HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-21 Transcription#2a Page 1
ITEM NO. 2.a. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS: AVIATION WEEK - AUGUST
20-26.
Mayor reads the proclamation.
Mark Anderson: I just want to say just a real quick few comments. First of all, this is an
outstanding opportunity for Iowa City to show what I've always called
one of its front doors to the City. We're expecting a really big turnout
and we have just a lot of activities planned for young and old alike,
educational as well as I guess some very fine air show activities.
There' s a number of people, though, that I'd really like to thank
who're just done a lot of work bringing this activity together, and I'll
just briefly go through. John Ruyle, who was responsible for the air
show itself; Jill and Justin Fishbaugh who have been coordinating all
the different vendors and people that we have coming in; Alien Ellis
and Rick Mascari who headed up all the educational activities; Dick
Blum is handling the air side part of the event; Ron O'Neil is taking
care of safety and security; Wendy Ford handling the public relations;
Ann Anderson the hangar dance; and Jim McCarragher is heading up
the breakfast. And the numbers of hours that these people have put in
is just incredible and what they've given back to their community, so
we hope everybody comes out and enjoys the activities this weekend
and thank you very much for the proclamation.
Lehman: Mark, this is a free event right?
Anderson: This is free.
Lehman: Both days, all day, no charges.
Anderson: With the exception of the pancake feed everything is free and open to
the public.
Lehman: Should be a lot of fun.
Anderson: Oh, it'll be great.
Lehman: Thank you, Mark.
Anderson: Thank you.
Champion: It's going to be a wonderful opportunity for the public to see our
beautiful restored terminal which is really worth seeing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#2a Page 2
Lehman: There are a couple, three chairs down here in the front but we need to
ask that the doorways be kept clear because of the fire code, so if you
wouldn't mind using the chairs, or if not, you can pull up along the
wall or we do have obviously sound in the lobby as well. At this point,
I would like to introduce Karin Franklin for a special presentation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#3a Page 3
ITEM NO. 3.a. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - Nancy Seiberling Portraits.
Franklin: Our special presentation tonight is a presentation of a gift to the Iowa
City Public Art Program. This is a gift from Ina Loewenberg, who is a
photographer and artist, and she is giving this gift in honor of Nancy
Seiberling. Emile Rubright is going to make a couple of comments
about Nancy and her contribution to Iowa City and then Ina will
present the portraits to the Mayor.
Emile Rubright: Now, here is Nancy Seiberling, and we owe her just so much it's just
hard to sort of condense it into one sentence because, oh for about the
last 35 years she's been in here lobbying whoever sits in your chair
into the benefits of good design, environmental excellence, what we
can do to make our City more environmentally pleasing to people. My
association with her, although she has many other projects, has been
through Project Green, where this all started during the urban renewal
process and the lobbying to make downtown a people place, a tree
place, place where people want to sit down and be comfortable. This
lady had a lot to do with the final results. And we all thank her for it.
She is so energetic and she' s inspired legions of people in Project
Green to raise money to beautify our environment with such projects
as the College Green Park refurbishing. So we just want to thank
Nancy for her vision and her determination which is awesome and she
has always been in love with Iowa City and she just wants to make it
the best and most environmentally interesting place that she possibly
can. So, in her honor today, these pictures are just sort of a small token
of how we all feel about Nancy.
Ina Loewenberg: Mr. Mayor, I'm very pleased
Karr: I'm sorry, could we mike? We're not picking her up at all. Thank you.
Ina Loewenberg: Thank you so much. I'm very pleased to give these pictures to Iowa
City and to have them find a home in honor of Nancy Seiberling. And
should we show them?
Lehman: Yes. It seems so appropriate that there are trees because every time I
think of Nancy I think of trees. Now, I know Nancy, your interest is
far more than just trees but every time I think of trees I think of Nancy.
Certainly these are pictures that the City will cherish. I think we even
talked last night about finding a rotation so that we can show them in
several different places so more people can see them, and Ina, thank
you so much for the gifts.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#3a Page 4
Nancy Seiberling: I just wanted to say, I think, a thank you to Iowa City because you've
given me the best years of my life. I ... more than ... I don't want to
seem boasting about this, but I don't think there's anybody who would
enjoy coming downtown more than I do. This is just a wonderful
place. It isn't just what I did - it's the way people responded to
something that was brought to their attention and a lot of people got
together to pursue a way of making it change from something that was
mn down at the heel, looking awful, people didn't really want to do
anything about coming downtown because it looked so dreadful. But it
was Gretchen Hershberger who said, to you and to me and to
everybody, if Iowa City looked better we'd all feel better about it and
that was when she got a few of us together who were gardeners and
she said, Now what can we do? Gretchen was very clever; she knew
exactly what should be done. But she always tried to find out what
other people thought and then would weave this together in a
marvelous scheme that would solve the whole problem. And she was
the one who perceived the idea that people needed to see why you did
something and what was involved in it, and that was the beginning of
our work and our first project was to restore Iowa Avenue. Sadly, it's
gone out of someone's vision, but you see, that was the main, that was
the most important avenue in the State. It connected the Statehouse,
the center of government in the state with the Govemor's mansion
which was at the other end, and it had been, it needed to be brought
back to a state of respectability just to make that historic connection,
and so when we started on Iowa Avenue that was where, if we ... she
said if this will ... if we can make this look proper so that it's an
inviting place to come, people will really love it. And her whole
scheme was that anywhere you would like to create and if you can
create a better visual situation, people will respond and this is certainly
the way things followed as gone from downtown to other projects and
to schools and around the City. But it's been combining ... what has
been exciting about it is the way people, individuals and government
entities and businesses have all been willing over the years to
cooperate to do this. And I think we all of us have a great deal to be
proud of and to enjoy as a result of Gretchen Hershberger's initial
vision for us all. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Nancy. At this point, I would entertain a motion to
consider # 12 on the agenda out of order.
O'Donnell: I would like to move we move Item 12 up at this time.
Champion: Second.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#3a Page 5
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. All in favor say aye.
Opposed, same sign. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#12 Page 6
ITEM NO. 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE GIFT OF
ARTWORK FROM INA LOEWENBERG, CONSISTING OF
TWO PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAITS OF NANCY
SEIBERLING, TO THE IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART
COLLECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE ARTIST FOR
ACCEPTANCE OF SAME.
Champion: Move the resolution.
O' Donnell: Second.
Lehman: By Champion, seconded by O'Donnell.
Kanner: Could we get another look at the picture? I didn't really get a chance to
see it. Very nice. Karin you're going to be looking at it for awhile.
Lehman: Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#3b Page 7
ITEM NO. 3.b. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - Government Finance Officers
Association Certificate of Excellence.
Lehman: This is a certificate presented to the City of Iowa City. Mayor read the
certificate. How many years Steve?
Atkins: I believe 16.
Lehman: Yeah. Pretty amazing.
Karr: Here to receive the award is Finance Director, Kevin O'Malley.
O'Malley: I'm very pleased to accept GFOA's award for excellence in financial
reporting. I'd like to make a few comments about how it was achieved
and why we endeavor to achieve it each year and who should really
share in the credit for this award. How is the certificate achieved?
After the close of our fiscal year our accounting division summarizes
the multitude of transactions into our basic financial statements. Those
are the combined statement of balance sheets, statement of revenues
and expenditures and a statement of cash flows. After we prepare those
documents we employ auditors to audit and test those financial
statements for clarity, completeness and comparability. We then take
the next step, we submit these financial statements and supplementary
information to the GFOA organization for their review. If our financial
statements meet the established criteria for excellence, presentation is
given to Iowa City. Why do we submit these financial statements to
GFOA? Well, one of the responsibilities of the finance department is
the periodic preparation of our financial reports. And to that end, the
finance department is committed to complete disclosure and
distribution of this financial information to the citizens and our bond
holders. And now, to who gets the credit. I'd like to say I should get all
the credit, but I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight so I need to share
that. And much of the credit belongs with my very capable assistant,
Erin Herting, and the assistant controller, Regina Schreiber, and the
senior accountant, Ann Maurer. The other folks in accounting also
monitor our internal control policies. Those are Linda Kron and Deb
Mejia, our accounts payable specialist, Jan Burr, our payroll specialist,
and Pamela Thodos, our accounts receivable specialist. We also had
some outside help, our auditors, Deloit and Tush, provided us much
needed technical guidance. I'd also like to thank the City Manager for
his support and encouragement, my colleagues, the department
directors and division managers for their willingness to comply with
our internal control policies, and lastly, you Mayor Lehman and
esteemed Council members for taking the time tonight to recognize the
efforts of the finance department and for your trust and respect that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#3b Page 8
you've shown to the finance department throughout the year, Thank
you.
Lehman: Thank you, Kevin. One other item before we do the consent calendar.
We have another, you know, our staff here at the Civic Center is
blessed with a lot of very, very professional people, but in our packet
this time we received a memo that Sylvia Mejia has received from the
International Personnel Management Association, she has been
certified as a professional in personal management, and I think, Dale,
would you tell us a little about what this involves because I think this
is a very distinct honor for our personnel director.
Helling: You know, Sylvia's been in our personnel division for over 20 years
and she' s been personnel administrator for 15. Let me ... I' 11 just read
a little bit about what it means to have this award, This award is
granted to people who have met the professional standards set to
recognize excellence in public sector human resources and have
demonstrated to a panel of senior level professionals their commitment
to public sector human resoumes by undertaking a rigorous review of
their technical expertise and understanding the importance of
behavioral competencies in their role of human resources
professionals. So I think one of the critical things about this, one of the
most noteworthy things, is that this isn't something you get
automatically. This requires initiative on the part of the person seeking
the certification to actually go forth and demonstrate that they have
achieved a certain level of professional excellence above, considerably
above that of the average human resources professional, and then to
demonstrate to this board through not only demonstrating their
educational and technical requirements but also through a testing
procedure to prove to this board that they have indeed achieved that
level of excellence. So I think Sylvia is certainly to be congratulated
and we wanted to bring it to your attention by making you aware that
she'd received it.
Lehman: Congratulations Sylvia.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#4 Page 9
1TEM NO. 4. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Champion: Move adoption.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Kanner: I'd like to remove f.(3) for separate consideration, resolution,
accepting the work for the transit lot resurfacing, page 91 in our
packets.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: And then I have discussion on a number of items on the consent
calendar.
Lehman: Go right ahead.
Kanner: The first one is in regard to the Public Art Advisory Board. I wanted to
ask Karin to come up, I had some questions about the minutes. There
was a note about the Visual Artists Rights Act in regard to accepting
the portraits, actually, that we just accepted, was discussion, this was a
few weeks ago. And it talked about this, the VARA, as it's known, is
the first instance in the United States where there are moral rights for
art. And I was wondering if you could explain what that meant and
what it means in context of the City, Iowa City.
Franklin: The moral rights for art is language that comes directly from the Act,
and the actual test of what that language means has not occurred yet in
the courts. It is a concept that comes from European culture, as I
understand it. Basically what the Visual Artists Rights Act is about is
recognizing the rights that artists have to maintain the integrity of their
work both in terms of its maintenance, its location, and its existence,
that you cannot take a work of art that you have acquired and destroy it
or relocate it or amend it without the artist's permission. It could be a
very stringent act that would inhibit public art if it were used to the
fullest extent of the Act as it's in the law. There are provisions,
however, for artists to waive some of their rights and we do include
those waiver of rights in the contracts that we put together with artists,
the artists are aware of it. We also provide provisions in our contracts
to notify, try to contact and have some collaboration with artists if we
are going to anticipate ever moving a work of art which we have
acquired. And it will be different, of course, with everything. The
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#4 Page 10
permanent sculptures that are in the pedestrian mall, for instance, it's
... there would have to be some sort of decision on the City Council to
actually move those, it's not likely that we're going to be moving them
around. Dorothy, the sculpture, the tomadic sculpture, that was
acquired with the knowledge that we were going to move it from place
to place within the City, and so it's different for different pieces.
Kanner: Thanks. Just one other point from the discussion from the Board. They
talked about a possible mural downtown? I'm excited by the idea of a
mural. I was wondering if you could tell us where that is.
Franklin: Well, we'll see if that in fact materializes. It's something that may be
before the committee at their September meeting. The proposal is for a
possible mural on the wall of Dulcenea at the comer of Dubuque and
Iowa Avenue.
Kanner: Any particular theme in mind?
Franklin: I don't know yet.
Kanner: Okay. Well, that's exciting to hear. Thank you. Then, in number d., I
had a question for Steve. Last year we talked about after alcohol
ordinances were passed we'd be getting police reports on a regular
basis and we'd also get reports for ... extended reports for PAULA's
and others things with any license fee that' s applying for renewal. And
I was wondering if those things were going to be coming soon.
Atkins: They should be coming soon. I'll give you a memo, hopefully in the
next day or so, giving you an update. I apologize. I didn't check the
status of that, but I'll have it for you shortly.
Kanner: Thank you. And then also, Karin, I'm sorry, there was another item
about, we're setting a public hearing for Steps on September 11th in the
consent calendar. For City Steps.
Franklin: For City Steps, um kmm.
Karmer: Could you explain briefly what that is for people in the City that might
be watching this and what are the proposed amendments that are being
talked about?
Franklin: City Steps is the consolidated plan, that's what the formal name of it,
is a requirement that we do for HUD to act as a guideline for the
allocation of our CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant,
and Home funds. And the specific amendment that will be discussed at
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#4 Page 11
that, or will be before the public at that public heating, is the change
from 5% to 9% of the dollars that would be going to economic
development, that's the proposal from the Economic Development
Committee. However, the public hearing is also a time for anyone
from the public to bring issues to the Council' s attention if there are
things that should be amended in City Steps or included in City Steps
which are not in there now.
Kanner: Well we had a process about a year and a half ago or two years ago
where community members were invited to help draw up the City
Steps program and they're welcome to come back and reflect on it and
how it's going and if there's anything that needs to be changed.
Franklin: Absolutely. Right.
Kanner: Thanks. Emie, one other thing I had a concern about. We're also
voting in resolutions, #f.(1), to allow County folks in some township
precincts to vote in Iowa City precincts. And I think that' s okay to do.
I think oftentimes there's confusion of people who have an Iowa City
address but live in the County aren't aware that they can vote for City
issues and candidates, and so they go to their polling place, even when
it's outside of the City, and they say, why can't they vote for this? I'm
going to vote for this, I think it's good, but I'm just wondering if we
could ask that the County and/or the City might send an extra notice to
say "You're not part of the City" basically and give them a little more
warning, because I know a number of people who say, I'm not in the
City, I can't vote, and they go and this could be a little more
confusing.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, ifI may. This was at the request of the Commission of
Elections, our Auditor, Tom Slockett, and I believe each postcard that
will go, all precincts are changing in the City, all postcards that will be
going will have an explanation on that and I think I will bring that to
his attention to be sure that maybe we could include that as well.
Kanner: And maybe even a little extra perhaps that needs to be done every
couple years or something.
Karr: Okay, and again, it's to clarify this is for the convenience of the voters
because it is the closest voting place for them.
Kanner: And that makes sense. I just want to give them as much notice and say
that you're not part of the City, and we'd like you to be part of the City
perhaps.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#4 Page 12
Karr: I'll discuss that with Tom.
Kanner: Alright, thanks.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call on the consent calendar as amended.
Champion: Move f.(2).
Karr: f.(3)?
Champion: (3).
Lehman: Motion to approve f.(3) by Champion.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Second by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Kanner: Well, I bring this up. This is for transit lot resurfacing accepting the
work for that. That' s our building parking lot on Riverside Drive, just
south of Highway 1, Highway 6 intersection. And I took a tour of the
building and the facilities and one thing that was point out, it appears
they did a good job of resurfacing it but this is on top of the dump, as
most of us know, 30 feet of the old landfill, and it's sinking and even
after they redid it, resurfaced it, it's sinking, I think like a 16th Of an
inch every month or so I was told something.
Atkins: I'm not surprised at that.
Kanner: And there's sinkholes, right now they're small ones that are starting to
appear, but some could be quite deep. They're small, so I'm just
concerned that this whole area' s going to need some significant work
and it's something we have to talk about and maybe now we can talk
about also, should we ... is there any out for accepting this work,
should they have known? Should the people we contracted with known
that this perhaps is not the time to resurface it before we settle this
problem. Because I have a feeling we're going to have to resurface the
whole lot.
Champion: It's been a chronic problem.
Lehman: We have resurfaced this lot numerous times.
Champion: A great many times.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#4 Page 13
Lehman: I mean this isn't the first time. Some of that, some places down there
we've got asphalt that is, I believe, several feet thick.
Champion: Probably the thing we should look at is moving that facility.
Lehman: We can't move the bus facility.
Arkins: Just so you understand, the building won't move. It's on pilings.
Everything around it will sink. The building won't go anywhere.
Champion: It'd be an island.
Atkins: I'm sorry it doesn't make you feel any better.
Lehman: I certainly share your concems, Steve, in relative to the problem that
exists down there. I do not know if it's appropriate not to pay a
contractor to do the work that we hired him to do.
Kanner: Well, yeah, and I would most likely agree with you. I'm just throwing
it out to see, it sounds like this was known beforehand that it could
sink again.
Lehman: We've know that for 25 years.
Kanner: I'm just, I didn't know, I guess. Perhaps it's my fault. I thought that it
was in pretty good shape. So I would suggest that we have a work
session of some sort to talk about it because we might need to bite the
bullet and do a permanent solution if we're going to be there for
awhile with the buses. If we're going to be putting in, what is it,
$200,000, $120,000 every two years and there's a danger of big
sinkholes opening up, I don't know ifthat's wise to do that. How
many times have we resurfaced it recently?
Lehman: Well, I don't know recently. The total resurface I don't think has been
probably quite as often. But I think there' s almost annual patching for
sinking.
Atkins: Yes. Around the building you'll notice it's exceptionally thick because
we have to build the slope to allow the buses to get in and out and
that's done, I'm sure that's done every year.
Lehman: Well, Steve could we just get a new ... a memo from engineering?
Obviously they're well aware of this and as I recall, Karin, we talked
about reclaiming that area and I think to reclaim that area involves
some compaction process that we're talking
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#4 Page 14
Atkins: If we ever hope to market the area. Eventually, the only building that
will remain there will be the transit building because everything else
will be moved out.
Pfab: I have a question. Is that eligible for a brownstone?
Atkins: Brownfield? Yes, we've applied twice, Irvin, and our projects were
rejected and we intend to apply again. We do stay up to that one. But it
is a Brownfield eligibility.
Lehman: Okay, but we can get a memo from engineering?
Atkins: Yes, we' 11 prepare that.
Lehman: Is them further discussion on, we did receive a note from the City
Engineer indicating that the work has been done to the specifications
required by the contract. So, is there further discussion on Item f.(3)?
Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 15
ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
Carol deProsse: My name is Carol deProsse, and I'm wondering if tonight, Mayor
Lehman, before we get into the public discussion portion of the
meeting if I could prevail upon you to call for a moment of silence so
that those of us who wish to do so could join in a community memory
of Eric Shaw, an Iowa City resident, a artist in his prime and a young
man when he was killed five years ago on August 29th by a bullet from
the Iowa City Police Department.
Lehman: I think that would be appropriate.
DeProsse: Thank you. Thank you.
Tom Langenfeld: My name is Tom Langenfeld, and I live at 215 Windsor Drive here in
Iowa City. And I want to express my concern tonight regarding one of
the proposed amendments to the Iowa City charter that may be voted
upon this November. I am concerned about the amendment that seeks
to fundamentally alter our Council-Manager form of government. The
proposed amendment, if passed, would subject the City Manager and
the Chief of Police to a retention vote every four years. In essence, the
amendment would force the City Manager and Police Chief to mn for
their appointed offices every four years. I believe that this proposed
amendment, although well intentioned, would have several serious
negative long-term consequences. Such an amendment would
politicize the positions of City Manager and the Chief of Police. Forty
years ago many municipalities around the country decided to adopt a
Cotmcil-Manager form of government. The purpose behind this move
at that time was to create a City Manager position that would be non-
political and provide good, professional management. My wife and I
live here in Iowa City and we plan to live here for the next 25 years
and beyond. And we question the long term wisdom of such a
proposal. Number one, no other city in the country has such a retention
vote for these offices. If the proposed amendment were to become part
of the City charter, Iowa City would be saddled with what I believe is
a major handicap in hiring a City Manager or a Police Chief in the
future. We estimate that after our current City Manager and Police
Chief leave, few qualified candidates would be interested in
considering these positions with this retention vote hanging over their
heads. Secondly, the City Manager oversees the City budget.
Specifically, this includes around $150 million at this time. Due to the
size of the budget, I want the best possible person to be in this
particular position, and I fear that if we were to have such an
amendment become part of our City ordinances, we wouldn't have
that. Thirdly, I feel that political considerations affect so many aspects
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 16
of the City's policies and governments and adopting this amendment
would just add to this and further politicize all of the decision making
processes and every action taken here in City Hall. For these reason
and others, I hope that the City Cotmcil and the City voters will think
carefully about all of these issues before going down what I consider a
rather hazardous course here, and I developed this prior to knowing
that you're considering certain things about this, and I hope you
consider them strongly and I support the action to move forward on
that. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Jim Baker: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name is Jim Baker
and I want to deny that I am either a former Secretary of State or a
convicted Televangelist. I reside at 102 Rocky Shore Drive and I'm
speaking tonight on behalf of the Iowa City Area Group of the Sierra
Club, for which I serve as co-conservation chair. As you know, the
City's current 15 year franchise agreement with MidAmerican Energy
expires on November 15 so the Council must decide presumably by
October what will ... how the City will proceed with the utility. I'm
hear to urge you not to renew the franchise agreement or if you do to
limit its term to 3-4 years. The current franchise agreement gives
MidAmerican a monopoly here in Iowa City but has no controls on
rates charged to consumers, no protections for low income consumers,
no requirements for local investment in Iowa City and Johnson County
by MidAmerican, and no mandates for energy conservation, for
renewable resources such as solar and wind power, or for reductions in
pollution and greenhouse gases. Now some might argue that these
issues are properly addressed in federal or state regulation. Two
responses: number one, the citizens of Iowa City, I am sure you would
agree, deserve better. And two, Iowa and/or the federal govermnent,
may completely deregulate electricity in the next few years. Three
additional considerations I hope you will bear in mind. First, a longer
term for the franchise agreement means little or no accountability by
MidAmerican and thus little or no local control by Iowa City. With all
due respect to each and every one of you, it is unlikely that all seven of
you will be here in 2016 when the next franchise agreement would
come up for review. Second, Iowa City needs to chart its own energy
future, not chain ourselves to MidAmerican Energy. For example,
publicly owned and operated electric utilities in Iowa deliver on
average 30% lower rates for residential consumers. We ought to take a
good, hard look at changing to a public utility. Third, if California
proved anything recently, it's that the energy industry is extremely
volatile such that the nation's largest utility, PG&E fell in less than a
year from biggest to bankrupt. In this regard, MidAmerican Energy is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 17
expected to have its rates skyrocket just three years from now. For this
last reason alone, it is dreadfully bad public policy to chain ourselves
to MidAmerican, especially for 15 years. Fifteen year franchise
agreements are simply a tradition, not a requirement of law, and for all
of the reasons I have just stated, the only real beneficiary of a long
term franchise agreement is MidAmerican Energy and its
shareholders, not Iowa City and its citizens. So the Sierra Club again
respectfully urges that you not renew the franchise agreement, or if
you decide to do so, please limit the term of that franchise agreement
to three or four years. Thank you, and I'd welcome your questions.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Steve, I had a question for you. We got a memo from you that we're
going to be considering this probably as Jim said mid-October. Do you
have a work session lined up for us on this issue?
Atkins: We have not picked a specific date for you but we do have to have a
sit-down so you can give us some direction. We had some
conversations with MidAmerican knowing that the franchise is going
to expire. Dale' s heading up a group of folks internally. We're trying
to get this packaged together so you can have something to begin
working on. That does not involve, Jim, any commitments on our part
to MidAmerican.
Pfab: I have a question for you. Who is the ... who are the shareholders of
MidAmerican now?
Baker: To be honest, I don't know. What I do know is that MidAmerican
Energy is a private utility, has shareholders, is currently fully regulated
by the State but as I said a few moments ago, Iowa, like more than 20
other states, is considering deregulation down to the retail market
level. That would mean the only way in which the citizens of Iowa
City could be protected in the future would be for a new franchise
agreement to have the kind of protections that I discussed. I don't
think that's in the cards anytime soon. MidAmerican, I'm sure, would
require a lot of time to negotiate and think about a new arrangement,
and for that reason I would propose that either the City let the
franchise agreement expire, or as I say, limit that term so that we can
then plan for our future energy needs in the city and either sign a
franchise agreement that accomplishes that or go some other route.
Pfab: I believe, wasn't it Warren Buffet, didn't he buy a utility? Was that
MidAmerican?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 18
Darrel Courtney: Yes.
Baker: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Penny Davidsen: Hi. I'm Penny Davidsen, and I must say this is an exciting moment for
me to come back into this hallowed hall, hallowed by the way is
defined as holy. Now that I don't quite agree with, but I do think that it
is a hall that merits a great deal of respect. I'm here as a member of the
original charter, Home Rule Charter Conunittee and subsequently a
member of the Iowa City Council. And although I don't want to bore
you or all those who might be listening, I do want to emphasize the
care and concem, the effort and energy, the research and investigation,
the time, the thoughtfulness and the devotion to the City of Iowa City
that went into the development of the Home Rule Charter. It was a
rather incredible procedure. I'll quickly tell you and review with you
because I'm not sure you can remember, nor could I, and I've talked to
Marian and I've talked to Jay Honohan and I've tried to figure out
everything about the history of this. Quickly, in the 1960s the State
legislature in two separate sessions passed a proposed constitutional
amendment and then submitted to allow home rule charter form of
govemment, and then submitted it to the voters of the State of Iowa
and that was passed in the late 60s, so we had ... prior to that Iowa
cities could only have three forms of government. They could have a
commission form, they could have a council-manager form, they could
have a council-mayor-alderman or a mayor-council form of
government with some variations. And then by the late 60s the people
accepted that we could also have a home rule charter form of
government. And as to be expected, Iowa City was the first to grab
ahold of this idea and established a home rule charter committee. That
committee was made up of nine members who went to work. We met
almost every week, if not every other week. We worked eight months
from January 1973 to August 1973, and finally came up with a home
rule charter that was submitted to the vote of the citizens of Iowa City
in November and passed in November of 1973. Actually, the charter
didn't go into effect with seven members like you until 1976. The
election of November 1975 and then the session of 1976. Anyway, all
that is stuff that you can digest and you probably already know.
Accordingly, from the charter that we proposed, our elected officials
who are responsible to the people of Iowa City, it is through them the
changes in policy can be made, changes in appointments can be made
because they are, in fact, our elected officials and because we made it
so that the election process would be district-oriented and then still
keep the interests of the City with voting at large, final voting at large,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 19
it was a balance of district representation and at large representation
and therefore we felt that the representativeness of you people would
be very close to the people and therefore be responsive to the people.
The charter also, obviously, established initiative and referendum, a
procedure which gives the people of Iowa City the power to propose
ordinances and to review and reconsider existing ordinances. So I
don't need to go into detail on all this. I just want to simply reiterate
and re-emphasize the intense and concerted thought that was involved
on the part of these nine very dedicated individuals who worked on the
Iowa City home rule charter. There is no question in my mind but that
we have a very effective, flexible, workable and valuable charter,
which can and does meet the needs and expectations of Iowa City.
Thank you.
Kanner: Penny, excuse me, Penny, I had a question for you. Actually I have
lots but hopefully someday I could sit down with you and talk about
this because I find this fascinating, the history of our form of
govemment. The one question I have for you, though, tonight, it seems
a little unusual, and this gets to one of the questions that we're
considering about the legality of the charter amendments. To do a
charter amendment, which is sort of like a constitutional amendment, it
seems to be easier to do that in terms of getting signatures versus
referendum and petition. And it seems to me it would be the reverse.
And I was wondering if you had an answer of why that is, why is the
charter amendment easier to pursue rather than the referendum and
initiative?
Davidsen: Well you're talking about it needs 25% of eligible voters to bring a
petition for initiative and referendum and it only needs 10%
Kanner: Well, not only eligible, you have to be a registered voter.
Davidsen: Yes, I mean qualified.
Kanner: So that makes it even harder to get a referendum initiative versus a
charter amendment which is like our constitution, you would think that
would be harder to change.
Davidsen: Well, I think Steve, I think the point was that we didn't feel that there
should be a sort of typical of Iowa City, a group that would constantly
want to come and micro manage the City and therefore, they really had
to give through an initiative or a referendum, and therefore, they had to
... there had to be some real substance and backing of this group or
group of people.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 20
TAPE CHANGE
Davidsen: an so be it. It's a question of issue, of substance, I think. I don't know
whether I'm making myself clear or not.
Kanner: Perhaps later, another time we could talk more about this because I'd
be interested in hearing your perspective on this.
Davidsen: I think it was only that we were concerned that not ... that ordinances
or proposed ordinances would constantly be brought up if it were
simple, if it were made really simple, whereas an amendment would be
thoughtful and maybe onlyl0% of qualified would be needed. I'm not
quite sure the rationale is just wonderful there, but we' 11 see.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Penny.
Jay Honohan: Mr. Mayor, can I slip in and answer his questions directly?
Davidsen: Yes, you can.
Honohan: Penny is right about the initiative and referendum (can't hear) and the
reason that they are tougher is we wanted them to be that way. The
reason that we ... the other is 10% is because that's what the State
Code requires so we couldn't change that.
Kanner: So ideally you would have made it tougher if you could have but State
Code said it had to be 10%?
Honohan: Absolutely. We would have made it tougher all the way.
Davidsen: Thank you Jay, (can't hear).
Lehman: Thank you, Jay. Before the next ... I want to remind Council, public
discussion we conduct until 8:00. Obviously all the folks standing out
here will have ... some of those folks are going to have to wait until
the end of the meeting when we again will have public discussion.
That time will be dramatically reduced if we do not engage the public
in conversation.
Brian Davis: Brian Davis, 1001 Oakcrest St., and I'm building on what our last two
speakers said when we passed the Home Rule Charter in 1973 there
was built into it a procedure for amending the charter because the
people that worked on it I'm sure realized that what was perfectly well
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 21
suitable for 1973 may become flawed by 2001. It's ... a filthy rumor
floating around though that I've heard is last night the majority of the
Council decided to pursue litigation to seek a declaratory judgment on
whether or not the three amendments that my group, Students for
Local Politics, and two other groups as well are pursuing are legal, is
that actually true?
Champion: We've asked for declaratory judgment.
Lehman: We've asked to see if they're legal, that's correct.
Davis: Right, and that sort of struck me as a little bit odd. It should also be
mentioned publicly, by the way, that the decision was made at the
work session which are generally closed to public input. But that did
strike me as odd because you're sort of asking a judge a hypothetical
question which I don't think is generally the way the legal system
works, and I wanted to ask Marian as the City Clerk, as the record
keeper, how long is your tenure at your position?
Karr: I've been City Clerk a little over 20 years.
Davis: And in that tenure, is this something that clearly the City Council
passes legislation frequently. How often has the City Council before
legislation is passed sought a declaratory judgment on the legislation
in question?
Karr: I don't recall that there's been any time but I also in 20 years haven't
had a charter amendment submitted by petitions either.
Davis: So there's precedent, I guess, on both sides. But the thing I'm getting
at, the thing that' s really worrisome to me is before these things ever
become law, for that to happen a majority of voters has to go to their
polling place on election day and say yes to them. And that very well
might not happen. But by pursuing this litigation, the sense that I get is
that the Council is trying to, scepters in hand, silence 70,000 people
and to keep the public from discussing this, to keep them from having
a say on election day. The government doing this is just downright
frightening. I am now afraid of the City government because of these
actions that you're taking. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: And just to clarify, my understanding is the Council majority
yesterday said that we will not be placing these on the ballot in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 22
November unless we get a ruling from the Court before August 31st. Is
that essentially correct?
Lehman: That' s correct.
Kanner: And the odds are, according to our City Attorney that we won't get
anything by August 31
Pfab: I guess I would ... never mind. This is public time.
Kevin Perez: Yeah, hi. Kevin Perez, 161 Columbia Drive. I just have really three
issues involving my restaurant, it's 126 E. Washington and it's 126. I
got a letter form the City that said I had to take down my canvas
barriers because there was a signage. I look at it as my address, it says
126 on it. I did spend about $3,000 just on the signage, the fences and I
think that I should probably be able to, you know, it looks good, it's in
the exact same writing as my awning, but ... so I don't know how to
go about it besides, you know, I got the letter that says take it down, I
don't think I should have to take it down, so I bring it to your attention
and say, what do I do?
Lehman: Steve, is there a process where you appeal or whatever or is he
exercising his due process now?
Atkins: I'm not so sure exactly how the appeal process ... I did ask our
Housing & Inspection Services folks to give me a short briefly, if you
can just give me a minute. Apparently, a neighboring restaurant
complained about your
Perez: Right, and I believe it was the awning that they couldn't see his sign?
Atkins: No, that's not, the complainant complained that his advertising was
being blocked by your advertising and apparently you did not at the
time of your design application, Kevin, include 126 on the canvas.
Perez: Well, I was just putting the address on.
Atkins: If it's the name of your restaurant, I'm just telling you
Perez: No, I understand
Atkins: we have an obligation to follow up and so in following up the
complaint by an adjoining restaurant these are protruding, projecting
signs into the right-of-way and that was the interpretation, it carries the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 23
name of the restaurant, 126, and in the judgment of the HIS personnel
is illegal.
Lehman: But the projection into the fight-of-way remains?
Atkins: No, he's permitted to have the sidewalk caf6.
Lehman: Yeah, I know. The projection is allowed, but the address is not.
Atkins: Yes, that is correct.
Kanner: Isn't that a zoning issue that could be appealed to the Board of
Review.
Atkins: I'd have to defer maybe to Eleanor or Karin who could tell me the
appeal process.
Dilkes: The Board of Adjustment or the Board of Appeals, I think the Board of
Adjustment.
Kanner: Board of Adjustment? So there is an appeal process?
Atkins: If you would call tomorrow, Kevin, we'll find out for you and let you
know what the appeal process and how it works.
Perez: Okay. Thanks. And then ... I've got three. Number two is, I've noticed
you know in the summer it's very nice, it's nice to sit out there. You
guys make me pull alcohol off at I 0:00, not everybody is done eating
at 10:00. You know, you could sit down and have dinner at 9:00, you
could have four courses and you could be sitting out there with a bottle
of wine until 11:30 but we have to tell people, I'm sorry you have to
move inside because of, I wonder what the process is to say maybe,
you know, like behind Martini's you can have drinks until 2:00 but
because it's a sidewalk ...
(Can't hear): Right, fight.
Perez: Well I understand that, but I want to know ifthere's a process about
allowing the outdoor patios to allow alcohol until ...
Lehman: That would be a matter of the Council changing the regulations on
sidewalk cafes, and I don't know what the discussion was at the time
we did that, but that is in the ordinance.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 24
Atkins: You spent, yeah, a great bit of time on it. You picked certain times
after lengthy discussion, I don't believe it was this Council, it was one
prior.
Karr: It was the previous Council.
Atkins: Previous Council?
Perez: I mean, because not everybody's done eating at 10:00, right, you
know. Then this last one, I'm just going to do this real fast. It's just
about the smoking issue and I have a lot to say about it but I'm just
going to say one thing and it has a lot to do with the Stepping Up
Project. And what you found out with the problems with the Stepping
Up Project and their fight against the alcohol in Iowa City, it's almost
impossible to make a fight if something you're doing is legal and
making it illegal according to your laws. So when they try to ... when
the cafd tries to stop smoking the smoking laws inside of my restaurant
or whosever's restaurant, which I don't smoke but I should have the
right to run my restaurant who I feel to see fit, but it's legal and since
they're trying to make it illegal, that's where all the problems stem
from. So until you make smoking illegal you're not going to be able to
stop that and discussion' s going to go on and on and on and on
because health issues, it's just you can't win by doing that. So I would
just say, they're going to argue about it and they're going to fight
about it, but restaurants are not nearly as organized as caf6 because we
don't like each other, we steal each other's ... you know, we steal each
other' s employees and we fight for the same money, so we're not as
organized as Caf~ is.
Kanner: (Can't hear) workers' signs, block other businesses (can't hear).
Perez: Okay, there you go. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Kevin.
Jay Honohan: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Jay Honohan, the Senior Center
Commission. Marian, I didn't get up first tonight. I wanted to hear
everybody else. I have some instructions as to what I can do from
Linda and Julie and Susan so I'd better get to them first. This
September is the 20th anniversary of the Senior Center here in Iowa
City and we're planning a large celebration and we'd like participation
by the City Council. And the first thing that we have is a recognition
breakfast honoring twenty year volunteers. People that have
volunteered at the Senior Center since it started. And it may get you up
early, Mr. Mayor, but we have a breakfast at 8:00 a.m.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 25
Lehman: That' s not early.
Honohan: on September 7th at the Senior Center and we would like you, or if you
don't want to come, your designee, to help us break that off. We also
have a 20th anniversary pageant Friday aRemoon on September 7th at
2:30 p.m. It's sponsored by one of the restaurants here in town. We'll
have snacks, Mr. Mayor, if you want to come or your designate. We
always have calorie free snacks. But we'd certainly, and we invite all
of the Council. I specify the Mayor because that was my instructions
and I always do what I'm told. You can also come to a swing dance on
the September 10th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. featuring the Silver
Swing band and it's open to the public. And anybody can come that
would like to come. And then, of course, something that is very very
near and dear to my heart. On September 11th, from 2:00 to 4:00 we
have the Senior Center skywalk dedication and reception.
Champion: Yeah, good.
Honohan: And we again, we're gonna have some calorie free snacks. We'll have
some presentations, a ribbon cutting and a few other items. And again,
Mr. Mayor, we'd love to have you or your designate there. We're also
inviting, of course, the Board of Supervisors. Then we have a
historical presentation by Loren Horton and that program is on, have to
take off my glasses so I can see, oh, they didn't even write it down for
me. I'll have to get that information to you but you're all invited. And
then we're inviting you to the picnic. As you know, we always have an
armual picnic and this is the 20th armiversary picnic. It's gonna be
September 13th from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. and you are all invited. We
hope you'll be there, and again, the Silver Swing band is going to play
some dance music if you feel like dancing.
Vanderhoef: City Park?
Honohan: I beg your pardon?
Vanderhoef: City Park?
Honohan: City Park. Sorry about that. A couple of other quick items. We thank
you for the consent calendar. You've set a public hearing on some
capital improvements for the Senior Center. So that you understand,
and I'm sure you'll have a better explanation, part of the expense of
that is we're doing ... redoing the stairs at the Senior Center, but
because of the historical implications we can't just replace them with
concrete. We have to lift them up, build a new foundation under them
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page26
and then set them back down. So it's going to cost a little more than
we had hoped originally. We also have some problems with the
windows and we're gonna have to do some work on them. I got
several other items here but I'm nmning out of my time. I'd just say
that on the 28th Of September the Strategic Planning Committee is
going to Cedar Rapids to receive a Govemor's volunteer award for the
money we collected for the Senior Center. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Jay.
O'Donnell: Thanks, Jay.
Lehman: Council, it is 8:00 and traditionally, we can ... actually it's after 8:00.
If it's alright with Council I would be willing to extend public
discussion for another 20 minutes or so. Is that acceptable?
Pfab: I would appreciate that.
Lehman: Alright.
Wilburn: I would just ask that we try to keep people to some sort of time limit
because last time I worked to extent it, the first gentleman ignored
everyone else and took the entire 15 minutes.
Lehman: Well, the other thing is
Wilburn: But let's do it. Just
Lehman: Alright, we'll do that. We also need to remember that Council
interaction with the public can add to that time. Go ahead.
Matt Blizek: Thank you. Matt Blizek, I live at 656 S. Lucas. I would like to speak
tonight as several others before and behind me have about the
proposed charter amendments and that several groups working, one of
them I'm a member of, have gathered the necessary number of
signatures for and submitted. The main issue, I guess, that I'd like to
bring up, if you are aware of what the Higher Education Act of 1997
as passed by Congress, it included a thing on the facts for the flee
application for financial aid that all students fill out, and one question
that simply says have you ever been convicted of a drug offense. Yes
or no? And the thing was, every student who answers yes to that
question is automatically uneligible for any federal financial aid.
Fortunately, through the years since that, there's been a loophole that
anyone who left it blank was still eligible to receive financial aid. That
loophole now under the new administration is going to be closed. This
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 27
is very relevant, I think, to things especially in this community. What
prompted these petitions to go was the intrusive police practices set
forth by the Edward Bum Grant, the garbage searches and knock and
talks, the under cover team of agents in their dark overcoats and
badges hanging around their neck that, you know, are intruding into
peoples' homes to find, you know, illegal drugs and illegal substances.
For a city to employ tactics like this now when this new higher
education act will be going into effect, you are possibly taking away
an opportunity of higher education for possibly thousands of students
for every one, for every student who has their garbage dug through or
who has a knock and talk done at their door and they fall for it, then
they are going to lose their chance at a higher education. Now, I know
that may not be the problem here, there' s nothing you can do about
that law that was passed. But what we can do as a City is minimize the
damage that' s done to people that do these. All I'd like to say is
support the third amendment of these. Like I say, they're all individual
ones and I think a lot of dissention is among the first, but there is no
reason, and I'd entertain any other arguments for the third of these
proposed amendments, which mandates police to issue citations in lieu
of arrest for non-violent misdemeanors such as possession of simple
possession of marij uana, public intoxication, pub lic urination. Our jail
is already overcrowded and we turned down a bond last year to build a
new jail. If this was passed then this would definitely alleviate the jail
problem by not having to arrest so many people. It would take ... it
would cost the taxpayers a lot less money if say there was a drunk
person walking home from the bar, a cop picked them up, wrote them
a citation, gave them a ride home instead of a ride to the jail where
they didn't have to spend the night in the County hotel at the expense
of the taxpayers. So I would just like to hope that Council doesn't take
this spontaneous thing that the citizens of this community have done
and put a lot of work into and just shelve it and use your power as
Council members to keep it off the ballot. I think that' s not the way
things should be done in a form of government, so all I'm asking you
is let it be on the ballot and let the people of this town vote on it.
Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Jerry Feick: Well, in regard to the time limits, I have a suggestion. Maybe the
Mayor should acquire a bong and he could hit it with a big stick, you
know, time out. The mind sometimes can only endure what the
posterior can endure. In regard to the last comments on drugs and
federal funding of student financial
Lehman: Give your name first.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 28
Feick: Jerry Feick, Iowa City.
Lehman: Thank you.
Feick: In regard to the last comments in regard to drug use and federal
funding, I don't think the City has anything to do with it and I think
that it'd be pre-empted under federal law. Maybe it's like a college
professor said, Life has choices, choices have consequences. It was
previously mentioned about the Police Citizens Review Board. I
purposely in one item tonight intend to put something in your craw
that I hope it sticks permanently. Considering that your police
department did execute Eric Shaw, maybe you should rename the
Police Citizen Review Board as the Eric Shaw Police Citizen Review
Board and let it mn like it should nm. Last Council meeting I gave you
a letter. The public comment time was over. The Mayor chose on his
own volition after all of you received the copy of my letter dated July
the 10th in regard to several acts of hate crime, death threats, etc., to
not make any comment or allow any comment to be made. I also since
that time have received no comment from any of you. The other day I
filed yet a unrelated additional hate crime complaint at the Human
Rights Commission. Your City Manager observed part of the
conversation. I was told that I could not sign the complaint; it would
not be notarized; and this was their normal policy until they review the
complaint and decided how I'm going to state in their Uncle Tom
fashioned way whether they wanted to handle the complaint. This had
nothing to do with the allowable due process, is the complaint valid on
the face of it and if it's not so be it. You would still have the rest of the
180 days to amend it because that's your statute of limitations. And
your personnel at the Human Rights Commission refused to allow it to
be signed and they refused to notarize it. I went booming down to your
City Attomey's Office and talked to Sue. I think she wanted to
possibly pre-empt a federal lawsuit so she allowed me to sign it and
notarize it. In regard to the letter, though, of July 10th, I'll expand that
a little bit. I don't appreciate Mr. Clark, the real estate person in town,
his employee who is black, a manager where I lived, and then your
Human Rights Commission doing and your police department doing
nothing about it. I don't appreciate being called the white gay faggot
Jew boy. And your Human Rights Commission has a history since
1992 of refusing to take complaints. It was their statement the other
day with Mr. Atkins in the room at least, well part of the time only,
that it is their normal policy no one can sign the complaint, it will not
be notarized until they decide whether they want to accept it as a
complaint. Next item.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 29
Lehman: You're going to have to wrap it up pretty quick, Jerry.
Feick: Get your bong. One previous time when I was here, Mr. O'Donnell
suggested that I should come back to reality when I suggest you start
building high rise apartment buildings south of Burlington. I see you
might have at least somewhat higher buildings south of the public
library, you're progressing. I suppose we can't do anything about the
mechanic liens with the Old Capitol Mall, nor can we do anything
maybe about a liquor permit for HyVee at Pearson's, or can we?
Maybe it's just time to do this, just say no. Is what maybe what we're
missing downtown is a grocery store? Would it be better that some of
these students eat food instead of drink liquor? Would you have less
problems with your police department, less other social problems, less
problems with the courts, etc.? Would it cost you less in the end?
Maybe you need to go to the Old Capitol Mall and suggest what the
City is really like, the concentration of young people that do eat a lot
of food and there' s no grocery store downtown. As I suggested before,
put a Fareway grocery store in the south end of the Old Capitol Mall, a
Bishops Cafeteria up above. I think it'll solve the Old Capitol Mall
problem permanently.
Lehman: Thank you, Jerry. It's time.
Feick: Get the bong. Put that on your agenda.
Lehman: Got it.
Feick: A big one. A big one.
Lehman: That was good enough. Thank you.
Frank Bowman: Good evening, my name's Frank Bowman. I own the Liun Street Caf6
here in town. I guess I'd like to talk a little bit about the smoking
ordinance. Those of you do not know, I've owned the restaurant four
and a half years. The restaurant has been completely non-smoking for
the last four. We've had great success at it, and it's great to see that
such community is all about supporting non-smoking restaurants. It's
helped me a lot in the last so many years. But I have to admit I have to
say that I'm opposed against the idea of a city ordinance to ban
smoking in restaurants. I think the last four years, I think I'm probably
the oldest restaurant in Iowa City that's been non-smoking that' s still
in existence. In those four years there've been quite a few restaurants
that have become completely non-smoking. They've done so on their
own free will because of customers' wishes and it makes good
business sense. You know, people do feel strongly about non-smoking
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 30
in restaurants. There are quite a few restaurants right now that are
completely non-smoking. If they feel so strongly about the issue, why
cannot they stick to their morals, go to restaurants that have complete
... that are completely non-smoking. I think there's better ways to go
around getting more restaurants non-smoking than to pass an
ordinance. And I think, you know, like Kevin said before, yeah, I
admit, yeah restaurants aren't quite organized. You know, we steal
each others employees like he said. But, I think there' s better ways to
go around trying to get more restaurants non-smoking. I think public
pressure is the number one thing that could really do it, and would be a
lot, I guess a lot better conceived by restaurant owners if it was, if they
were allowed to make their own decision. So, I would love to hear any
arguments and I'd love to actually take up any arguments that Cafe has
about, you know, making restaurants non-smoking.
Lehman: We are going to be discussing that in some length in the very near
future.
Bowman: Okay, I would love ifI could, you know. be a bigger part of that.
Lehman: I'm sure. The plans are to have a public meeting so you'll have an
opportunity to speak.
Bowman: Wonderful. Okay, thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Pat Jensen: Good evening. My name is Pat Jensen and I am president of the
League of Women Voters of Johnson County and speak on their
behalf. I have a letter Mr. Mayor that I will leave for you with copies
for the Council. I will read it to you. [Ms. Jensen read the letter that
was provided to Council.] Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Pat, I just had a quick question for you.
Jensen: Yes. Um hrnm.
Kanner: Does the League think that in an ideal world we would do away with
the Charter amendment possibilities as written in there?
Jensen: No, no, no, no. We
Karmer: That's what I'm hearing you say.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 31
Jensen: No. What I think we believe is that the preferred method is to go
through the Charter review process when you can look at what
amendments would do to the total of city government, in other words,
look at it in perspective with the review of all of the charter. Because
any amendment you make is going to have some kind of an impact on
City government. What we're saying, we think it'd be a preferred
process to look at it in total.
Kanner: And just one point of fact. I think we could call a Charter Review
Committee any time but it, I think 2005 is when the next one is due
mandated. I thought our last one I saw in our Code was 1995.
Karr: No, that was our last ordinance change. That wasn't the commission
generated.
Jensen: It is 2003, is it not?
Kanner: It was 2003, the last one? Okay, I've been corrected. Thank you.
Karr: Pat, did you want to submit a letter?
Jensen: Yes, I've got one.
Karr: Would you motion to accept correspondence, then?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Kanner: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Kanner. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you.
Dalayne Williamson: My name is Dalayne Williamson, and I live at 830 Ronalds Street
in Iowa City, and I too have a few words to say about the proposed
amendments. I feel I represent a silent majority in Iowa City. We have
families, we pay taxes, we're proud to call Iowa City home and we're
not just passing through. I'm concemed about how the proposed
amendments to the Iowa City Home Rule Charter will negatively
affect the quality of life in Iowa City for those of us who follow the
rules and expect others to also, for the safety of ourselves and our
children. I'm particularly concemed with the proposed amendment
that focuses on the reduction of penalties for drug and alcohol related
offenses and encouraging or even mandating that the police issue
citations in lieu of arrest. Living on the north side of Iowa City affords
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 32
me a unique perspective on the state of our City. I understand that
some of you were involved with a recent walk through our
neighborhood to see how some disruptive party houses are negatively
affecting the safety and tranquility of the area. I'm not suggesting that
drugs and alcohol are the only reasons for such events, but by reducing
the fines for abuse I would guess incidents of vandalism, theft and
overall disruption would increase. The proposal also discourages
garbage searches and undemover stings. I have a hard time believing
that the majority of Iowa City' s citizens think that just because you
don't get caught, it's alright to break the law. This is certainly not what
I want my children to grow up to believe. Decisions were made nearly
30 years ago regarding Iowa City' s Home Rule Charter which have
made Iowa City a desirable place to live. Please take into consideration
what Iowa City would be like 30 years from now if it were a haven for
those who prefer more lenient laws. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Karmer: Just another point of information, I'll try again. The Charter, to my
understanding, does not reduce the sentencing or the fines in the third
charter amendment.
Lehman: We will at 8:30 take a break and return and do Planning & Zoning so
if you've had an opportunity by 8:30, that' s wonderful. If not, you'll
be able to speak again at the end of the meeting. Caroline?
Caroline Dieterie: I'm Caroline Dieterie, and I have lived here for more than 30 years and
I would reply to the lady who talked before me that I have seen Iowa
City deteriorate in 30 years and I am active in this effort to try to stop
the deterioration. I would like to hand to you Mr. Mayor some more
names. I know that they cannot be added to the names that were
already submitted because of the rules about when they have to be
submitted, but people are still contacting us to try to sign the
amendments and I will bring those up to you.
Lehman: Okay.
Dieterie: Public policy means in a democracy that there will be politics and
people use politics in the perjorative way when they're talking about
backstabbing at work. Politics is good. If we do not have politics and
we do not have the ballot box and the right to redress our grievances
by petitioning the government, we really truly do no longer live in a
democratic society, and I would like you to remember that. We
originally, and I particularly got involved also because of the
infringement of the fourth amendment to the constitution of the United
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 33
States, the Bill of Rights, if you remove our right to Petition the
government for the changes that we want and you prevent these from
going on the ballot box onto the ballot so that we can vote on them, by
any means that you decide to use it all boils down to the same thing
that you are depriving us of part of our rights under the first
amendment, which is the fight to petition the government, and I hope
that you will take that seriously when you think about this. Twenty
percent of the number of people who voted, Iowa Citians who voted in
the last election ended up signing this petition, at least. That isn't, you
know, something to be just dismissed. So I hope that you will take that
into account also. This is the first city that has the Council-manager
form of government that introduces this kind of amendment. I would
say let' s look at Iowa City as a ground breaker. Earlier speakers have
talked about Iowa City as being a ground breaker in our establishment
under the Home Rule and being one of the first to take on the Council-
management form of government. The whole idea of the charter and
having a means to amend the charter and having a state law that says
10% is the only number you need, those are all safety measures for
democracy. And to remove those youjeapardize not only us but you
jeapardize everybody in Iowa City, everywhere. It's a bad trend.
Thank you.
Champion: Caroline, I'd just like ask you a question. You said 20% of the voters
who voted in the last election.
Dieterie: Of the Iowa Citians.
Champion: That's what you said. That's not true.
Dieterie: Twenty percent of the number of people. Okay?
Champion: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Dieterie: No, absolutely.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 34
Marti Van Allen
Horan: My name is Marti Van Allen Horan and I've been a citizen of Iowa
City for most of my 49 years. I'm concerned. I came here last night
and stayed until 10 til 11 about the caf~ and the smoking ordinance,
and I'm glad that's being addressed. At the same time I feel I've been
remiss in my citizen duties by not being more up on the amendments. I
spent an hour and a half this aftemoon reviewing the amendments, the
signatures on amendments 1 and 3 and couldn't help but notice that
over 80% of those, in my judgment, were from people in apartments
and in student living. They fit the requirement that they be a what kind
of elector?
Karr: Eligible elector.
Horan: Eligible elector. But I kind of doubt any of them have been here long
enough to register to vote. I'm a little concerned about that. Another
thing that I found in ... Madan Karr was nice enough to give me a
copy of the Home Rule Charter proposed amendments in full from
their website and a copy of the charter for Iowa City, the Home Rule
Charter and I wish to object ... to file an objection to the Home Rule
Charter proposed amendments. The wording is flawed in at least two
of these amendments. In the Home Rule Charter proposed amendment
#1, the article II, subsection 2.08, appointments of the Home Rule
Charter of Iowa City be amended and they want to amend that the
present paragraph C be replaced with the following language, and so
on and so forth, about the City Manager coming to a vote every four
years. And then in actuality paragraph C is in reference to the City
Attorney. So that rule, or that amendment just should be thrown out
the way it is. And I have some reservations about number 2 and
number 3, and I would like to give a copy o fmy letter to Madan.
Lehman: I think those objections to go through the Clerk. I do not know the
procedures for filing those.
Dilkes: They should be filed with the City Clerk.
Lehman: With the City Clerk.
Horan: So I have a copy of this for the City Clerk. Can I ...
Lehman: Yes, she would be the person. Thank you.
Karr: I' 11 file-stamp them tomorrow.
Dilkes: They won't be file-stamped until tomorrow.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 35
Lehman: Okay. One more and we're going to take a break.
John Robertson: I'm John Robertson, I live at 915 Oakcrest. Mayor, I hope you don't
regret giving me this opportunity because I probably wasn't going to
stay until the end. I originally wanted to come and speak tonight about
public utilities and would ask to probably get another chance later on,
hopefully during the time when we're really deliberating that issue. I
think it's a critical matter for City government. I would like, instead,
though to speak about the amendments and to bring what I think is a
certainly an important perspective on this whole affair. In 1996, this
community experienced a crisis of, quite frankly, fairly monumental
proportions when a police officer accidently killed a law abiding
citizen in his place of business. It was not our finest hour and we're
still in some ways recovering from that even today. In the years since
then, as we all know, there has been considerable public dissention and
concern about police practices, about law enforcement policy, about
our efforts and our focus in terms of crime in this community. We
have a sizeable number of people, perhaps a majority, we don't know,
who are concerned about what they would say and what, quite frankly
I would say, is an excessive interest in focusing on public disorder
offenses, focusing on victimless crimes and focusing on petty drug
offenses. We arrest public intoxication offenders at three times the
state rate. We arrest other alcohol offenders at five times the state rate.
I believe we arrest petty drug offenders at twice the state rate and this
is in a community that by and large has one of the lowest crime rates
of any community its size in Iowa, and Iowa has one of the lowest
crime rates in the country. We have concerns and there's data to
support the concems about issues involving race-based policing in the
police department. Even the police department is now acknowledging
some concern about that. There are concerns about how we're going
about policing bars and liquor stores and to be real candid with you, it
would be my view that the new ordinance is ineffective in the extreme.
I went and bought a drink tonight and they gave me a shot, and a glass
of coke because they couldn't do happy hour. And that's quite frankly
pretty silly. We now enjoy a 10% increase in our police department
over the last eight years and the vast majority of those officers are
spending their time engaging in interdiction in public disorder offenses
that don't, quite frankly, engender danger in the community. The
police citizens review board has had more of its power stripped in the
last year, and quite frankly I think the community deserves to be
concerned about that. We have asked at least since Eric Shaw for a
commtmity discourse about how law enforcement occurs in Iowa City
and in Johnson County. That discourse has never really happened, and
I think that is in large measure the mason why these initiatives are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#5 Page 36
before the ... are hopefully going to be before the voters in November.
I invite Council not to work to sidetrack these amendments. If we get
to vote, we get to have the discourse we want. And those of you who
oppose the amendments, and that's fine, that' s good, I don't blame
you, I think there are valid things to talk about, win this issue on the
merits if you oppose it, don't sidetrack the issue and leave these
questions and these concerns festering. The discourse about law
enforcement will happen in Iowa City, and if the unfortunate turn of
events is that the courts support not placing these amendments on the
ballot, then we'll just have to keep talking about it next year, and
eventually maybe it'll be in 2003 when the League of Women Voters
suggests we get busy on revamping our charter, we'll have to talk
about it then. Now is a great time to do it. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, John. We're going to take a break. We will resume at 8:45.
BREAK
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 37
ITEM NO. 6d. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VOLUNTARY
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
IOWA CTIY AND CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS IN
JOHNSON COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST SAID
AGREEMENT.
Champion: Move the resolution.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? This
agreement addresses the future voluntary annexation that we are
talking about the Hummingbird Lane properties, yes. And so now if
we have discussion is the time for you to speak if you wish to speak.
Public Hearing
Robert Wolf: My name is Robert Wolf. I guess first of all I'd like to thank you
TAPE CHANGE
Wolf: giving us an opportunity to go through a period of adjustment before
actually becoming members of the City of Iowa City. It meant a great
deal to us and the other thing I found that was quite interesting, I cover
a lot of ground in an day and the last few days since we were on TV
there's been an awful lot of people contact me and actually, with kind
of a hopeful attitude that, you know, maybe some of the attitudes of
Iowa City had changed and were going to be more, I guess, lenient
with its citizens. I don't know the right word to use but everybody was
really kind of interested and they were looking forward to what was
going to happen tonight, so I guess that' s all I got to say. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Bob.
Keith Carter: I'm Keith Carter. I live at 3740 Hummingbird Lane, and I too want to
thank the City Council for allowing us to work out an agreement that
seems to be favorable to both parties. Since the whole issue of
annexation was a little touchy there for awhile, the people in our lane
have met several times and come to agreement that we can live with
the agreement that you drew up and we thought it was good for both
sides, and we thank you.
Ann Muilenburg: I'm Ann Muilenburg, I live at 3736 Hummingbird Lane and I, too,
would like to thank the Council and the City staff for drawing up an
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 38
agreement that seems to be very acceptable for us and I think should
be for your side as well, and I think maybe you might remember the
last time I was up here I was a little bit disenchanted with the way the
public govemment was rtmning, but I do think this has given me a
little bit of a bright glimmer that the system does work and I appreciate
that a great deal. Thank you.
Frank Mitros: Frank Mitros from 3710 Hummingbird Lane. And I would like to add
to what my neighbors say. I think that it's been an interesting process
and I feel good that we're trying to make some progress here. You
know, we have a lot of good motives on both sides that it can come at
cross purposes, and I think we've been able to work together both in
our neighborhood and dealing with some of the approaches that we've
had so again I thank you for the efforts on your part.
Wilburn: I have a question for Karin, maybe you can refresh my memory about
the original rezoning, and I apologize for not giving you a heads up
about this, Karin, but I'm sure that you have it committed to memory
by now. In the original annexation that was considered, however long
that was, was this two weeks ago?
Dilkes: Three.
Wilburn: Three weeks? Okay, I thought it was maybe a little longer. In that one,
if I'm remembering it correctly, was it the City would not require
connection to sewer and water for 20 years?
Franklin: That's correct.
Wilburn: And this agreement says 15.
Lehman: You need to, this agreement says 15 years after they're annexed,
which is still 20 years from today.
Wilburn: Okay. Alright.
Lehman: That didn't change.
Franklin: Right.
Wilbum: Okay. Let's see. And, I guess the only other difference is that the
volunteer, it's a request for voluntary.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 39
Franklin: Yeah, the only difference is that the annexation of these properties, the
voluntary annexation would not occur for five years. That' s the
difference between the original proposal and what this agreement.
Wilburn: I guess I have a concem and an any of you that spoke feel free to come
up and ask me or walk me through something. I'm sure you all in
working with staff had, you know, negotiated or tried to come to
agreement in good faith, that type of thing. I guess I'm still hung up on
the possibility that five years come and one person can hang this up
and the effect might, am I wrong in that? Last night I had asked one
person could hang this up and it might be a big problem depending on
which property it was.
Carter: That's not our understanding. I don't know how one person would
hold things up because in the agreement there' s some financial risk in
trying to hold it up for one. I don't know how one property owner can
hold it up if all of us can't hold it up. And I think the concern, I mean,
if you're ... it's a trust issue. It comes down to that.
Wilburn: Right.
Carter: Either you trust us and we trust you, or you don't trust us and that's
what it seems like you're hung up on. I think the fact that we worked
it out, I think the fact that you look in there we were agreeable to
language that protects the City, we were agreeable to language that
puts anyone who wants to change their mind five years from now at
risk financially, and we agreed to language in the agreement that holds
any person who buys our property, they're bound by this agreement. I
mean those are all things that were added later on to protect the City's
position, and I understand that and we're agreed to it.
Wilbum: Okay. That's ... I don't know you and you all don't know me. And so
you're right, it's supposed to be a matter of trust and when I'm
thinking of it, it's not you per se, but I guess what I'm looking at is
long-term, some other situations where as a Council member, well, the
Weeber-Harlock thing comes to mind where I sat and heard four, five
different versions of history in terms of what was expected, what
happened with this property and whether someone was opposed to,
whether some neighbors were opposed to an annexation, whether they
weren't, and a rezoning was the case. Can someone on the Council or
staff, am I wrong in, am I too concerned, am I focusing too concern on
ending up five years from now and perhaps another Council, maybe I
won't be on Council at the time but another Council sitting and saying,
you know, what happened, why isn't there a clear understanding, is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 40
this layout a clear understanding of what's to happen and when it's
supposed to happen? Somebody talk to me.
Champion: Well, I personally feel that it does lay out a clear understanding that I
think it's a compromise, I give the neighborhood credit and staff credit
for trying to work out something. Nobody has any guarantees. I mean,
somebody could cause a rucus, but we do have signed documents and
I'm sure legally we would have a leg to stand on and I hope it doesn't
come to that, but I'm not, I'm going to support this amendment, or this
resolution, because I feel, we've listened to their concerns, I personally
understand their concerns, I'm sure we all do, and I think it's a great
compromise, I think it's a win-win. I think everybody wins. It gives
them ten years to plan for extra expenses they're going to have instead
of expenses starting immediately the first year, even if they're phased
in but they would start immediately. It came up really suddenly as far
as I was concerned. I don't think the neighborhood was prepared for it,
and I think it's a win-win and I hope in five years I probably won't be
on the City Council, I know I won't be in five years, but I'll probably
go and pull their hair out one hair at a time if they back out of this. So
I think we're pretty secure.
Vanderhoef: Well, I guess I will speak in the other direction. Any time that I'm
looking at the concerns of the City and at the state law and the uneven
boundaries that would exist and state law is not amenable to that, they
don't absolutely say we can't but they don't want it, they want squared
up boundaries as best we can, I look at the risk. I also think about your
concerns about how the story changes over time. I think about the
changes in property owners and yes, I know the contract is saying that
it's going to require that any future owner follow this same contract.
But for me, it is City services are going to be at the front door, at the
back door. This is a finger of property that is not conforming to
boundary lines. Last night I had a thought and I asked the City
Manager for some information about sewer line and in particular
there's been some conversation about that sewer line might not be
there for at least five years and so forth, and so the question I posed
was how soon could we put in that trunk sewer and not increase the
sewer bills of citizens of Iowa City? And it appears with some
cooperation and some gift of the easement for the sewer line by
property owners who are wishing to be annexed, that this could be
accomplished and we could do it as soon as two years. It would take
some planning time which usually we plan on about a year and then
we could move forward if the Council chose to move the project
forward. I have a special interest personally and a public health issue
that is not there now but we've had many discussions with a property
that cannot annex until the annexations are completed. These folks
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 41
would like to be annexed and be connected to the sewer line. I think
this is an important issue and it all fits into this annexation, so I guess
what I'm saying, the risks and when I look at it for the betterment of
all of Iowa City versus a very small group of folks, I think we have a
very fair agreement in giving time to gradually add in the taxes and
I'm not going to support this amendment.
Lehman: Well, I guess you're probably all aware that the amendment is,
probably because of some comments that I made three weeks ago. I
have, and I think the City has over the years, taken a dim view of
involuntary annexations. We really appreciate people coming into the
City voluntarily. I think it's better for us, I think it's better for those
folks who come into the City. Because of that, I met with some of the
folks on Hummingbird Lane with the City staff and explained what I
thought would be a agreement that would address the concerns that I
have of people coming into the City involuntarily and the concerns
that the folks on Hummingbird Lane have about coming into the City
more quickly that they would otherwise like to have come. And the ...
it seems to me you could do almost anything legally, but apparently
you can't do everything legally, everything, because I checked on that
too. But what like to have seen us do is to annex this property with a
effective date in the future. In other words, we would annex the
property now, it would not become effective for five years, at that
point the rest of the conditions of this amendment would kick in and
we would have protected the interest of the commtmity and at the same
time, I think, given ... and I do think you're right, Dee, that the state
has provided for a, basically a tax abatement over a five year period
which is some relief. And of course the staff has also indicated and
reconnnended that these folks not have to hook up to the City sewer or
water for 20 years, which is, I think our Code says when you're within
300 feet you have to hook up right away. So I think that, you know,
there certainly are some concessions. However, in visiting with, and I
think we all got the staff report and I did today again visit with the
City Attorney's Office, and I apologize to you, particularly, Mr. Wolf
because you and I talked about this, we met about this, it was
absolutely my intention to be able to do something that would be fair
to the folks on Hummingbird Lane, at the same time without any doubt
protect the long term interests of the City. And it is the opinion of our
staff and our legal opinion that this perhaps does put the City at some
degree of risk, and I guess I don't fee that we are in a position where
we should accept that risk. So in spite of the fact that I meant well and
I would to see this occur, I'm not sure that it's legally possible to do it
the way I would like to have done.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 42
Ann Muilenburg: I just had two comments to make, one to Ms. Vanderhoef. The fact
that the sewer won't be there for at least two years, you know, given
that anything would go really fast, still doesn't answer the question
that I had initially which doesn't revolve around paying sewer fees. It
revolves around the fact that if I become annexed and I want to sell my
house, which I don't, but if I ever did, before that sewer is available I
carmot sell it to somebody and say I have City sewer and I'm in the
City. I can say I'm in the City but you're going to have use my septic
tank, and a lot of people don't like septic tanks. So that was my one
big concern, and you can't fix that if you annex me now. The second
thing I wanted to make a comment about was, it will come to me in a
minute here, the thought that we're putting the entire City of Iowa City
at some level of risk. We're a neighborhood that's been together for
many years and we have worked together quite well and I don't think
any of us has a felony charge against us in any way, shape or form,
and I think that we're, you know, basically good people and if we sign
a contract we live by that contract. When we bought our property ten
years ago our lawyer was concerned because we had access to our
house on a right-of-way that was not owned by us and it was not
owned by the City and she said, you know, at any point that owner
could say, you can't get to your house anymore. And so she was
actually very concerned about that. As your attorneys are concerned
about, you know, this particular document. And at that time we talked
with our neighbors and everybody else and it's a neighborhood that I
believe you could trust and you could live with. And again, the
document itself does have very strong language in it saying that if
whoever wants to back out of this or whatever in five years, it'll
probably be their cost in the long run because the City would win that
lawsuit just from the contract. And they would be the ones who wind
up paying, not the City of Iowa City. So I don't see how the City, I
would agree with Connie Champion that the City is in a win-win
situation, they're not going to be out any money and they're going to
get us in the long rim, which is fine. So I just wanted to make those
two points clear, that as we said before, we knew when we bought the
property that we would probably be annexed at some point. It's just
that in the manner in which it happened within the last year took us all
very much off guard and we were very happy that we were able to
work with the system and be able to get the information we needed
and to work through an agreement that looks like it would be an
adequate contract. And I would state fervently that I do not believe
that we would be incurring a huge risk or even more than a slight risk
to the City of Iowa City.
Vanderoef: I didn't mean to imply that I didn't trust you. In fact, I had a
conversation with Mr. Wolf and I said, Bob it isn't that I don't trust
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 43
you, it is in my position as a City Councilor I have to look out for all
the good people of Iowa City and the risk is the risk, and I have to
weight this.
Muilenburg: See, I just, I guess my question is, a risk this big is nothing compared
to the other risks that the Council takes on,
Vanderhoef: I understand that.
Muilenburg: as you all know, as I listen to for an hour here before this.
Karmer: Haven't you got an easement over the road ever?
Muilenburg: We never had a legally
Kanner: So you' re trusting the owner of that road?
Muilenburg: Yeah.
Champion: The other thing is, when you look back at the original map, I don't
have it with me, but them was property there that wasn't going to be
annexed. So the theory that everything has to go together like a nice
little puzzle,
Muilenburg: Right.
Champion: well, you know, I don't think it needs the glue immediately.
Muilenburg: Because there are people that are being left out, just because they can
abut the County more propertly. Oh, and the last thing I want to make
sure, the concem which I think we all hold very near and dear to our
heart of allowing and making sure that if we don't become annexed,
that it doesn't hinder in any way Southpark annexing the property they
want and/or getting a sewer line up to the Iowa City Care Center, and
we've been assured by all of you people here both on the Planning &
Zoning Committee and at the last meeting, that if we are not annexed it
will not in any way hinder that, and so having that be part of the
argument not to accept the contract doesn't seem to hold water.
O'Donnell: You know, this really isn't a matter of trust with me. It's a matter of
doing the right thing. And I really wish that we were provided under
the law the opportunity to give ten years rather than five. And I think
the risk is probably insignificant, but if one person does disagree with
this annexation you could be tied up in a court case.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 44
Muilenburg: They don't have enough property.
O'Donnell: Well, but I mean, well then, two or three.
Muilenburg: It'd have to be two or three, and you have a lot of peer pressure here.
O'Donnell: Yeah. But we don't have any ... property turns over. I wish there was
a provision, but I'm going to have to go against this resolution and
support five years with graduated increases. And I wish we could do
more and I wish the provision was there to give ten years.
Carter: Well, I need some information. The risk that you talk about five years
from now, why don't you have that risk now?
Lehman: Well, let me just explain how I understand this, and Eleanor you
correct me if I'm wrong. If at the end of five years one or more of you
should decide that you do not want to be voluntarily annexed, so you
don't file for annexation. First of all, that can go noticed or unnoticed.
For other words, if we notice right away we come out and say, hey,
you didn't file. And you say, no and I'm not gonna file. And so we
institute a proceeding against you. I have no idea the amount of time
that' s involved in this sort of case. But we are talking time, we're
talking money, we're talking, or if and it's not you anymore.
Something happens, you got a huge promotion. Someone else bought
your property. They love it, they don't want to be in the City so they
decide we'll fight this. Those things can go on for so long and that is a
risk. I don't think there' s any question, that is a risk. It's probably a
small risk but it is a risk. There's also a period of time between now
and the five years. I don't know how this would be addressed, and
Eleanor, you could tell me this, but if there are future annexations in
this area in the next five years the property that is annexed would have
to be at least four times or more greater in size than this one in order
for this piece of property not to be able to prevent the annexation
because it's
Dilkes: Because of the 80/20 role.
Lehman: Because of the 80/20 rule in the next five years if you folks decided,
even if you're going to become annexed in five years, but something's
going to happen across the road that you don't happen to like and
there's 30 acres there, you can stop that annexation and we can't do
anything about it. So I mean, there are risks and there may be small
risks but I think when you look at the amount of risk as opposed to the
cost, I'm not willing to take that cost for the rest of the community. I
would love, like Mike said, if we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 45
Carter: Is there any risk now, currently? If we didn't ...
Lehman: Well, if you are, if, again, Eleanor, I may not understand this correctly,
but if you are annexed as part of this larger project that we're doing
right now we can annex you and don't want to, we want you to ask us
to do this, but you aren't going to ask us to do this and so we can do
this and if you look down at the total development area it appears to be
the best interests of that area if this is annexed at this particular point
in time because it removes the possibility you're objecting to an
annexation that might come up in two or three or four years and be
able to stop that annexation, it also removes the possibility if you
decide at the end of five years or the person who bought your house
when become president, and they don't want to voluntarily annex we
don't have to go through the court cases which could be appealed, and
I think that forcing someone to do something voluntarily has certain
amount of stigma to it. Even though you sign an agreement that you
will voluntarily do something we are going to force you to voluntarily
do something.
Carter: I disagree.
Lehman: I'm not sure, the mechanism for doing this just aren't what, for what
I'd like to do we don't have the mechanism.
Champion: So what's the mechanism for forcing them to annex? What's the
mechanism for having them involuntarily annexed to the City?
Dilkes: A pure involuntary annexation?
Champion: Yeah, like they don't want to be annexed and we're going to annex
them. What's that procedure?
Lehman: It's the resolution we had last, three weeks ago.
Dilkes: Well, it's different under the current annexation because it falls within
the 80/20 rule and it's a much less complicated process than a pure
involuntary annexation, which is a very complicated process. If at the
end of five years there were property owners who would not comply
with the agreement your choices would be to bring an action in district
court for specific performance asking that they comply with the
agreement. Again, there is a provision in the proposed agreement that
requires the party against whom enforcement is sought to pay
attorneys' fees. Or do an involuntary annexation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 46
O'Donnell: What we're talking is all speculation and I guess that's the problem. Is
there anything else that we could
Carter: So, I think you answered my question. So the 80/20 rule prevents us
now from involuntary, just refusing to be annexed? Because we don't
represent 20% of your annexation?
Dilkes: Correct.
Pfab: You had made a statement in your first statement, the first time you
came up, that there were provisions to prevent you from not forcing
you to do a voluntary annexation in five years.
Carter: That's right.
Pfab: Is that correct?
Carter: Right. The financial risk to us.
Pfab: Okay, what about making that a little stronger? What about putting a
deed restriction on that property, would that protect the City any more?
Dilkes: Well, the ... in essence, the agreement which will be recorded with the
County Recorder and which will show up in any abstract, is a deed
restriction in essence. So anybody who goes to buy this gentleman's
property, their attorney is going to examine the abstract and this
agreement is going to be there.
Pfab: So this in essence is a deed restriction?
Dilkes: Well, it's not purely a deed restriction, but in essence.
Pfab: Okay, could it be a pure deed restriction? Could we
Dilkes: Let me tell you this. If I was examining the abstract for this
gentleman's property and that annexation agreement appeared of
record, I would be careful to call the terms of that agreement out to the
new buyer.
Pfab: But we have people here that say it's a good thing. I hate to renege
because basically I talked to you people and I gave you my word that
from what I knew and there was some slight changes, but at this point
I didn't deem as material. And that was, we're saying well you might
be here, is it Mr. Carter?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 47
Carter: Um hmm.
Pfab: Okay, and somebody else might be the owner. And how do we protect
the City if you are on your way, wherever you are? Okay, so that's
what I was saying. Let's agree to put this on as a deed restriction and I
think that would
O'Donnell: That's part of the agreement that we have prepared.
Pfab: Well, I ... except Eleanor doesn't call it a restriction.
Dilkes: You don't accomplish any more by doing that, Irvin.
Champion: She's just saying that that's taken care of.
Dilkes: It's already of record. It's a burden on this property or a restriction on
this property that is of record.
O'Donnell: Like a cloud on the title or something.
Champion: Right. So that's taken care of.
Pfab: Okay. I hear two ... I hear Eleanor not being quite so sure of that.
Champion: No, Eleanor is ...
Dilkes: No, I'm quite sure about that.
Pfab: Okay, well then that's fine. That was what I ...
Walter Foley: My name is Walter Foley, I live at 3726 Hummingbird Lane, and I
was here three weeks ago and my wife told me to be sure to tell you
that in the past three weeks I have not become a virile young man. I'm
still an old man. Now, I listened to all this, my neighbors told me to
get here. I was out of town, we have a new grandson in Seattle and my
wife and I were visiting, and I assure you that she's, we were told to be
here at 7:00 and I got here at 7:00, and I thought it was really
interesting. Because I had forgotten, I've lived here for 39 years and I
had forgotten how we got to a City Manager form of govemment. And
I was listening to what went on in the context of what we're trying to
resolve and I think that the City planners and the City Manager and
people in State government are interested in nice, rectangular lines.
They really don't like fingers. And I think that what we are doing is
we're addressing the political side of this City government. And the
political side is seven other citizens who we can say we would like you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 48
to treat us as you treated our neighbor. And I want you to seriously
consider doing that because no contract cannot be challenged. You
cannot write one. And five years from now, as John Menard Canes
said a long time ago, in the long run we're all dead. So seriously,
Champion: Dam! I didn't realize that!
Foley: I do. I do. I do. I do. And it has a lot to do with that virility comment.
But anyway, I think what we're trying to do here is to resolve
something at a political level and I really don't think politics is a dirty
word. I do arbitration work, I do fact finding, I do mediation and I
watch people reach agreements all the time. And they turn to the
lawyers to say, how do we make this legal? They don't go to the
lawyers first and say, this is legal. You can do what's in the best
interest of the people who live here. And I wish you would do what's
in the best interest of these families who live here.
Monica Maloney
Mitros: My name is Monica Maloney Mitros, I live at 3710 Hummingbird
Lane, so I'm another Hummingbird Lane neighbor. Mr. Lehman, when
we were here three weeks ago you asked if we could look for a
compromise and I think that we worked very hard on trying to come
up with one, both with you and with the City officials, and have a
document that all of us on the lane have been able to say we could
hold to. You brought up the idea to go with what there is now, which
would be involuntary annexation so we're back to where we started.
It's hard for me to understand how that would be better than a
voluntary annexation in five years. The word "involuntary", because
of two larger parcels who want to be annexed they're voluntarily
asking, it's for the good of the City, they want to develop, they want to
build new homes, new commercial aspect, and they want to be
voluntarily annexed and we're not holding that up or wanting to hold
that up. We have lived on the lane at least nine years, I believe, is the
least amount of time any of the neighbors have been there. We enjoy
living in the County, that' s why we purchased the land, and we don't
at this time want to become City. We realize that we will be. But that
is coming. But as someone had already brought up, this part of
annexation came very quickly. We knew eventually. We didn't know
now. And being given some time both to set aside money for the
changes, it won't be cost-free. Not just the taxes but as Ann pointed
out, if at some point in the 20 year future you do want to sell your
house you would either have to hook up or make allowance to the
buyer for all of those things when we've already invested the money in
the septic and the well and the propane that we currently have. So
those are some considerations that are just financial. You've come up
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 49
with a contract that seems to me would serve both the City and the
neighbors and would not involve us in then being involuntarily
armexed, and I'd like to ask one more question about the involuntary
annexation. That 80/20 role, who ... what does it include to make up
the 20? What land?
Dilkes: What land? The land you can take in ... a voluntary application can
include additional land if it's no more than 20% of the land being
voluntarily annexed. If you avoid irregular borders by doing so. And
so that's the process. Karin Franklin is probably more versed in this
than I am, but that's basically the situation.
Mitros: I guess I'm just asking for the calculation of what land is included in
being the 20.
Dilkes: Oh, (can't hear).
Franklin: The land that we included in the calculation of 20% or less was
looking at the properties on the east side of Hummingbird Lane and
the Lou Frank property and the fight-of-way of Hummingbird Lane
owned by Plum Grove Acres. That was the initial ... what was
outlined as not being included in the voluntary annexation. And I think
the Petersons were initially included in that, too. Taking all of those
properties together it was less than 20% of the total of Plum Grove
Acres and the Southgate annexations.
Mitros: Do you remember the number?
Franklin: I don't. I'm sorry.
Mitros: Seems to me that it was very close.
Franklin: Oh, it's very close but it was 20% or less, but it fell within the state
law so the rule would be, you know, very slight margin. So we're
asking for the benefit of the very slight margin in going ahead with the
proposal or the amendment that's been proposed for this evening.
Kanner: Eleanor, can you tell me again, the involuntary annexation is easier
now compared to, we don't have this 20% rule five years down the
road. What degree of difficulty, could you put it in laypersons' terms
perhaps of what's the difference in degree of difficulty in pursuing
involuntary annexation now as opposed to possibly five years down
the road.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 50
Dilkes: Well, if we did an involuntary application nine years down ... or five
years down the road it would be purely an involuntary application for
annexation, which involves an election and is a very complicated
process. Karin's probably more versed at that than I am. We never do
that, so I'm not particularly familiar with it. At this point, because of
this 80/20 role, 20% or less of the whole can be taken in as part of the
voluntary application, even if they are not desiring to be annexed. And
that still has to go to the City Development Board but it's a far less
complicated procedure.
Kanner: Who's involved in the election? Is this a whole City-wide election that
would?
Dilkes: Karin, you want to ... purely involuntary applications I'm just not real
Franklin: Well, as Eleanor says, we haven't done an involuntary annexation
since the 60s, so I wasn't there. I mean I was alive but I wasn't there.
Kanner: Why weren't you there?
Franklin: I was somewhere else. Okay, I'm sorry, what was the question?
Dilkes: What's a purely involuntary
Franklin: Oh. The people who vote are the residents of Iowa City and the
residents of the ... or the owners of the territory, I'm sorry, I don't
know if it's owners or residents, it may be both, of the territory that is
being annexed. Obviously, the odds are not good for the territory that' s
being annexed. The state legislature the last three years has looked at
changing the state code that it would be stated such that you could not
do an involuntary annexation unless the territory which was being
involuntary annexed agree to be annexed.
Lehman: What? That doesn't
Franklin: Yes, I know. What is a good question because it doesn't make any
sense. But that has been introduced at least twice at the state
legislature. So, but the law right now is the vote is the City and the
people within the territory that would be involuntarily annexed.
Kanner: And if there is a vote and it's for annexation, involuntary annexation,
does it then go to the City Development Board or is it over right there?
With the vote?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 51
Franklin: I'm not sure. I think there is an appeal that can go to district court, but
if... it's not a process that I've looked into in detail because
D ilkes: I know there's a lot of litigation on involuntary annexation.
Franklin: We don't want to do it. Yeah.
Frank Mitros: Frank Mitros from 3710 Hummingbird Lane. You know, I almost feel
badly getting up and talking. There are a lot more important issues that
you have to deal with and we saw a lot of them earlier, and this affects
a very small number of people but I think that' s the point of having
meetings like this. I was an obligated volunteer in the army from 1970-
1972 and that worked out well for the army and for me. So it can
work. And I think being an obligated volunteer five years down the
road would work. I was disturbed in the rider that Ms. Franklin
attached to our agreement which sort of questions, it's a matter of
trust, questions whether we're going to live up to our agreement and I
think that puts (can't hear) up to the members of the Council. As long
as issues of trust are up, you know, as Monica and I were talking, it
was very close to 20% if we're going to be involuntarily annexed, and
if you decide to do that I would ask that you look at that very carefully
and look at the precise numbers. Remember when this first started, the
Petersens were in it and I'm very glad that they have had some good
fortune. But if you take that initial parcel with Petersens, I would
wonder how close it comes to 20%. I would also remind you that a few
weeks ago when we arrived here for one of the Planning & Zoning
meetings, from the afternoon to the 7:00 time of the meeting there was
some splitting apart of the properties, of the Frank and ours, and that' s
part of what I'm here for, that I was concerned about those sorts of
issues. So if you decide against us and there is an involuntary
annexation, I would ask you to look and I would hope it be
independently at the 20%.
Dilkes: Karin, do you have some comment about that, how those numbers
would have changed with the?
Franklin: The change that Mr. Mitros is referring to, when we started this whole
process Plum Grove ... Southgate came in, Plum Grove came in, and
then we looked at what we had left and we thought at that point we
could as a City take the annexation of the Hummingbird Lane
properties forward to the City Development Board as a petition from
the City but then we reviewed with the attorney staff the actual
wording of the state law and the State law says that the way you do
this 80/20 thing is that the voluntary petitioners must include those
properties in their annexation petitions. Therefore, we had to go to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 52
Plum Grove Acres and to Southgate Development and say, will you
take these into your voluntary petitions because we as a City cannot do
it. They were very concerned about them being the bad guys. We
assured them we will be the bad guys. And I think that's all clear. So
the Frank property was taken into the Plum Grove Acres annexation,
the Hummingbird Lane properties were taken into the Southgate
annexation and there was nothing particularly devious about it. There
was nothing devious about it. It was just about how one mechanically
went through this to take the petition to the City Development Board.
When we took the Petersens out of it, that included 20% or less so now
we are down to something less than 20% but we can get those numbers
for you if that is critical to your decision making.
Champion: No it's not. I think, I mean I think the role of City staff and the role of
the developers are different than our role, and I don't have any
problems disagreeing with City staff on this because I view us as we're
elected to represent the people. You're hired to run and manage the
City in the best way you know possible. You don't have to deal with
the, well you deal with them if they tell you to, but your decisions
might not be based on the same decisions, or the same reasons our
decisions would be based on. So I'd just like to say to Council that I
think it's okay from time to time to disagree with staff. I think our role
is different and I think this is one of those instances.
O'Donnell: I think part of charge, if you will, Connie, is also to look forward. And
I can think of several times where I as a City Council Member am left
with decisions for flexibility that was given or indecisions given by
prior City councils so I'm look at this trying to decide, well I had
decided because that was the concern I said, what the risk is, what am I
potentially hampering or burdening a future City Council, City staff,
City population with, and so, I mean I believe we get those all the time
and like I said you know, we're left with the piece that she said and
I'm not willing to do that at this time with this, so I hope you all
recognize that neighbors can disagree, and we disagree.
Lehman: Further discussion? Alright, roll call. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Monica Mitros: I guess I'd like to ask the question then, before you vote, if it does ...
if this amendment is not adopted where do we stand then as far as the
annexation?
Lehman: Well, look, Kadn, my suspicion is that we are back to the resolution
that was before us three weeks ago. Is that correct?
Franklin: Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 53
Monica Mitros: And as a part of that, if we would ... will be ... are we still being
considered involuntary within the voluntary annexation? Would we be
and if so, is there a recourse at that point to continue to appeal?
Dilkes: Yes, there is a, I believe there's a hearing before the City Development
Board.
Lehman: City Development Board?
Monica Mitros: And what would that
Lehman: The conditions would be the same in that you'd have, if you are
unsuccessful in your appeal you still would have the 20 years to hook
up to the sewer and water, you still would have the five year tax
increment or the tax abatement.
Monica Mitros: And what would that appeal do the developers?
Lehman: I don't think it would have anything to do with them, would it,
Eleanor?
Monica Mitros: Because we're included in the developments.
Dilkes: Well, it's all part of one application, and Karin, in terms of how the
City Development does?
Franklin: I think what would happen, and Glenn Siders who's had more
experience going through the City Development Board with these
kinds of things than I may be able to correct me, but what would
happen is this then goes to the City Development Board, they consider
it at one of their meetings, they then come to Iowa City and they have
a public hearing in Iowa City. They then deliberate at a subsequent
meeting and either include the properties or not include them, but
properties
TAKE CHANGE
Franklin: the remainder of the annexation can go forward and your properties
would be deleted. That' s then a City Development Board decision as it
goes on through the process. So after this, the next step for you all is
the public hearing before the City Development Board.
Lehman: The City Development Board can remove portions of the property
that' s being annexed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 54
Franklin: Yes, and what they
Lehman: The rest stays there?
Franklin: Right. They will look specifically at the pieces that are coming in
under the 80/20 rule. They won't be looking so much at the Plum
Grove Acres and Southgate per se.
Pfab: Okay, something just came up here. You're saying that, I'm not sure
who's going to answer this, but if the City Development Board, is that
the correct term?
Franklin: Um hmm.
Pfab: If they say that okay, the people in Hummingbird Lane, you will not
be part of the annexation, Emie you just said something about 20
years? Does that
Lehman: If they say they're not part of it, they' re still in the County.
Franklin: Right.
Lehman: Nothing changes.
Franklin: Right.
Pfab: Okay, so what about the 20 years then?
Lehman: What do you mean? There's no restrictions of any kind on it.
Franklin: Right.
Pfab: Okay, so the five years, the 10
Lehman: Nothing. Nothing applies.
Pfab: It's at ground zero.
Vanderhoef: Only if they are included.
Lehman: They're in the County then.
Pfab: And nothing follows through.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 55
Vanderhoef: Only if they are included in the annexation does that follow.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: I have a voting procedural question for Madan and Eleanor. If this gets
voted down, #6.d., are we voting then on the involuntary annexation as
part of another resolution, or will we go back?
Dilkes: No, the subsequent items then are the applications that were pending
before you three weeks ago three weeks ago, which include this ... the
Hummingbird Lane property.
Kanner: So e. and f. would then, e. and g.
Dilkes: The two annexations.
Kanner: Okay, would include it.
Greg Muilenburg: Greg Muilenburg, 3736 Hummingbird Lane. Talking about risk, if you
vote this down you've got a lock in five years we'll be in the City. If
we're not taken in by that Board and we're in the County then you've
got a passel of trouble. Just what you brought up. I mean now we're
sitting out there free and clear and truly even if we sell our properties
these people may not want to be in the City at all. I mean, you're
taking quite a risk on by doing this here, with a five year agreement
you know we're going to be in the City. There's very little risk if you
read that contract, there truly isn't to the City. The financial burden on
anybody that would fight that would be phenomenal. They'd be
foolish to do that. This 20% thing, no one property out there has more
than 20% of our property. So it couldn't be one person to cause you
trouble anyway. It'd have to be more than one property owner out
there. For that to happen, for two people to fight this and for two
people to take on that financial burden, I just can't envision that. It's
just not going to happen. I think it's a question of doing the right thing.
I really do. Thanks.
Kanner: Just to clarify something about financial risk, I assume we're talking
about point #5 in the agreement in
Dilkes: The attorneys' fees.
Kanner: Yeah, and it's only if the enforcement action is successful.
Dilkes: Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 56
Kanner: So if the City is not successful the residents don't pay. It sounded to
me like people were assuming they'd pay no matter what. If they win
Or lose.
Dilkes: No, the prevailing party recovers attorney fees.
Kanner: Right. So it's not only if you ... it's not either way.
Dilkes: I think that's right. They're assuming that there wouldn't be much of a
leg to stand on is what the assumption is.
Lehman: Alright. I think we're about to vote.
Dilkes: I think Connie's point is a good one - that it's a political decision for
you all to make. Staffs job is to point out what we view ad the risks
and your job is to balance those with whatever considerations you
have and make a decision.
Lehman: We're ready to vote? Roll call? Sorry. Go ahead.
Dawn Mueller: That's alright. I just wanted to make a little emotional pitch here, with
respect to the issue of the political side. Political side is also human
side. Iowa City is a really nice city. Surrounding the City is a really
beautiful country. When these people chose where they lived, they
chose to live in the country, and I can understand that because I was
brought up in the country. I just want to, sort of as a human reminder,
put up a hypothetical situation here. Let us say that the City of
Coralville had the legal right to be able to annex your home, Irvin, and
yours, Connie, and Mike, and Mayor Lehman, and Dee and Ross and
Steven, how would you feel in that situation?
Dilkes: I do want to note that the gentleman's point, the gentleman who spoke
last, I don't know, his point about the risk of a City Development
Board removing this property from the voluntary application is really,
it's a good one. I mean, you need to ... that's an additional risk.
Lehman: Well, then let me just ask you a question. Is that sort of risk taken into
consideration by the recommendations of the staff?
Dilkes: Karin?
Franklin: I'll speak for my half of it. Yes. I mean, there is some risk to that but
what the City Development Board is going to be looking at, is going to
be looking at the concept of the service island, is going to be looking
at the uniformity of boundaries, and we never would have pursued this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6d Page 57
if we thought we were at risk from the City Development Board
negating it.
Lehman: Okay.
Franklin: But that, too, is a calculated risk.
Dilkes: I think that's accurate. But I just wanted, I mean that wasn't something
that was point out to you.
Lehman: Very good point.
Pfab: Karin, you mean that you wouldn't have pursue this agreement?
Franklin: No, we never would have considered proposing the annexation of the
Hummingbird Lane properties in the first place if we did not feel that
it met the requirements of the City Development Board.
Pfab: So you're saying that the agreement, proposed agreement really
doesn't have any effect?
Franklin: The proposed agreement has nothing to do with the City Development
Board' s approval because if the proposed agreement goes through it
doesn't go to the City Development Board, they are out of the
equation.
Pfab: Okay, I'm ... I have to think about this a second. Okay. That's fine.
Lehman: Are we ready to vote folks?
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Kanner: Yes.
Lehman: Roll call. The motion is defeated 4-3, Pfab, Kanner and Champion
voting in the affirmative.
Karr: Can we have a motion to accept correspondence?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Seconded.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoefto accept
correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6e Page 58
ITEM NO. 6.e. CONSIDER 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. (ANN99-00003)
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: I have some concerns about the annexation of this property at this
time. Looking at the report that we got on Windsor Ridge annexation
that happened in 1992 or 1993, we see that in terms of tax revenue
versus expenses from the City, close to a break even proposition. I also
have a port from State Representative Ed Fallon on the costs of
community services in three central Iowa cities, these are small cities
surrounding Des Moines. But the point they make is that the American
Farmland Trust, it's a private non-profit conservation organization,
they've developed an inexpensive and consistent way to evaluate
existing contributions of municipal land uses and their study found that
residential, the taxes generated versus taxes spent, weighs in favor of
taxes spent - you spend more than you generate. Commercial
industrial usually bring more in and farm and open land you bring in
more than you spend, although not as much as industrial, you don't
bring in as much as industrial commercial. And in this time of tight
taxes, especially high taxes and tight spending limits, I think it's
imperative that we hold off at this time. I think there will come a time
in the future where we might want to annex this land but I think we
also need to relook at our Comprehensive Plan and see how we can
value the open space and the farmland that' s out there that' s being
gobbled up. I think it's ... we could look perhaps to the Braverman
farm just behind HyVee as a small intense organic farm and something
that would draw people to Iowa City to incorporate the use of small
fann areas, perhaps organic, which is a growing industry in the
country. I think there's different models we can look at. I don't think
we've looked at it, and I think it's in the best interest of all of Iowa
City to think of development, not just in terms of building houses and
apartments, but to look at it in a bigger sense of development in other
ways that we can grow, and we can certainly grow without building
new apartments. So I'll be voting against this annexation and also the
other annexation #g.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6e Page 59
Pfab: I would just like to make a comment ifI can to what Steven made
there, and that is you say that residential property is a net loss to a city
that annexes.
Kanner: Not always but it tends to be, it's been shown across the country and in
the study in '92 it showed that it was about a break even cost.
Pfab: Well, you say industrial is about a break even.
Kanner: No, this ... I'm talking two slightly different studies.
Pfab: Okay. But there's another point I wanted to make to you. When you
annex industrial you also create a need for more residential district,
see, so even if the industrial is a money maker, what if the trailing
effects or the effects that follow it can also be non, what, income
producing I guess is the way to say it.
Kanner: And I would say, Irvin, that there's other ways to think about bringing
people in if that's necessary. I'm not totally sold that it is necessary to
have the growth that we always commonly talk about. There' s other
ways to grow as a City. But certainly some growth is okay but I think
we need to look at it a different way and think of other ways that we
can do that besides always gobbling up more farmland.
Pfab: Okay, I'm going ... is a motion here in order?
Lehman: Yeah, we have a motion to approve this. We're discussing that motion
now.
Pfab: Okay. Would a motion to postpone this for a week or two
Lehman: Motion to defer is always in order if you can get a second.
Pfab: Okay, I think that there may be some more questions here since this
thing has moved around here pretty fast. I would suggest that it would
probably be, I would be more comfortable and I can only speak for
myself, to have this deferred for a period.
Karr: September 1 lth?
Pfab: September 11th is the ...
Lehman: Are you making a motion for deferral?
Pfab: Yes, I would make a motion for that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6e Page 60
Lehman: Do we have a second for deferral?
Kanner: Before I consider doing that, I would ask Irvin, could you ask your
questions before you make that motion?
Lehman: We need a second before we can discuss the deferral. Do you have a
second?
Kanner: I'll second.
Lehman: We have a second, we have a motion and second to defer. Irvin?
Pfab: My inclination was to approve this, but the more I think about this
thing, I'm having some questions that I would probably have to vote
no, but I ... because of the mix of how things changed here I was
thinking that this agreement was going to be probably passed because I
felt last time I knew there was enough votes to carry it. Okay, so
because of that I would probably vote no at this point, it may be
something that it might be to the benefit of those people if they can
count the votes and they get what they want, that's fine, but I would at
this point request a deferral at least until next meeting.
Lehman: All in favor ofdeferral say aye? Opposed? Motion is defeated 5-2,
with Kanner and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Now do we have
further discussion on the motion as presented?
Brandon Ross: Mayor Lehman, are you entertaining public discussion on this
particular issue?
Lehman: If we can make it quick. The hour's getting late. We discussed this at
the last meeting, we've already had a public hearing, so if you can
make it quick.
Ross: I'll try to be quick. First of all, when you're annexing ...
Lehman: Tell us your name and address.
Ross: Oh. My name is Brandon Ross and I live in 1822 Rochester Avenue.
And there were just a couple of points of clarification I thought would
be good for people in Iowa City to know. I'm still a little shaky on
exactly annexation. I was just wondering if you'd tell us what
annexation really means and just a statement. Would Dee or Steven or
someone up there care to give me that point, because it would help me
with my further comment.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6e Page 61
Lehman: Annexation just brings them into the City of Iowa City.
Ross: That's basically it. Who gets this parcel of land? Who gets this parcel
of land? I mean, is ...
Lehman: The person who owns it.
Ross: The person who owns it gets
Lehman: Keeps it, sells it, whatever he wants to do with it.
Ross: Sells it, does whatever. So at this point, so infrastructure goes out and
we pay taxes on that.
Lehman: Well, the infrastructure in most cases is paid for by the developer.
Ross: Is paid by the developer.
Lehman: That' s correct.
Ross: Is there anything that says anything about what kind of
Kanner: Not the new trunk line, Emie.
Lehman: The trunk line wouldn't be, but street, sewer, water...
Kanner: The main trunk line is paid by the City. Tap on fees are paid by the
developer.
Vanderhoef: Well, be more specific, though, because the trunk line is paid by the
sewer utility by user fees.
Lehman: But the City pays for that. Go ahead.
Ross: Is there anything that says what can be, I mean there's a zoning law,
what can be developed out there? I suppose it's zoned for that
particular use?
Lehman: It has to be ... comply with zoning, it has to comply with subdivision
ordinances, I mean all of that, this just brings it within the City limits.
They can still farm it. Whatever they want to do with it at this point.
Kanner: And actually, the next point on our agenda is to rezone this property,
so to put those kind of limits on the property.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6e Page 62
Ross: Okay, thank you. You've answered my questions.
Vanderhoef: And those follow the Comprehensive Plan.
Ross: Those that follow the Comprehensive Plan. So at this point, I mean
there' s some concern in the neighborhoods, well, what is going out
there, you know. Is it just going to be single use?
Vanderhoef: That's already been looked at. It's had the public hearing. They are
well aware ofwhat's going to be there.
Ross: Oh, so that's in place? Which is what?
Vanderhoef: We're going to vote on it and if we approve it it will be in place.
Ross: Okay. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. Okay, roll call of Item e. Motion carries 5-2, Karmer and
Pfab in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6f Page 63
ITEM NO. 6.f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
38.24 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, RS-5,
COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, CH, COUNTY LOCAL
COMMERCIAL, C1 AND COUNTY MULTI-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) (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef: Move first consideration.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Karmer: I had a question for Ka~n. We talked a few times in Council meetings
and elsewhere about development and urban ... urban development. I
like some higher densities if we're going to build outward to a certain
extent, but the down point of higher density in RS-8 zone, which is a
high density and to a certain extent it is, is there going to be a leap frog
phenomenon that people are going to go even further out to get that
lower density, the county low density, they're going to see RS-8? I like
RS-8 to a certain extent but are people going to leap frog over that?
That' s a common phenomenon to get further out, to get their low
density acre lots.
Franklin: People who want acre lots and want rttral living are going to go out
into the County for the most part. Walnut Ridge is the one
development that we have in Iowa City that has one acre lots. RS-8 is
not a high density development. RS-8 is basically ... the minimum lot
size is a smaller lot for single family or you can have duplexes.
There' s a minimum lot size in the RS-5, our lowest density residential.
What happens often is that the developer responds to the market and
puts in the size of lot that they think is going to sell in the marketplace.
So the lots are not necessarily the small size that is envisioned in the
zoning ordinance. So, I mean when you talk about higher density RS-
8, yes it's higher than rural but it's a City.
Kanner: So what happens?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6f Page 64
Franklin: I don't think in answer to your question that you're going to see for,
someone who wants to live in a city, that they're going to go that much
farther out. I mean, when you go farther out from the area that we're
talking about you're into Windsor Ridge which is already developing
at both single family, the RS-5, RS-8 and RM-12.
Kanner: So what happens if we put RM-12 at this location? In terms of sprawl.
That's my concern, that, how does sprawl come into it as far as
leapfrog out over this for people that want lower density.
Franklin: I'm not sure that I can answer that question. We're talking about, with
this particular rezoning that you're considering fight now we're
looking at commercial and RS-8. Okay? We have some higher density
development in this corridor as you go south on Scott Boulevard,
there's some RM-12 along there. Then there is some duplex and single
family just to the east of there. And then there, as you progress east on
Court Street there's more RM-12, RS-8 and RS-5. So it's the mix that
the Comprehensive Plan envisions.
Kanner: Okay, thanks.
Franklin: So I don't think putting in RM-12 means that everybody else is going
to go farther out, if that's the question you had.
Kanner: Well, part of the question is, if we do a higher density does that,
perhaps that encourages developers to do more dense development and
is that good for the City or does it just encourage leapfrog sprawl.
That' s the thing that I'm struggling with in looking at the zoning.
Franklin: I think the key is that you have a balance of opportunities for different
housing types and you do that through different zoning designations
and you make sure that within your corporate boundaries and within
your growth area you have room for single family development,
duplexes, multi-family and you mix it up and so it doesn't mean that
you're pushing anybody out.
Vanderhoef: Steven, if you're thinking leapfrogging within the annexed area or
outside of the annexed area?
Kanner: Outside.
Vanderhoef: Okay, that's where our fringe area agreement kicks in and we have had
very good relations with the county and have addressed those kinds of
large lot buildings, and what we have decided and agreed upon in the
fringe area agreement is that in the noah corridor area which is an area
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6f Page 65
that is very difficult to sewer or water, that that District A I think it is,
District A is the north one?
Franklin: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Okay. District A is the area where we encourage single family homes.
Subsequently, I understand, the County zoning, they have gone to the
cluster situation out there so that they can group them and keep the
infrastructure down and keep the streets and so forth at a minimum,
then within our other growth areas we have agreement on how this
comes in. So I think within that two mile fringe agreement, which I
suspect we'll have to talk about if we approve both of these
annexations because it will have a large impact on our two mile area
that we must negotiate with the County. So that's where we get our say
into whether there are large lot kinds of developments that go outside
the annexed area.
Lehman: Is there timher discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 6-1, Pfab voting
in the negative.
BREAK
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#6g Page 66
ITEM NO. 6.g. 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 BRANC ROAD AND EAST OF
HUMMINGBIRD LANE. (ANNOI-O0001)
Glenn Siders: My name is Glenn Siders, I'm with Southgate Development Company.
I'm only going to say I'm here to answer any questions you might
have.
Lehman: Thank you, Glenn.
Siders: I appreciate it, move expeditiously.
Lehman: Did we get ... it's a public hearing. Anyone else like to speak to this or
ask Glenn any questions?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 67
ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE AVIATION
COMMERCE PARK FINANCING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY~ IOWA AND THE IOWA CITY
AIRPORT COMMISSION OF IOWA CITY, IOWA.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Rick Mascari: I just want to say I'm Rick Mascari and here to answer any questions.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: I have some discussion. I recently visited the airport and the airport
manager gave me a nice tour from inside out and I appreciate the work
they're doing and the people on the commission, but again we're
talking about public interest before in our vote on the involuntary
annexation, and I think this is also a case of public interest. It's in the
public interest to collect as much of the debt that the City has put in to
airport that we can legally to recover that for the general fund and the
citizens of Iowa City to relieve any property tax burden that we can.
And the reason I say that is, although there are people that use the
airport, I would say that it is not quite the door to Iowa City. I would
say that although we have approximately 25,000 airport operations,
that would be a landing or take-off, the number of actual people that
use it would be probably be in the 5,000 to 15,000 range, it would be
my rough estimate. It could be more, it could be less, it's not quite sure
what that is. But I would say that pales in comparison to other areas
where we should put more support and also as far as economic
development benefits, money, we put millions from the Feds and the
State and the locals and I say that that money could have been spent on
housing or other areas where the multiplier effect would have been
much greater, so I would propose an amendment that we amend this
agreement to capture as much of the current debt that' s out there,
which my understanding is close to $2.5 million in public bonding
that's currently out there that we're paying debt service on. And, Steve
would that be about $250,000 a year that we're currently paying on
that debt service?
Atkins: That' s pretty close.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 68
Kanner: So I would add that we, I'll move that we amend the agreement to
recapture that debt service from the North Commercial Park income.
Lehman: Okay, we have a motion to amend this to increase the amount of,
actually the amount of debt, or actually the amount of payment to
$250,000 a year.
Atkins: I understand, I assme you need a second before we can discuss this?
Lehman: Well, we have a motion.
Pfab: I will second.
Lehman: We have a second to the amendment, discussion?
Atkins: So I would understand is that, and I don't have the numbers in front of
me but assume it's $2.5 million worth of debt that's been applied for
capital projects at the airport. What's being suggested is that that $2.5
million also be subject to any income that' s being generated by the
aviation commerce park to reduce that debt as well as the debt we
currently have for construction of the commercial industrial park,
right?
Kanner: Yes. And I would say then, it's not up to us but I would say that
perhaps on the airport might have to charge the users more for fuel
fees, lease arrangements and other areas if they can't do it all from the
land that we're talking about, the North Commercial Airport area.
Lehman: Well, I can't support your amendment, first of all. I'm not about to tell
the airport what they can and can't charge for landing fees. I know that
past history at that airport, when it comes to selling fuel we did have a
FBO whose fuel prices were not competitive but we had folks who
hangar their planes here and fly out of this airport who flew to other
airports to buy their fuel, so just raising the price of fuel does not
necessarily you're gouna produce any more revenue. I personally feel,
and the idea of the north area commercial was that the airport could
become self sufficient. Earlier this evening we read a proclamation
where the economic benefit of the airport is purported to be $11.1
million per year. I consider that to be a pretty significant contribution
to the economy of Iowa City and certainly an asset to the community. I
have no problem with the airport paying their own way. The idea of
this north airport commercial was that they could eventually get away
from any subsidy whatsoever from the public. I also have no problem
in charging the airport for expenses that the City incurs, but I do think
that we are in ... if we are going to charge the airport for capital
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 69
improvements, that we make that clear when those capital
improvements are made, not at a subsequent date, and so I can't
support this.
Dilkes: Can I just, Steven raised this yesterday at the work session and I had
some conversation with Sarah Holecek of my office who' s been
drafting this agreement and has had significant discussions with the
FAA. There's a ... when the City and the Commission obtain grants
from the FAA, we make assurances. One of those assurances is the
general principal that money generated on an airport will remain on
the airport. We were concerned about that grant assurance in
developing this agreement and we had discussions with the FAA about
that. They were okay with this agreement and have given us a letter to
that effect, but they wanted to ensure that the repayment would only be
for infrastructure and that City not, by way of this agreement, make an
attempt to reimburse itself for earlier subsidies, and that if we do that
that we may be in violation of our grant assurances and owe money to
the FAA as a result. And so I think the proposed amendment might be
problematic from that perspective.
Wilbum: It would be a lot of money since it was, was it 80/20 match the past
federal
Lehman: 90/10.
Kanner: 90/10.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Kanner: And that's why I think it behooves us to perhaps, if we don't adopt this
amendment, to look at how we can recover some of that because this is
one of the greatest subsidies of something that benefits a small amount
of people in our country and a way of transportation that' s harmful for
the environment. Now I can see a large public, commercial airport
such as Cedar Rapids getting some of these subsidies. Maybe in the
1920s we needed this airport but now we have Cedar Rapids airport
where people can land there, and if we do need it for some hospital
runs, I think we don't need to subsidize that, or we can make that
decision on an individual basis. Emie, again I would state that as a
multiplier effect airports are very low. Certainly there' s economic
benefit from anything. Just us walking down the street and going in the
store, there's economic multiplier benefits. The question is, what can
produce more. Housing has been shown to be a great multiplier in
terms of economic benefit, much more than airports. And so I think we
need to think in terms, how can we benefit more people in our city and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 70
I think trying to recover costs will benefit more citizens and it
behooves us to explore that more in depth. I don't think the economic
development committee, quite frankly, looked into that and I think we
need to explore that to see if there are ways to do that.
Lehman: I agree with you that we should recover our costs, and I think that now
that the airport has, or it appears they are going to have the ability to
generate revenue, that we have every right and every expectation to
recover costs. As far as us going back and recovering costs that we
have been expended in pervious years, somehow that violates my
sense of fairness. Just plain fairness.
Wilbum: (Can't hear) what you were saying, Emie, in addition to your
comments, for me my focus with this has been to get the airport as
quickly as possible with a plan to the road to self sufficiency and I feel
that if we were to look at some of those other costs I think this would
add to that burden and perhaps extend that period of time, and so I'm
not one to create a further burden of my goal of having to be self
sufficient.
Vanderhoef: I can understand your concem, Steven. But the one project that I had
thought all along was probably a project that should have been
negotiated with the airport was the upgrade of the terminal which had
zero money in it from the FAA, as I understand it. Is that right, Rick?
Mascari: That's correct.
Vanderhoef: And at the time that that one came on board as a project, I brought it
up as a possibility repayment and the noah commercial park was still
just a dream. And we had not moved down that road so it was not
possible for you folks to repay without any kind of dollars in, but I
think you will remember, Rick, that I did mention to you at that time
that given that possibility of revenue created by a commercial park
was one of the ways that I thought the terminal building could be paid
off, and that's the only project I was really interested in in recovering
some capital costs on. But I think at this point in time we need to go
forward with the proposal, the contract that we have here and support
it wholeheartedly. If we choose as a group to go back and look at the
terminal building, I will look at that one.
Mascari: To answer both viewpoints, the terminal building, if you remember,
was built in the early 50s, 51, 52 1 think. And during that time very
little maintenance was done to that building all these nearly 50 years
and it was due to the lack of maintenance that was done to that, it
required a complete renovation. It was a toss up between whether we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 71
should renovate that existing terminal or just tear it down and start
from scratch. But it was such a beautiful building and it's a great
design, we decided to just go ahead and just renovate the one that was
in there. But if it wasn't for the lack of maintenance over all the years
it probably wouldn't have cost as much as it did. And to address
Steven's issue of regarding payment of some of the monies that were
paid earlier, you and I discussed this on the phone a while back and I
guess I'd like to compare it to an insurance company who had paid out
to an individual, somebody who had $1,000 damage on their car and if
they had a $100 deductible, then of course the insurance company
would have to pay just $900, 10%...90%. Now if the other person's
insurance decides that they're at fault and then reimbursed the
insurance company the full $1,000, they ... or the individual a full
$1,000, the insurance company will still want to get their $900 back.
So the reasons why I bring this up is because, before we can expect
any refunds for any monies we put in, we would also have to go ahead
and reimburse the FAA that same amount.
Kanner: Well, that's ... we've been told that there are some troubles also by
our City Attomey, and I wonder, though, what we could push and how
much we can recover. And I think that it bears looking into because
the airport does not benefit a large portion of the population of Iowa
City. You asked I think 90 or 95% of the people and they don't have
any connection with the airport. There's going to be people down
there, certainly, for your events but I would still gather that the vast
majority ... in fact this argument was happening with Dean
Thornberry about putting money into the airport versus the City and he
said why are we putting all this money into City Hall, the Civic
Center, and I would argue that there' s 10 times more people that
interact with the Civic Center, more than 10 times, than with the
airport and it's worth putting that money into. And again, I think you
folks on the commission, you work hard at what you're doing but I
think it's for a limited amount of people and it doesn't benefit the
greater good of Iowa City.
Lehman: Well, we're discussing the amendment. Is there interest on the
majority of the Council with trying to recover monies that have
previously be spent and spent at the airport even though that may be
problematic from a legal standpoint?
Vanderhoef: No.
O'Donnell: No.
Lehman: We don't need a roll call for the amendment, do we?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 72
Karr: No.
Lehman: All in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. All those
opposed same sign? Amendment is defeated 6-1, Karmer voting in the
affirmative. We're now discussing the original motion. Which is the
agreement with the airport. I must say, this is something that I believe
the airport and the City has looked forward to for a long, long time.
This development, in my opinion, is a win-win both for the airport and
for the City of Iowa City. It potentially will create revenue for the
airport to do the kinds of things that you've been coming to us and
asking us for money for, and I think we have been very generous, I
think we've been very supportive of the airport.
Mascari: No question.
Lehman: And I think we continue to be. But the other side of that coin is that we
as a city intend to gain substantially from this development all of the
tax revenue from properties built on that north airport commercial, all
of that tax revenue will go to the City of Iowa City to the school
system in Iowa City and to Johnson County. In addition, you will be
repaying us for the infrastructure investment, which is about $1.6
million. It appears to me that we've got a really sweet deal both from
the airport's perspective and from the City's perspective, and I
wholeheartedly support the agreement. The agreement does require
that you do pay the City back with no ... there's no margin, there' s no
profit in it for the City, you're paying us exactly what we're paying.
Mascari: That' s correct.
Lehman: The bond rate interest is, I believe, somewhat under 5%. You have got
this amortized over a 20 year period, you may pay ahead of time if
you'd like. I guess that's where we are. We're discussing the
agreement. Is there other comments from the Council on the
agreement?
Pfab: I'm disappointed with the contribution (can't hear). You said that this
would affect an area (can't hear). Are there going to be any opposition
from this?
Lehman: Depends on what they ask for. I mean, it has to be approved by us.
There will not be unless we approve.
Pfab: What I'm saying to you, that statement that the schools will be
benefiting fight away. That may not be quite
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 73
Lehman: I don't know ifI said right away. Them will be potentially tremendous
potential benefit to the community.
Pfab: Just a point of clarification. It can and may not.
Lehman: Well, but the fact of the matter is that any investment down there
potentially will be a source of significant revenue.
Pfab: Ok. That was just that point.
Kanner: Do the leases include property tax payments by the lessees?
Mascad: Since the property won't be owned by the lessees then we can't charge
property taxes, although we can charge taxes on the structures that
they build.
Kanner: So you're not obligated to pay property tax, the airport?
Dilkes: The leases will provide that any property tax is the obligation of the
lessor.
Lehman: On the improvements.
Pfab: But not the land?
Dilkes: No, I don't think that's true because it will be used for a public
purpose and therefore it will likely be taxable in its entirety.
Kanner: But we're not sure ifthat's true or not, it's still to be determined.
Dilkes: It'll be assessed.
Champion: It'll be assessed.
Lehman: Well, the property we know will be assessed. I'm not sure about the
land.
Dilkes: No, I thought about the land.
Lehman: Then it all will be?
Dilkes: Generally, the ... in order for the public entity to obtain the exemption
there has to be public ownership as well as public use.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 74
Lehman: Okay.
Mascad: Hope that answers your question because she just did.
Kanner: So the land is, the land will not be taxed?
Dilkes: No, it will be. My understanding now, I mean I'll have to look at it
tomorrow, but that' s my general understanding is that it will be. Now
there's some odd kind of case law that treats airport property
differently, and I don't know that it would apply to this land, but.
Mascari: To be honest with you, I really don't know.
Dilkes: Yeah.
Mascari: I really don't know.
Pfab: Are you calculating land tax?
Mascari: In our lease payments? The appraisal that was done in the year 2000
was done by a licensed appraisal and whether he included the taxes in
the amounts I really don't know. Something I'll have to look into.
Kanner: Emie, once again I would say that we could accomplish a lot of what
you're saying with a better deal as far as getting some of these taxes
and building buildings there, I think we're selling ourself short.
Lehman: Well, I ... for me, and I don't disagree with requiring that the airport
pay their own way and particularly when they have the wherewithal to
do it, but I do, for me it's a question of fairness to try to go back and
recoup
TAPE CHANGE
Lehman: ...gave any indication to those folks that that was a loan. That was a
public investment in the airport and now we're going back and saying
that we want to recoup that. I feel that's unfair. I do not feel it's
unfair for us to, from this point forward, expect that airport to not only
be self sufficient but for the properties that are improved on there to
provide revenues to the City, the County and the School District.
Kanner: Well, informally, in essence the airport is part of the City, so we're
talking with City entities and we can do these kind of thing to the
benefit of people of Iowa City. It's not like talking with an individual.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 75
I think there fairness is not the issue here in terms of this proposed
negotiation that I would say.
Lehman: I think it is, Steve, because I think there are certain things that the
Airport Commission would like to do in the way of improvements to
the airport. Instrument landing, which I'm not a pilot so I don't
understand some of these things, but there are certain things that I
believe that they would like to do that they do not ask us to do because
of the subsidy involved. This will enable them to do some things that
may enhance the airport which, you're right, belongs to the people of
Iowa City, the airport does. It'll make them a better airport, will cost
the taxpayers no money to do because the revenue will be generated
from the North Airport Commercial and that really is a joint venture
with the FAA as well as the City because of regulations.
Mascari: Oh sure, absolutely.
Lehman: We are going to be the recipients of some substantial funds over the
years because of this Noah Airport Development.
Mascari: And there's one more point that everybody seems to be forgetting.
Don't forget the jobs that will be created there. All these businesses
are going to be built there. They're going to create a lot of jobs.
That's a big factor too.
Kanner: I would argue we could still do that. What is the projected when we
finally stop any subsidy to the airport? What year (can't hear) from
the general fund?
Atkins: I have never projected that, Steven. I wouldn't know that.
Lehman: Well, I don't think we can project that until we get leases written and
income.
Atkins: Once they begin the lease of the property I could do some projections
for it but now, zero.
Kanner: My point is that it could be decades before we... You're talking about
they'll be on their own and it could very well be decades before they
get off our general subsidy. So it's not quite true, Emie, that they're
going to be self-sufficient. We're going to continue to poor money
into that.
O'Donnell: Let's vote on this.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 76
Lehman: Well, I think you're right for the next couple years or three years,
whatever, but I think that if anything goes right down there at all
within three or four years you should be generating enough funds to...
and that depends on the market.
Mascari: Well, of course. That makes a big difference right there, too.
Absolutely. You know, Steven, we have to start sometime. This idea
came up seven years ago and, you know, for one reason or another, it's
been delay after delay. If, you know, if once we get started...the
sooner we get started, the sooner it'll be paid for. I mean we just got
to start. We got to get it done.
Lehman: Well, we've started. The concrete is in the ground.
Mascari: We've started, the concrete's in, that's exactly right.
Lehman: This is just...
Mascari: And it's really, really nice concrete, too.
Lehman: We have spent the money. We have spent the money. We are now
trying to get an agreement to repay the money.
(laughter)
Lehman: Any other discussion?
Champion: Good heavens, no.
Lehman: Roll call.
Dilkes: Karmer.
Karmer: No.
Atkins: I think there was somebody wants...
Lehman: Okay, come on, it's getting late. We have someone else who wants to
speak.
Dawn Mueller: I just wanted to speak for a moment to Steven's concern that the
airport tends to be used by a small segment of the City population and
I just wanted to relay an experience that I have living in Norman,
Oklahoma which is a University town. It's the home ofthe University
of Oklahoma. It is roughly about the same size as Iowa City and it is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 77
the home of Max Westheimer Airport. Perhaps unlike Iowa City, the
community in Norman, Oklahoma was very much involved with the
airport. They sought a variety of ways to involve the community in
the airport activities. One way they did that, the University of
Oklahoma ran an aerospace program, a summer camp for grade school
kids, and they would... The City would provide scholarships for
students in town to be able to take aviation, an aviation space camp in
the summer time where kids would go learn physics and get flights
around the airport and... In doing that, it brought the community much
more into the airport and it really is something that is valued by the
community. So, I would just toss it out as an idea. If the Council and
the City would like ways to broaden the base of usage of the airport, to
consider novel things like that.
Lehman: Talk to the Airport Commission because I think...
Vanderhoef: The man behind you.
Pfab: Dawn before you go. Okay, but there is something a little different in
Oklahoma.
O'Donnell: It's farther south.
Pfab: A far greater percentage of people in the state use air travel verses here
so there' s a lot more plane activity.
Lehman: Okay.
Pfab: Okay.
Jerry Feick: I only want to say two or three sentences about this airport.
Kanner: How do you know that Irvin?
Feick: I've heard about this rinky, dinky airport in Iowa City. When I...
since when I lived in Iowa City and working here in 1971. You can
get ninety some percent federal funding to make that airport into an
airport that it won't be rinky, dinky. Why not just do it and come up
with the ten percent?
Lehman: We are.
Champion: We do.
Feick: You're sure?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#10 Page 78
Lehman: Yes, we've signed an agreement with the airport commission. We're
about midway through a, what is it, a ten year plan?
Atkins: About that.
Champion: And it is not a rinky, dinky airport. It's a very nice airport.
Feick: Why do people go to Cedar Rapids?
Champion: Oh, because...
Feick: Pardon?
Lehman: Well,
Feick: They have bigger planes, Connie.
Lehman: In any event, Jerry, we are doing that. We have a master plan half
Feick: I'll come back in five years and re...visit the issue, okay?
O'Donnell: Emie will be sitting fight here.
Lehman: See you in five years.
Feick: He'll be right there? I'll be here.
Lehman: Further discussion? Roll call. Motion canies 6 to 1, Kanner voting in
the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#7 Page 79
ITEM NO. 7. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND
ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTINO OF THE
RIVERSIDE FESTIVAL STAGE EATING PROJECT,
ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO
ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTIG CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME
AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
7b. Consider a Resolution Approving.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Wilbum.
Champion: You know, I'd just like to point out, Steven, that this is another thing
that we have supported all along with public funds that probably isn't
used by 15,000 people a year. It probably isn't used by 5,000 people
a year. So, I think we do a lot of things in the community that benefit
the community that the whole town doesn't use. I mean, I don't know
how many seats are going to be in that but certainly not 5,000 a year.
So, I mean we do a lot of public funding of things that don't aid
everybody.
Kanner: Well, I agree with you Connie. One of the criteria I look at is how
much is it accessible to people of all incomes and certainly the plays
themselves are not accessible to all people so I have a little problem
with that but it is accessible to other people for other events at very
low prices. It's a good thing for the community. It does other things.
And so I look at it compared to airplanes which are pretty expensive
stuff and hurtful to the environment so that's some of the criteria I use.
It's not all 100 percent one way or the other. I look at a lot of different
things.
Champion: I hope you remember that when you need your heart transplant.
Vanderhoef: Well this certainly is... when you talk about commtmity, we're talking
about services that meet the needs of lots of different groups of people.
So, whether its arts or aviation, whether it's parks or buses, we're
trying to provide the very best services that we can for all of this
community.
O'Donnell: Look folks, now we're talking about seating for the stage in City Park
and I think it's wonderful. We need to move forward.
Lehman: Roll call.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, can I have a motion to accept correspondence from 617
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#7 Page 80
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Motion carries (7/O)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#9 Page 81
ITEM NO. 9 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 IN INCREASE WATER SERVICE AND FEES IN IOWA
CITY, IOWA. (PASS AND ADOPT)
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? For
anybody watching, we're not raising the water rates. We are only
paying for new water meters on new construction. Roll call.
(all yes's)
Lehman: Okay, 10 we have done.
Kanner: Emie, actually we are going to be raising the rates to pay for new
meters to go in everywhere. They'll be...
Lehman: Are we raising the rates or doing that out of... ?
Atkins: We are not raising the rates. We are raising the cost for the new
meter.
Lehman: Yeah, I realize that.
O'Donnell: But only for new construction.
Lehman: To replace the rates come out of our present budget for which we do
not raise the rates.
Atkins: But it is an increase.
Lehman: But not an increase in rates.
Atkins: No.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Wait, when we put in new meters to the old houses...
Atkins: New meters to old houses.
Kanner: Isn't that coming from the water rates or is that coming from the
general fund?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#9 Page 82
Atkins: No, that comes from water.
Lehman: But, we don't have to raise the rates to do that.
Kanner: Well, eventually you would.
Atkins: Eventually.
Lehman: No, you just don't decrease them. We maintain them. We've already
raised the rates significantly.
Champion: Plenty.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#11 Page 83
ITEM NO. 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY ROBERT A. LEE
RECREATION CENTER HVAC INSTALLATION AND
BOILER REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution.
Lehman: I believe that we have been... Pardon.
O'Dormell: We've been asked to reject this.
Vanderhoef: We've been asked to vote it down.
Lehman: I think we've been asked to reject this.
Atkins: Yes, we are asking you to reject.
Lehman: But, I think then, we will vote on this in the negative? Is that correct?
Karr: This is a resolution. You have a resolution rejecting the bids. So it's
in the negative so you are going to be voting in the... It's a resolution
rejecting bids.
Vanderhoef: Did we get an alternative resolution?
Karr: You got a new item and comment and alternative resolution last night
rejecting the bids so you'll want...
Vanderhoef: I missed that.
Lehman: I didn't read the correct...
Champion: Well it was among the...
Vanderhoef: I didn't see that.
Champion: What was your motion?
Lehman: All right, just...
Champion: Could we have a repeat of the motion, please?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#11 Page 84
Lehman: The motion is rejecting the bids received on August 20, 2001 for the
City of Iowa City Robert A. Lee Recreation HVAC installation of
boiler replacement project. We need a resolution to reject...
Pfab: Move the resolution to reject.
Champion: You already had a motion before.
Vanderhoef: It wasn't seconded.
O'Donnell: It wasn't seconded.
Lehman: Okay, we have a motion by Pfab...
Champion: Second
Lehman: Seconded by Champion to reject the bids.
Kanner: Question.
Lehman: Yes?
Kanner: Are we planning to speak rebids with some new reconfigurations?
Atkins: Yes, that's what we plan to do.
Karmer: What are we planning to do different?
Atkins: First of all, we are going to find out why the demolition component of
the bid was as expensive as it was. We had a pre-bid conference and
folks came and there is some expression of concem we haven't figured
that out. Secondly...
Lehman: (can't hear)
Atkins: I'm not real sure,Ernie. That's what we need to find out. Secondly,
we need some work in this building. We are thinking about taking the
rec center and this building, combine them, make it a little bigger bid
and probably get a better price on it.
Pfab: In the pre-bid was there anything brought up at that time.
Atkins: I wasn't there, Irvin, I don't know what was talked about.
Pfab: So you don't know yes or no.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#11 Page 85
Atkins: No, we do not know but we will find out before the next bid.
Lehman: Okay, roll call. Motion carries that it has been rejected. (all yes's)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#14 Page 86
ITEM NO. 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED
POSITIONS IN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY DIVISION OF
THE HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES
DEPARTMENT BY DELETING ONE HALF-TIME
MAINTENANCE WORKER II PUBLIC HOUSING POSITION
AND ADDING ONE HALF-TIME HOUSING ASSISTANT
POSITION AND AMENDING THE AFSCME PAY PLAN BY
DELETING THE POSITION OF MAINTENANCE WORKER II
PUBLIC HOUSING.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion.
Kanner: I have some questions. We got a memorandum here number 14. It
came in our packet today. I question this reduced labor cost
approximately 20,000 going to an outside private contractor for a half-
time person.
Arkins: We had a...
Kanner: We saved $20,000?
Arkins: We have a half-time person which is approximately $20,000 a year we
were using. When we do the work that they have done and all the
other activities we can assign to these folks, with respect to
maintenance, we've estimated that our cost savings is about $20,000 a
year. And then, remember the important thing, we save on the
maintenance costs. We want to apply that money to client costs. So, I
mean, that's the trade off on the thing.
Pfab: Is this the first year of that contract?
Arkins: No, we've had some small maintenance contracts, Irvin, lawn mowing
and things such as this, but what we do is that if we can, and I honestly
don't recall the name of the company... When we ask them to do
some work for us, they send two or three people, get the project done
in a reasonably short period of time, move off and we have just found
our turn around time is better. Our client activity has picked up.
Seemed to me that Maggie' s recommendation was to spend our money
on client as opposed to maintenance.
Pfab: I looked at that and I was, kind of, trying to sort that out too. But
anyway, ifthat's the facts, that's...I'll accept it.
Vanderhoef: And thanks for the additional information.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#14 Page 87
Atkins: Okay.
Vanderhoef: I appreciate that.
Atkins: Just, while we're thinking about it, the relocation over to this location
has had a dramatic effect on the service we can provide the Housing
Authority. We get much more walk in traffic, we can spend more time
with people. Everything about our client services improved
dramatically.
Pfab: I think that was one of the neatest moves I've seen.
Atkins: It was one of our better moves, I agree.
Pfab: It just changed the whole atmosphere of the whole thing.
Atkins: Yep.
Kanner: I, yeah, I do not argue with that aspect of adding a half-time person
here. I do argue a bit with these figures. I would like to look at them
closer. I have a hard time believing that we're saving $20,000 with
this contract. And, I think, we find that when you have City workers
as opposed to privatized workers they tend to do a better job in many
ways and you have that accountability. And, so, I'm going to vote no
on this, at this time. I probably, if we voted... had some time to look
into this, I would perhaps change my mind but at this time, I'm going
to say no.
Lehman: Steve, I just have to disagree with you...
Vanderhoef: So do I.
Lehman: I do not believe that you can accurately state, nor can anyone else, as
good as our City employees are, I can not say that we can actually,
honestly say that they are better than the private sector or that the
private sector are better than the public sector. I think that's an
inaccurate statement.
Pfab: The only thing that I would be concemed of is what kind of pay and
benefits are the people that work for this...Do we have any...Since
they are contracted by the City do we have any authority over...
Atkins: No.
Lehman: No.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#14 Page 88
Champion: No.
Pfab: That is probably...
Atkins: And I understand that point, Irvin.
Pfab: which I think is unfortunate for the people that do the labor but...and I
think that this is something we may want to look at a little farther
down the road but... I think I know who's making payment, where the
savings is coming from. It's probably the workers are getting a very
low pay to do it but that's. . .
Lehman: Roll call. Motion caries, 6 / 1, Kanner voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#15 Page 89
ITEM NO. 15 CONSIDER A MOTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND PUBLIC ACCESS
TELEVISION, INC. FOR PARTIAL FUNDING OF A
PROGRAM FACILITY AT 730 S. DUBUQUE STREET.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion. Discussion.
Dale Helllag: Mr. Mayor, you should have before you a couple of pages that have
been revised. One was that, in the attachment A was simply a
typographical... There was a reference that was taken from some boiler
plate language that we had to take out. But, the substantive change is
in the agreement itself and it's number 6. You should have that page.
Essentially, what' s changed is that the money that the City puts in is
going to be put in up front for the purchase, of the building, instead of
that money being doled out under the authority and agreement of
PATV and the City. Now the bank is going to dole that out. What it
has is the same effect for us and it affords PATV the opporttmity to not
pay interest on that money for improvements to the building until it's
actually dispersed by the bank.
Lehman: Good idea.
Helling: So, the net effect to us is the same. We have some way of assisting
them in making those decisions and assuring that the improvements
that are made and that are paid for are consistent with their plan and
they can save a little money in the process.
P fab: And that's agreeable to them?
Helling: That's agreeable to them.
Pfab: Okay, fine.
Vanderhoef: Okay, do we have a copy of their budget plan that recognizes that there
is ongoing upkeep for this building? The only risk that I see for the
City in this whole thing is what you and I talked about earlier, in that,
if the building is not maintained well, the appraisal value goes down
and we, sitting in the second position, would potentially have a less
protected position.
Helllag: There is nothing in the agreement that goes to evaluating the
maintenance. The only thing we have in the agreement is that they
will over a period of two years, acquire or somehow accrue a reserve
fund in the amount of ten percent of their operating budget for
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#15 Page 90
unforeseen or certain types of maintenance expenses that might come
up, major expenses, because they do have a tenant and they're going to
have to make those improvements. So, they've agreed to have...
maintain that reserve. To create it and maintain it, but nothing in the
general maintenance of the building.
Dilkes: There is a provision in the mortgage, which is a fairly standard
provision in a mortgage, which provides that the PATV will maintain
the property and will not allow it to waste.
Vanderhoef: Okay, that's the piece...
Dilkes: You know, so that it... the waste is the term for not keeping it up so
that it deteriorates.
Vanderhoef: Declines in value.
Dilkes: Yup.
Vanderhoef: Okay, thank you. I'll support this then.
Champion: When is all this going to be ready?
Helling: Closing is tomorrow.
Champion: When do you move in?
Rene Paine: I believe, October first.
Champion: Wow.
Pfab: What is your name?
Rene Paine: My name is Rene Paine and I'm the director at Public Access
Television.
Champion: You must be excited.
Rene Paine: Yes, and I just want to thank the Cotmcil for your support in this
endeavor and also the people of Iowa City and especially the cable
subscribers.
Vanderhoef: You're most welcome.
Lehman: Very good.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#15 Page 91
Kanner: I had a couple questions, one for Dale. In point number five in the
agreement, which starts on our page 201 in our council packets, how
come we don't limit the amount of money...If any of these points
a,b,or c should happen we say that we can recover any real estate and
equipment. Why don't we limit that to our $125,000 investment or
$125,000 plus interest.
Helling: Well, I think this reflects, and probably reinforces a little bit what's
already in our agreement with PATV. Our interest is that if they
would do any one of these three things they would effectively be out
of the business of providing public access and community
programming and the assets should go to somebody else who is going
to provide that service for the community. So the agreement
essentially is if they stop doing it that those resources can be
rededicated to some other entity to do the same thing.
Kanner: Okay, that does make sense. And then, for the council, I think it's a
good idea to have this agreement with PATV in the way it's spelled
out in our ability to recover funds. I wonder though, why don't we do
something like this with the Englert or other community organizations
that we give out money to.
Champion: This wasn't really our money, was it?
O'Donnell: This is pass through money.
Lehman: Yeah.
Champion: This was pass through money.
Lehman: The Englert was general fund money.
Kanner: Right, well it's even... essentially it's our money, part of our money to
give out. So the question is even more so, the Englert. We should
have more of a say so in the Englert. My question is, why do we let
them fly with $300,000 with really no restrictions or ability to recover
that money if they should go under. Why don't we have a lien on the
Englert for our 350,000 plus money?
Champion: I guess you'd have to say we gave them a grant.
Lehman: Well, wait a minute, though. Steve, do we not...we do have a position
on that Englert theater.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#15 Page 92
Atkins: I'd have to pull that agreement, Emie. I'm not sure what it says.
Lehman: I mean, if they default, we own the building.
O'Donnell: It's a contract sale, isn't it?
Atkins: Now that's true.
Lehman: We own the building. We have...we own that building.
Kanner: But once they pay it off...
Atkins: Once they pay it off...
Kanner: Once they pay it off they have no obligation to us whatsoever.
Where...
Lehman: Correct
Kanner: PATV always has an obligation. I'm saying that we ought to look at
when we do these type of things in the future, for any community
organization, we ought to look at having more of a stake in it. Similar
to what we have with PATV. We ought to look at it with the same
critical eye as far as making sure that it survives in a community
function.
Vanderhoef: As I understand this, the 125,000, being the second position, we still
will be paid and that money will still be used for public television.
But, if they want to own the building free and clear they will pay off
the 125 after they've paid off the rest of the building.
Lehman: I don't think that. The point is, if they ever seize operations we... the
property reverts back to the community whether it's paid for or not.
Vanderhoef: But, I'm trying to address Steven's concern there that we're okay
either way.
Kanner: No, no, I'm saying we're okay here with the PATV. I'm saying we
should do the same type of care with something like the Englert. We
gave far more to the Englert and we had far less control over that in
the money that we give out. We're going to, we're going to either get
the building or possibly pay back of the money. We have that control
over PATV. So, my point to the council, is that we gave over 350,000
to the Englert with virtually no control after the whatever, the five year
payback scheme is.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#15 Page 93
Pfab: I think the point he's saying is, and this is... it looks like it's
prejudential to PATV verses the way we did it to others. And, we are
basically saying we want to micro manage this but we didn't had any
interest in micro managing the Englert.
Lehman: You know, obviously we can discuss this when other projects come up
but I do think that PATV is a public access television where we have a
certain obligation to the public. We have no obligation whatsoever
regarding the Englert. We choose to do that. We did it. But we have
an obligation to see to it that public access television survives and I
think this is why we have it in there. Anyway, the next time one
comes up, we can discuss that. Roll call.
Karr: It's a motion.
Lehman: Motion. All in favor. Motion carries. (all ayes)
Rene Paine: Thank you very much.
Lehman: You bet.
Vanderhoef: Happy moving day.
Rene Paine: Thanks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#16 Page 94
ITEM NO. 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT CERTMN
FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES BY CITY OF IOWA CITY
EMPLOYEES SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Ross.
Kanner: What again is the current policy? What are we changing?
Helling: We don't have a written policy at this point. This in the City
Attomey's opinion was we really do need to have a written policy
more clearly declaring that public purpose and that's why we prepared
the resolution to have that stated policy.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: I mentioned this last night and ifthere's nobody else concerned about
it, fine, but I would really love to see 1 .A. say all add the word net
proceeds instead of all proceeds. I just think it makes it cleaner and
will save possible embarrassment at some time down the road. Does
the Council have
Atkins: We're okay with that.
O'Donnell: Emie, if this will ease your mind I will go along.
Vanderhoef: I will make that
Lehman: That was part of your motion? Was that part of your second, Ross?
Wilbum: Sure.
Lehman: But the motion was made including all net proceeds. Is there any
discussion before we have a roll call which we're going to have right
now? Thank you.
O'Donnell: Absolutely nothing.
Champion: The only thing I want to be careful about putting that in, because I
don't want the public to assume that we're part of that expense is the
fireman's time while they're collecting the money.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#16 Page 95
Lehman: I think that's covered.
Champion: But, you know, I just think that, I kind of like it the way it was.
Lehman: Well, it says no participating City employees or employee
organizations receive no personal or organizational gain or benefit as a
result of their fund raising activities. So that covers what you're
concemed about.
Champion: Okay.
O'Donnell: Good, let's vote on it.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#17 Page 96
ITEM NO. 17. PUBLIC DISCUSSION [IF NECESSARY] (ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA).
Lehman: Jerry, would you let this other gentleman speak first? He hasn't had an
opportunity yet.
Jerry Feick: Yes, sure.
Aaron Winter: I've already got the tag down here, my name's Aaron Winter. I'd like
to talk about the Home Rule Charter Amendments. I support these
amendments. And I'll maybe talk a little bit about the Edward Bum
grant because that's a large part of it and that's something I've been
worried about for a long time. I've talked to police officers in
Davenport and in Cedar Rapids and they have concerns and they
actually are against the Edward Burn grant because it forms negative
relationships between police and civilians, forms of mistrust. One I
could actually quote as saying, he said I think it sucks, is what he said
about the Edward Burn grant. There was other sentiments that were
that way, and I would urge you guys to take an impromptu vote of the
police in this town and just ask them if they think that that's a good
idea. They're the ones that are going to do the garbage searches;
they're the ones that are going to do the knock and talks. Now, if you
go walking around town one night and maybe there's somebody who
doesn't like you in their community, maybe they want to throw an
illicit substance in your garbage can, tmbeknownst to you they find
this when they search your garbage, does that make you guilty? We
need to have a surveillance stipulation where these garbages are
surveillanced for 24 hours or completely watched before we go and we
convict somebody for having something in their garbage. There' s no
way you can possibly prove that somebody threw drugs in their
garbage or residual when they have been in their house sleeping all
night and somebody came by and maybe threw something in there,
that's one of my big concerns about that. Twenty percent of the voters,
23.3% actually approved the Home Rule Charter Amendments, and I
think there were several other people who may have been afraid to
sign them.
Champion: I just want to correct you, it's 20% of the number of voters.
Winter: I'm sorry, it's 20.3% of the people who voted in the last election.
Champion: Not the people, it's the number, it'sjust a number, it's 20% of the
number of people who voted.
O'Donnell: We don't know all those people vote.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#17 Page 97
Winter: The number of people who voted in the last election.
Kanner: And they didn't approve it, Aaron. Some people will actually vote
against the amendments, they just signed it to put it on the ballot.
Winter: Right, the number was 784, which was necessary, which was 10% of
the people who voted in the last election.
Kanner: No, the people that signed the petition, you said that they approved the
Charter amendments.
Winter: No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say approved. They signed the petition.
It was 10% which was 784 of the people who voted in the last election.
1600 people signed these amendments. To have them approved on the
ballot.
Karr: Excuse me, just to clarify. I'm sorry, Aaron. But there was three
different petitions. Each of them totaled around 1600, but many of the
same people signed it three times.
Winter: Okay, can we agree that these three
Karr: I don't, I mean I just want to clarify that
Lehman: Let's just. We accept the fact that a lot of people signed the petitions.
Winter: Can we agree that there's three sets and that 1600 people signed each
set?
Lehman: Lots of people signed three petitions. We agree.
Winter: I think there was a lot of people who were afraid maybe to sign them
for whatever obvious reasons. There' s a lot of people who didn't get a
chance to sign them. I'm not asking for anarchy here, I'm asking just
for a democracy. We have a country where all I'm asking for is a
chance for the people to have this appear on the ballot and have them a
chance to vote or not. You know, we came from a time where blacks
and women were forbidden to vote. If we take something like this and
say we don't want it on the amendment then we're taking the right
away to vote from everyone. You're saying not only blacks, not only
women, everybody can't vote. Should we say that everybody can't
vote? I just don't think that's what our country' s about. It's going to
cost $30,000 thereabouts for a special election. If you just put it on the
ballot this time we avoid all the legal battles and avoid all of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#17 Page 98
negativity. Maybe we can simply get it on the board, if people approve
it great, if they don't they don't. I just think it's a real basic and simple
procedure, we vote, you know I may be a throwback, I may be a
radical extremist. I believe in the Constitution as it was originally
drafted, government for the people of the people and by the people and
I think that's what this would be all about. You know, out of the two
things that could possibly happen out of this, the will of the people
might actually be carded out or a true democracy might be realized,
and I believe these amendments to be legal. Iowa Code Section 364.2
authorizes that a city has the power to manage its affairs unless
legislature has expressly limited that authority. It also provides that
only when in exercise of local power is irreconcilable to state law is
that local power illegal. Those are pretty clear to me. I urge you to
please let these on the ballot, let' s not make a battle out of this. Just let
the people vote. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Jerry Feick: I signed for two, I'll let you guess which one I didn't. In regard to your
Housing Inspection Division and what I had previously written you
last Council meeting at 922 E. Washington, I guarantee you that the
kitchen in this sleeping room house you would not have come over and
eat in if I would have invited you for dinner. I expressed those
concerns to the City Building Inspection Department. Cockroaches
running like an army. And this isn't the only apartment complex or
abode entity that Mr. Clark has that is that way. Just read the editorial
in the Daily Iowan. They told me they would do nothing about the
bugs, they would do nothing about the filth. The filth and dirt do deep
that you could take your wet finger and write your name on the wall.
They tried to go to the ... well, they did go to the assess and blame
stage where they'd contact the county health department. That' s not
what your City Code says. I asked, is there, surely since you have so
many rental properties in this property you surely have a complaint
form? They didn't want to give it to me. I had to threaten to sue them,
which you all know I am capable of doing, to get the complaint form.
Now, this is wrong. Come on. And these rental properties, they can go
on the slide for two years under your ordinance. I seriously contend
here, you take a look at this slackness in the two year period. And it
can be cost effective, it doesn't have to cost the City one cent to
inspect the property and keep it up to Code. That' s why you got the
Code, charge them the fees, make it cost effective. The Health
Department did nothing. Then I left this property on a particular date,
was on an extended vacation if you know what I mean by that, I think
Ernie might know. I just by, I don't know, mistake, whatever, left two
window fans on. I want to discuss this with you, your fire department,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#17 Page 99
your police department. I thought it would be better to call the fire
department and ask them to go to the property, obtain the key, go into
portion that I lived, unplug the fans, the two fans. Now did I really
want the fire department to go to the expense and trouble of doing that,
no but in the choice of the remote possibility of the fans catching on
fire over 30 days, I didn't want that either. No one would want that. I
was told by the Battalion Chief that if the Fire Department went into
the abode they would have to take the police department with them
and do a search of the place for contraband. They were not given that
permission; they did it anyway. So I think you need to take a look at
this two year window of the slackness on City inspection. And I think
you need to visit the records at the Fire Department and the Police
Department on them doing what they were told not to do. It's called
unreasonable search. Might even be trespass. Good night. Thank you
for your time.
Lehman: Thank you, Jerry.
Dawn Mueller: Hi. I know it's late, I know that everybody wants to get out of here. I'll
try to do this quickly. I have a request to make of City Council. I have
it in letter format so I would like to ask that it be accepted into
correspondence. I'd like to read it for the benefit of anybody who
might be watching. This regards the proposed charter amendments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lehman: Thank you. Do we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Champion: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor?
Opposed. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#18 Page 100
ITEM NO. 18. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
Park & Recreation Commission
Lehman: Last night at our work session, Council decided to appoint Keyin Boyd
to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Do I have a motion to that
effect?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
O'Dounell: Second.
Lehman: All in favor? Opposed?
Pfab: Okay, I would like to just make one quick statement here. I think this
is another case where we had two very, very qualified people to put on
this and I appreciate that.
Kanner: Actually, I'd like to comment on it. Irvin, I slightly disagree. I think
we had two qualified people but I think we had one that stood out as
highly qualified, John Westefeld, and he's a professor in counseling,
he's a youth sports coach, he's talking about being ... keeping on top
of gender equity, he's pro-environment, have a balance between park
and recreation. I think Kevin Boyd has some good qualities, but with
all due respect to my friends at the Chamber of Commerce, I think
being a Chamber of Commerce person is something that counted more
in this choice than picking the one that' s more qualified. I think we've
done this in the past and I think the majority of Council again is
deliberately avoiding someone who has great qualifications. We had
the same thing come up in the past and I think it does us a disservice,
quite frankly, and I'm a bit embarrassed by the process that the City
Council majority used in who they decided to pick.
Lehman: You know, Steven, that's what you ... you consistently talk about
majority and you talk about democracy and there so happens that we
appoint people in a democratic fashion. The majority makes the
appointment.
Kanner: I agree, that's very true.
Lehman: But that is the way democracy works.
Vanderhoef: And I find it very interesting that with all your statements about
getting a broad range of ages and young folks to be participating in our
government process, here is a very qualified young person and we are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#18 Page 101
appointing him, so I think you have different standards for different
things.
Kanner: Well, actually, Dee, at the last meeting I
Vanderhoef: Let's vote.
Kanner: talked about an older person being on there and that was rejected. So I
think it is important to get all ages involved in hem and I think there's
times where that weighs heavier. I think that the qualifications though
of John Westefeld are overwhelming
Lehman: They are for you.
Kanner: and again, I don't think that was brought up at the meeting yesterday
about the youth. In fact, them was no statement made. It was almost as
if it was a done deal, that is if the Chamber of Commerce said this is
the person we want here.
Champion: You are insulting, do you know that? You are totally insulting. You
would just like to be a dictator. You don't want a democracy or to be a
member of the City Council. You want to be the City Council. I find
that very offensive.
Kauner: Connie, I think when you walked out of the room in the middle
Champion: I called the question
Lehman: We don't have any time.
O'Donnell: Second.
Kanner: That to me is the essence of dictatorship here Connie.
Lehman: We picked a very, very good candidate.
Dilkes: There's a second to the...
Kanner: When you make your insult and then you call the question, walk out of
the room, that to me is the essence of anti-democracy.
Lehman: You are out of order, Steven.
Kanner: I think it's out of order for that question
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
//18 Page 102
Lehman: This whole conversation is out of order.
TAPE CHANGE
(Everybody talking)
Dilkes: We voted on the call of question motion and we have not voted...
Lehman: We didn't have... We voted.
O'Donnell: I've had it.
Lehman: I'm sorry but I asked for a vote on that and got one. If you want...
Kanner: I didn't vote. I called for a show of hands.
Karr: On... ?
Lehman: On Boyd?
Dilkes: We're confused. We need to...
Lehman: Council appointment.
Karr: I've got it. I've got it moved and seconded to appoint Kevin Boyd.
Lehman: All in favor?
Lehman: The vote is 5 / 1, Kanner in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#19 Page 103
ITEM NO. 19. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION
Kanner: I have a couple things. Urn, we were told that we were going to get
wet lands information and discuss that and it wasn't on our work
session. I thought we would be discussing it at this.
Arkins: The agendajust became too full. I'll get it to you. The agenda was
just too full that evening.
Vanderhoef: It's 11:25, I believe...
Atkins: No, I'm not talking about this. I ran it by Emie, the agenda was just
too full.
Pfab: I have just one cornAnent. I think last night there was, when we were
talking about the tobacco issue, that we were going to set a time for a a
public hearing. There was Cormie's suggestion that following her, uh,
type of hearing which I agree with. And I think we ought to do that
now... whether or not, uh... If we're going to ask Coralville to take
part in this, fine. But I think we ought to set a date that we can either
work from or offer an alternative.
Lehman: We today faxed a letter to the Coralville Council inviting them to meet
with us briefly after the joint meeting on the 5th. At that point we are
going to determine whether or not there is any interest on the part of
the Coralville Council in discussing that with us. If there is we will set
a date that we can both get together on. If there is not, we will set our
own date.
Pfab: Is there any reason we can't set a date now?
Vanderhoef: Yes!
Lehman: Yeah, I think there is a really good reason because we don't know if
Coralville can meet with us. We're going to meet with them and talk
with them on the fifth of September. It will be a wonderful time.
Karr: We don't even know that for sure.
Lehman: Pardon?
Karr: We don't know that for sure.
Lehman: Well, we've invited them to do that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#19 Page 104
O'Donnell: Yeah, but we don't know we're going to meet.
Lehman: Right, but that would be a wonderful time to try and set a date. Any
other thing for Council? Time.
O'Donnell: Yeah, I would like to apologize to the Chamber and Kevin Boyd.
Boyd is absolutely fantastic. Fantastically qualified person for this
Parks and Rec. job position. I am very happy we appointed him and I
really, really disagree with what was said about the Chamber and
Kevin, Steven. That's all I have.
Lehman: Okay, any other Council Time?
Vanderhoef: I can wait.
Kanner: Yes, um, we got a memo from Marian about, um, second and third
floors of restaurants and bars. My question though, Steve, was what
are... we were going to find out what are the occupancy levels on the
upper floors and still haven't found that out. I would appreciate
information on that. And...
Atkins: Occupancy levels? I didn't understand it that way. Sure.
Kanner: Yeah, cause to see if we need to enforce it better or if we perhaps need
to change it.
Atkins: That I can do.
Kanner: Was the question that I thought we were going to get at. And there
was also a notice about the crosswalk at Broadway, I think, that we
have to set for a future work session...
Arkins: Yes.
Kanner: ...in here. Urn, did people see that?
Lehman: Yeah we did. I did.
Kanner: I think we need a work session. Do you agree with that? To talk
about that?
Lehman: Well, I think that's in the process. Staff is working through this at the
present time is it not?
Vanderhoef: Uh huh.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.
#19 Page 105
Kanner: Well, fight now they recommended that the crosswalk is not warranted
for the amount of volume that would go them. Um...
Atkins: And the neighborhood group at...
Pfab: There what?
Atkins: The neighborhood group that continued to request it so I suggested
that we incorporate it into the paving project trail, whatever it was.
Vanderhoef: The Highway 6 project.
Lehman: And that's where it is.
Arkins: That's were it is right now.
Pfab: I mean, there's no effort to drop that is there?
Atkins: No, I had not intended to drop it.
Pfab: We're on schedule to proceed to develop that crosswalk?
Atkins: Yes, unless you tell me otherwise.
Pfab: Because if it isn't, I want to know about it.
Lehman: That's kind of the way I read it.
Karmer: Okay. Thank you.
Lehman: Other Council Time? Is there a motion to adjourn?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: Second? All in favor?
(all ayes 11:30pm)
Lehman: Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of August 21, 2001.