it is not.
Lehman: If we were not, if we did not eliminate the position that doesn't
necessarily mean it would be filled immediately, is that correct?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#16 Page 41
Karr: We are not advertising the position.
Lehman: You're not actively looking to fill that position.
Karr: No. It was my understanding that Council had agreed not, to eliminate
the position so therefore I have not, no, what I'm actively recruiting
right now is a minute taker position for PCRB only.
Lehman: Would it be fair to also say that you would actively elicit the support
of the Council if you found that you needed to hire someone back on a
half-time basis?
Karr: I think I can assure you I would be back to you with a report ifthat's
necessary, yes.
Lehman: Alright. Any further discussion on the motion to defer?
Pfab: To defer? I think that the horse is long gone and we might as well take
what we have here, and I think, again I go back to what the Mayor
said, this is never going to be right for everybody but it is what it is,
and take our lamps and move on.
Lehman: Okay, all in favor of the motion to defer raise your right hand, please.
All opposed to the motion to defer, raise your right hand or left or
whatever. The motion is defeated 6-1, Kanner voting in the
affirmative. Now, we will consider the resolution to delete the
assistant. Any discussion on the resolution?
Vanderhoef: Well, I would just say that part of the discussion on eliminating the
position was this administrative secretary position, which is a different
level than a minute taker position, and having this "20 hours a week"
person entailed having a separate office for this person and telephone
lines and computers and so forth and it was duplication then of what
was happening in the City Clerk' s office in the 20 hours that this
person was not available. So there may be some other ways to address
this without this level of secretary and decrease the cost of the
operation of the PCRB.
Kanner: I had been leaning towards eliminating this position originally but after
finding out more information in the last few weeks, I don't know if
that's such a wise move. I think one of the strengths of the PCRB is
their a purely independent body and purely independent from staff in
many ways, and the one staff that is there is the PCRB administrative
person, and my understanding is there really aren't any other staff that
are at the meetings, and so I now am leaning towards the idea of, we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#16 Page 42
need perhaps this position and I think it would be a wise move to keep
it. That's the way I'm leaning, so I'm going to be voting no to
eliminate it at this time.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries, 6-1, Kanner voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17A Page 43
ITEM NO. 17.A. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ISSUANCE
OF NOT TO EXCEED $40,000,000 IN AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF REVENUE BONDS (ACT, INC.
PROJECT) OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, DIRECTING
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OFINTENTION TO ISSUE,
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT AND DECLARING AN OFFICIAL INTENT TO
REIMBURSE.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Kanner: I had some questions. One for Steve. What's, why does the State have
ACT go through the City if they have to establish their own bond
rating, they put up their own collateral, they take all the risks, why
even include the City, go through the City for this process, why not
just say that 501(c)37
Atkins: Well the 501(c)3 is a federal tax code.
Kanner: No, but why not just let the 501 (c)3 do it on their own without going
through the City?
Atkins: I don't know.
Kanner: This is from 419, right, Iowa Code?
Atkins: I couldn't tell you the numbers.
Wilburn: It's entitled Municipal Support of Projects, and so I was thinking of
some parallels where, in terms of, it's a little different because it's an
application for like grant projects. Some federal and states will have
organizations within a municipality or county, they can apply for these
grant funds but they've got to get a govemmental body to sign off or a
school board to sign off on it. So it's more like approval of this
happening. And in this case it's a way for municipalities to support
these types of projects. So maybe in some ways it's kind of a ...
Atkins: And it's really not in the whole municipality it doesn't have to be the
one, as you know. They simply use a municipal government as a
conduit for the project.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17A Page 44
Wilburn: For example, and again, it's different because it's not related to bonds,
but like the youth collaboration the county's involved with, I mean the
organizations, if I'm remembering one of the grants they applied for,
the county had to, the county was the body that supported doing that,
but the agencies themselves got the project to work and did the
paperwork and that type of thing, so.
Kanner: So we're acting in a sense like a fiscal agent?
Wilbum: Well, not, that's ... we don't.
Atkins: It's their credit rating, it's their responsibility. Our credit rating's not at
risk. Our administration of it is virtually nil. Federal tax code creating
501(c)3 corporations said this is a tax issue that you corporations,
501(c)3s are permitted to take advantage of. It's federal law. And
hospitals, churches, charitable organizations, educational institutions
are entitled to do that. And as you saw in the letter of request from the
folks at ACT that's what they're asking us to do.
Wilburn: And that's a narrow focus, so
Atkins: Very, very narrow, yes.
Wilburn: eligible for it, and that's ...
Atkins: Up until 1986, it was a much more common issuance. In fact, what
happened was you could issue these revenue bonds really virtually on
almost any kind of economic development project you wanted to and
you pledged as collateral the assets of the project. The tax reform act
of 1986 narrowed the definition and with the narrowing of the
definition to these very few organizations, you have the cimumstances
that you have today. We just don't see these as often as we used to. I
think our last one here was in 1987. And it was the tail end of that
federal tax code reform.
Kanner: So if, PATV is a 501(c)3, could they apply for these revenue bonds
instead of going through a bank?
Atkins: I would assme so. If they're a 501(c)3. I mean, I don't have the Code
committed to memory but I suspect ifthat's what they are they would
be entitled to pursue it like any other 501(c)3.
Kanner: And they might get a more favorable rate than the banks perhaps.
Atkins: The only trouble is, I suspect their borrowing is so small that it
wouldn't be something that would be marketable. And the banks then
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17A Page 45
are generally not interested. They would better off probably getting a
deal with the bank for some sort of lower interest rate or something
such as that. You just can't market such a small issue. It almost has to
be in the millions or it'sjust not marketable.
Lehman: But these revenue bonds are issued based on the applicant's ability to
repay. In other words, the faith and credit of ACT is behind the
issuance of these bonds.
Atkins: Yes. Well, full faith and credit, remember, is a term applied to a
goverrmaent. ACT has assets. They have physical assets. They have
cash, they have a variety of resoumes that can be attributed to that non-
profit corporation. When they go out to sell these bonds, the
prospective bond buyers will want to see all of that information and
they have an obligation to make it available to the prospective bond
buyer. And that's how their credit rating occurs, also, it's based on
that.
Lehman: I see this as, you know, the IRS may have set this up but I do think it
was set up to require the approval of the municipality. I mean, I think
it needs to be a worthwhile project, it needs to be an organization that
is of value to the community, there may not be a financial obligation
on the part of the City, it may not affect our credit rating, but at the
same time I think it gives us an opportunity to indicate the importance
of that project to the commtmity. I think I mentioned last night,
Oaknoll Retirement Home has used this as a method of financing with
the City of University Heights. It's not an unusual sort of thing, but it
offers a significant savings, in this case to ACT, and last night I
believe I asked Mr. Goedkin, this is a $40,000,000, up to $40,000,000
in revenue bonds of which $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 will be
transformed into taxable real estate for the Iowa City Public School
System, the City of Iowa City and the County of johnson County. So I
mean I see this as being a tremendous benefit to the people of this
community without any cost to the City of Iowa City.
Vanderhoef: And certainly we appreciate the new jobs and the high quality jobs and
the good reputation for an employer in our community as ACT is.
(can't hear) Providing we get them.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Pfab: I have a two part question for Steve. I think he can hear it coming
already. Is this, will these bonds qualify to be sold over the Internet,
bidding?
Atkins: That' s frankly none of our business.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
# 17A Page 46
Pfab: Well, who's issuing it?
Atkins: I have no idea who they have to issue them.
Pfab: Well, it says here that we will be ...
Arkins: We will issue them. We'll use our good offices, our name on the thing,
but the actual issuance of the bonds is the responsibility of ACT.
Pfab: Okay. Now the other part is, I think, the British have a term which
they use as a scheme. Now we think of a scheme as something pretty
nefarious, but the British have a more neutral use of the word, and
basically what this is, this is a scheme in the British sense of the word
for certain entities to have the access to interest deductible bonds to go
to the market, and they use the City as conduit or an entryway into that
market. That' s what it is, no more, no less?
Atkins: Absolutely right.
Champion: Well, I thought that I understood earlier from the City Manager when
he was giving examples, where he said religious organizations and
schools and to my knowledge... corporation.
TAPE CHANGE
Atkins: (Can't hear) the IRS.
Dieterie: Okay, so they are a not for profit institution.
Atkins: Yes.
Dieterie: Okay, well, I stand corrected then.
Lehman: It's all by federal regulations and they qualify because of their status as
a whatever, C3 corporation.
Atkins: 501 (c)3.
Dietetic: Okay, well then how does it happen then that you can collect property
taxes off it?
Lehman: Many non-profit organizations pay property taxes.
Dieterie: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
# 17A Page 47
Lehman: The Englert Theater will be paying property taxes. That's non-profit.
Religious institutions, I think, by and large do not.
Dieterie: Do not.
Lehman: But non-profit organizations ...
Dieterie: And schools do not?
Lehman: Right.
Dieterie: Okay.
Kanner: There's a more narrow definition that we have here as to what would
be considered for exemption? It's not just 503 (c)3 s that automatically
get the property tax exemption. We have a more narrow definition.
Dieterie: Okay. Well, in the off chance that ACT was not able to make good on
its bonds, what would be recovered, what would be the method of
recovery first? Would it be their assets first?
Atkins: Yes. That's all that's pledged.
Dieterie: It would be.
Atkins: Right.
Dieterie: Okay. Thanks.
Pfab: The City pledges nothing?
Atkins: That's correct.
Dieterie: Well, that was my point, that we are not left holding the bag, which I
sort of understand that we are with the Peninsula project?
Lehman: That's coming up next.
Pfab: You said you would come to that.
Dieterie: I think it's called scheme in the American sense.
Lehman: Any other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
# 17B Page 48
ITEM NO. 17.B. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A GUARANTY
AND SHORT-TERM FINANCING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, TERRY L. STAMPER
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., AND THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION.
Lehman: Item 17B. I wonder, we received this agreement the 9th. I'm not at all
sure that we perhaps shouldn't take about 10 minutes and give the
Council the opportunity to read this. Why don't we reconvene at 10
minutes until 9. That gives us about 12 minutes to read it.
Atkins: Emie, would you like me to explain the issue before we go?
Lehman: Yes, please do, before we recess, go ahead.
Atkins: At last meeting, you approved an agreement between TLS, Stamper,
who is the developer of the Peninsula project, and the City for short
term financing, basically a construction bridge loan. Since that time,
the University of Iowa Community Credit Union has come forth and
said to us that they would be interested in serving as the financial
institution to in effect provide the monies for this construction bridge
loan. What you have in front of you is basically the same agreement
you had two weeks ago, except we now have three parties. Before it
was the City and the developer. We now have the Credit Union, who
would provide the monies, collect the interest income, pay the bills.
You'd have the City, we act as the surety for the loan, and the
developer. In principal, this does not change dramatically from what
you approved last time other than the Credit Union will be using its
funds to advance to the developer. But I want to point out one kind of
real important thing, and I apologize for the hurry up, but it just took
time to package all of this together. We have the approval of the Credit
Union. If you approve it tonight you have the approval of the City. We
do not have the approval of the developer. In other words, he has not
signed this document yet. He's been involved in the discussions, so I
want you to know that there is a possibility if the developer would
choose not to go with the Credit Union financing we still have an
obligation under our previous agreement. Now, the reason we're
bringing this to you quickly is, 1) one of the criticisms was the
financial institution. We have one. And the timing. It's three weeks
until the next meeting. Work is being done. Your policy expression to
me at the last Council meeting was you wanted this project, which is
being developed on City land, to continue. And a way to do that as a
result of the delays that occurred because of the lawsuit, was for us to
act as a short-term financial agent in providing the monies. So please
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17B Page 49
keep that in mind as you think through this issue. We already have an
agreement in place. Okay?
Lehman: Okay, we'll be back in 10 minutes.
BREAK
Lehman: Okay, folks, let's get started.
(Mayor reads Item 17B)
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Pfab: I move to adoption.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Kanner: One of my major concerns, fellow City Council members and Steve, is
that we lose, why do this? We have the same risks essentially but we
lose even more control. I don't quite understand that. I don't think any
possible gains in bringing in a local money soume is worth that.
Atkins: I don't think I agree with you up front on that very first statement. It
was clear to me from the Council discussion that your preference was
private institutions do finance these projects. I believe the financial
community heard that or the Credit Union wouldn't have come to us.
Secondly, if you look at this purely as a financial arrangement, we are
better off because we're investing our money at 9%. We can't get that
in normal investments because we're limited by state law. And I think
it gets down to just a policy question. Do you want private institutions
to finance these types of projects. It is unusual in the sense that we are
promoting a development project where we own the land. Most folks
that would come here and say, I want the same kind of financing,
you'd have to remind them that a mortgage would be placed upon that
property. In this case, there's not mortgage; we provide the security to
the Credit Union for the loan. Now, another real important element is
that if it completely falls apart, now I hate talking negatively because
this is a project we've been working on for four years to get moving
along, but if it were to fall apart, what' s left is developed land. You
already own the land, you have water, you have sewer, you have
streets. We're in the business of water, sewer and streets. Banks aren't.
And so from our perspective I believe we're collaterized because of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17B Page 50
the fixed assets that you enjoy the benefit of. If, for example, the
project doesn't. Because sooner or later you will take over those fixed
assets. As in any other type of development. I don't know how else to
describe it to you really other than it's your call. If you wish to adhere
to the current agreement with the understandings of what the terms and
conditions are, that's fine. But I read you wanted private sector
involvement.
Lehman: Steve, I don't know, I only speak for myself, but I feel the community
would be more accepting of the financing coming from the private
sector even though our position does not change. But I think there are
a couple of advantages to the money coming from a local financial
institution other than the obvious political acceptance by the
community, which I do think is important. If this project is as
successful as we all hope it is, the involvement of a local financial
institution up front is going to be, I think, of a tremendous value to the
rest of this development. There will be a relationship established with
the developer and probably with potential owners because of that
relationship up front. I think that's a definite plus for that
development. And I don't say this in any way disparaging of our staff,
which I have the highest regard for. But financial institutions are in the
business of loaning money. I think they are better equipped when they
receive bills or whatever to handle those bills, obviously from this
agreement it requires the mutual approval of not only the Credit Union
but also the City of Iowa City. There's two sets of eyes looking at
those. I just think it's a, I'm more comfortable with this, I think it's
better for the overall success of the project, and I think it is, financially
if the project is as successful as we hope it is it's going to cost us
money because we're not going to collect the extra 4%, but I do think
that the benefits outweigh the non-benefits. Other discussion?
O'Donnell: Yeah, this is a fairly easy decision for me since I didn't support it last
time. I agree, nothing's changed. We're the cosignor on a loan rather
than the loan we cosign. I still feel that the developer should have had
financing in place for this. And there is some risk here. We are loaning
$690,000 and we all know the bids come in sometimes higher than
we've estimated. We could conceivably wind up, if he does default,
and I'm not doubting the developer's credibility or the credibility of
this project. And I hope it does succeed. But we could end up with a
million dollars in debt and have a $690,000 bill due and mechanics
liens in the amount of $300,000, so I believe there is some risk.
Lehman: The risk is the same with this or the way it was before.
O'Donnell: And I didn't support it before. So I've not changed my opinion.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17B Page 51
Pfab: I respectfully disagree with Councilman Mike O'Donnell. I think that
this is a win-win. I think we win either way. If we lend the money
ourselves we have an interest income that we won't have otherwise,
but at the same time if the University of Iowa Credit Union steps up
and offers to provide the money, I think that that's a win for the
community and it takes the, some of the, I'm going to say sting that the
public seems to feel that what we're doing right now is not right, and
you know, they're entitled to their opinions. I think the City made,
well I had nothing to do with starting it or instigating it. I think it was a
good move and so I look at it as a win-win. Whichever way we go.
Now, I think there's a couple of other questions here. At this point,
what's the three letter name that people are using? STM or whatever it
is?
Atkins: The name of the company here? TLS.
Pfab: TLS hasn't gotten the money or hasn't said here, I'm going to sign, I'll
take the money.
Arkins: That's right.
Pfab: They haven't taken it from us, they haven't agreed to take it from the
University of Iowa Credit Union yet, and there' s a possibility they may
take it from neither of them. Because maybe there's other ways
something will have happened by that time, I don't know. Probably
not likely.
Atkins: Yeah, probably not likely.
Pfab: They're probably going to come to one, they're going to decide to take
one or the other. And so I mean, but I think it's, I look at it as a win-
win.
O'Dounell: It certainly would be my choice, Irvin, that something else does
happen.
Pfab: Well, I think ...
O'Donnell: And you and I have a fundamental disagreement, I do not believe that
the City should be involved in the financing of the project.
Pfab: But I do agree with you, if the other things happens I'll be just as
happy.
Vanderhoef: I think there were a couple of things that the public wasn't
understanding originally or realizing that we still own that land,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17B Page 52
number one. So we have the full value of the land left to us. The other
was alluded to earlier at the podium this evening about bonding and so
forth. Remember, in our agreement the dollars were not going out for
bonding; the dollars were coming from the reserves that we presently
have and we were using specifically reserves from our streets and
roads, from our sewer and from our water. And that's exactly the
infrastructure that we were going to have the developer put into this
property. So it wasn't a general obligation bond that was going to be
financing it when we held it, and sooner or later it will be paid for with
those dollars.
Lehman: I don't want to limit discussion, but the discussion is on whether or not
we are interested in entering into this agreement which would be
between us, the University of Iowa Credit Union and Terry Stampler,
the developer. That's the item we're discussing.
Kanner: I want to preface my remarks by saying, I think the role of the City is
sometimes to loan money or to pay money and then we make our
political decisions based on that, and that's what you've said. Having
said that, I think we've given quite a bit of money for this project, and
I think that any bank in this city, any financial institution, would take
up this deal if they were offered. You're having the City as a guarantor
so I don't think it really shows anything. I don't think it accomplishes
our purpose of getting a local financial institution involved. Because
this is a no-brainer. Anybody that has this money to lend out is going
to lend it, you're going to get 9% either from Stamper or from the City
and if Stamper doesn't pay, you know the City is going to pay. So I
don't think it really moves us in that fight direction. I think that again
we lose more control of the situation, and I don't think it's to our
benefit to do that. For instance, in the agreement it says that the City
and the Credit Union both have to agree to extend 180 days. How does
that agreement happen? That gives us less control if it's taken out of
our hands. It talks an agreement about certain economic factors that
could determine that we extend it. If we leave it in the hands of the
Credit Union, or with the Credit Union, we have less control over that
and I don't like that feeling. If we're going to do that, I think we
should have control, we should be the one saying yes or no to those
kind of things.
Pfab: I would counter or follow-up on something that you had mentioned.
You say it looks like a no-brainer. Well, I would ask the City Manager,
has any other financial institution offered to do this?
Atkins: No, they have not.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17B Page 53
Kanner: Well, maybe they thought of it first now, I would think if we gave the
oppommity you could bet that there would be 20 institutions ...
Pfab: This is live TV.
Kanner: Well, maybe they're calling now. Check your answering machine.
Atkins: Steven I believe is correct in the sense ... the Credit Union did come to
us first. I felt an obligation, as well as the other members of the staff
that worked with them, but given the circumstances, could others? I
think you're right.
O'Donnell: Part of this with me is this is not a new project. We've had ample time,
and I feel there's been more than ample time for a developer to put this
financing in place and that wasn't done. So I'm just, I'm
uncomfortable supporting it.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Pfab: Councilman O'Donnell, I think you're perfectly fight at making your
feelings known. I don't ...
O'Donnell: Well thank you so much.
Pfab: Well, I say go for it. But I disagree with you.
O'Donnell: You're entitled to do that.
Lehman: Yes?
Dawn Mueller: Yes, Dawn Mueller. I just had a couple of questions to ask Steve on
this. I wanted to express that I appreciate you developing this option. I
think that shows a good faith effort on the City's part to try to work
with the community. I also appreciate the fact that it shows faith and
support in our local credit union. As a Credit Union user, I feel that
that's a positive sign also. I would like to ask you, Steve, if you could
clarify for the public the interest rates again. What would the interest
rate be if the funds were directly from the City coffers?
Atkins: I'm going to answer that in a couple parts, Dawn, so. The first
agreement provides for the City to charge a 9% rate. That's the current
agreement in place. In this case, the Credit Union would take over the
financing. This second agreement, they are charging 9% plus some
incident fees. We can invest our money in the neighborhood of about
4-1/2%. And the reason that we get 4-1/2% is that it's a highly
regulated activity on the part of local governments. We have a whole
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17B Page 54
variety of state laws that we have to abide by. And thereby our interest
rates are dramatically lower than you might get on an open market.
Mueller: My next question would be, in the event of default, would the money
come directly out of City coffers or would a lien be place on the
property?
Atkins: We already own the property so there's no need to place a lien on
something we already own.
Mueller: But the Credit Union would not ...
Atkins: The Credit Union would be paid off, it would be out of the picture. We
then have the land and all of the improvements that have occurred to
date if there was a default.
Mueller: Right. In other words, the City would just pay the Credit Union
directly?
Atkins: Yes, that's correct.
Mueller: And there wouldn't be any legal costs incurred with ...
Atkins: Minimal costs. It's a very straightforward agreement. They present us
a bill, under certain terms and conditions we have an obligation to pay.
I believe it's 30 days in the agreement.
Mueller: Do you have an idea of what the legal fees would be surrounding this?
Atkins: Minimal. Less than $1,000.
Mueller: Okay, alright. Thank you.
Pfab: Dawn, if you ... just a minute. I was going to ask a question. We also
would have the work done and we would not be subject to mechanics
liens because the checks would be paid, the money would go directly
to the ...
Atkins: It's a two party check that's paid.
Pfab: So in other words,
Atkins: The lien process I'm just not that familiar with, I'd have to defer to
Eleanor on that.
O'Donnell: And that is correct unless it exceeds $690,000.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#17B Page 55
Dilkes: We have the right to request lien waivers prior to payment as well.
Pfab: Okay.
Dilkes: I should clarify just in terms of if there is a default, Steve is absolutely
right that we would pay off the Credit Union. And then we would be
left to deal with Mr. Stamper, and at that point we would have a
number of options available, the Council would, whether we wanted to
forfeit the agreement with Mr. Stamper and take the property and
develop it ourselves or whether we wanted to force performance on his
developer's agreement. All those remedies are retained.
Mueller: Okay. But all the costs for recovery and all the effort to move for
recovery would be on behalf of the City. Once the default occurs, the
Credit Union does not take part in recover at all?
Dilkes: Right.
Mueller: Thank you.
Lehman: Further discussion?
Kanner: Steve, who approached you from the Credit Union?
Atkins: The president, JeffDisterhoft.
Kanner: President of the Board?
Atkins: Of the Credit Union. He's their (can't hear). And then I worked with
Lynn Rowat, their Vice-President. So those two people I worked with.
O'Donnell: Well, it appears like we're ready to vote on this.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries, 5-2, Kanner and O'Donnell in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#21 Page 56
ITEM NO. 21. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Lehman: Who would like to be first? h-vin?
Pfab: Nope, I'm fine.
Lehman: Connie? Mike?
O'Donnell: Great 4th of July celebration. I attended Coralville' s, they had Three
Dog Night and Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog. It was really an exciting
thing as well as a parade with like 140 entries in it, and then Iowa
City' s 4th, thanks to the Jaycees Saturday, was absolutely spectacular.
I've been attending these fireworks displays for it seems like 50 years,
it probably is, or longer, but they were just outstanding and they seem
to get better, but it will really be hard to top this because they were
really incredible. So thanks again Jaycees.
Kanner: Can you sing a little of that Jeremiah?
O'Donnell: I used to, Steven.
Atkins: Okay, and by the way, Mike, it's Joy to the World is the song.
O'Donnell: No it's not, it's Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog.
Lehman: Okay, Ms. Vanderhoet?
Vanderhoef: No thanks.
Lehman: Ross?
Wilburn: Just a reminder, again that Weatherb Park Neighborhood Association,
I believe on July 21st and August 11t~, are having their Movies in the
Park there. Two movies will be shown: one for yotmger children, the
other more family oriented. So I would urge people to get out.
Lehman: What time is that?
Wilburn: I have to get back to you on that.
Lehman: Would you do that? I would like to go.
Wilburn: Sure.
Lehman: Steven?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#21 Page 57
Kanner: A few things. First, I was talking with our mayor yesterday and one
thing we were talking about is the trees. I just want to point out I really
enjoy the trees we have in this city and I appreciate the work that the
staff does in maintaining those trees, it's nice to have that here.
Atkins: Terry Robinson and Sherry Thomas. They heard you, good. Thank
you.
Kanner: Yesterday, we also talked about the idea perhaps of forrealizing with a
resolution our policy that we have in that anyone can come and speak
to an issue that's on the agenda even though it's technically not a
public hearing, and I'd like to have perhaps the Council consider the
Clerk and/or the City Attorney coming to us with a simple resolution
to formalize that intent so it's clear to everyone that they are welcome
to come. Also allowing us the ability to limit comments if the case
necessitates that. But I think we need to put that in a resolution so it's
clear to our staff and for people in the public that they can come
forward and speak during these issues. I was wondering if Council
would be willing to direct staff to come up with a resolution, which I
don't think would be too difficult, that we could look at at a work
session in a month or so.
Pfab: I would support that.
Lehman: Are you interested in doing that?
Vanderhoef: I would support it. That's a good idea.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: Thank you. And then I also wanted to point out that we got notice
from the State League of Cities in regards to the Coralville litigation
and that we ... Coralville apparently has lost the first round, they
might appeal but essentially, though, we have $44,000 left from this
coalition that we're a part of.
Atkins: Right.
Kanner: And so I ... they said they would use this $44,000 to develop a model
right-of-way ordinance consistent with the findings of the Court in the
Coralville case, and I was wondering if anyone had any cormmerits or
any ... maybe Steve?
Atkins: I'm assuming that's going to be on our next League board meeting
next month, I'd heard about that. Just don't know the details on it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#21 Page 58
Kanner: They said if we wanted to opt out we had to do that by July 15th.
Atkins: I guess my gut reaction is I would not opt out if we can get them to
draft right-of-way ordinances it makes it that much easier for us.
We're going to have to do that anyway.
Dilkes: We're in the process of drafting and have been for a very long time a
right-of-way management ordinance, and I think, it's my inclination to
proceed and not wait for the League to do their new model ordinance.
Not that it wouldn't be helpful if they do, but we will continue to
proceed with our right-of-way management ordinance and hopefully
get ...
Atkins: I don't know what our opt out dollar figure would be. I could certainly
find out for you.
O'Donnell: Probably out of the $44,000 it's probably just a few hundred.
Atkins: It may be more than that.
O'Donnell: Did we put in a significant amount compared to other cities?
Lehman: No, all the cities ... what is it again?
Atkins: It's, I suspect it's a couple thousand dollars, pretty easily.
Dilkes: Something like that, it was like $3,000 or $4,000 initially.
Helling: It was 5 cents per capita, whatever that comes out to be.
Champion: It's going to cost them $44,000 to develop a ...
Atkins: No, that's what they have left over in this account, and they were
going to use that, I'm assuming, to retain counsel to do some drafting
of language for them.
Champion: Well, that's an expensive language.
Atkins: I don't want to speak for Steven, but what I'm saying is that do we
want to proceed with that and allow the League? Eleanor is saying
we're doing okay on our own.
Dilkes: Well, they may not use that whole $44,000. I don't think it's said that
they will use the whole $44,000, if there's some left over they'll come
back to us again I assume.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#21 Page 59
Atkins: Why don't I confirm all those numbers and get something back to you
so I understand exactly. And I can do that right away.
Champion: I think you'll probably have to make an executive decision.
Atkins: You think so?
Dilkes: I think it would be helpful to participate in that process, it would be
nice to have that work. Even if we proceed on our own.
Atkins: I'll do that right away.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: That is a recommendation, I believe, f~om the City Attorney that we
take advantage of the expertise that may be (can't hear).
Dilkes: Well, it's always nice when you can pool your money and get some
good expertise.
Lehman: Okay. Steven?
Kanner: And then the final issue. This was in our information packet, #15, the
minutes of the 6/25 work session. I just wanted to clarify. In the
minutes it says Stamp will send a notice to businesses on Dubuque
Street stating that the City will be more aggressive on complaints
received. Is that the understanding of Council that that' s the direction
we want to go? I'm not sure if I go that way.
Lehman: It was relative to what?
Kauner: The parking meters.
Lehman: Oh, yes, I think that is true.
Kanner: I thought it was that we'll send, perhaps recommend to them that they
can have their employees park somewhere else.
Champion: It wasn't just the employees, it's some of the owners.
Kanner: Or the owners. But not necessarily that ...
Champion: It's become a real pet peeve of mine, as you well know.
Kanner: But not that we would be more aggressive on complaints received. I'm
not sure what that means exactly.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#21 Page 60
Atkins: I don't think we really need complaints. I think we walk it and we
were just simply going to point out to them, Look you're only hurting
yourself.
Champion: You know people,
Atkins: In a nice way.
Champion: It's odd, Steve, how people sometimes hurt themselves. I mean it's
really amazing to me that they don't see that as detrimental when you
can't walk a block to get to your place of business, and you're keeping
a customer from parking there. And the thing with the beer trucks who
are parking there for lunch, and of course that's been a pet peeve of
mine for a long time, that has been really under conUol now. And I'm
happy about it because, you know, people tend to abuse what' s not
enforced because they don't really view it as breaking the law. You
know, but they are, but they don't really view it that way because it's
not an infringement on anybody really, but it's a found infringement as
far as I'm concerned. But, I mean that was the message that I meant to
send, and I thought Council agreed with me, that sometimes you have
to enforce common sense. That' s pathetic but it's true.
Lehman: If we could recognize it.
Champion: If we could recognize it, right.
Vanderhoef: And we'll remember that the next time it looks like a common sense
thing.
Lehman: Um, we're past public discussion now. That's over. We had that at the
beginning of the meeting.
Mueller: I just wanted to ask since this is an item that I wanted to make sure that
the rest of the agenda items got through first, at the last meeting a
gentleman came from the Latino American Cultural Center and gave a
very nice invitation to the Council Members to come out to take a
look. I was just wondering if any of the Council Members had the
opportunity to do that.
Atkins: I prepared a packet of information for the, I think the thing we were
able to establish, University's correspondence clearly said that they
were not going to close the cultural centers. That was spelled out, I
think, very clearly. Vice President Jones.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.
#21 Page 61
Lehman: And just for your information, the County Board of Supervisors is
taking another look, or a continuing look if you will, at the jail
situation. Obviously, we're paying to transport prisoners out of the
county. We were invited to attend the first meeting which is comprised
of Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty was there, University of Iowa
Security, Sheriff Carpenter. Steve was there with one of our Police
Department folks, and I believe that was just the first preliminary sort
of meeting, but I am very optimistic that the issue of the jail and
related subjects are going to be the stopping of some public discussion
and public forums and I think today that the first public forum is going
to, the city managers were asked to, more non-political than the
elected officials, were asked to kind of set up the first forum and that
will be coming up hopefully sometime in the next couple months. And
we'll keep you informed of that. Steve, anything from you?
Atkins: Not a thing.
Lehman: Eleanor? Madan? Do we have a motion to adjourn?
O'Dounell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Dounell, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor?
Opposed? Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 10, 2001.