HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-31 Transcription#1a Page 1
ITEM NO. la. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION: IRVIN B. WEBER DAY.
Tom Mullet: My name is Tom Mullet. I live at 1350 Burry Drive, Iowa City, and
last August I made a proposal to the Arts Advisory Commission of
Iowa City, and that proposal included causing the creation of a bronze
sculpture of Irving Weber to be installed in the downtown area. It
asked that the sculpture be slightly larger than life and that it be
lifelike and that it be pointing at a building, which many of you have
seen him do, with a bell in his other hand. The Commission was very
receptive to the idea, but naturally one of their questions was, is there
any public support for this project. So I kind of went around town,
chatted with various humans, and found out that they were very, very
interested in this project. So after getting this positive feedback from
everyone that I talked to, I presented the idea to the Noon Lions Club,
of which Irving was a member. The club expressed keen interest in the
project, and I would like Del Brown, a representative of the club, to
tell you about their interest in it. Del?
Del Brown: As he said, my name is Del Brown, I live at 515 Rundell Street. I am a
member of the Iowa City Noon Lions Club, and I'd like to thank you
very much for this proclamation for the Irving Weber Days coming up
on August 11th. AS many of you have had the opportunity to meet
Irving Weber, he was a very unique person. Unique both to the
community, to the City and to the University. Tom Muller came to our
Lions Club, as he said, and approached the idea of a bronze statute
located somewhere in Iowa City to honor Irving Weber' s memory.
Irving Weber himself said, I'm just an old man with a good memory.
The Lions Club has agreed to oversee this project. Therefore, we
would like to request the City to give us approval to go ahead with this
project. Tom has done much of the groundwork on the cost, on the
location of, perhaps a location, and I won't bore you with those details.
Irving was very much an active member of our club up until the day he
died. He was, like I said, a unique person who had a lot of history of
Iowa City. The Iowa City Noon Lions Club thinks it owes it to the
City to promote this and to make sure that we establish something in
the City that will honor his memory. A statute itself could be viewed
as an artwork. There are other opportunities that could go along with
that - perhaps an educational facility could be used of the statute to
present stories, wherever the statute is located, to children. Groups of
children could come around and see the man who made Iowa City
famous for its history. We respectfully request that you approve going
ahead with this project. Thank you.
Lehman: Steve, I don't know what's involved with us in approving this. I mean,
as far as I can see, it's probably, I mean if somebody wants to ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#1a Page 2
Atkins: I suspect it'll pass.
Lehman: I suspect that there's a great deal of enthusiasm among the folks right
up here to see that this ...
Atkins: My suggestion, Ernie, would be to have the Council send it directly to
the Public Arts Advisory Commission, get their opinions, interest,
budget, bring it back to you then, kind of like they do other projects.
Lehman: I think a member of the Public Arts Advisory Commission has just
heard all of this.
Tom Muller: May I say one thing? We were hoping that, you know, you hope for
the most and then maybe settle for something less. We'd love to have
the Council there at the Lions Club celebration on the 11th of August
and make an official statement that this is gonna happen. Now, if your
concerns are about money, I don't think there' s a concern. I think
that'll happen. But we wouldn't object to some financial participation
from the City. As you will note in that information that I gave you, the
estimate is about $25,000 for the sculpture. So that gives you an idea.
There still would have to be a base created.
Champion: It sounds like a wonderful idea. He was truly a dear man. Tom I
noticed here, too, and this probably isn't the right time to discuss it,
you have (can't hear) on here too as a possibility.
Tom Muller: And that's under discussion with the Library at this point, so we hope
to get that one through also.
O'Donnell: The celebration will be at the Lower City Park this year, is that
correct?
Del Brown: The location is yet to be decided. We would want some City input
along with ...
Lehman: No, no, no. He's asking about
O'Donnell: The Weber Days celebration on the 11th.
Del Brown: The Irving Weber celebration, yes. It will be in Lower City Park
around the Shakespeare Theatre.
O'Dormell: Okay, great.
Del Brown: Activities will be going on all of that week, the 11th is the last day.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#1a Page 3
O'Donnell: Is that the one the City is usually involved with?
Lehman: Yes. It culminates at 6:00 Saturday evening with an ice cream social at
Lower City Park. I mean, there' s a lot of stuff goes on. This has
always been a big event.
O'Donnell: Community band ...
Del Brown: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Nancy Purington: My name's Nancy Purington. I live at 1706 Prairie du Chien Road, and
last September I was the current chairman of the Public Arts Advisory
Committee when Tom brought this to our attention. I just came in
support of it tonight to say also as one of the co-authors of the public
art program proposal at the Chamber of Commerce several years ago
that this is exactly the kind of joint venture that we had in mind and
especially one which will illustrate our ... the spirit of our community
and also employ a local artist, which is one aspect which I would like
the public art advisory committee to focus on a little more keenly
insofar as the money spent will go to hire an artist in this community
to create the statute. So it's a nice holistic view of the public art
program and community input. So I just want to thank you all for
supporting the program, thank Tom and Lions Club and anything I can
do to help forward with this, I'm available.
Lehman: We'll see everybody Saturday at ... actually, the entire week them are
things going on in celebration of Irving Weber Days so I certainly
would encourage folks to keep an eye on the paper to see a schedule of
the events. A lot of fun.
Dilkes: Do we have a motion to accept correspondence?
O'Dounell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Dounell, seconded by Champion to accept
correspondence. All in favor? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#2 Page 4
ITEM NO. 2. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR A1VIENDED.
Champion: Move adoption.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, second by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: Two items that I wanted to bring to the Council's attention and the public.
We are renewing some liquor licenses and that includes Martini's, which as
of the calendar year through June, had 13 visits and 14 arrests, for an arrest
to visit ratio of 1.08, and Memories had 3 visits and 0 arrests, and 126,
which is getting a renewal is not listed here, which I don't know why
they're not listed here for June, and Tuck' s Place has 3 visits and 0 arrests.
The City average for visits to arrests is .92. Even though Martini's is a little
high, I think I'm not going to call for that to be looked at separately. I
would like to get that down to a lower level, but I wanted to bring that to the
Council' s attention. The other thing I had a question about, we had a notice
from the County about a meeting on August 7tn in regards to Cringe area
agreements and extra-territorial areas of review, and it asked for us to send
two people, and I'd like to know if there's been any arrangements made on
that.
Lehman: I suspect that I will go. I have worked with the fringe area for the last three
or four years. And I think that we're going to have a staff person who also
has worked with that being either Steve or Karin or both because they've
been involved in negotiations for the fringe area ever since I've been on the
Council.
O'Donnell: I've also been involved with that.
Lehman: Mike has also been involved.
Kanner: Do you see any areas of contention?
Lehman: I don't know what we're talking about. I don't know what the meeting's
about. I don't have any ... it's I think talking about enforcement strategies
for all of the county and fringe area. To my knowledge, we don't experience
(can't hear).
Atkins: My understanding, Ernie, was that, I believe this meeting was primarily an
attempt to set an agenda, just what are some of the issues out there.
Lehman: Okay, identify.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#2 Page 5
Arkins: And you would have to bring them back certainly for policy blessing by
Council.
Kanner: Ove~apping extra territorial areas of review.
Atkins: Yeah. I think a good bit of it, Steve, has to do with that rather large Tiffin
annexation where Coralville and Tiffin bumped heads about it. It's out on
our western border, it does have an effect upon 965 and some of those other
issues out there. Again, I really believe they're going to develop an agenda.
I don't expect, at least that' s what I understood, particularly in an hour
meeting, that they're going to do anything other than identify issues.
Kanner: Ernie, will you keep us posted on that at our next meeting?
Lehman: Yeah. And I don't know, you know, that ... far as I can tell it's going to be
more of an infom~ational meeting. I don't have any idea what the purpose
is.
Atkins: I'm assuming minutes will be prepared. If they're not, we'll prepare a
summary memo for you.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 6
ITEM NO. 3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
[UNTIL 8 PM].
Lehman: This is a time for public discussion. This is a time on the agenda
reserved for the public to address the Council on items that do not
otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council,
please sign in, give your name, address and limit your conunents to
five minutes or less.
Alexandria Schaeffel: Good evening, my name is Alexandria Schaeffel and I live at 1321
Marcy Street. I'm on the corner of Marcy and Highland Avenue. The
reason why I'm coming this evening, and I have concerns about
Highland Avenue and the use or, better worded, misuse of the
intention of the road. I'm a relatively new resident. I've lived here just
under a year, and I did some homework before I moved because it's a
big investment to move to a new state and to purchase a home without
knowing anything about the area. When I called the City about both
Marcy Street and Highland, I was informed one was a residential and
one was a residential collector street. And upon two visits from out of
state, I was satisfied with what I saw. After living there a year, though,
I've realized that it's not really used as a residential street; it's used as
sort of a short-cut for other means of (can't hear)__ of Highway 6 or
Kirkwood, and I did some more homework and leamed about the three
year history of requests and shekanes and all this business that the
City, or whomever I talked to, I don't recall who it was, didn't divulge
that information when I inquired about the road before I bought my
house. So, long story short, I know own a house adjacent to Highland.
I love the neighborhood; I love the neighbors. I think it's unfortunate
that the integrity of the neighborhood is being compromised by
industrial traffic, literally semis, City of Iowa City trucks, garbage
trucks on garbage days, trucks with large flatbeds coming through. I
see a lot of traffic. MidAmerica Energy; I don't think they're servicing
those houses six or eight times a day. I really don't think that. And I do
have a job, so I'm not there all the time to see it, but I work part-time.
Most of the traffic's during the day. I thank Mr. Atkins very much for
a timely response to my letter. I don't know if everyone got a copy of
that. Some of the issues that I thought needed to be addressed were the
stop signs and I realize that those have possibly been looked at and
there have been discussions as to other hazards that stop signs propose.
I'm curious as to why Kirkwood has stop signs. I realize that was some
that that was already in place, but those two then would have the same
hazards, and as a citizen, as a neighborhood and resident, someone
who, I know people on Kirkwood and I've met people on Summit, and
I've met people on Highland, and everyone' s very friendly. I think
everyone has the same concern. And that's the integrity and the
intention of keeping a neighborhood a neighborhood and not having it
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 7
as a major byway. I'm coming as a resident tonight to have Council
please consider Highland. I realize that there have been failures in the
past. I also know that there has to be some kind of solution to help the
residences instead of having us try to manage it on our own. I do want
to comment that there was a speed sign, I don't know what those are
called, actually, but the speed monitor today, and I really was glad to
see that. That was the first time I saw that since I've moved here. But I
look forward to discussion that City Council can really look at all the
letters that have been written to Council and all the steps that have
been done thus far. There has to be other steps and I look forward to
something being done. And we're also thinking of a homeowners'
association, so hopefully we can help you all out, too. Thank you for
your time.
Lehman: Thank you. Steve, I don't know ... since I've been on the Council we
have talked about this several times. We all know exactly what she's
talking about.
Atkins: I tried to get Alexandria a sort of a history, on a one page letter, about
all the things we've been through.
Champion: Well, part of the problem is the way the streets are located there. And
since cars come out of HyVee on Boyram, is that how you pronounce
that? It's much easier to go to Highland if you're going anywhere
south of there into the City than it is to take the Bypass. I do it myself.
I cross the Highway and take Boyrum to Highland and Highland to
Keokuk. And I think that's created a lot of problems for Highland. So I
think no matter what we do, unless we close Boyrum, you're gonna
have that traffic. Because it's just ... if you're going anywhere on the
other side of the highway, it's easier to take Boyrum and Highland that
it is to take the Bypass.
Lehman: Is this something that we can
Champion: So maybe, them must be something we can do, but people are going to
continue to do that.
Lehman: Is this something we can ask Jeff to take another look at? I mean,
we've looked and looked. I don't know what
Arkins: Sir, with all due respect we've looked at it what, half a dozen times? I
mean, I can bring it back to you, certainly put it on your agenda for a
more extensive ...
Wilbum: Didn't we suggest the one time more stop signs, Steve?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 8
Atkins: It was talked about and dropped because there were concerns about
people just simply beginning to ignore them given the type and
volume of traffic on Highland Avenue. And the pedestrian safety in a
residential neighborhood is going to be jeopardized.
Lehman: I think the only serious consideration that's happened since I've been
on the Council regarding Highland, aside from the change, was a
couple times the Council, I think, seriously talked about stoplights on
Kirkwood, which were recommended by engineering.
Atkins: Yes, we did
Lehman: As being a ... something that would alleviate the problem on Highland
and Council at least at that time was not interested in pursuing that.
Atkins: That's correct. That was about six months ago when we went through
that the last time and that was the recommendation for traffic signal.
Lehman: And then a year before that and a year before that.
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: I don't know what to say.
Schaeffel: I'm sorry. IfI may say something real quick. I just, as a newcomer I
hate to step on anyone' s toes but it looks like there's a bias on favoring
Kirkwood compared to looking at the needs of another residential
street. And all due respect to Kirkwood, I understand why people
wouldn't want a stoplight, but I also know what the purpose of a
stoplight is for. I'm from a suburb of 120,000 people that is adjacent to
another suburb of the same, I'm from (can't hear) City out of
Chicago, and I see, you know, I've seen lots of ways to calm traffic
and neighborhoods that have those square blocks, but you know, just
at this point I'm thinking where is the consideration for Highland that
was politically considered for Kirkwood. At the very least, in regards
to stop signs, and I know it was suggested by John Reese, Boyrum and
Broadway, which I concur; I live at the bottom of the hill going west
on ... right before Keokuk, so. And that still doesn't address the
commercial traffic, though. That's the worst. With a three year old
daughter, I'm concerned that she's going to mn out and they're not
going to see her, and certainly I see her but kids are fast, and you all
know that. So I think just, I think Mr. Davidson needs to look at the
political consideration versus technical.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 9
Lehman: I think that, in all faimess to the staff, they have, their
recommendations have not been political. It's the Council's decisions
that perhaps are the political part of it.
Schaeffel: Okay.
Lehman: But I think we should perhaps consider we put it back in a work
session, we kick it around again, I mean, I have no problem with
talking about it.
Schaeffel: Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
Pfab: Alexandria? You bring up a point. Is it possible to put up some kind of
a sign, a neighborhood, children playing in a neighborhood or
something, something like that that's, you know, it's not ...
Lehman: Well, let's talk about it in the work session.
Schaeffel: Well, and that might be a homeowners association type participation,
ornamental tree planting, maybe naming the neighborhood sign, just so
people recognize that it is an active residential neighborhood, not a
highway, it is not an arterial road and it's being semi-used as an
arterial road, and I share the concerns that my neighbors do, and I'd
like to give them some answers, you know, hopefully City Council can
derive something out of this and understand that the issue is not dead
for us even though it feels like there' s no more options according to
the Cotmcil or City Planning.
Lehman: We're going to talk about it again.
Schaeffel: Okay. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Caroline Dieterie: I'm Caroline Dieterie. I have now had a chance to read the memo that
the City Attorney prepared regarding the three amendments, the
petitions for which are currently being passed in the City. I was made
aware of its existence by the press since no courtesy copy was sent to
any of the organizations that have been circulating the petition. And it
left me wondering and wanting to know how the request to examine
the proposed amendments to the City charter was given to the City
Attorney.
Lehman: I think if you, it probably is in the minutes of a work session when we
told the City Attorney' s Office that we felt it was important that they
keep track of the amendments. I think we have a responsibility to the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 10
population and we asked the City Attorney' s Office to keep track of
that so they were asked by the CotmciL
Dieterie: And what was the date of that work session?
Lehman: I do not remember that..
Karr: Jtme 25th.
Dieterie: June 251h? Ah hah. Okay. And was this done with a vote of the
Council, then?
Lehman: We don't take votes at work sessions.
Champion: It' s a consensus.
Kanner: Well, we do take votes at times, Ernie.
Lehman: There are never official votes.
Kanner: Well, but we do take votes. We take straw polls. That's a vote.
Lehman: We asked at a work session, I do not recall there being objections to
that. Do you?
Karmer: Well, I think that ... my traderstanding was that we would wait until
after they were submitted. I think initially we committed, I didn't
know there would be this great deal of commitment of staff time
looking into this. Usually we need four votes for that kind of thing and
we do take formal or informal, however you want to call it, votes and
so I had said that I sort of nodded an agreement to what you said about
keeping track, but I thought it would be after it was formally
submitted. Certainly, I would want to apologize that we didn't send
anything out to you, if we were going to do something before it's
formally submitted I would think that we would want to send out
information to the people who had filed the affidavit for the original
petition if there was such an affidavit. Was there a filing of the ...
Dilkes: There is no such affidavit.
Lehman: No, there isn't any.
Kanner: Okay, so then I question even more why we were looking into this
before anything officially was submitted. I think we need a work
session to talk about how we make decisions at the informal work
session. Because we do make formal decisions of sorts, sometimes we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 11
vote sometimes we don't, and we've been told, probably most of us,
that we're not going to go through with something because we didn't
have four votes, so I think that is something that needs to be clarified.
Lehman: Okay. Go ahead.
Dieterie: Well, specifically, was she instructed to give you a judgment as to the
legality of the petitions or was it some other directive? What
specifically was the wording of the request?
Lehman: I don't recall.
Champion: We don't know (can't hear).
Kanner: Well, we have the transcripts. We can get that for you.
Dieterie: Well that would be interesting.
Kanner: Or the minutes
Dieterie: I would indeed like to know that.
Lehman: Okay.
Dieterie: Within recent memory, the Council voted to regulate the actions of its
individual members, saying that each member's action must reflect the
majority' s view, and restricted the use of abstentions in Council votes.
And it has also been decreed at some point that a majority vote is
required for a Council person to put an item on the formal agenda,
apparently. So I remember a time when any Council Member could
abstain whenever they wanted and any Council Member could put any
item on the agenda that they wished to put. And I'm just thinking that
it's a little unclear to me, you know, what the real reasoning is behind
the request to the City Attorney at that early date then.
Pfab: What ... we might be able to go back and check the tape that's run on
Channel 2 of the wording and what took place at that time.
Dieterie: Oh, that's a good idea. And this was June 251h7
Pfab: Okay.
Dieterie: Is that correct?
Pfab: That's ... I believe Marian is telling you she knows where the
transcript is, or what ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 12
Dieterie: Okay, well maybe I could just get the transcript from the City Clerk.
Could I do that?
Karr: I bet you could.
Dieterie: Okay. Thank you very much.
Kanner: Could you put that in our next Council packet, a copy of that?
Karr: You have it on your CD.
Kanner: Well, for the press and for other people to have, too, so ...
Champion: It's public information.
Kanner: What?
Champion: We don't need another copy of it. It's public information.
Kanner: Well, I think it's nice to have. It's somewhat controversial, Connie,
and let's feel ...
Champion: You can print it off your computer. Why should she make up copies?
Kanner: Because I think it's easier for the general public to get it that way.
Instead of having to dig for it.
Champion: I thought you wanted one.
Kauner: What? And I'd like the public to have one, too, the press, to have it
easily available. Because I got calls about that from the press and I
think it would be good to put it into the packet. Do you object to that,
Connie? Is there something wrong with that kind of openness?
Champion: No, I thought you said you wanted a copy of it. Well, I think it makes
Kanner: I can get a copy. I'd like to put it in the packet so it's more available to
the public.
Dieterie: Well, specifically, one of the reasons why I'm inquiring is is that two
Council Members were quoted in the press as saying that no such
request had been made by a vote of the Council, either in a formal or
informal meeting, and two other people when queried, said the same
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 13
thing, so it's interesting to me to find that this actually was done on
June 25th.
Champion: It was probably very casually done. You know, I couldn't remember
doing it, but I don't ... you know, I just remember ...
Lehman: I remember talking, but I don't remember the language we used.
Champion: No, it was just, do we have ... should we look into the legalities of the
referendum. But why do you object to that?
Dieterie: No, I don't object to it. I simply am questioning, you know, the
procedure that you'd done because obviously if Ms. Dilkes was asked
on June 25th and it was a month later that she produced a memo,
presumably it took a certain amount of work on her part, you know, to
produce this, and so I was thinking that this would not have been a
casual request that Ms. Dilkes received but rather something, you
know, given some importance. And following up on that, I simply
wanted to know what the genesis of all this was and specifically, you
know, it was done and I was interested to see that no copy was being
given to the people who are actually doing the work of passing the
petition. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Charles Major: My name is Charlie Major and I live at 7 Blue Stem Court, and I'm
just coming to strongly encourage the Council to direct Eleanor Dilkes
to develop a smoking workplace ordinance so we have something to
facilitate the public discussion. If we just have a public discussion
without an ordinance, or even if we just use the model ordinance that
Caf~'s given, I think it's going to be unclear and nothing' s going to
happen for quite a while. I think it would be so much easier if Eleanor
would draft one up and then we'd have something to work from.
Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Charlie.
Kanner: What was our decision yesterday? Would someone articulate that
about getting
Lehman: The decision last night was for us to get copies of the proposed
ordinance form Cafd perhaps with comments, I'm not sure, and we
will take it up at the next work session.
Wilburn: I thought Eleanor was going to mn through a list of decisions as to
what the content of that was going to be.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 14
Lehman: Yeah. Yeah.
Pfab: Was there instructions for you to prepare a draft?
Dilkes: My understanding of your discussion at the work session last night
was that I was to provide you with another copy of the Caf~ ordinance
and another copy of my April memo listing the questions that you need
to address so that I can draft an amendment.
Lehman: I think that's correct.
Kanner: So basically we're looking at the 50% food cutoffpoint for those that
could have smoking or non-smoking, that was our first thing we're
looking at -that' s the Cafd proposal, Charlie.
Major: I just have a lot more confidence in Eleanor's proposed ordinance
ability than I do the Caf~ model ordinance which has given a lot of
cities problems.
Lehman: We'll get to it.
Brandon Ross: Hi, my name is Brandon Ross. I live at 1822 Rochester Avenue, and a
couple of things. First of all, I was fortunate enough to be living ...
I'm fortunate enough to live on Rochester and saw RAGBRAI go right
by my house, and I actually did catch Councilman Wilburn who was
lapping a few riders up there, so I was very pleased to see that. It was
quite a site to see. It was so colorful and the riders were so creative and
it brings me to the issue of transportation and considerations for car
and road in this town. I waited to see the end of the building of the
newest parking garage in this town, and I want to comment about that
and City policy and planning. First of all, those of you who can
remember three years ago, even, can think of that when you come off
of Dodge onto Iowa, or Governor onto Iowa, when you' re approaching
coming down Iowa Avenue you see a beautiful building down at the
end, something that we're all very proud of here, which is the Capitol
building. It's something that reminds us that we come from some
place, it reminds us of civic responsibility and duty. I don't think
anybody that' s lived in the City will forget that building and the way
that you can approach it. It's a beautiful site and it does stand for
something. Anybody who remembers living here will probably
remember that. Right now, as you come off Dodge Street and you
come to Johnson Street, in the summertime and the spring when there
is tree growth, you see something creeping up on the left and as you
approach Van Buren Street you see it creeping up even bigger and you
notice that it's actually quite large and it takes away the skylines view
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 15
from the Old Capitol Building. And I'm talking about the parking
garage. It's this large, block long large thing with overhanging serrated
edges that looks like at first, I think, a maximum security prison. I
don't think I'm exactly alone when I say this. I believe that what you
have done is you have compromised a beautiful space and a beautiful
view in Iowa City by putting this garage up. Those of you who read
about planning probably have read some studies that say you don't put
a parking garage in the central part of your city. One of the reasons,
well there are many reasons. One is that people don't like to walk by a
parking garage. They don't like to walk along that block. What used to
be on that block was three viable buildings and a small parking lot
area. I believe that the City should have used that area in order to build
a building in there that would have increased commerce and residential
and that you should have renovated the buildings that were there that
looked a lot more attractive, but it signals a trend in this town that is
more respecting of car traffic than the pedestrian and the bicyclist. I
think when you consider that you put a parking garage downtown you
basically took away from walking traffic and you discourage people
from walking there. Cars are going to go in and out of there. People
are not going to be wanting to walk along that. I think that that's
something that the City seems to be concerned about - traffic and how
to get more people in so more parking garages, however, when you do
that you take away of other things that could be there. People don't
want to come to a city just because there's a parking garage they can
get to. They want to come to the city because there' s something to go
to in the city. And I think that stretches out to other buildings that are
in the city, the inner part of the city that are unoccupied. And I think
that we need to do more about that. I brought up Ross Wilbum riding
in RAGBRAI which is a very beautiful thing. It's nice to see a Council
Member on the road on a bicycle and not in a car, because I think
that's something, it's a way that we have to go. Right now, in the past
ten years, asthma has increased 20% nationally and the number one
cause of teenage deaths is car accidents. And this is something that did
not exist before but I think that the City continues to plan for more and
more and more traffic and doesn't take care of its pedestrians and its
bicyclists. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Brandon, I think we had the person from Highland before and talking
about options. I think one option that we haven't explored enough is
using public transportation to cut down the amount of traffic on
Highland and also on Kirkwood Avenue as a viable option, and I think
we need to look at that as a (can't hear) option.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#3 Page 16
Lehman: We can discuss that when we bring up the Highland Avenue at work
session.
Kanner: So thanks for talking about other ways of looking at things.
Lehman: Is there other public discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4b Page 17
ITEM NO. 4b. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION
14-6E-8 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONE, TO ALLOW
DWELLINGS ON OR BELOW THE GROUND FLOOR OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK BUILDINGS BY SPECIAL
EXCEPTION.
Lehman: This is a continuation of a public hearing that started on July 10th. The
hearing is open. And we met last night with the Planning and Zoning
Commission. It appeared a week ago, or two weeks ago, three weeks
ago, I guess, that there may have been a disagreement between the
Cotmcil and the Planning and Zoning Commission and as required by
our own rules, we met with that group. They have not recommended
approval of this ordinance and I guess at this point we will discuss
that. Do we have discussion on the part of Council?
O'Donnell: I would move to amend the motion by replacing the original proposed
amendment ...
Lehman: I'm sorry, we still have a public heating. Is there anyone who would
like to speak at the public hearing?
2. Consider an Ordinance
Lehman: Public heating is closed. Do we have a motion?
Champion: I'll move it.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Wilburn. First consideration of the ordinance.
O'Donnell: Okay, now, I would move to amend this motion by replacing the
original proposed amendment with altemative language as received by
the Council this evening.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. The ordinance, the
amendment as proposed to the Council was less restrictive than the
amendment that has been proposed by Mr. O'Donnell. Discussion? I
think it's important to point out, and help me with this, Karin, if I ... if
you may. There are seven properties in the downtown area that could
possibly be affected by this amendment. They are, and you're going to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4b Page 18
have to help me, but the Episcopal Church, the old Public Library, the
Commerce Building across the street,
Franklin: No, not the Commerce Building.
Lehman: The Masonic Temple, the old Press Citizen Building, the Senior
Citizen Center, and what are the other two?
Franklin: The Masonic Building and then the two buildings on Linn Street, the
old mortuary and the building right next door to that, well basically
between the alley and Iowa Avenue on the west side of Lirm Street.
Lehman: Right. And these are the only properties in the downtown area that
would be subject to this language?
Franklin: Right. With the language that we discussed last night, with those
criteria that define those buildings that are commercial storefronts, that
eliminates a lot of possibilities of conversion to residential.
Lehman: Right. And this amendment has been triggered by the designation of
the Old Library as an historic landmark, and in trying to keep that
building in the downtown area where it's historic significance, the
owners, I believe, had determined that it is not economically feasible
to use the first level of that building for commercial and have asked
that they be able to use the first level of that for residential. As a result
of that, we have the amendment that stands before us now and also a
listing of the buildings to which it could be applied, and those are the
buildings we just mentioned. Discussion of the amendment?
O'Donnell: Well, I want to comment on Planning and Zoning concern was once
you lose retail to residential it's lost forever. And I'm of the opinion
that with so few buildings involved, saving this Carnegie Library, well
not saving but trying to preserve it somewhat in its natural state, is
important enough to do this.
Champion: Well (can't hear) as a choice between saving the building by this
ordinance or having it tom down, I think it's worth saving. I think this
is an exception and there is going to be a few other exceptions possibly
along the way. I don't have any problem supporting this. I think it's
going to be a wonderful adventure in preserving that building.
O'Donnell: I agree.
Lehman: I also need to point out that even the seven buildings that have been
identified cannot be used as residential without the Board of
Adjustment approving that. And they've got certain criteria that they
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4b Page 19
have to present to the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Adjustment
has to approve that. It does not mean that those seven buildings, by
any stretch of the imagination, will become residential properties. It's
going to be very difficult to do that. Further discussion? All in favor
say aye, opposed? Amendment carries, 5-1, Pfab voting in the
negative. Discussion on the motion as amended? Now, we have been
asked ... are we still being asked to expedite this?
Karr: You typically have another reading anyway.
Lehman: We wouldn't do that until the next meeting. Alright, let's just take this
as it is. Discussion on the motion as amended? Roll call. Motion
carries 5-1, Pfab voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4c Page 20
ITEM NO. 4c. PUBLIC HEARING ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 26.88 ACRES OF
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF SCOTT
BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND 6.22 ACRES
OF PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD
AND SOUTH OF LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD.
Lehman: I'm going to open the public hearing, and for those folks who have
agendas, and I hope you all do, the next three items, four items are all
relative to annexations in the same general area, so we will accept
comments relative to any of these ... I won't ask you to differentiate
between whichever particular item we happen to be talking about
because I'm not sure all of us know exactly, but we do know that the
comments probably are going to be relative to one or more of the items
that are coming up, so the hearing is open.
Public Bearing
Franklin: I'm not going to say anything, I just want to put up a picture.
Lehman: Yeah, this will give an idea of the area we are talking about.
Champion: I thought maybe when people speak they could say what color they
live in or are speaking about. I'd kind of like to know what ....
Lehman: The 6.22 acres we're talking about here is, I don't know which one it
is, Karin.
Champion: East of
Franklin: Okay, the 26.88 acres is the olive green; the 6.22 is the lighter green;
and then this is the other item which is 105.2 acres. And then this is
approximately 10 acres here of the light blue. The Hummingbird Lane
properties.
Kirsten Frey: Good evening. My name is Kirsten Frey, and I am an attorney and I
represent the applicant on Items, the first two items on your agenda,
the annexation and rezoning, on the applicant is Plum Grove Acres. I
really don't have much to add. I did just want to let the Council know
that I'm here and able to answer questions if you have any. Also with
me tonight is Larry Schnittjer, the engineer who helped design the
plans. I think we've put a fair amount of effort into the concept plan
before the Council and I just wanted to let you know we're here and
available to answer any questions or public comment if you'd like us
to.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4c Page 21
Lehman: Okay. Thank you.
Frey: Thank you.
Bob Downer: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I'm Bob Downer. I am
appearing here this evening as attomey for the Iowa City
Rehabilitation and Health Care Center. This is a property that is
depicted in lavender east of the green parcel. This is not a property that
at this time has been the subject of a petition for annexation but will be
if the green application is approved.
TAPE CHANGE
Bob Downer: ... the Care Center several years ago in connection with a problem that
had arisen with regard to the sewage lagoon that is located on the
green parcel at this point and which serves the care center and has
since that property was constructed in the 1960s. This is a ... has been
something of a problem. The lagoon is presently in compliance with
applicable requirements of the DNR. It is checked frequently and there
are no outstanding violations or anything of that nature with respect to
it. But the care center recognizes that this is not an appropriate way at
this point to be handling the disposal of solid waste that this needs to
be connected to City sewer and my marching orders on this several
years ago was to ... were to see what could be done to annex to the
City. I have worked to a considerable extent to staff, which has been
extremely helpful in connection with this. We'd looked at alternate
ways of annexation but the only way that really made any sense was to
have the property in the green annexed and then have sewer service
extended from the south. There have been several alternate routes
looked at in connection with obtaining a sewer connection, but that' s
the only one that really makes sense in that regard too. So over an
above the advantages to the City that would be derived in my opinion
through the annexation of this parcel in and of itself, I do believe that
there is a strong public interest in being able to get the care center
connected to City sewer service to eliminate the lagoon there that is
certainly unsightly to neighbors and others and while it's been a
necessity up to this point, it's something that' s well past the point, in
my opinion, where an alternative should be developed so that that
could be connected. If this is acted upon favorably by the Council, I
have been directed to file the necessary documents for annexation.
This is not a matter that will require approval of the City development
board, so I think even though this is starting off somewhat behind
these other proposals, it could be concluded at approximately the same
time.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4c Page 22
Lehman: But it does require that this first annexation occur before you could
make that application.
Downer: That's right.
Lehman: Okay.
Downer: I was only appearing here to indicate that this has ramifications other
than for the particular properties itself and the interest of the care
center in pursuing annexation.
Lehman: Thank you Bob.
Downer: Thank you.
Kanner: I have a question for you.
Downer: Sure.
Kanner: I'm sony, could you tell me your name again, please?
Downer: Bob Downer.
Kanner: Bob. Thanks for coming. In regards to property tax, are you for-profit
or non-profit?
Downer: For-profit. This facility is on the tax rolls, has been since it was
constructed. It's always been ... while there have been several
different owners of it, it's always been operated as a for-profit facility.
Kanner: And I assume you've done studies on fixing up the lagoon if you
didn't get sewer. Have there been such studies?
Downer: Yes.
Kanner: What would be the cost for you to fix that up?
Downer: There's a question of who is responsible for the cost. And there's a
difference of opinion between the owner of the lagoon and the care
center with regard to this. That has ... the numbers that I had seen on
that, as I recall, were in the $30,000 to $40,000 area. It was felt that
frankly this was not a prudent use of that amount of money since it
was contemplated that this lagoon would have only a very limited
useful life anyway and that those funds could be much better expended
devising a permanent solution to the waste disposal problems of the
care center.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4c Page 23
Kanner: One more question. So it sounds like your organization might be
willing to pay some or all of that $30,000 to help with connection to
the sewer?
Downer: Well, there will be ongoing expenses associated with this and there has
been no discussion at this point in connection with who would bear
what responsibility for the cost of this. There are some substantial
increased costs that will be associated with being annexed to the City
of Iowa City, although there are felt to be advantages. But there has
been no study of costs on a long-term basis and who would be required
to bear what portion of the costs of a sewer.
Lehman: But that's a long ways away, even if you're next that trunk sewer isn't
going to get to you for awhile, is it?
Downer: Well, hopefully,
Lehman: (can't hear) across the street.
Downer: Hopefully, sooner rather than later. We have been indicating to the
DNR that we've been working toward this annexation and they, I
think, are anxious to see the lagoon replaced in the relatively near
future. And I know that neighbors in that area are.
Champion: Am I correct, though, that you have not even applied for annexation
yet?
Downer: No, but if there ... if it appears that this is going to go forward I don't
think it would wait until final passage even, Connie, if it looks like this
is going to go forward my instructions are to get the documents ready
and get them filed.
Champion: And then you'll work with staff on how they would proceed.
Downer: Yes. Exactly.
Champion: Okay, thank you. That's what I (can't hear).
Pfab: I wanted to make a point of thanking you for coming and with the
information and your concerns, and another advantage of this
annexation. Also, I have one question and it's do you have control
over the lagoon after you get hooked to the sewer?
Downer: Probably not. That, I have not looked at the easement that deals with
that for a long time. I have a copy of it but I don't recall. But I think
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4c Page 24
that that would be abandoned at that point and I'm sure as a part of any
development of the adjoining property they would want to get rid of it.
It obviously wouldn't enhance the sale of lots in that development but
I think that would simply be abandoned as soon as sewer service was
available there. To the best of my knowledge, there's no other user of
the lagoon.
Pfab: Was that ever a wetland area? I notice there's a number of small
wetland areas that seem to be zapped and disappearing and I don't
know if that is one, that was just my question. I just ... for
information.
Downer: I have no idea. Because that was constructed, if memory serves me
correctly, in the early to mid 60s and I have no idea of what the
wetland characteristics of that property might be.
Pfab: I have one other comment. Again, I want to thank you for coming and
making your point.
Downer: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Bob. With the Cotmcil's permission, I would like to close
the public hearing on Item c. There does not appear to be anyone here
objecting to this.
Champion: Okay.
Lehman: Now, this is the first item only I'm talking about. We'll then start the
next one. Is there someone else who'd like to speak to Plum Grove
Acres, the first item? Alright. Public Hearing Closed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 25
ITEM NO. 4d. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE
APPROXIMATLEY 38.24 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMLY, RS-5, COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL,
CH, COUNTY LOCAL COMMERCIAL, C1 AND
COUNTYMULTI-FAMILY, R3A TO COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL, CC-2 (10.99 ACRES), MEDIUM DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY, RS-8 (21 ACRES) AND LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY, RS-5 (6.22 ACRES) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF
ROCHESTER AVENUE AND LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD.
(REZ99-00017)
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Public Hearing
Lehman: This public heating, I understand, will have to be continued to August
21 st because of some ...
Dilkes: Wait a minute, we've got the
Franklin: We just got the additional zoning agreement tonight, so it's okay.
Lehman: We have the required legal work in order, so ... public hearing is
opened. Now this is the large blue area?
Franklin: No, this is the little green area next to the RS-8. This is the zoning for
this property for this property in here.
Lehman So this is the zoning on the same property?
Franklin: Yes. And this one here. So it's just, it's just the green. The green
shades.
Lehman: This is the zoning on the annexation we just talked about.
Franklin: Yes, you got it.
Lehman: If I'd read it I would know. This is a zoning item, not an annexation
item. Is there comment from the public on the zoning of this property?
Bob Wolf: I guess ...
Lehman: Bob, give your name.
Wolf: I'm sorry. Bob Wolf, 3732 Hummingbird Lane.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 26
Lehman: Thank you.
Wolf: I guess I'm here for the and with the residents on Hummingbird Lane.
I didn't realize that there was a little piece that is a portion of
Hununingbird Lane that's attached to that, and I guess ... it looks like
half of Hummingbird Lane goes with that.
Lehman: Karin can answer that.
Franklin: Maybe I can clear it up, or maybe not. Okay. There is a portion of
Hummingbird Lane which is the right-of-way right here which is
owned by Plum Grove Acres and as part of this annexation was to
annex that piece, dedicate the right-of-way to the City such that the
City would then be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the
continuation of Hummingbird Lane. Currently this area is not paved. It
would be covered with chip seal and then would be maintained by the
City.
Lehman: Our half?. We're getting half of the roadway, is that ...
Franklin: No. Right now, Hummingbird Lane goes from Scott Park Drive, it
then stops as a public street at this point.
Lehman: Okay.
Franklin: This part currently is in the County. It is an access easement for the
properties along Hummingbird Lane here from when they were in the
county before they had any access to a City public street. Currently,
these property owners are responsible for the maintenance of this way.
With the annexation, the City would take over maintenance and
improvement of that.
Lehman: So that does include ... the rezoning and the annexation includes
Hummingbird Lane from the end of where it is currently developed to
the whatever, Lower West Branch Road, is it?
Franklin: Right.
Lehman: Alright.
Karmer: Can you show us the map with the zoning change on there, where the
CC-2 will be?
Franklin: Uh, well, I got one I ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 27
Kanner: There it is.
Franklin: Yeah.
Kanner: Thank you. That's what we're talking about on this site on the
rezoning.
Lehman: Okay.
Franklin: This map was done when the original application came in so it doesn't
show this little strip that we're talking about right now, but basically
that would become
Wolf: So is that down by the RS-8?
Franklin: Yeah, it's right there.
Wolf: It doesn't, the piece we're talking about doesn't show up on this
particular drawing?
Lehman: Well, I think we probably can go back to the first one.
Franklin: Yeah.
Lehman: Right there. Okay, Bob, go ahead.
Wolf: Well, I just wasn't aware that that was ... I'd heard the rumor that the
City was going to maintain the oiled portion but I wasn't aware that it
was going to be annexed. I guess I kind of assumed it would be the
light blue color, the same as the area where we lived. But I guess I
would like to ask for a deferrnent because I think there's a lot of issues
that we have as neighbors that really didn't get answered in the prior
meetings. So if that would be possible, I think it would be a really
good idea.
Lehman: Well, Bob, I think that ... I guess maybe we should know some of the
questions that we don't have answers to before we decide to defer it.
Wolf: Alright.
Lehman: And I am sympathetic to you. I just don't think, just saying we have
questions, that ... I'm sure you may relay some of those questions to
tlS.
Wolff Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 28
Lehman: Or questions that you don't feel you got answers that you're satisfied
with.
Wolf: First of all, I guess we're rather upset about the increased cost in taxes.
And I was hoping that we could do something more about that. Most
of us have our own private wells, and I don't know what the life of a
well is but I would imagine that it's probably 20 years or better. We
don't really want to be forced onto City water. We have septic tanks
which are well maintained and not particularly interested in being
forced onto City sewer. That ... we understand there might be a
benefit on the cost of our premiums on fire insurance. I think that
would be minimal compared to the enormous increase in cost on
property tax.
Pfab: Bob?
Wolf: Yes?
Pfab: I have a question. What kind of costs are incurred by you as property
owners for that road at this point that would no longer be a direct cost
to you?
Wolf: You're talking about the things that we pay for?
Pfab: Right.
Wolf: We have garbage.and recycling that we pay for privately. We pay for
having the road plowed, snowplowing. That costs us about a grand a
year, and it's divided up amongst seven of us.
Pfab: Okay. So it's really minimal?
Wolf: We really don't have any problem with taking care of ourselves.
We've kind of enjoyed that. There' s been times when we've all got out
there with our snow blowers and cleaned the road off because the other
people couldn't get there to do it in time for us. The way it's set up
right now is, when we get up in the morning, our road's plowed, and
we like it that way.
Pfab: I just ... I have no idea what the road costs were, that's (can't hear).
Champion: What is the different in property tax?
Wolf: As near as we can tell from the information we've collected, I think
it's going to go like from $2200 or $2500 up to about $6000.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 29
Champion: No, I don't think that's possible.
Dilkes: The numbers are in your packet.
Wolf: Yeah, I don't have a copy of that with me, so
Champion: Oh, that's a lot.
Wolf: Yes.
Champion: Oh, my God.
Wilburn: Perhaps Karin could answer some of the questions. We had some of
those same questions and the staff has answered some of those
questions that you brought up and perhaps Karin can address them
right now.
Franklin: As the Council's aware, we did have a meeting with the property
owners of Hummingbird Lane before this annexation proposal went to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and discussed with them the
various issues that would arise with this. Two of those which Bob has
raised of the sewer and water indicated to the property owners that
there would be no compulsion that they hook onto City sewer and
water for 20 years. If they wish to hook onto City water they could do
so immediately and they would need to wait for sewer until that sewer
was installed to the rear of the properties. With the conditional zoning
for the Southgate Lindeman that you'll be talking about next, there is
provision for a easement along the back property lines for the people
on Hummingbird Lane to enable them to get onto City sewer if they
wish, when the sewer is in place, but they do not have to for 20 years.
Lehman: Okay, the Hummingbird Lane annexation is the next item, fight?
Franklin: It is.
Lehman: Alright. And this
Franklin: Do you want me to wait?
Lehman: No, not necessarily, go right ahead.
Champion: They're connected so closely.
Lehman: They're all hooked together.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page30
Franklin: Yeah. The refuse collection, that also has a one year grace period,
understanding that there will be contracts that the property owners
currently have for refuse collection. The tax issue, we understand, is a
serious issue for people. There is a provision in State Code which
allows the City Council to transition taxes over a period of five years
for annexations of this nature, and in the resolutions for annexation we
have proposed that you do include that tax transition with the
annexation that would cover both the Hummingbird Lane properties
and the property, the 6.22 acres. The Council received a hypothetical
rundown of what the tax differences would be if the properties were in
the County versus in the City. And then each of the property owners
should have received a copy of a breakdown for them individually
showing their assessed value, taxable value, their current taxes, and
then what the taxes would be over six years if they were annexed into
Iowa City. The largest amount is for one property which goes from a
current tax of $4,458.28 to $6,822.22. The smallest is a very small lot
so it does not have significance. Just to give another example, current
tax of $2,402.70 becomes $3,676.77 after six years. The first year on
that property that I just cited the increase in tax would go from $2,402
to $2,447.
Wilburn: Then, Karin, this provision you're speaking of is, is that a gradual
increase per year?
Franklin: Yes, yes.
Lehman: So you're saying the total increase on the particular lot you're talking
about goes from $2,400 to $3,676.
Franklin: That' s correct.
Lehman: That's the difference between being in ... now that's total tax?
Franklin: And that's based on ... I'm going to have to qualify this. It's based on
the assessed value now, the rollback now, and the levy now. We can't
tell what it will be six years from now.
Lehman: Right. But what I guess, if I'm hearing this right, that the $1,200 or the
$1,174, whatever it happens to be, would be the amount of taxes that
would be added on for the City. Right now the $2,402 is County and
school district tax. $3,676 would be the addition of what you would
have to pay in City assessment.
Franklin: Well, it's the difference because there is a county tax which they will
no longer pay, the secondary roads tax, so yeah, sort of.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 31
Lehman: Okay, how soon do we anticipate the tnmk sewer that will be going
across the Lindeman property to get to Lower West Branch Road?
How soon would we reasonably expect Hummingbird Lane to be able
to use that sewer if they chose to do so? Guess.
Franklin: Given the needs of the care center, which is something that we've been
dealing with for some years, I would recommend that as we go over
the capital improvements program in the fall, or whenever we get to it
for the next 2002-2006, that that trunk sewer be placed in a funded
year. It is not now. It is out of your funded program, and the sooner,
the better.
Lehman: In other words, within five years?
Franklin: Yes. Definitely.
Lehman: Okay, now last night I asked you on the Hummingbird Lane
properties, and I think ... and I still see the three little properties that
we're not annexing that are those ... that one and those two.
Obviously, the Hummingbird Lane property is adjacent to the smaller
one.
Franklin: Yes.
Lehman: And you, I believe, you explained why we were interested in annexing
Hummingbird Lane, and I think one of the reasons is that if that
property is annexed into the City, their ability to prevent further
annexation would be significantly reduced. In other words, if
annexation were to occur
Franklin: Yes.
Lehman: Is that correct? And that's a genuine concern.
Franklin: Yes, it is. As we plan for the future growth of the City and the growth
of Iowa City in its growth area, which these properties are, that is a
legitimate concern of the City.
Lehman: I agree with you.
Franklin: There is that and then there is the issue of the service island and clarity
on exactly who is to serve these properties which essentially become
interior to Iowa City.
Lehman: If we had an agreement with the residents on Hummingbird Lane that
they would voluntarily annex themselves into the City and not object
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page32
to any annexation upon their ability to hook up to the sewer, would
that be an acceptable sort of thing to us? In other words, they would
voluntarily, at the time that they can hook up to the sewer, or five
years, they would voluntarily annex and agree not to object to any
annexation? So it would give them a period of time to prepare
themselves or whatever for annexation into the City.
Champion: And they would still get the benefits of a five year and all that stuff,
right?
Lehman: Yeah, but they would then have the ability, and I think the
responsibility, of hooking up to that sewer. Is that something that
would address the interests of the City?
Franklin: I'm trying to (can't hear) this in my head.
Dilkes: I think ... I mean, that's not something that I think that we can
probably answer today.
Lehman: No, I understand, I'm sorry, I don't expect an answer.
Atkins: Karin, a quick answer to that is that it would be ... it's that service
island problem? If property one decides to hook up and then two and
three don't and then four ...
Lehman: No, it would have to be
Arkins: It's either all or nothing.
Lehman: All or nothing. And I'm not sure that that sort of thing is of interest to
the folks who live there, but I think it is something that if there is
interest, could be looked at.
Dilkes: I think if we ... we've seen when we've dealt with some other things
that when negotiating agreements to annex in the future and all that
involves can be a complicated transaction. I think we'd just have to
give that some thought before we can answer that question.
Lehman: Okay.
Franklin: I wouldn't rule it out.
Lehman: Okay. I think it's ... I mean, I'm interested obviously in what's best
for the community, but I'm also interested in issues of faimess for
everybody, and that's just occurred to me. I'm sony, go ahead, Steven.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 33
Karmer: Before Karin left, if there was any question on this particular issue I
had a question about the rezoning of that property. If you could go
back to that other map.
Franklin: That one?
Kanner: Yea. The space up at the top that we're surrounding with the CC-27
Franklin: This?
Kauner: Yes. What is that again?
Franklin: That's Mr. Zaicek's salvage yard.
Kanner: Okay. And how does that fit in with the ... is that City?
Franklin: That is within the City fight now. And that would be rezoned from
whatever it is, I'd have to go back and look at ... at some point. We're
not talking about doing that right now. But I think it's probably RS-5
or RS-8.
Kanner: And it's grandparented to allow them to have the salvage yard as long
as they have continuous operation of that, no matter what we might
rezone it?
Franklin: Well, I can't speak to the legal status of the salvage yard because I
don't know enough about it, but it's been there for a long time, yeah.
The plan is is that at some point in time, because all things change, this
will be incorporated into a commercial development that will define
this comer of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. When, who
knows? This has been designed such that this commercial area can
function without that in the short term. And I bet they put up a lot of
screening here.
Kauner: Do we have any kind of wording in our potential, well the concept
plan that we're incorporating into some of the language that we have
of what the developers have to adhere to. Do we put ... take into
consideration that property and how they interact with that property?
You said screening. Are we putting that in there specifically?
Franklin: Well, I was ... no. And that, I wasn't being totally serious then.
Kanner: I understand but maybe if we
Franklin: This drive right here contemplates that there will be the potential for
connection with this property. Understand this is owned by another
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 34
property owner. We can't do anything with it right now. As we have
discussed this concept plan with the ... with Plum Grove Acres, we
have talked about it in the context of at some time this being
incorporated and designing it such that that will occur, or can occur.
Kanner: Well, I'm concerned more from the other angle of protecting his
property rights from this big new thing that' s coming in there.
Lehman: You mean all the trees?
Kanner: What's that?
Lehman: You're worried about protecting Mr. Zaicek from this development?
Kanner: Well, I'm looking at are there any things that we need to be concemed
about and need to write into the agreement in the rezoning.
Lehman: That's probably going to be between him and the developer to talk
about, not us.
Franklin: I ... well, his is a more intensive use that we would typically describe
as an industrial type of use. Usually what you are doing is you are
screening those uses from less intensive uses, which is what this
commercial would be. I can't off the top of my head think of what
would be done other than possibly some screening around it.
Kanner: Well, I'm not sure either. I'm just saying that I think we need to look
at that in that context. I think this is someone who's been there for a
long while. Maybe it serves a good purpose for the community. I'm
not that sure of it. But they've been there and all of a sudden we've got
this whole big other development that's coming down right next to it,
and it seems to me that we ought to make sure that we have some
things written that the developer's going to have to adhere to, we
ought to make sure that they're going to be able to work with this
property right next door and not continually put pressure on them to
sell out through different, whatever the tactics might be or whatever
pressures there might be.
Lehman: I don't believe there'd be any pressure to sell out. I think the last price
I heard on that ground would totally eliminate any pressure.
Franklin: And typically we do not get involved in business transactions between
people and whether they choose to approach somebody else to buy
their land or to sell land. And that's basically a private matter.
Lehman: Will this be a planned area development?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 35
Franklin: Yeah. The conditional zoning agreement requires that all of the RS-8
development which is south of this road come back as a planned
development.
Lehman: How about the other?
Franklin: Any site plan or subdivision of this area must conform generally
conform to what is shown on what you see before you.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: Who said, one of the developer's representatives said planned
development would never go for that. Or words to that effect, at a
Planning and Zoning meeting.
Franklin: That was on the Southgate-Lindeman.
Kanner: Southgate, yeah. They would avoid PDH like a plague. Why is that
they would ...
Franklin: Well, the person who said it is here in the audience, I think you can
probably ask him. And that is not on this particular item.
Kanner: That would be for the Southgate
Franklin: Yes it would be.
Kanner: Okay. But you obviously don't agree. You think PDH is a good
planning tool.
Franklin: I think it's a good planning tool. I can understand why he said what he
said.
Lehman: Karin, before you leave, on this particular rezoning item and I suspect
on the next item there may be a little more, some more questions, is
the rezoning, is the public heating on this item, which obviously we
may close if we choose, is that going to have a significant effect on the
next item which is the rezoning of Hummingbird Lane in case we have
questions and want to continue that one? Are they inter-related to the
point that this one should be continued as well? I don't personally see
that they are.
Franklin: No, no. One can stand without the other.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4d Page 36
Pfab: I have a question. Now, we're talking about the sewer eventually
running up to Iowa City Care Center.
Franklin: Um hmm.
Pfab: How much sewer lines, now this is going to be a tnmk that's going to
run up directly to that?
Franklin: It will be a trunk line that will come up along a drainageway which
nms kind of like that, then goes across this property and comes into a
drainageway here. This is generally where the lagoons are and we
would need to get it up at least to the point where the lines that are
feeding the lagoon can come into that trunk sewer.
Pfab: So that ...
Franklin: Basically it's a tnmk line, Irvin, that will come up here and then will
be what' s called a lateral that will come off of the care center to that
trunk line.
Pfab: Okay. My concern is the tnmk line and the one going up to
Hummingbird Lane property owners.
Franklin: Okay, this is the main trunk line. The Hummingbird Lane property
owners, there will be an easement that will come from somewhere
along this boundary down to the tnmk which will enable these
properties to hook on.
Pfab: Okay.
Franklin: And then there's also an easement along the back property lines which
could be used to get from, for instance if there were a house here, to
that other sewer line. Okay?
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: Is there other discussion on the rezoning during the public heating on
Item d? Public Heating Closed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 37
ITEM NO. 4e. PUBLIC HEARING ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 95.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF COURT STREET, SOUTH OF LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD,
AND EAST OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE / SCOTT PARK DRIVE, AND
APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LOWER
WEST BRANCH ROAD AND EAST OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE. (ANN01-00001)
Lehman: Public heating is open.
Public Hearing
Glenn Siders: Good evening. My name is Glenn Siders, I am with Southgate
Development Company here in Iowa City, we are the applicant for this
annexation request. I am addressing the dark blue area, not to be
confused with the light blue area to the west or the purple to the north,
and I am only addressing the 95 acre tract which is referred to as the
Lindeman property, and I'm not referring to the Hummingbird Lane
annexation request. We were asked by the Lindeman family, the owner
of this tract, to do the paperwork for them. That's why we are the
applicant of this annexation request. I will be very brief and state only
that this particular tract of land is in a targeted area, the zoning in
Items e. and f., both the zoning that we are requesting is consistent
with the neighborhood, obviously you're adjacent to the existing City
limits, all the infrastructure is there or will be in place as we extend the
infrastructure throughout the development, and we feel that this
annexation should be approvcd. We have negotiated a conditional
zoning agreement. That agreement has been signed and forwarded to
the City, and I would be available for any questions including Mr.
Kanner's question on the plague.
Champion: What, on the plague?
Siders: I did make that statement. The reason I stated that we preferred to go
with straight RS-5 and RS-8 zoning because we wanted to just come in
with a normal subdivision plat and have regular lots and blocks where
you just subdivide a piece of property. Many times when you get into
planned area developments, that type of thing, you really get hung up
with time delays and a lot of times expenses, and primarily on design
issues. We've ... in the past they even talked about color concretes, of
changing roof structures, and so on and so on and so on. We don't care
to do that in this development. Any other questions? Thank you.
Kanner: You haven't considered a peninsula-type design?
Siders: Correct, we have not.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001. ~
Page 38
Lehman: Very straightforward. Thank you.
Kanner: Karin, I had a question, comment, I guess, for you. You gave me a
copy of the fiscal impact analysis for the Windsor Ridge and
Sycamore Farms annexation areas from 1992. Yesterday at the work
session I was asking if there was any fiscal impact statements done for
the annexation for these properties that we're looking at, and you said
no, and I believe it would be a good thing for the Council to do. I think
we should consider before we vote on it asking for a similar study.
One thing I found interesting just looking at it briefly was that in the
executive summary for these properties they said that the residential
development within the proposed annexation areas would pay for
nearly all of its associated municipal and school district expenditures.
However, certain public expenditures resulting from the development
of these areas could require increases in taxes, increases in other
revenue sources and/or use of current cash. So it looks like the analysis
here was that it was a negative. Do you think that's held up over the
last 8 years? Is that shown to be true, that statement about running
perhaps a deficit?
Franklin: No. The only extra expenditure that we've had because of the Windsor
Ridge annexation has been the, whether it's calcium fluoride or
whatever has had to have been done on the abutting streets, Taft
Avenue, has been an expenditure for the County. I think, as I recall,
the agreement that we had was that Iowa City would take care of the
maintenance of American Legion Road; the County would take care of
Taft Avenue. And if I'm wrong it's just the other way around, but I
think that's the way it turned out.
Arkins: That's correct.
Franklin: So there's been that expenditure. To date, well we have some mowing
expenses in the open spaces, but that' s something that we would have
in any neighborhood where we have an open space and it's been public
policy to have open spaces in neighborhoods, so.
Kanner: So you're saying that the development taxes cover the cost of police,
fire and
Franklin: We have not done a follow-up analysis of the development to record
police calls, etc.
Kanner: And those are all things that are taken into account when we talk about
costs and transit costs.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 39
Franklin: Transit does not go to Windsor Ridge, would not go to these
developments either. Initially anyway.
Kanner: But that's what they look at here as far as analyzing everything.
Franklin: Yeah.
Kanner: So I would ask that Council that we take a look at the fiscal impact.
And it might show that this is a net gain for us. I don't know if
Sycamore or Windsor Ridge, I don't think it had any commercial
aspect to it.
Franklin: I will say that the reason that we did the fiscal impact with Windsor
Ridge and Sycamore was because it was the first time in probably 15
years that we had done any significant annexation at all. The City had
had a property of not annexing property for residential development
and there was a shift in that policy when these annexations came
before the City. The fiscal impact analysis does take some time. If you
do wish us to do it, I would hope that it is because it is critical to your
decision-making.
Kanner: I would think people might want to take a look at this. I would hope all
the Council Members would take a look and we could analyze this.
Lehman: Karin, is it almost impossible to determine at any given time what that
development will generate in property taxes, given the uncertainty of
housing markets that, you know, we know that the basic zoning will
be. We do not know at what level those home will be built, at what
price they will be built or how quickly they will be built. Isn't that
really difficult to do?
Franklin: Well, as I said last night these kinds of analyses, whether you call it
fiscal impact or cost benefit, is as much art as it is science. You have
to speculate on what's going to be built even if you know the densities
and what types of things that can be built, but you don't know exactly
what will be built, what the price point will be, or when it will happen.
Lehman: So any decision made on that speculation would not necessarily be a
sound decision.
O'Donnell: You're offering an educated guestimate.
Franklin: I think you all have to make that judgment.
Kanner: Yeah, Ernie, you could say, not having that, you want to make it an
even more uneducated guess, is that what you're saying?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 40
Lehman: No, I think what Karin just asked us, would we use that as a measure
of whether or not we're going to annex that property. I would not.
Would other Council people use that as a factor in deciding that this
property would be annexed or not?
Champion: I think there's too many intangibles to talk about when you're talking
about impact. You're talking about bringing more workers to the area,
you're talking about people who hire people and tell them to do things,
you're talking about construction workers. I don't think you can
include all those things, you're talking about a lot of economic reasons
to have people in town. So I'm not interested in an impact study. I
don't think there's any way you can do it.
Kanner: Connie, so you've mentioned some reasons why we might want to
have this here. There's also arguments of urban/suburban sprawl and
of workers, perhaps we don't need workers, could be a case could be
made. And perhaps we are, who are we benefiting? And there' s loss of
farmland. So there' s issues of smart growth you can make on both
sides. But I for one want to have as much information as possible
when I make these major decisions. I think it would help us, would
behoove us to look at it at the next session.
Champion: I would rather see this growth that's contingent as to the City than
growth out in the county that to me is totally urban sprawl. This is
contiguous to what's already developed, and you know, growth, I
think, is healthy and growth does take a planner, there isn't any
question about it. But I don't think that all this growth around Iowa
City is going to eat up all the farmland in Iowa. How much of Iowa is
actually residential? Do you have any idea? It's about 5%.
Kanner: How much is residential?
Champion: Yes, developed.
Wilbum: Well, with all due respect, this is a public hearing, we've got a member
of the public making comments.
Lehman: Please.
Champion: It's the Kanner-Champion fight.
Greg Muilenburg: My name is Greg Muilenburg. I live on Hummingbird Lane, 3736,
second to the last one. It's interesting that the talk of taxes and money
came up. We have looked at the projections of the City to, for our
property it looks to be about a $1300 to $1400 a year increase in taxes,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 41
which is considerable. And to answer some of your questions, it looks
to me that we would save about $350 between the change in our
household insurance and in what we pay to maintain our road, so it's a
considerable increase in what it will cost us. At this point, it doesn't
appear that the City can give us much in return in contract to the letter
that we received from the City staff. We do pay for many of the
services already that we use around town. I'd prefer that you consider
waiting to annex us
TAPE CHANGE
Muilenburg: Especially in light of the small piece of property there that is not being
annexed, in fairness it is not much different than taking us in. I don't
see the difference to that or any of the other ones along that side. We
just feel that we're not getting a retum for our money. It's quite an
increase in our taxes. Admittedly the City does have some leaf pickup
for us, but at this point we can bum in the County and that doesn't cost
us anything.
Pfab: I have a question for you, in the sense that everyone out there is very
healthy and never has any accidents or anything like that, fight?
Muilenburg: I can't say that would never happen, no.
Pfab: What happens the day that you have an accident and you have
Muilenburg: The ambulance service is the same.
Pfab: Same ambulance service? What about First Responders?
Muilenburg: The what?
Pfab: First Responders.
Muilenburg: First Responders would be a little slower, I'd agree to that.
Pfab: Okay. I mean, I just ... and Fire Department, too.
Muilenburg: The garbage disposal came up, too. I was interested in the refuse
pickup. At this point I can put out anything I want in any quantity, and
anything I want to recycle and it is all taken. When I go into the City
that won't happen. Your services are not as good as what I get now.
Sorry, that's true.
Lehman: Don't use the word "good" because we do put a value on recycling,
too.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 42
Muilenburg: Yeah, but you don't take everything.
Lehman: That' s right.
Champion: We do, we do.
Lehman: Just call us ahead of time, we just charge you extra.
Muilenburg: Yeah, charge more. That's right.
Kanner: Your recycling, private recycling, takes plastics higher than number 27
Muilenburg: They take everything, yes, they do. We recycle everything.
Kanner: That's good. Maybe we'll get there one of these days if you join us
then.
Muilenburg: Uh, right. Any other questions. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Brandon Ross: Hi, I'd just like to ask, and there's a lot of this I don't know, but I'm
curious, in annexing this site, I assume that development is really what
is imminent here, and I'm curious as to whether or not amenities are
going to be made for things like public transportation, local store, civic
area, building or recreational area or building, and my concems grow
out of the sprawl issue because when you build neighborhoods like
this you tend to increase traffic a lot because people can only get in
and out of those areas with their cars. So I have a concern for this area
and would like to know if someone would like to speak to that.
Lehman: I think, one of the things that will be required because of our parkland
dedication ordinance, will be a certain amount of that property will
have to be dedicated to green space. As far as conunercial space, you
know, the laws of supply and demand are going to determine whether
or not you can support commercial. This is not going to have
commercial, but as you'll notice in the last rezoning we talked about
there is a neighborhood commercial that's fairly close.
Ross: Even for something like a small comer store or something like that.
The reason I ask this is because there are some developments that I've
seen in this ... in the town that are pretty recent, and one I was at
recently I think was Foster Road, but I noticed that there wasn't any
place for people even to get milk or any thing like that. I think of the
neighborhood of Market Street, which is more inner-city, but when
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 43
you live on Linn or Market in that area, you know, Gilbert to Linn
over Market area, that place where them is John's Grocer, for instance,
and the reason I bring this up is because having that kind of an amenity
cuts down on a lot of trips in and out of the City. A lot of these
meetings have to do with traffic, traffic, traffic, traffic. But this is like
planting a small sprout that will eventually grow to be, why am I
leaning down so much, which will eventually be, you know, a bigger
thing. And this is a big concem, I think that there is a number of
people in the City that have that concern because of past mistakes in
that area.
Lehman: Okay. Karin?
Franklin: If I could just answer that briefly. In this area, there are two
neighborhood commercial areas, one at Scott and Court in this
location. There's also zoning for a neighborhood commercial area at
Scott and Taft, which is planned for the future. Our policy is to try to
have neighborhood commercial within a half mile walking distance of
peoples' homes. This is a mile between Scott and Taft. Admittedly,
this neighborhood commemial on Taft will not develop for some time
until this whole area develops, but it's a matter of progression. These
folks in here, which will develop first along Court, will have access via
sidewalks to this Scott Boulevard commercial neighborhood.
Lehman: Thank you.
Ross: I promise this is it. A halfa mile to a mile. Now I live on Rochester,
and it's about a mile walk into town. Now, I do it but I'm a strapping
young guy. But most people who are, you now, probably many people
don't do that kind of thing, you know. And so I'm concerned that there
would be within the zoning, and I'm not a zoning expert, and I mean
there' s a lot I would have to leam, but I tend to think that zoning laws
are bad in general because what they do is, they separate out things
that people actually could use. I was walking in, I think it was
Idyllwild, I was walking in that neighborhood and noticed that there
wasn't even any sidewalk to go from house to house. Naturally, there
was no comer store or anything like that. If I was a teenager, I think I
would feel like I was in the middle of nowhere. Where was I going to
meet, where was I going to get something without a car, and likewise,
for elde~y people who live in these areas. Elderly do very well when
there is local amenities. And I don't just mean stores, but it's a start,
and things like libraries or rec centers or places. When you're building
a development I'm concerned that there's going to be a lot of
disenfranchised people and that you'll have a lot of traffic as well. If
it's not more central. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 44
Lehman: Thank you.
Walter Foley: My name is Walter Foley and I live on Hummingbird Lane and I'm
not a strapping young man. I'm an older fellow. And the point that I
would like to make to you is that when we were first approached to
pave the street in front of our house, we agreed to it with the idea, at
least the assumption we had, was that we would not be annexed into
the City. The street would be in front of our house and we paid for the
part that goes in front of our house, because ... I did it because I
thought it was an improvement. My neighbors did it because they
thought it was an improvement. It facilitated the development of the
property across from us that was in the City. The next thing I knew, we
were told that we were going to be annexed into the City because you
cannot create an island. They were going to annex the property behind
us and they were going to annex the green property. If you look at
Hummingbird Lane, the light blue area there, Mr. Peterson came and
talked to the Council and said, look, I'm an old man and I really don't
like my taxes going up 50% and you excluded him. We're adjacent to
him. So why are we kind of being included in this annexation because
you don't want to create an island, when we, if you look at that map
we aren't an island, we're a finger. Looks more like a finger than an
island to me, we aren't surrounded by the City. I have no objection to
being annexed into the City. The thing that I object to is that I was
misled in all of this and that the services that I am to be provided by
the City will not be available for 4, 5, 6 years so I'm going to
immediately start getting my taxes increased over a five year period, if
you're willing to go with the state gradual increments, and I won't
have the services I'm paying this 50% more available to me. I don't
think that's fair. If you can do for Mr. Peterson, why can't you do for
us?
Peter Fisher: I'm Peter Fisher, and I just want to ask Council not to make a final
decision on the annexation of the blue part, I live on Hummingbird
Lane also, until we've had time to explore further the intriguing
proposal by the mayor to tie the annexation, the actual date of
annexation, to the provision of services. I think that's something that
the neighbors would like to investigate further and talk with the people
in the City about, so I just ask that you not sign off on this until we've
had time to do that.
Lehman: I don't think anybody who lives on Hummingbird Lane doesn't know
that someday you're going to be in the City limits. And you know,
that' s going to be sooner or it's going to be later, but it's going to
happen. I would really appreciate if the Council would entertain, we'll
wait until after you're through, but a motion to defer this to August
21st so these folks have an opportunity. I would much rather see a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 45
voluntary annexation with a certain degree of satisfaction with what
we're doing than having everybody be unhappy. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Ann Muilenburg: Hi, my name is Ann Muilenburg, I live at 3736 Hummingbird Lane. I
just wanted to agree with all of my neighbors, for one thing, and just a
couple other things I wanted to, just to bring up. One is kind of along
the lines of deferring the annexation. I think when we bought our
property several years ago we realized we would be annexed at some
point. I mean we could see the City and we thought, well they'll be
here sooner or later, right? The thing that at this point is irritating us
the most is the way it was handled as Mr. Foley so eloquently put it,
when we were approached by the City and by the developers to help
pay for half of our road we were point blank told we were not
anywheres near being thought of of being annexed, that was going to
be years down the road. And in talking to some other people after the
last P&Z meeting, that when this was passed, we were told that
actually it's been in the plans for over three years. So that kind of just,
you know, made us all kind of irritated. And then when I hear the
discussions you're saying that you don't want us to not be annexed
now because later we can put up such a fuss and then we'll be really in
trouble and it would not be in your best interests, what makes you
think that we can trust you, you know, you don't trust us?
Champion: You might not be there.
Lehman: I think maybe we do, maybe that's why we're talking about deferring
this.
Ann Muilenburg: Well, that would be nice if you would trust us but it sounded like you
weren't going to trust us, that no, when the ...
Champion: No, we're thinking a long time in the future. You probably won't be
there.
Ann Muilenburg: But I'm saying that, you know, it is kind of difficult. The other thing
is, is that if we do become annexed right now but we don't have City
services available to us, and if I were to try and sell my home as a City
home, I can't sell it at the price I would as a City home because it does
not have City sewer, it does not have City water and it does not have a
lot of the nice things that being in the City would have, but it is in the
City. Yes?
Pfab: I have a question. What, what solution would you suggest?
Ann Muilenburg: My solution is to defer annexation of Hummingbird Lane until we are
actually look like we're in the City. Meaning that if the person who
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 46
buys my property wants to hook up to City sewer and water, they can.
And that if they ... that they are actually in the City, that they have a
mailbox out at their front door instead of a quarter mile down the lane,
which is the way it is right now, until the City actually can improve the
rest of Hummingbird Lane to make it different, because the Post
Office won't give us mail at our door even though we would be in the
City. So those little things, it would be my dmther that it would be that
our annexation would be deferred, and until we actually would be able
to sell our houses as City houses, like any City house would be able to
be sold for. The other little thing that I was just concerned about was
snow removal. This last winter was kind of more of a normal winter
for us instead of, you know, having no snow we had a fair amount of
snow and there was a lot of wind. And when we used to live, we did
live in the City before we moved out to the county, but when we did
live in the City it seemed like there was a thing that you don't plow
until there's 'x' amount of snow?
Atkins: Right.
Ann Muilenburg: And out there, we're up on top of a hill and our road drifted shut many
many times, with just like one or two inches of snow. And I just don't
know if the City' s going to be saying, Oh, there' s those six people out
there, we gotta make sure we get out and plow them out, because we
won't be able to get out, and I'm not sure you'll remember us on your
plans. So, you know, those are things that I think need to be thought
about before we're actually annexed so we know that, you know,
we're actually getting the services that you'd so, you know, lovingly
like to give us. And then I guess the last thing I wanted to say was that
at the last P&Z meeting was where the City staff told us, and I'm sure
it's in your records, that if we are not annexed it would not hinder the
development of the Lindeman Southgate area at all if we're not
annexed. So it's not that by us being obstinate, that it would harm their
plans.
Kanner: Ann? I had a question. You said there was a City staff person that
point blank told you that annexation would be far, far off in the
distance?
Ann Muilenburg: Yes.
Kanner: And you're sure it was a City staff person?
Champion: Not a developer?
Ann Muilenburg: It was a City staff person because that's who I called. And it was over
the phone.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 47
Kanner: Will you call in the next few days our City Manager and talk about
who that person was, because I think we want to try to correct that.
Ann Muilenburg: Idon't know ifit would make any difference, because lthink that
person was speaking as honestly as they could at the time because
that' s what they knew. You know, the one thing that I found very
enlightening about this whole experience is I've learned an awful lot
about City government and about govemment in general, and you
know, I've always tried to be an optimist but, unfortunately, I think
that there's an awful lot of things that go on behind the scenes that get
happened that make it so, you know, Joe Blow public doesn't really
have all of the options that really they ... we would like to have. And
that's part of government, you know, and like I said I've learned a lot
in this whole situation. These plans were not this way at our very first
letter that we got for annexation. But they were changed very
strategically over time by the City Planning office and by the
developers so that we, you know, it came down to where we didn't
have an option anymore. And to me, that just seemed almost
underhanded. And I know that it probably wasn't, it was all on the up
and up and it's the way government and cities function, but at this
point in time it's just something that made reality more of a reality to
me.
Lehman: Had the Lindeman property not appeared and asked for annexation,
you could be years away from being annexed.
Ann Muilenburg: Correct.
Lehman: Okay, so don't come down on the staff.
Ann Muilenburg: No, I'm not coming down on the staff.
Lehman: Because this happened to come about because someone asked for
annexation, this isn't a matter of the staff going out saying, we want to
annex Hummingbird Lane. We're dealing with the situation,
Ann Muilenburg: Exactly. That's not right.
Lehman: So what you were told could have been exactly the truth.
Ann Muilenburg: And that's what I said, it was probably exactly the truth. But I do know
that there were other people telling me that there were plans and other
City people involved in talking about this and getting this figured up in
some, you know, far away comer somewhere.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 48
Lehman: Don't always believe the far away comer. Okay?
Ann Muilenburg: Well, I have to believe what people tell me, unfortunately.
Lehman: Don't always believe what people tell you.
Ann Muilenburg: I'd like to. I am an optimist. Honest, I am.
Lehman: Well, we've got some pretty solid folks, they're pretty honest folks.
You're going to find that out when we work this out.
Pfab: Before you leave, I'd like to ask. Now, something has come out here.
In other words, what I find here is that without annexing this
Hummingbird area, that the other development would not be hindered
in any way.
Lehman: I don't know that we know that, but I think that if we defer that we'll
have it ...
Ann Muilenburg: That's what we were told at the last P&Z meeting, that it would not
hinder it.
Lehman: See, I don't believe everything I hear either. I want this to be deferred
so we know precisely. Karin, did you have something before we defer
this?
Franklin: Well, there's just a couple of points I'd like to make for clarification.
Hopefully. One is is that as the Council well knows, and only people
who have followed long range planning of the City would know, is
that in 1992 we adopted a long range growth area, a service area
boundary for where Iowa City was going to grow. So yes, in some
ways, there has always been the intention that the Hummingbird Lane
properties and everything else out to the growth area which is east of
Taft Avenue, would at some point be annexed to Iowa City. It was not
done in a back room; it was done in public meetings before the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. The other point
is that the paving of Hummingbird Lane was done with this
subdivision and was the responsibility of the developer, who at that
time was Mr. Glasgow. Mr. Glasgow may have made arrangements
with these abutting property owners for them to pay a share of the cost.
As far as the City was concerned, the responsibility for paving that
road was Mr. Glasgow's. And then the last point I would make is that
the only service that is not immediately available if the residents want
it is sewer. Everything else is - refuse, water, whatever. Anything any
other City resident gets. Sewer is the only one that is not available.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 49
Lehman: Thank you.
Monica Mitros: Hi. My name is Monica Maloney Mitros. My husband, Frank, and I
live on Hummingbird Lane. We are the first little property in the left
top comer of the blue, and the paved street stops where those sort of
red dots are on Hummingbird Lane; it does not come to our property.
And so we would not have access to water and gas. It doesn't come up
to us.
Lehman: It will when you become annexed. Everybody will have access to
water and gas.
Mitros: I think Karen said that it's currently there. I just wanted you to realize
that it is not at our property, nor the property that surrounds us, the
blue to the south of us also does not have it. Also, when you consider
the trunk coming through, if you look at how far we are from where
that trunk is, that's really going to be a prohibitive cost to bring the
sewer line to our comer there because of the surrounding land on
Hummingbird Lane that we don't own. That currently is empty; it does
not have a house on it. Just another comment about coordination
between City and County. You talk about the development and I
believe that this area was called the Northeast Development Corridor
or something such as that. Our addresses on Hummingbird Lane are
southeast, and so if we would read this material in the paper perhaps or
wherever else, we would not be aware that that had anything to do
with us, and I remember distinctly the first article I saw in the paper
that had a map and I saw Hummingbird Lane on it and was astounded
because our addresses are southeast.
Lehman: You have a county address.
Mitros: Correct.
Lehman: The City plans - you are in the northeast district for the City; you may
be in the southeast district for the county.
Mitros: And what I'm saying is that probably needs to be clarified so that
people who are affected further out from us may be also unaware that
this is their land that' s being talked about.
Lehman: Although I think that almost every property owner in that northeast
district was notified when we did the northeast plan, which was a
couple of years ago.
Mitros: At one of the Planning & Zoning Committee meetings we were at, I
believe everybody from Hummingbird Lane was represented in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 50
addition to Ted Pacha, and none of us could recall having gotten that
information.
Lehman: Okay.
O'Donnell: You know, we ... or you can actually, would you like to, go ahead. We
have gone around and around on this. I do not have any trouble with
the Lindeman annexation whatsoever.
Lehman: No, I don't either.
O'Donnell: This Hummingbird, I think we need more discussion on.
Lehman: Those two are tied together, so if we're going to ... if we want to have
further discussion on the possibility of working something out...
Champion: Why are they tied together?
Lehman: I don't know, but they are both in Item e. connects the two as one item
on our agenda. I don't think we can separate those unless they are
presented separately.
Champion: Oh.
Kanner: Because we're told an island is created. That's why I'd assume that's
why they're connected.
O'Donnell: No, we've got two other islands.
Lehman: Go ahead.
Greg Muilenburg: I can clarify that. The last meeting of Planning & Zoning, I asked two
very pointed questions. One, would not taking in Hummingbird Lane
in any way hinder development of either of those properties, and the
gentleman's not here, said no, there's no problem with that. And the
second, I kind of pushed him about why we're taking us in then, and
he said, well, we have planned it, we've changed it so that you are now
less than 20% of the area that's being annexed so there's basically ...
I'm paraphrasing this part of it, basically there' s nothing you can do
about it. And that' s basically what he told us is that it has no effect on
what we want to develop and we changed this around and we basically
finagled it so you don't have anything to say about it. And that really
burned us.
Champion: Well, I don't think they probably meant it that way. But
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 5 1
Greg Muilenburg: That's the way it came across.
Champion: The mason, if we ... because you would not be an island if you were
not annexed right now, isn't that correct?
Greg Muilenburg: Correct.
Champion: You could, you would not have to be annexed. And I think Karin told
last night that that could happen without your being annexed. And,
that' s right ...
Atkins: Connie, please, I think, also keep in mind when you look at this
annexation, you take Hammingbird Lane out, okay, their front yard
and their back yards am both in the City.
Champion: I know. Well, I liked (can't hear) idea.
Lehman: I would like to see us get a motion to defer and get this straightened
out between the neighbors out there and the staff and see if there isn't
a way that we can come up with a solution that is amiable to all of us,
including you, Glenn.
Siders: Whatever. Got the plague cured, so I'm good. I'd like to ask the
Council if they have a desire to defer this, that along with that deferral,
since you're not on your normal cycle of meetings, at the 2 1 st meeting
that we also, you take some action after the
Lehman: First reading?
Siders: We have a couple of readings to go and we have to go through this
little thing called the City Development Board, which is a two or three
month process probably and we would like to do some platting and get
construction on next spring, and I know that seems like a long ways
off but believe me, it's not, because we're probably not going to be
annexed until the first of the year, and we can't do any platting or
anything, so I'd ask that some action be taken...
Lehman: Glean, let me say this. As long as the Council is comfortable, I would
tell you that we can schedule it for action the same night.
Siders: That's what ... I understand.
Lehman: If the Council is not comfortable based on the public hearing, we
might not, but we can schedule it
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4e Page 52
Siders: That's ... I understand that. I should say once you close the public
hearing that I would you take some action.
Lehman: Okay. We will schedule it that way. Do we have a motion to defer
this?
O'Donnell: I would move to continue until, when? August 21st.
Lehman: Moved by O'Dounell ...
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Pfab. Motion carries. I suspect that means that we should
defer Item f. as well.
Dilkes: I think you should open the public hearing and ...
Lehman: Alright, we're going to do that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4h Page 53
ITEM NO. 4h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (I-l) TO
INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) FOR APPROXIMATELY
12.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 1. (REZ01-00002). (PASS AND ADOPT)
Lehman: We've been asked to defer this to August 21st. Do I have a motion to
that effect?
Wilbum: So moved.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: By Wilburn, seconded by Pfab. Motion carries.
Atkins: Ernie?
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: I think there was somebody in the audience on that item.
Lehman: Well, someone wasn't very quick.
Atkins: Yes. We were quick.
Lehman: I'm sorry. Hey?
Chuck Meardon: Yeah, my name is Chuck Meardon, and I represent the Ruppert family.
I apologize for not being quicker.
Lehman: No, I apologize for not realizing that there would be anyone here
speaking.
Chuck Meardon: I just heard all these things about due process before the Council.
Lehman: Careful, you're on thin ice the way it is.
Meardon: And I won't waste much of your time. The Ruppert family would ask
that the City go ahead with a third reading, and I don't know how
much the Council knows about the history. Apparently, the reason that
staff is asking for a deferral has to do with the location of an easement
and certain subdivision documents. And from the Ruppert family point
of view, the location of the easement shouldn't be resolved during the
rezoning process, that's something that's done when the subdivision
documents go through. I know that Ms. Franklin might take a contrary
point of view, and if she has anything to say I'm sure she will. But I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4h Page 54
hope Council can understand the frustration that the Ruppert family
has gone through here. This has gone through two readings essentially
uncontested, so to say, approved by P&Z, and then as we come up on
the third reading this issue with Menards appears, which has to do with
the location of the easement. I just, again, from our point of view the
location of the easement can be taken up during the subdivision
document approval process and we'd ask that the Council go forward
with its third reading.
Lehman: Thank you, Chuck, and we will allow equal time, Karin.
Franklin: Well, unfortunately, the attorney for the buyer of the Ruppert property
does not agree that the City has the authority through the subdivision
platting process to resolve thisr access easement. Therefore, in order
for us to have any leverage and clear negotiating power, we need to
have you defer this so that we have the power of zoning to resolve this
access easement question. And I think we're getting close. There is
still the issue of one end of the access easement between the buyer of
the property and Menards, which we are hoping they will settle
between themselves.
Lehman: Do you have any idea the timeframe for that?
Franklin: Well, currently the attorney for the buyers is on vacation, but I would
expect this could be ... I would certainly hope that it could be resolved
by August 21 st.
Lehman: I certainly understand the position of the seller of the property, and I
think I understand the position of the City. I also think them comes a
time when a decision has to be made. If the Council wishes to
reconsider the deferral, we can. If we don't reconsider the deferral, I
would ask the Council that we do in fact vote on the 21st, deferral or no
deferral.
Champion: Well, if it got settled before that, we could have a special meeting.
Lehman: If it doesn't get settled ... oh, we could always ... yes, obviously we
could do that. Chuck?
Meardon: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'm just wondering, and I'm speaking
hypothetically of course, if... what happens to this application if, as
far as just ... and what we are interested in is just getting the property
rezoned. If we ultimately can't work out something with Menards I
think that Mr. Williamson is going to walk from our deal. And if that
happens we would like to have our property rezoned and talk to
someone else. If, hypothetically speaking, we are not able to resolve,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4h Page 55
or Mr. Hobart is not able to resolve his differences with the staff on the
interpretation of this agreement, what happens then? Would the City
take the position that we have to start from scratch and we couldn't go
forward and get our property rezoned? I hope I'm illustrating the
problems that the Ruppert family is facing as this battle is ongoing. I
just don't know the answer to that question.
Franklin: I think what would happen is that if we can't resolve this access
easement question by the 21 st and in fact be ... the transaction is
falling through, that we amend this CZA to have it back the way it was
where the access easement was before. The only reason we changed
the conditional zoning agreement was at the request of the buyer to
move the access easement and that's where it's coming into conflact
Lehman: I like that.
Franklin: Conflact. And conflict, too, with Menards, since they were relying on
the location of the old access easement.
Lehman: Well, what you're saying is that this is part of a conditional zoning
agreement. This is part of the zoning; the location of the access road is
in fact part of the zoning?
Franklin: Yes. And we agreed to move the access easement closer to the
highway at the buyer's request. We did not at that time talk about the
exact alignment of it, and that's where we are now is talking about that
exact alignment.
Pfab: I would support what ... where you're coming from, Karin, is the fact
that once this is approved you lose all power to do anything.
Franklin: Yes.
Pfab: I would support you 100%.
Meardon: I just want to ask one thing, then. If I'm heating this right, I'm hearing
that it's staffs position, and possibly the City' s position, that the
location of the easement must be resolved to go forward with the
application to rezone? And I'm just trying to find out
Lehman: Chuck, I believe what I just heard is that if you want that property
rezoned at a straight rezoning, the access road goes back to where it's
shown on the plat to start with and this application includes a CZA, a
conditional rezoning agreement, that moves that road. If this is not
approved or withdrawn and you want that property rezoned, the road
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4h Page 56
would go back to where it was originally shown and that would require
an amendment of the application to get rid of the CZA.
Meardon: And does that kick us all the way back? We would not have to start?
Lehman: No.
Meardon: Okay. Well, I just want to be sure that.
Franklin: Not to P&Z.
Dilkes: No, not to P&Z, but we
Meardon: We start the reading again now.
Dilkes: The public hearing has to be ... the CZA has to be signed before the
public hearing closes so we'd have to get that taken care of.
Meardon: So we need to go back through the three reading process?
Dilkes: But not to P&Z.
Meardon: But not to P&Z. Okay, I just want to be sure. As the CZA stands now,
I don't think the easement has been relocated yet. I know that there are
plans in the subdivision document showing that, but I just want to be
sure everybody knows where we are, but I understand and appreciate
those comments. Thanks.
Lehman: Well, I think that we, and I personally will, I think that we should tell
the folks that we will vote on the 21 st. In either denial if it's not
resolved, or approval if it is. Okay?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#4j Page 57
ITEM NO. 4j. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT
OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT, A 57.13 ACRE, 17-
LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION WITH TWO OUTLOTS
LOCATED WEST OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 1. (SUB00-0021)
Lehman: We've been asked to defer this to the 21st of August. Do we have a
motion to that effect?
Pfab: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Second by Wilbum.
Karmer: Wait, wait. This is Item j?
Lehman: Right.
Kanner: Why are we deferring this?
Lehman: We've been asked to defer it. They didn't tell us why.
Dilkes: Well, we don't want to approve the final plat of this development in
North Airport commemial area until we have the financing agreement
approved and
Lehman: Which is (can't hear).
Dilkes: And we're working on finalizing some language in that.
(can't hear): And it's not ready yet.
Kanner: So we're going to defer 14 also?
Lehman: Right.
Kanner: Okay.
Lehman: All in favor of deferral? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#6a & b Page 58
ITEM NO. 6a & 6b. $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST GABE'S, 330 EAST
WASHINGTON STREET, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE
SECTION 453A.22(2).
Lehman: This is a public hearing? Public hearing is open. This is not open to ...
Dilkes: This is not a public hearing. This is a due process hearing for the
permittee.
Lehman: You're right. I'm sorry.
Andy Chappell: Members of the Cotmcil, I'm Andy Chappell, I'm an assistant County
Attorney here in Johnson County, and we've been asked to administer
the civil penalties in conjunction with the City Attomey's office for
you. The first one we have tonight is Gabe's. I'll try to be brief. A
tobacco sale compliance check was conducted at Gabe's on April 4,
2001, by Officer Kelsey and Hansen and a juvenile female. The
juvenile entered ... as the officers report, the juvenile entered Gabe' s,
asked the bartender if they had a cigarette rending machine and then
asked for change for the machine. The juvenile then asked for ... the
juvenile was asked for her identification and provided it. The bartender
looked at the identification and, for reasons unknown to me, then gave
the juvenile the change to go to the ... and purchase cigarettes. The
juvenile was, obviously, under age. After the juvenile was able to
purchase cigarettes, came outside, the officers then went in and cited
the bartender for ... for selling tobacco products to a minor ... selling
or providing tobacco products to a minor. On April 5th the employee
paid the fine instead of appearing and entering a plea of not guilty.
Based on all of these facts, I believe that an employee of Gabe's has
violated Iowa Code Section 453A.2 and therefore, Gabe's should be
assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $300 pursuant to Iowa Code
Section 453A.22(2). And I don't know if the business owner is here,
but may well be here.
Karr: The business owner has provided correspondence, so we should accept
that as part of the heating.
Kanner: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Kanner, seconded by Wilburn to accept correspondence. All
in favor? Motion carries.
Kanner: This piece here ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#6a & b Page 59
Lehman: Oh, I'm sorry.
Karr: I'm sorry, who seconded that? The motion to accept correspondence?
Champion: So moved.
Karr: No, who seconded it?
Pfab: I'll second it.
Lehman: Kanner, seconded by Wilburn.
Pfab: I don't remember reading this.
Champion: We got it last night.
Karmer: To sum up what the letter said, the owner of Gabe's basically said it
was bad arithmetic on the part of the employee that he didn't receive
the calendars that he got shortly thereafter that would make it easy to
find out when someone is under age. Hopefully, they'll brush up on
their arithmetic now and won't necessarily depend on that. It's good to
have those aids, but I think that we ought to assess the fine here.
Letunan: I just have one question. Did the bartender ... the bartender has paid
the fine, is that not correct?
Karr: No.
Lehman: They did not?
Karr: No.
Lehman: Oh, this is the fine for the bar or the ... the one who served
Chappell: May I clarify? The bartender has paid the fine that was against her.
And I want to clarify the language a little bit. We're not talking about
a fine here. A fine would be a criminal thing. This we're talking about
a civil penalty. It may just make the conversation easier if we know
exactly what we're talking about.
Lehman: But the bar or the person has paid the fine?
Chappell: Has paid the fine that was the charge.
Lehman: The fine that was assessed for making cigarettes available to a minor.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#6a & b Page 60
Chappell: Correct.
Lehman: Which, okay, I would have ...
Chappell: I have copies for if you would like to see them of this certified copy of
conviction for ...
Lehman: Unintelligible
O'Donnell: This is civil penalty, there was no ID shown, so it's
Champion: No, there was an ID.
Lehman: There was an ID.
Chappell: The identification was ...
Champion: Yes, he looked at the ID and
O'Donnell: And he made the ... that's a math mistake.
Dilkes: I think it would be helpful to have it part of the record.
O'Donnell: Well, it's still a mistake and I think we should assess the penalty.
Lehman: Well, do we have a motion to assess?
Champion: 1 already made a motion.
Lehman: I'm sorry. Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Are there other
questions that the Council wishes to ask?
Champion: No.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#7a & b Page 61
ITEM NO. 7a & 7b. $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST PLAMOR BOWLING
INC., 1555 lsT AVENUE, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE
SECTION 453A.22(2).
Lehman: Conduct the hearing.
Chappell: Again, a compliance check was done at Plamor Bowling, known as
Plamor Lanes, on March 3, 2001, by a juvenile male and Officers
Lawrence and Humrichouse. As reported by the officers, the juvenile
entered the bowling alley, asked at the front desk whether they had a
cigarette machine, the juvenile was ... and whether he could have
change for the machine. The juvenile then was directed toward the bar
where the cigarette machine is kept and toward a coin machine, a
change machine. The juvenile then went to the bartender and asked
again for change for the cigarette machine, the bartender checked his
ID, asked for and was given his 112) which would have indicated that he
was under the age of 18, and then for some reason pointed him again
to the change machine. The juvenile then went to the change machine,
got changed and purchased cigarettes at the bar. And then the
bartender was cited for providing tobacco products to a minor. After
... on March 14th the employee paid the fine instead of appearing and
pleading not guilty, and based on all these facts I believe an employee
of Plamor Bowling violated Iowa Code Section 453A.2 and Plamor
Bowling should be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $300.
Lehman: Do I have a motion to that effect?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab. Are there questions from the
Council?
Dilkes: Wait a minute. Has the ... is someone from Plamor here? No? Okay.
Kanner: I had a question for the County Attorney. Under state code is the
establishment supposed to have the same control over cigarette
machines as they would if it weren't in a machine.
Chappell: Yes. iowa Code Section 453A.36(6) essentially incorporates those
portions of 453A.2 into ... so that they apply also to cigarette rending
machines. In addition, sub 36 sub 6 also adds the additional
requirement that these ... that the tobacco machines are placed in an
area where the retailer ensures that no one under the age of 18 can
enter. It's quite possible that the retailer could have been charged
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#7a & b Page 62
under that provision as well. The officers decided to charge the
bartender specifically, but either way I think that, and 453.22 the civil
penalty section, allows and dictates a civil penalty when either 453A.2
or 453A.36(6) is violated.
Kanner: I don't got the numbers but I got the gist.
Chappell: You got it? Okay. So the short answer is yes, we can do it even with
that and they have to essentially hold up to the same standards.
Lehman: We wouldn't be here if we couldn't?
Chappell: No.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call.
Dilkes: Before you do the roll call, let's accept the certified records of the
convictions or pleas?
Champion: Moved to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Motion passed. Roll
call? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#8a & b Page 63
ITEM NO. 8a & 8b. A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST Wa!-Mart (Store No.
1721), PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2).
Lehman: Conduct the public heating. The hearing, not the public hearing.
Chappell: Thank you. This one's a little more straightforward. A compliance
check was done at Wal-Mart Store #1721 on March 3rd by a juvenile
male and Officers Lawrence and Humrichouse. In this instance, as
reported by the officer, the juvenile walked into Wal-Mart and went to
an express lane. The juvenile then asked the Clerk for a pack of
cigarettes. The clerk, without checking the j uvenile's identification,
provided a pack of cigarettes and sold them to the juvenile and was
then cited for doing so. On March 16th the employee paid the fine
instead of appearing and pleading not guilty. Again, based on these
facts I think that a civil penalty should be assessed against Wal-Mart
Store # 1721.
Lehman: Is there anyone here from Wal-Mart? Do we have a motion?
Dilkes: To accept correspondence?
Lehman: To accept correspondence?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Made by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. All in favor say aye.
Motion carries. Do we have a motion to assess the penalty.
Wilburn: So moved
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Roll call. Motion
carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#9a Page 64
ITEM NO. 9a. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND
ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY
OF IOWA CT1Y ROBERT A. LEE RECREATION CENTER
HVAC INSTALLATION AND BOILER REPLACEMENT
PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY
TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME
AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
Lehman: The estimated cost is $151,000 to be funded by general obligation
bonds.
Brandon Ross: Hi, Brandon Ross. I was wondering if in all this if possibly solar
energy was considered since the plane of the building is straight and
very ... is very visible to the sun, would get some kind of savings long
term and such. I'm wondering if solar energy was thought of in this
case.
Lehman: I really can't tell you.
Arkins: To my knowledge, no. It's a replacement of a boiler.
Lehman: I think design of a building would certainly have some of that
considered. But this is replacement of existing system. So I can't tell
you for sure, Brandon.
Atkins: We have the solar concept when we built this building.
Lehman: Right, right.
Atkins: And some others. But as 1 understand it, Terry's in the audience, this is
a replacement of the existing boiler.
Ross: Well, solar ... many people have the conception that it's just photo full
tag but solar means other things. It could mean water passing through
the top of the roof and heating the water or heating air to reduce costs.
But the new efficient boilers, I'm told, were going to be saving
$22,0007
Atkins: I'd have to ask Terry.
Ross: I forgot the number of years of that savings. We will make the savings,
but I think it's well taken the point, can we save more by being even
more innovative, and maybe that' s something that we need to look at,
to ask Kumi our energy coordinator, to take a look at that for future
projects.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#9a Page 65
Trueblood: Yeah, I did not put together the plans for this. Kumi did, along with
Mike Moran, but as I understand it the boiler is going in as very highly
efficient, as a matter of fact to the tune that we will be receiving
money from MidAmerican Power Company as well as an energy
grant, payback fund. So Mike or Kumi couldn't tell me exactly how
much we will be saving, but we will be ... it'll be considerably less
expensive to heat the building in the future with the system that's
going in there.
Kanner: The energy fund that you're talking about, that's our City fund actually
that has
Trueblood: One of them is. One of them, right.
Kanner: That has the payback fund, do innovative things, so maybe we could
explore doing even more with that?
Pfab: I would certainly encourage a study, something be done, to look at
because of all the water you have to heat there. Just the water cooling,
heating from the solar, I mean that should be a big help. I'm not
saying that this unit, but you can also, ifthere's a payback for heating
... supplement heating of the water, water heating, I would say that's
certainly something we ought to look at.
Trueblood: Certainly, and I can't tell you exactly what but with Kumi being the
energy coordinator, with them working with MidAmerican Power an
so forth, you know, I'm sure that they looked into the best possible
method recommended for this building at this time.
Pfab: But I mean, even as you go on, I mean this isn't the end. The water
still has to be heated and reheated and reheated.
Champion: Is it something you constantly do, though?
Atkins: We have, as you know, a very comprehensive energy plan.
Pfab: I would certainly like to see some kind of some work done, some kind
of report as to what are the possibilities of adding solar. I'm not
opposed to this.
O'Dounell: We can certainly do that but we're talking about replacing an existing
boiler.
Pfab: Right. A boiler.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#9a Page 66
Champion: Not adding a new heating system.
Kanner: Right, but the question is, could, even with, we're going to get savings
from this new system
Trueblood: Absolutely.
Kanner: Just with the advances, but we can do even more and there are systems
out there that we could do more. The City could be a leader in doing
that and even putting in the new system, we could still look at possible
retrofits in the future.
Champion: I just asked if you did work on this all the time.
Lehman: Just a moment. This discussion is going nowhere. Could we ask our
City folks to give us a quick memo on what we do with that ... our
considerations that we make for solar? Whether it be replacing a
boiler, whatever, I'm sure those things are considered. They might be
able to answer our questions rather easily.
Atkins: We can give you an update on our energy policy. I mean, that's fairly
easy to target.
Lehman: And what role solar plays in that policy.
Atkins: Yeah. But I don't want to be limited to just solar.
Lehman: No, no.
Pfab: We're not ... we're looking at it as supplemental.
Atkins: Alrlght. And this is a boiler replacement. Could this be retrofitted at
some time in the future? And the answer is yes.
Pfab: I'm not saying ... okay, retrofitted, you mean supplement?
Atkins: Added on later on.
Pfab: Sure, that's fine. That's what I'd be (can't hear).
Lehman: Thank you sir.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#10b Page 67
ITEM NO. 10b. CONVEYANCE OF AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF
WOOLF AVENUE FROM MCLEAN STREET SOUTH FOR A
DISTANCE OF 240 FEET TO CRAIG SYROP, ANNE SADLER,
M. ALICE SAHS, AND MAR/TA MCGURK EICHER.
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Pfab: There was a question, something about not putting any structures on
the property? And a question came up about a fence. How was that
ever resolved?
Dilkes: I think we talked about that at the last meeting and there will be a
blanket easement over this property that will prohibit structures.
Fences can be put up with approval of the City Engineering staff.
Pfab: So in other words, the City would have some say as to what type of, I
mean it looks like there's a nice vista there if it could be saved for, but
it is private property, but at the same time it's now City property.
Lehman: A fence is not considered a structure. If they want to put a fence up
they can put one up unless it's above a certain height? Is that correct?
Dilkes: There are fence ... yeah, there are height limitations.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: So it's just strictly
Dilkes: But the fence ... the provision in the easement is just to make sure
there isn't interference with a
Lehman: A structure.
Dilkes: The easement.
Lehman: Right. Other discussion?
Karmer: As I mentioned at other meetings, I think it's a nice public place that's
a part of the neighborhood and I don't see any reason to not keep it
public so I'll be voting against this. Why do we want to sell it if it's ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#10b Page 68
Lehman: I don't know, but we decided to do this a year ago.
Champion: Right.
Lehman: And I don't recall the discussion a year ago being centered around
whether we wanted to keep it. We (can't hear).
Kanner: Well, I brought up these points, but Emie why do we have to sell it?
Lehman: We don't have to sell it, they want to buy it, they want to maintain it.
It's adjacent to their property. We don't have to maintain it, we don't
have to worry about it, obviously it apparently represents more value
to them than it does to us.
Kanner: I guess that sums it up for the majority.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 4-2, Kanner and Pfab in
the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#11 Page 69
ITEM NO. 11. CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT
1605 DICKENSON LANE.
a. Public Hearing
Lehman: This is from the Iowa City Housing Authority under its Affordable
Dream Home Program, which I think is a tremendous program. And I
don't know the number of these that we've done so far but it's a great,
a great program. Okay.
b. Consider a Resolution Authorizing
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Pfab: Seconded.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab. Discussion?
Kanner: I brought this up before and I'll continue to bring it up. I think we had
a notice from one of our staff that we might want to look at what the
guidelines are for low or moderate income, for low income since our
median income is getting very high in this city. I believe we had a
memo a little while back, and so I would hope that we would look at
that. I'm going to vote yes for this, I think it's good for the family, but
we should consider, I would propose we consider lowering what we
consider low income to qualify for some of these programs.
Lehman: Good point. Roll call. Motion carries. May I suggest to the Council
that we, Item 12 1 believe is, is there anyone here in the audience to
speak to Item 127 1 mean, we have folks that have been waiting for
some time. I would like to change the order of the agenda with the
permission of the Council.
Champion: Agreed.
Lehman: I believe Items 12, 13, could be done later. 14 will be a deferral. 15 is
one that I don't believe anyone is here for; 16 is the same. I think I
would like to go, with the Council' s permission, to number 17. Is that
okay with the Council?
Karr: Need a motion.
Lehman: We need a motion to ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#11 Page 70
Champion: So moved.
O'Donnell: And I will second that.
Lehman: Moved to Champion, seconded by O'Donnell, to move to Item 17 on
the agenda. All in favor? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 71
ITEM NO. 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEN-YEAR
DECLINING PERCENTAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PROPERTY TAX REBATE TO ASSIST SEABURY & SMITH
WITH A NEW FACILITY IN IOWA CITY.
Champion: Move the resolution.
0' Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Pfab: I have spoken against this type of financing a number of times. I can't
see where this is something that's crucial to having this project go
forward and as a result I'll be voting against it.
Wilburn: One of the things that we talked about in the Economic Development
Committee, as we talked about going out to making our visits to some
of the businesses was in effect kind of a retention and support of
existing business, and Seabury & Smith has been long-standing in this
community. Looks like it's creating 30 full-time jobs, 5 part-time jobs.
Is Scott still here? Would you mind coming up to the ... I just have a
couple questions. One of the things that I looked in the application you
filled out that I liked is that this will help diversify the economy in the
county so that, you know, that you're insurance type claims?
Scott Fisher: Correct.
Wilbum: Okay. And so, one thing is that it will ... it's not government jobs, not
the retail or service industry. I was looking through some of the
benefits that your company offers. As I read it, is it 95 ... you pay 95%
of both single and family medical and dental insurance, is that?
Scott Fisher: That's correct. 95% of single and family medical and dental insurance.
Wilburn: Another thing that I look for is the kind of contributions that
organizations make to the community, what they give back to the
community in terms of say things like the human service (can't hear).
Could you comment on some of this so the public is aware of some of
the ... you and some of your staff, how you have contributed to some
of our human services community ambiance, I guess.
Scott Fisher: We try to be good corporate citizens. A number of our employees are
on a number of organization boards and contribute in the community.
And in addition to that, we also provide donations and I think I
detailed them in the application, and last year there was approximately
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 72
$75,000 in charitable contributions to the organizations within the
county from our Iowa City operation.
Wilbum: Thank you.
Lehman: Other questions or comments?
Wilbum: And I guess just one thing to clarify. Your application mentioned that
there's another large ... is this corporate headquarters here, or is West
Des Moines or are these just ... ?
Scott Fisher: Our corporate headquarters are out of New York City.
Wilburn: Okay.
Scott Fisher: We have a large presence in the state of Iowa. In fact, for our
company, Marsh & McClenon Companies, it's the third largest
location in the United States within the state of Iowa. We have a
number of people in Iowa City for long-term. We also have a big
operation that has about 1500 employees in West Des Moines.
Wilburn: And then, I think the other thing, that you were close to kind of the
goal of 90% of the jobs being above poverty level. I think you were at
88.5%? I think (can't hear) by staff last night. So I'll be supporting
this, and thank you for everything that you continue to do in the
community.
Scott Fisher: Thank you.
Pfab: I'd like to make a comment. I have to congratulate you on being smart
enough to take the thing and run with it. But as a good corporate
citizen, I question why it's difficult for you to pay your share of the
things that the City provides. The City's been good to you, and it's a
mutual thing but, just, it bothers me that there are other people who
pay these taxes that you're not going to pay, and the services you're
still going to get the full services. I think as corporate citizens you
ought to take a hard look at that. I mean, it's ... you're not ... it's not a
struggling organization in any way, shape or means and it never was.
Right?
Lehman: Can I just respond to that?
O'Donnell: I would like to also.
Champion: We all would.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 73
Lehman: This firm is investing over $6 million locally. I consider that to be a
significant investment. I think as a city, even as we plan for growth
and subdivisions or whatever, I believe that it's important that a city
have vision, that we look at what is best in the long term interest of our
connnanity and I think the short term, short sighted sort of approach
that many cities have taken in the past is not the direction that this city
wants to take. Any development that we see occur in this community
that involves good corporations, good investments, good jobs, are
investments in the future of this community. They're investments in
property that will give us the taxes to support our school systems, our
bus systems, our county and our city for years and years. It's not going
to go away, this isn't something that we get for a year or two years or
three years. In this case, we're talking about a tax credit, abatement,
whatever that'll be ... we can look at this two ways. The City will
receive, I believe, on this particular one, it will be $750,000 paid in
taxes over the next 10 years to the City, the county and the school
district, on property that currently is paying zero. That' s $750,000
more than we have been getting on that property. After that 10 years
the payment, and that's in today's dollars, will be in excess of
$100,000 per year in perpetuity. Now, I consider that to be a
tremendous long-term investment and forgetting the nuts and bolts and
the hard numbers, this tells, I believe, the people of Iowa City and the
people around the county who are considering locating in our
community, how much we value their business here, their jobs and
their commitment to our community, and I will be .supporting this
enthusiastically.
Pfab: I would like to speak as another way of looking at this. In other words,
the work we do to build and maintain our city, we still have to go out
and buy people to come through here.
O'Dormell: To locate here.
Champion: I move to call the question.
O'Donnell: I find it really difficult to accept that kind of reasoning or logic. This is
exactly the type of growth we want in this community. This is
important growth for the well-being of the community. The tax base is
how we pay for the things that we want down the road. I will support
this thing and Connie, if you will withdraw that.
Champion: Well, I didn't get a second.
O' Donnell: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 74
Champion: The other thing is, too, that you talk about giving tax abatements. Why
don't you talk to the people at Sycamore Mall, who I'm sure had a fear
every night when they went to bed they wouldn't have a job the next
day. If you've been out there, I mean that is an incredible improvement
that we did help finance with a different type of increment financing.
But you know, ask them as citizens of this city if they're happy we did
that. You know, we want you. We do want you.
Pfab: Okay, alright, what about the citizens, where we
Champion: I'm not going to argue with you.
O'Donnell: I'm not either.
Pfab: It's not ... you people are doing a fine job. You're smart. You're
taking good care of your shareholders, and I appreciate that.
Lehman: Steven?
Kanner: As a person in favor of economic development, I support making it
easier for good business. It sounds like this is a good business that
you're running there and you're providing some good jobs, it looks
like. The question is, similar to what Irvin is saying, is we expect our
citizens, whether they're corporate or individuals to pay their fair
share, and so I look at the money Emie and other folks as lost money
that's not helping to pay the fair share of what makes this city
attractive to businesses. I think we're going down the wrong road, that
it hurts our city in the long rim to lose out. I think people locate here
and stay here because we offer these great services, and Connie, we're
going to pay for these great services that you often bring up, like the
parks, because people do pay their fair share and because we have
people here from the University with a lot of money pouring in from
the State that keeps our economy going. A combination of all those
things makes this city a great city and I think we should use the TI~
like it was originally intended to be used, if we're going to use it, first
to help blighted areas. Now this is not a blighted area. I don't think
anyone would agree. And that was the original intent, and I think it
would be a good idea for the state to get back to that level to only offer
TIFs, allow TIFs to be used for blighted areas. We're moving away
from that. I think, second, if we're going to use a TIF we ought to put
it into things like public transportation that will benefit your
employees that will be going out there that you're going to create jobs
for. And third, we have no guarantee that they're going to create these
jobs. I think we need to put it in writing just like we did with
Sycamore Mall ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 75
Lehman: We were told last night that that will happen.
Kanner: No we're not told ... we said essentially, well actually you commented
that what we're voting on tonight is essentially what's going to happen
and we have no guarantee that it'll be written in there.
Lehman: No, no we do. We said last night that we are authorizing the staff to
negotiate ... if we don't want to do this, the staff won't do it. We are
authorizing them to write the contract, the contract will require
performance standards and David told us that last night.
Kanner: That's not what I heard, but I would feel more comfortable then if we
defer this until we have that in writing and make sure that we have
ample opportunity for us to look it over and for the community. Again,
we got this information on Thursday in our Council packets. I don't
think ... we asked PATV for $125,000 loan to come back to us in two
weeks; for something that' s going to look at $750,000 in tax
abatements over 10 years I think we owe it to the community to take a
closer look than just having four days to look this over.
Lehman: And we still have to approve the contract. It comes back to us for
approval.
Kauner: And I'd say we shouldn't approve anything until we do that.
Lehman: Okay. You're entitled to your opinion.
Kanner: I would move that we defer this consideration until our next meeting.
Lehman: Is there a second to defer it?
P fab: I' d second that.
Lehman: We have a motion and second to defer it. All in favor? Motion is
defeated, 4-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Now, further
discussion on the resolution.
Wilburn: Well, the only thing that I will add is that the application that was
filled out, it refers to an understanding from Seabury and Smith that
there will be certain performance standards discussed in the contract;
that's in the application. In terms of so many employees, and I would
also add it's also based on ... the rebate's based on the value of the
added up condition of the property.
Scott Fisher It is clearly our intent to condition the rebate on the hiring of the
additional employees in our facility. This is a growth measure for us. I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 76
think we also put in the application that there is no intent on our behalf
on any one of our 172 existing employees losing their jobs should this
not pass. We would intend to be held to a performance standard that
was conditioned upon the rebate.
Kanner: Would you tell me your name again, I'm sorry?
Scott Fisher: Scott Fisher.
Kanner: Scott. Thank you. Would you be willing to take some of that $70,000
per year and put it back into something like child care support for your
employees or for an additional public transportation route out there or
for public trees and green space? Would you be willing to consider
something like that?
Scott Fisher: I think, on the child care issue, part of our benefit plan includes a
dependent care reimbursement account that allows individuals to
subsidize the child care. There's also
Kanner: A cafeteria type plan?
Scott Fisher: Yeah. There's also a child care facility that's out in the Northgate
facility and I'd be a little bit uncomfortable in having a ... since that's
not our business, a competing business to that.
Kanner: Well, no, you wouldn't necessarily have to compete. And it could be
arranged where perhaps it's a greater subsidy. You're not giving 100%
subsidy are you for those who choose the child care option?
Scott Fisher: No.
Kanner: I'm saying use some of this $70,000 to give greater subsidy to make it
even easier for people. Child care has been shown in our City Steps
program to be one of our top needs. The Council has voted that as a
part of our goal last year as economic development to do child care
and we're not doing any of that, and I was wondering if you're willing
to take that $70,000 and invest it in some public good like that, instead
of the profits of the, I don't know how your organization' s arranged,
shareholders or.
Scott Fisher: Our intent was to use it for our overall general operating expenses,
including recruiting the individuals who we would add to our staff,
including that part of the ... which I think amounts to a 17% increase
in our overall staff over that two year period, and that's really what
we've targeted the money toward.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 77
Kanner: So are these things ... these things are ... you're going to be putting
those in a contact that you're putting the money back into a certain
area, that $70,000 a year that you're getting?
Lehman: I think that the contract form or whatever is pretty much set out by the
requirements of this application. Is that not right? David if you'd like
to tell us what the requirements of that ... I don't think we're going to
write that contract here, but I do think there are certain things that are
required in that contract, is that not correct?
David Schoon: The contract will state that they will need to construct a building of a
certain size, that they will have perfonnance criteria in terms of the
jobs they say they will create, the wages at which they will pay, the
benefits at which they will provide to their employees.
Kanner: I think we're doing it backwards.
Champion: Right.
Kanner: Shouldn't we do the contract first before we vote on the TIF? Why do
we do this this way? Why don't we do the other way?
Lehman: I think it's a philosophical
Schoon: I mean it'd be similar to CDBG in terms of you go through a process
of determining whether you want to grant the benefit to the entity and
then you enter into a process of negotiating an agreement. There's a lot
of work and effort that will go into an agreement and if the Council
has no intent of wanting to give a company a TIfF rebate why go
through that effort of negotiating the details of an agreement?
Pfab: But does the City Cotmcil have a right to vote on the contract?
Schoon: Yeah, the contract will come back before the City Council.
Pfab: In other words, if the contract isn't acceptable it could, in essence, be
voted down.
Schoon: I guess in essence, but I ...
Pfab: No, no, I mean, it is possible, I mean I'm saying it could.
Schoon: I think first we would ask the Council to say what in the contract did
not meet their intentions when they adopted the resolution and if we
can then negotiate those terms with the company then we would
attempt to do that, and if we couldn't ...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#17 Page 78
Pfab: So there is another check and balance? In other words, are we voting
now and it's whatever you work out is fine with us?
Schoon: No, we'll bring the agreement back to you.
Pfab: For approval?
Schoon: Correct.
Pfab: Okay. Fine.
O'Dormell: I'm fine with this (can't hear).
Atkins: Council, please keep in mind, we're entering a negotiation in a very
public process with a company in town that there' s a lot of good faith
that we're putting on the table and if there's, you know, an intent, I
mean, we will, I believe, fulfill what your expectations on the thing.
Champion: We don't doubt that.
Atkins: Okay. There's a good faith that we're putting here. I mean I can't ask
David to negotiate with those folks and put an agreement together
thinking it's going to come back here and get dumped.
Lehman: No, I think, Steve, if I'm not mistaken what you're saying is that by
approving this tonight we are approving in principal the concept and as
long as the contract is in keeping with what we've been told we are
really morally botmd to approve.
Atkins: Yes. If you're forgiving them the commitment then load the contract
up with peripheral issues is not fair to them.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: And I think it's a (can't hear).
Champion: The majority has committed.
Lehman: Okay, roll call. Motion is 5-1, Kanner voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 79
ITEM NO. 18. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIVE-YEAR ONE
HUNDRED PERCENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PROPERTY TAX REBATE TO ASSIST OWENS-BROCKWAY
PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC. WITH A NEW
MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN IOWA CITY.
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell ...
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Brandon Rossi I would like to just bring up that plastic production has been reported
on by the New York Times recently as being the prime suspect in
breast cancer and a suspect in other cancers; that it ... this is the kind
of consideration that involves public health. The City planners who
wrote a book, Duane and Zaibeck, wrote a book called Suburban
Nations, said that City Planning should endeavor to ensure that what
gets built on the urban fringe is environmentally sound, economically
efficient and socially just and I call attention to the environmentally
sound and to how many citizens of Iowa City want that kind of a
rebate given to a corporation although it may be a good corporation
where these considerations must come up and how much will the City
incur in expenses according to health expense and things like that and
local pollution. Thank you.
Lehman: Other discussion:
Kanner: Yes. I had a question. Is there someone representing the company
here?
Mark Bradley: Hi, I'm Mark Bradley, the area manufacturing manager for the health
care plants for Owens-Brockway.
Kanner: Hi, Mark. Thanks for coming. We have a memo from David saying
that the City Attorney did a Westlaw search and that's to determine if
the business has a consistent pattern of compliance with the law and
the spirit of the law including environmental regulations, occupational
safety and health laws, fair labor standards, the National Labor
Relations Act and the ADA, Americans With Disabilities Act. And it
goes on to say in the memo, there does not appear to be a pattern of
non-compliance with the law and the spirit of the law for this search
revealed limited litigation and/or reports which were adverse to the
Owens-Brockway plastic products and its affiliates in the last five
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 80
years. So apparently there was not any pattern found. But I was
wondering if you could tell me what the litigations and reports were
about that were found against Owens-Brockway in regards to the items
searching for in the Westlaw. And before you conunents, I would like
the ... Mark to comment on what, from his perspective.
Bradley: Well, from my personal experience, I haven't been involved in any of
those so for me to comment, I don't know whether I can add anything
to it. I don't even know the specifics on any of the litigations. We have
corporate officers that deal specifically with OSHA and safety and also
environmental issues and as far as I'm concemed we do a very good
job of complying with every state that we have a plant in and that's
their full-time job, make sure they're aware of what all the state and
national regulations are and we comply with those the best as we can.
Kanner: So you're not aware, you don't do a Westlaw kind of
Bradley: No, I don't. I'm the manufacturing manager. Certainly if there was a
plant of mine that got ... had an issue I would certainly get involved
from that perspective, but I haven't been involved in those ... any of
those kind of litigation.
Kanner: So to your knowledge, your plant here in Iowa City was not subject to
any of those complaints or
Bradley: We don't have a plant.
Lehman: They don't have a plant in Iowa City.
Karmer: You're right, I'm sorry. The plants that you're involved with, which
are where?
Bradley: I've got plants in Nashua, New Hampshire, in Washington, New
Jersey, Sullivan, Indiana, Rossville, Georgia, Greenville, South
Carolina, Rocky Mountain, North Carolina and Los Piedres, Puerto
Rico.
Karmer: So you've got 8 of those. And is that the totality of the corporate...
Bradley: No, we've got about 21 plastic container plants, several plastic closure
plants and then we also make glass containers. Worldwide.
Kanner: The eight that you oversee, then, you're not aware of any litigation in
regards to environmental concerns or labor or concerns?
Bradley: No, that's correct.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 81
Kanner: Okay. Now, David if you do have answer to what those were, I would
appreciate it ... hearing about that. Thanks, Mark.
Schoon: Most of what was found dealt with OSHA violations. Given that they
have 21 facilities, I believe we found for Owens-Brockway three
OSHA violations over the past three years which we found in the
Westlaw search, which given a 23 facilities with only finding three
violations, did not seem to be a pattern of non-compliance with OSHA
regulations. A couple of other things we found, one was a national
labor relations board decision that was adverse to Owens-Brockway
and they were handled a ruling in which they had to comply with, and
then there was another case that we found that dealt with, I don't
remember the law, the family
Dilkes: Medical leave act?
Schoon: Yes, thank you. And it was fairly neutral in terms of ruling, different
parts for both parties. So in terms of over five years, what we found
there seemed to be no consistent pattern of non-compliance with the
law.
Lehman: Other discussion?
O'Donnell: Sounds like an excellent record.
Pfab: I have a question here. As this is a relatively hazardous operation, not
great but it is a hazardous operation. Now, I'm sure that the people that
run the fire department are going to be concemed, and hazardous
material people are going to be concerned. And as a result, these ...
there' s going to have to be an increase in the production level of these
organizations to handle this and be ready to ... if something goes
wrong. So that's where I come with saying, well, if we provide the
benefits, you know, I have great difficulty with that, without paying
their share.
Karmer: Mark, are you going to be shutting down other plants to open up here?
Bradley: No, this is a business that was being manufactured by a competitor of
ours in another state, outside of Iowa, so we'll be bringing those jobs
to the state of Iowa.
Kanner: What'd you say there? I didn't quite understand what you said.
Bradley: We took this business from a competitor of ours; that is,
manufacturing
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 82
Kanner: You bought? You bought a business?
Bradley: We ... our customers put business up for bid periodically. We have
contracts, typically they may be three to five years, and when those
contracts come up, typically they put those businesses to bid and
typically the price of the bottles go down. It's a very competitive
business, lots of competitors in the plastic blown molding industry, so
we went after this, we wanted to get this business, and we were able to
get it and the customer' s here local and we'd like to be local with
them.
Kanner: So you're ... I didn't quite follow you as far as answering the question.
This is all new? You're not closing anything down anywhere else?
Bradley: No, correct.
Kanner: Okay.
Joe Raso: Good evening. My name's Joe Raso, I'm President of Iowa City Area
Development, and I just want to thank you for giving me the
opportunity as your area development representative, as you all know
you make investments into ICAD to do just the things we're doing
tonight, bringing to you two fabulous projects. I have some prepared
remarks I want to read from. There's so many good things about both
of these projects. Of course, the one you've already approved at
Seabury & Smith and now Owens-Brockway. And I don't want to
miss the opportunity to inform you as Council members and also the
public is listening tonight on the long term implications of the
decisions that you're making now because I really think it's very
important to have people understand that these short term decisions,
these short term investments that you're making really have long term
implications to the job that we can do on your behalf and also the job
that the staff and other people here in the community can provide you.
The decisions you're making tonight will be heard very clearly by our
existing business community and those looking to expand into the
area. And though your decisions are really short term financial
investments in two internationally recognizable companies, the long
term ramifications can be substantial. In several years the local taxing
bodies will be collecting over a quarter of a million dollars annually
from these two projects, not accounting for any expansions that they
do from this time forward, and if you remember the applications, both
of these companies are providing themselves additional space for
further expansion, if that's necessary for their markets here. Jobs will
be created, homes will be purchased and approximately $1.7 million in
additional payroll will multiply through our area economy. And with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 83
the approval of the Seabury & Smith project the community will now
have several marketable properties in which ICAD and the local
community can market. For those of you who don't know, about 80%
of companies who are beginning an initial site search for an expansion,
they're looking for an available industrial or office building, so it's
very important that we have marketable properties like the ones that
will be created when Seabury & Smith consolidates into the property
out at Northgate. I applaud personally the Council and the community
for establishing the urban renewal districts, both at Northgate and at
the Scott Six development back in 1997 and 1999. By doing so you
have allowed yourself the opportunity to use a very powerful local
economic development tool. I think it's also important to mention and
recognize the earlier financial investments made by the City and the
developers of these two parks. When you look across Iowa and having
worked in several communities in Iowa prior to my time coming here,
I see Iowa City and this area being in a very enviable position from a
local government perspective because we have private investors here
who are willing to work with the community to put up substantial
investments in land and infrastructure to attract companies. Essentially
what' s happening is the risk is being shared, both by the public
agencies and by the private investments. And with that comes a
sharing of the positive outcomes of projects, such as additional tenants
and companies in the area, construction dollars, jobs, homes, retail
sales, doctor visits and present and future property taxes that go to all
the local taxing entities. Mr. Kanner, you had stated yesterday during
the work session that the use of TIFF was to pay the cost of public
improvement projects and only that.
Kanner: No, I didn't say that was only, that obviously it's 'used for many other
... it's used in many different ways, as our City has demonstrated. So I
didn't say it was only.
Joe Raso: Correct. And I apologize if I misinterpreted your connnents from
yesterday, and I will reiterate what you said, that it is used in many
other ways, both for up front financial incentives or in the case of what
the City staff is proposing today, and for both of these projects, by
using it in probably the least risky aspect of it, providing a TIFF rebate
on property taxes rather than providing an up front lump sum of cash
to a company you're using a mechanism that provides least risk for the
community because should the company not meet the qualifications
that you've mentioned in their application, the community is not
obligated to rebate any of those taxes. One thing that people tend to
forget when looking at the impact of these two companies will have is
the real potential to use the success of these projects to attract more
business industries and people to our community. Companies locate in
clusters in like companies, around suppliers which Owens-Brockway
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 84
is doing to serve one of our foundation companies, industries here,
Procter & Gamble, and also people with skills to serve their particular
needs. In the end, companies talk with other companies in a
community to get a sense of their support for the business community.
You know, I think what a real opportunity we have here to send a
message to our existing industry base and other companies that are
looking at this area that the community is very supportive of both
people and business friendly companies. When you make a decision to
relocate or relocate your family to the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City
technology corridor, which of course we're a major part of, you do so
based not only on the job you're moving for, but also on the
opportunity for your spouse to get employment here. And more
importantly, because there are other options, because we have many
companies that people who have specific skills can work for, they
know that if they make the decision to locate here, if they find that
they don't like the working conditions for one reason or another, there
are other job opportunities that match their skills. And I think that's
very critical that we continue to diversify our economy in that way. In
closing, I would like to add that ICAD is currently working with
Kirkwood Community College to provide job training assistance for
both of these companies. MidAmerican Energy is working with
Owens-Brockway fight now on energy assistance and I also
understand the DOT is looking at the Owens project for rail assistance.
I also, on a personal note if I could, like to thank David Schoon for
really the terrific partnering that he's done working with our
organization. You know, I think at the end of the day these projects
really require a team effort to make them happen and the most
important components of that team are, in my mind, two co-captions.
That being the company that wants to make the decision and the City
that wants to make the decision to make the investment in those
companies. And when you consider that Owens-Brockway and
Seabury & Smith are looking at about $18 million in costs for their
projects, they seem to have made that commitment to the area, to our
citizens and to the people who are looking to move here, especially
with Owens. I know, for instance, the plant manager will be moving
into this area, he and his family. So I just ask and hope that, as a
Council, you'll agree with those comments and support this project
also.
Lehman: Thank you, Joe.
Brandon Ross: Just a last comment on the Item #18, I ... as the gentleman just now
just said, this a long term consideration, you want to send a message to
your constituency. I think it's important to take into consideration at
least to look into the environment, the environmental effects of having
this plastic manufacturing building built in Iowa City. I think that the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 85
citizens do want to know what's going to happen here and they have
the right to know what kind ofpollutants and things that will be going
into the air and how people will be affected. I think that' s information
that the people should be in on. So to make a decision without the
people I think would rest very heavy on the consciences of each and
every one of the City Council members. And this is a very serious
item, when you come to a matter of environment you are looking
down the road long term, and it's just as important of an investment. I
would entertain the representative from Owens-Brockway to even
make any comments he wished about what
TAPE CHANGE
Brandon Ross: that factory, or the building of it, and let us know what he has to say
about that at least. And I would also suggest that the Council at
minimum defer decision so that they could look into this. When we're
talking about breast cancer and other things that have been reported on
by such a newspaper as the New York Times, I think that this is a
grave area that should be considered. Thank you for your time.
Kanner: Mark, did you wish to comment on that?
Lehman: Mark, let me ask you a question. Do you not have to comply with all
of the rules and regulations of local building officials, the EPA, the
OSHA and all the rest of those folks and are you not fairly tightly
regulated in those fields?
Mark Bradley: Absolutely. I mean, we have the MSDS sheets for all ... everything we
use in the plant. It's open to the public to all our workers in the plant,
so yeah, it's public knowledge, and we haven't had any issues.
Brandon Ross: Actually I don't know if it is all public knowledge. There have been
Supreme Court rulings and federal rulings that it's not all public
knowledge. Some of the issues
Mark Bradley: Well, they're all posted in our plants. Wide open.
Brandon Ross: No, what pollutants you have, what are some of the pollutants that you
do produce?
Mark Bradley: Well, I mean, I'm not a member of the environmental staff at the
company so I can't give you what there are, I know that in strict states
such as New Jersey we don't have to do air admissions and such, I
mean, so the poundage is such that we've been able to not have to
even apply for the approvals to be able to admit to the air. So, I mean,
it hasn't been significant for us to have to do that. So, I don't know if
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 86
we can get a statement from someone from our environmental group
or what, but that would ... that might be possible. I don't see why not.
Kanner: Are there any federal standards ... sometimes we need to go beyond
federal standards
Lehman: And we normally do.
Kanner: What?
Lehman: We like to go beyond all standards, go ahead.
Kanner: No, we're talking about whether we should go ... you were making the
case that they're complying with federal standards so that's okay. I'm
making the case that sometimes the federal standards isn't okay and it
would be a good idea to get a list of that and have our staff and other
environmental groups take a look at that to see what are some of the
pollutants and if it is a cause for concern.
Lehman: Okay.
Mark Bradley: I guess one final comment is that, you know, we haven't been cited for
any environmental issues and we've been in business since 1959
making plastic bottles in Kansas City, so we've been around awhile
and we are environmentally friend. I mean, we're not ... and we're
very conscious of the fact that that is part of our duty.
Kanner: And that could well be, and I would certainly take you to a certain
extent at your word and I think it behooves us to get that information
and throw it around before we're giving out a reward, essentially, to a
company that we examine that in depth and let the community
examine that in depth before we give out the additional amount of
money, the $500,000 that we're considering to give to you.
Lehman: Is there any other discussion?
O'Donnell: I think they know very well how to operate their company. They've
not been cited. They're environmentally safe. I think they put a lot of
work into being just that and I'm ready to vote on this Emie.
Champion: I think (can't hear) the vote is a total miracle.
Dilkes: I don't ... I think probably the Westlaw search would have tumed up
certainly any litigated environmental matters.
O'Donnell: Absolutely.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#18 Page 87
Lehman: Okay, roll call. Motion carries 5-1, Kanner voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#19 Page 88
ITEM NO. 19. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND.
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Champion: So moved.
O' Donnel I: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: I will vote no because I don't believe in the philosophy that has been
shown by the Council Economic Development Committee. I think it's
a belief in a trickle down theory that similar to what we had in the 80s
and we've shown that it nearly bankrupt the country and I think it's
bad news for the City and I think we need to have another look at how
we would establish this. I think we found that trickle down theory,
what it really does is the person on top pees on you and then trickles
down on you, and that's not what I want.
Champion: And that's not appropriate.
Lehman: Okay, fttrther discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 4-2, Kanner and
Pfab in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#20 Page 89
ITEM NO. 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FUND.
Champion: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Pfab: I don't recall. Just refresh my memory, what was in this memo, I read
it but right now it's not (can't hear).
Lehman: These are recommendations from the Economic Development
Committee that's been meeting over the last what, year and a half, I
suspect. But ... and it establishes the fund, no disbursements from that
fund can be made without the approval of the Council, as is true of
almost all of these things.
O'Donnell: This is our very capable Economic Development Committee, and I
will wholeheartedly support this.
Lehman: I'm not sure there's going to be any money in it, but we're going to
establish the fund anyway.
Kanner: Well, it's basically to formalize ... what I read in the memo is to
formalize what's already in existence for the most part.
Lehman: I think that's true. Further discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 4-2,
Kanner and Pfab in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#21 Page 90
ITEM NO. 21. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FUND.
Champion: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Let me
just say that the block grant funds over the years have had an
economic development portion reserved for economic development
that we have been somewhat unsuccessful in getting applications for
those funds. I think it is the opinion, and correct me Ross if I'm wrong,
that we feel that perhaps the Economic Development Committee might
be better able to administer those funds than the HCDC Committee
would do and so we're asking that that money be earmarked for
economic development, applications be taken in accordance with
block grant requirements, and we would follow all of those
requirements but the recommendations would come from the
Economic Development Committee to the Council and would require
Council approval.
Wilbum: Part of the rationale, too, is that it would be a little more flexible than
having to wait for the one time of year when HCDC funds were
allocated and the other was trying to build a pot of money to be able to
do something with that.
Lehman: And also, if we approve this we then will need to amend the City Steps
guidelines and establish the pementage which then would be set aside
annually for that fund.
Champion: I'm going to support this. This is something we talked about even
before we formed our little Economic Development Committee. And I
think it's really a good idea.
Kanner: Couple things. Ross, I think that if one of the main reasons is that we
want to have it available more than just once a year, we could do that
within HCDC also, and I think it would be a good idea, and I think we
really ought to keep it in HCDC to get that perspective. I think there's
a wider perspective than economic development as the committee is
looking at it. I like the perspective of the nine members, having them
... having it be boshed by the nine members of HCDC. I think that's a
positive thing and that should be the first step and we get a broader
look at it and that's healthier, especially with these funds. And they're
going to be looking at things like child care, I think, in a more in-depth
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#21 Page 91
way than perhaps the Economic Development Committee. So I would
propose that we keep it in HCDC.
Wilburn: If I'm not mistaken part of the focus is related to Economic
Development is it's still targeted towards low to moderate income
folks. Is that not right? Is that, David? Any funds from for this
portion?
Atkins: The HCDC funding
Wilburn: component of
Atkins: Is targeted to low and moderate income families? I'm assuming that
the CDBG policies apply and that would
Schoon: Correct.
Champion: Correct.
Wilbum: And am I not mistaken that one of the comments from Steve Nasby
was that HCDC does do their ... review their applications once they
make their decision one time a year as opposed to something that
could perhaps be a bit more flexible through the Economic
Development Committee, is that an assumption that I'm incorrect on?
Schoon: Right now, HCDC considers applications that are requesting economic
development funding. They only consider those once a year, right.
Wilburn: Yeah.
Schoon: And establishing this pool of funds would allow us to have that
available to consider throughout the year.
Kanner: Well, they could certainly do it the whole year if they want ... if we
wanted to set those guidelines.
Wilbum: And I think that part of the other thing that makes it attractive for me
for the Economic Development Committee to look at is part is we're
... in doing some of the visits in some of the locations we might be
able to help sell and recruit some businesses to actually apply for
funding. That was a difficulty in the past that no one was applying for
this pool of funds, and so this idea is a proactive step.
Kanner: I think that one, give it to HCDC and let them do it throughout the
year. Encourage them to go out into the community along with them. I,
too, go out in the community in encouraging people, I think we all do
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#21 Page 92
that. I don't think we need the Economic Development Committee to
do that. I talk to small businesses and I think we need to get the ...
that's the life blood of the City is the small business here in Iowa City.
That's what makes the City go. And I think HCDC is more attuned to
that than the City Council Economic Development Committee.
Lehman: Well, I would tend to disagree. I do believe that the Economic
Development Committee of the Council and the Council themselves
will be somewhere more discriminating in the business-worthiness of
applicants that make application for funds.
Wilbum: Part of that had to do with the example we were talking about, just
whether folks that tend to look at some of the other human servicey
type things are looking at more of the grant application as opposed to
things like the business plan.
Lehman: Right, and I think we have seen that before, so. Further discussion?
Pfab: Yes, I won't be able to support this. I'm reluctant to see the
concentration that we're losing by not having a CDBG commission or
committee work with this and it just ... it looks like it just gets
narrower and narrower and I'm reluctant to see that. Also, the fact that
... we're getting farther away from what the original idea of the block
grant was. The idea was to get down into the community where, that's
where the federal tax money came in into the community where a
community can decide.
Lehman: We'll follow exactly the same guidelines that they do. Precisely the
same guidelines.
Pfab: Well, then ifit's precisely the same way and done the same way, why
don't we let them do it?
Lehman: Because I think if you look historically they have not had applications,
they've had much more difficulty in deciding grants for economic
development purposes than they ever have for human services. Human
services they're wonderful at. They seem not to have the skills that
probably they should have for making these kinds of determinations.
Pfab: Well, is this ... is the CDBG grant really set up for business
development or is it for human services?
Lehman: Both.
Champion: Both.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#21 Page 93
Pfab: Is there any guidelines percentage wise for how ... what the gist of
that money ... where that money is supposed to go?
Lehman: Yes.
Wilburn: City Steps the plan.
Pfab: For low income ... it's supposed to help low income people. But you
know, when you look around here, this economic development isn't
really concentrated very much on low income people.
Lehman: CDBG money would have to be. And it was in the
Pfab: That's where I can't make the thing fit.
Lehman: No, but we voted on CDBG money allocation this year that allocated
money for economic development that followed those guidelines.
Wilburn: About $125,000.
Lehman: $125,000.
Pfab: That was done with the CDBG community.
Lehman: That's correct.
Pfab: And we're taking ... we're moving the public one step ... we're
pulling back from the public one step, one step by not going through
CDBG.
Lehman: I disagree. But is there further discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 4-
2, Kanner and Pfab in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#25 Page 94
ITEM NO. 25. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION NAMING TIlE MINIPARK ON
BENTON STREET "NED ASIITON PARK".
Champion: Move the resolution.
O' Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? It's named
after Ned Ashton who designed a bridge that was, I think, historically
very significant, the old Iowa City bridge.
Champion: Yes, it was.
O'Donnell: He designed many.
Lehman: Discussion?
Kanner: Now, that's not where they hung that guy over the side? The Captain
Irish (can't hear)?
Lehman: No. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#26 Page 95
ITEM NO. 26. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVISED
SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CAItRGES FOR INTERMENTS,
LOTS SALES AND OTHER SERVICES IN OAKLAND
CEMETERY.
Champion: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: Can we get anyone interred? Can anybody buy a lot.
Kanner: Do you have to be dead or alive?
Champion: I mean, do you have to be in Iowa City?
Lehman: To be interred you have to be dead.
Champion: Do you have to be an Iowa City resident to be buried in the Iowa City
cemetery?
Trueblood: You didn't have someone specific in mind?
Champion: Yeah, I do.
Trueblood: You don't want to mention names, right? Anyone can, but it's a higher
cost (can't hear).
Champion: Okay. I just ... somebody asked me that today and I really didn't know
the answer.
Pfab: What is the difference, ifI might ask? How do you determine?
Trueblood: The difference in cost?
Pfab: Yes. Right.
Trueblood: 50% higher for non-residents.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: Roll call.
Atkins: Internment market will be good reason to have annexation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#26 Page 96
Lehman: Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#27 Page 97
ITEM NO. 27. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR
OAKLAND CEMETERY REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF LOT
OWNERS, MAINTENANCE PRACTICES AND RULES FOR
VISITORS.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. These have not been changed
since 1977.
Kanner: I just want to make note. I believe we have upstairs a brochure of the
trees of Oakland Cemetery. It's a very nice brochure if anyone ever
wants to pick one of those up.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
Dilkes: Mr. Mayor, before you go on could we go back to at least Items 15 and
16 so our platting director could leave?
Lehman: Oh, yes. Alright. Just a minute. I've got it marked so I can get back to
it. I'm sorry Karin.
Karr: 12 is where you left off. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have to be done.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#12b Page 98
ITEM NO. 12b. ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTION 1-9-3b OF CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF IOWA CITY, ESTABLISHING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE VOTING PRECINCTS IN IOWA
CITY; AND AMENDING SECTION 1-5-1 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF IOWA CITY, ESTABLISHING THE
VOTING PRECINCTS THAT COMPRISE THE THREE CITY
COUNCIL DISTRICTS.
Lehman: Do we have a motion to consider amending Section 1-9-3b?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab. Madan would you just give
us a quick thumbnail sketch of what we're .. I think we're all aware of
this but the public may not be.
Karr: Basically all of the boundaries in all of the precincts were adjusted,
some very very slightly, but the most significant changes were in four
areas. Three precincts were created out of 12 and 15, out of the current
precincts 12 and 15, and a new precinct was added at the Mercer Park
recreation center. Okay? Secondly, three precincts were created out of
the current precincts 2 and 9, and a new precinct 13 will be added to
the City transit building. Precinct 13, the current precinct 13 will join
14 and vote at Twain elementary, and most of the current 14 now
becomes part of 18 and goes south of the railroad tracks and will vote
at Longfellow. And finally, the current precinct 6, which I noted
earlier was relocated, has been eliminated and that will mean that all
the dormitories on the east side, with the exception of Mayflower, will
all vote in precinct 5 at Burge.
Wilburn: Will it be the responsibility of the Commissioner of Elections to notify
everyone of the changes?
Karr: Yes, it will be.
Wilbum: Okay. Alright.
Lehman: And I might point out that the variation in size, for example, of the
districts in Iowa City go from 20,325 to 21,065, which is incredibly
close.
Karr: Yeah, but that's on districts, we're on precincts right now, but that is
close.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#12b Page 99
Lehman: Right. I'm sorry, that's the next one. Alright is there discussion? Roll
call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#13 Page 100
ITEM NO. 13. 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. (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move second consideration.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. This deals with
increasing the charges for new meters. Discussion? Roll call. Motion
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#15 Page 101
ITEM NO. 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREMEENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE NATIONAL
SCULPTORS' GUILD WITH AND THROUGH ITS ARTIST
FOR THE LIBRARY PAD OF THE DOWNTOWN
PEDESTRIAN MALL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE SAME.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Discussion?
Kanner: When will this be put up?
Franklin: It will probably be about the spring or summer of 2003 when the
library is finished.
Kanner: Are we going to own it until then?
Franklin: Yes, we will own it. It will be kept in storage at the National Sculptors
Guild.
Kanner: There's no way to display it anywhere before that?
Franklin: I think there would be some difficulty in that. It's kind of heavy and
we would need to move it and we'd need to secure it when we ... I
would be ... well, I don't know, we could if you want.
Champion: It'd be expensive.
Lehman: We could deal with that when we get it.
Franklin: Yeah, I mean as it stands now it's going to stay at the Sculptors Guild
until we request that they bring it to us and install it, and they're
responsible for the installation. So if we were to get it sooner, put it
someplace and put it someplace else, then we would have to be
responsible for the installation.
O'Donnell: Fine.
Karmer: I know art ... we should appreciate art just for art's sake, but I could
see a scenario where other cities are putting them up in the next two
years and we sort of lose some of our pizzazz. Aren't we the first one
that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#15 Page 102
Franklin: I don't think we'll ever lose our pizzazz.
Lehman: Oh, I don't think so either.
Kanner: In terms of Ties that Bind.
Franklin: Oh.
Champion: We'll still have number one.
Kanner: But it could go up like number seven?
Champion: No. We'd get the first one, right?
Franklin: We get the first one that has been cast but the other copies could be
sold, I mean Steven's right, it could go someplace else.
Champion: Yeah, but they'll have 2 through whatever number on them? We'll
have number 1 ?
Franklin: Yeah, we'll have number 1.
Lehman: Could we ask if your committee feels that there might be a place that
you recommend to us, a place that we might show it prior to that?
Franklin: Okay, do you ... so then you want to take on the cost of installation?
Lehman: No, no. You consider it, you may decide that you don't want to do
anything with it and leave it where it's going to be, leave it resting in
peace.
O'Donnell: I think that's decided, isn't it?
Kanner: Well, but maybe the art museum might say it's worth it for them to put
it up as sort of a pre-show.
Franklin: I can talk with the Committee about it.
Lehman: Do it.
Pfab: Basically it's the cost and the responsibility of siting it. And if we can
work around that...
Franklin: The way the contract is written right now is that the National Sculptors
Guild is responsible for transporting the sculpture to Iowa City,
installing it on the pad where we specify. If we want to have it some
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#15 Page 103
place and then move it to the pad by the library later, they will bring it
to whatever that someplace is then we will need to move it and install
it at the library at such time as the library is finished.
Pfab: Well that might be ... it may be a cost that will have enough benefits
to it. I would suggest once it's purchased and available that we be
notified and go from there.
O'Donnell: That's what we'll let this group decide.
Franklin: It's available right now.
Pfab: It's ready available now?
Franklin: I'll talk to the Public Art Committee.
Lehman: We're approving the agreement; we're not really discussing whether
or not we're going to show it sooner. That's something we can take up
at a later point.
Pfab: Next work session, okay.
Kanner: But, so you're going to ask Public Arts Advisory Committee to look at
this issue and see if something might work out?
Franklin: We have a meeting Thursday.
Champion: We might want to bear in mind here it will be very expensive to move
and replant it. I guess that' s not what you called it.
Franklin: Install it.
Champion: Install.
Franklin: Yes.
Champion: And do we want to use that money for another art project or for
moving this one around?
Franklin: Um hmm.
Lehman: Well, let's ... you guys talk about it.
Pfab: I would...
Lehman: We've talked about it enough. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#30 Page 104
ITEM NO. 30. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BY-LAWS OF
THE POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD TO ESTABLISH
TERM OF MEMBERS TO EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 1.
Champion: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Dormell. This, I think, is just
kind of a housekeeping thing for them so the terms expire more
appropriately for reappointments.
Kanner: Well, I have a question. Why is that more appropriate?
Lehman: This is what they asked us to do and I have no problem with it ifthat's
what they'd like to do.
Kanner: I'm just curious ...
Karr: It makes it consistent with the ordinance.
Kanner: With the ordinance?
Karr: Yes.
Kanner: The sunshine?
Karr: No, it has nothing to do with the sunset clause. It has to do with the
ordinance itself and the appointments made. The first appointments
were made September 1 when the ordinance went into effect so it
gives them the full period.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion canies.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#31 Page 105
ITEM NO. 31. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PILOT
PROGRAM FEE FOR CITY PLAZA NEWSPAPER KIOSKS.
Kanner: I'm going to have to excuse myself for conflict of interest.
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Champion: So moved.
O'Donnell: I would love to second this.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion. Tell us
why you would love to second it?
O'Donnell: Because these have been sitting there for eternity unused and I'm very
glad to see finally somebody can go up and get a paper out.
Lehman: Yeah, I'm really happy.
Champion: It hasn't happened yet.
Wilburn: It hasn't happened yet.
O'Donnell: This is a start.
Lehman: Well, I really really hope the newsfolks agree with our feeling and
place the papers in them and we start using them.
Pfab: I think the best comment in this is no comment.
Lehman: Okay, roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#35 Page 106
ITEM NO. 35. CITY COUNCIL INFOMRATION.
Pfab: Good night.
Champion: Good night.
O'Donnell: Just a quick one here. I was very fortunate to watch most of the bicycle
riders on RAGBRAI and it was really impressive. And what was also
impressive was their support vehicles. They came in about ... I think
there was 12,000 bicycles and they had 1200 vehicles that carded the
bikes and the tents and the food and everything. But it was a
tremendous thing and it's a real test of will for these folks to ride
across the state on a bicycle, and Ross you are my new hero. Also, the
community lost a very dear friend of mine, Don Hebert, it was to very
tragic cimumstances, and Emie you said something that I think was
said very well, there are two kinds of people, Don's friends and those
he hasn't met yet, and I believe that so my condolences to his family.
And that is it.
Wilbum: I just want to add it was I guess a banner night for Parks and
Recreation, and we passed the skate board park, approved the contract
for that, the City Park trails, scratched the Hunters Run Park, naming
the Ned Ashton Park and even there' s an opening on Park and Rec
Commission, so if you're a supporter, and then not forgetting putting
the structure in place for, you know, the cemetery, for that also, (can't
hear) apologies to folks who've had difficulty with that, and other than
that, congratulations to Wetherby Park drive-in movies, I guess it was
well attended. Another one coming up in August.
O'Donnell: I saw that. That was great.
Lehman: Steven?
Kanner: We got a memo from Steve Atkins about the new wetlands regulations
and I thank you for that, it's proposed that we look at that at our
August 20th work session. And so if folks have comments, please get
them to us or to Steve. I did have one small concern about that, you
didn't mention private developers. You're talking about public
projects and interactions with wetlands and the new regulations, new
federal regulations, and I have a concern about private developers and
if we don't reach a decision on August 20th I would like us to put a
moratorium of 3-6 months, have a proposal ready that we can look at. I
was wondering if the Council would agree to that, that we have along
with that if we don't reach a decision that we put a moratorium that
would put the same standards that we had before the Supreme Court
ruling on the wetlands.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#35 Page 107
Pfab: Did I understand it a couple of private developers have already closed
them down, covered them up7
O'Donnell: Covered up what?
Pfab: Those wetland spots?
O'Donnell: Oh, I don't know.
Kanner: I'm worried also that if we don't have a moratorium in place they
could use that if they ever wanted to go to court and say they own this
land and they expect that they didn't have to ... if we do pass
something in the future they can get around that. So I really think we
need to consider a moratorium if we don't decide on something
August 20th as a temporary ...
Pfab: I thought I'd seen information where a number of them have already
just bulldozed them over, closed them up.
O'Dounell: That was a rain puddle, there's enough evaporation...
Lehman: I expect that we can probably get that, I personally am not interested in
a moratorium until I hear the staff reports and why they are willing to
accept the ... what the Supreme Court has given us of what ... I'd like
to know what the impact is. If there ... you know, I really don't like to
jump until I know where I'm going to land. I don't know what a
moratorium would do, and I guess I'd like to hear the staff's report and
certainly if they make a convincing case or we do, I would certainly
entertain that, but not until I ...
Atkins: Just so you understand it will also be a policy decision, staff is split.
Lehman: That's fine, that's even better, we'll probably have a better discussion.
Atkins: Okay.
Kanner: Well, a moratorium, what I'm proposing is that a temporary one of 3-6
months that says we use the standards that we had just a few months
ago before the decision which means we would go by what we've been
doing for the last few years.
Champion: I think that's a good idea, Steve, but I don't think this is the night to
make that decision.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#35 Page 108
Kanner: Not to make it now, but I'm saying that that proposal be brought to us
if we don't reach a ... I'm afraid we might defer this August 20th and
more developers will come in there if we don't pass anything. We
need at least a temporary decision if we don't reach one on August 20th
and I'm asking that something be brought with that in mind.
Atkins: We'll be prepared to discuss that.
Pfab: And so it will come up at the work session, then?
Atkins: I'm sure we'll be ready by the next work session.
Pfab: It will be on the agenda for the next meeting then?
Atkins: I can't imagine why we wouldn't be able to.
Pfab: Okay, so I would encourage that.
Atkins: We've got some (can't hear) for another meeting to prepare something
for you.
Dilkes: We're talking about the work session report to you all
Lehman: The 20th.
Dilkes: On the 20th and then it will depend on what you decide, what we draft
from.
Kanner: And I'm saying what ... we should bring a draft of a temporary
moratorium in case we don't decide on something permanent. That
should be brought to the meeting on Monday because if we don't have
pass anything, that means we go another few weeks where there's
more wetlands that could be filled in, if we don't have that
moratorium. That's what I was asking, that we bring that to the
meeting, that we be prepared to pass that if we don't pass a permanent
resolution.
Pfab: I would certainly encourage that.
Lehman: Is there interest in doing that? I'm not interested until I see what we're
talking about, so.
O'Donnell: Seems to make sense.
Lehman: But I think we can ... do you have anything else, Steven?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.
#35 Page 109
Kanner: That's it.
Lehman: I'm not going to belabor anything. Stephen?
Atkins: Nor am I.
Lehman: Eleanor? Madan? Do I have a motion to adjourn?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: Second?
Wilbum: Yes.
Lehman: All in favor of adjournment? Motion carried. Adjoumed at 11:10 p.m.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 31, 2001.