The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-08-20 Transcription August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 1 August 20, 2001 Special Work Session 7:00 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Pfab, Kanner Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Dulek, Trueblood, Schmadeke TAPES: 01-77 BOTH SIDES; 01-78 BOTH SIDES; 01-79 SIDE ONE Lehman/Okay before we start the special meeting there' s an addition to the consent calendar, it will be Item Number 4e5, it's consider a resolution setting a public heating for September 11 on specifications, form of contract, and estimates of cost for the construction of the Senior Center building envelope water proofing projects, so we meet the 24 hour deadline. (Formal meeting) Plannin~ & Zonina A. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 11 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, ARTICLE O, SIGN REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT CANOPY ROOF SIGNS. Karin Franklin/The first item is setting a public hearing for September 11 on an amendment to the sign regulations for canopy signs, we'll get into that on the 10th. B. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 30.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL, RR-1, TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OSA-5, LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF BRISTOL DRIVE. (REZ01-00011) Franklin/The next item is a public hearing on an ordinance to fezone approximately 30 acres from rural residential to sensitive areas overlay low density, single family residential. This is in north Iowa City, offofDubuque Road and Quincent Street and off of Bristol Drive. Kanner/Karin? Franklin/Yes. Kanner/Is there is a big ravine that would deny getting out to Prairie Du Chien on this? Franklin/Yes there is, there' s a sizable ravine that basically, well if I can just kind of eye ball it here, it sort of runs through this area right in here where I'm pointing with August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 2 the arrow. And it makes access to Prairie Du Chien difficult, not impossible, but given the Sensitive Areas Ordinance two it's not advisable. Kanner/And there' s no way to come out on Oakes or anything? Franklin/Well eventually, this way, no there's a number of lots that are platted in here on Oakes Drive, and eventually Oakes Drive will come around and go back to Dubuque Road, and at some point, although the people on Lower Bristol Drive will resist there' s the notion that Bristol Drive can continue on down and hook up at this point. So there are opportunities for further cimulation in the neighborhood but unlikely for it to go to the west and through that ravine. Vanderhoef/How much land is there noah of this development that would be developable? Franklin/None. Vanderhoef/Okay this bumps the Interstate. Franklin/Basically Outlot A which is this area in here takes you right up to the Interstate right of way. Vanderhoef/That' s what I couldn't tell from my map. Franklin/And Outlot A as noted in the report is being dedicated to the city. Pfab/A question, is that where the lines go through the water lines? Franklin/Yes it is, right here is the high power lines that go through, that' s been there for years. We will in Outlot A get a conservation easement, well we won't need the conservation easement, we talked about getting a conservation easement. We will get a, that will be an opportunity for a trail through there, although it's likely that the trail will come along the water line and hook into Bristol Drive at this point in the cul de sac and then follow the street system on down to Dubuque Road. Vanderhoef] Is it too rugged to do it in the northern? Franklin/What we're looking at in this part of the trail is a more like a wood chip trail as opposed to a bicycle trail. Vanderhoef/Oh, okay. Pfab/This is a idol thought here, is there any way to help deaden the highway noise? Is there any? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 3 Franklin/Well one of the reasons for preserving this in what it is in is trees is to do exactly that and if you keep that vegetation going there that should deaden some of the noise. Vanderhoef/Okay would you go back to the previous map. The lift station is going into take care of the sewer concerns in the property here. How much more of that area? Franklin/I knew you were going to ask that. Vanderhoef/Are we going to be able to sewer using public sewer rather than septics? Franklin/I'm going to have to check that in terms of the actual capacity Dee, it's going to be located such that in the low point of this project such that you might be able to get some of these properties here if you got sufficient easements because I know we've had problems with some septic systems on some of these properties along the ravine and in back of Home Town, or in back of Robert's Dairy that it would be nice to get them on sewer, it's a matter of how big that is being built, I'll have to check. Vanderhoef/And otherwise the rest of that area to the south still is zoned where they could have large lot and septics? Is that true or not? Franklin/Right here. Vanderhoef/Yea. Franklin/When those houses were put in they are on the larger lots, I'm trying to recall now, I think some of them may have septics although what we looked at at the time was grinder pumps in the houses where they, it's like a lift station in the house, and it takes it up to the line in Oakes Drive and out, now I know some of them are on grinder pumps but I don't know if they all are. I didn't go back and look at this whole subdivision down here. Kanner/It is zoned RR-1 to the south there? Franklin/Yea, in this part right here. So what your looking at is the potential for some of those properties if they are on septics to get off septic and onto the lift station. Vanderhoef/Absolutely. Franklin/I'll look at it. Kanner/And again we maintain the lift station after it's built by the developer? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 4 Franklin/Yes. Karmer/Is that expensive? Franklin/I don't know that there's an engineer here but, I mean for the City, we have taken a different position on lift stations over time since I've been with the City, the technology of them has improved such that the maintenance of them is not as erroneous as it used to be and so the whole view of lift stations is much more lenient now than it has been in the past. You still want to look at the sizing it that your going to service a sufficient number of properties and not have a proliferation of lift stations because there are energy costs associated with the lift station obviously because there' s a pump in it, so you don't want to do it too frequently. Pfab/I have a question ifI might. What is the reliability of the stations now? What percentage of time are they out of service? Franklin/They're not, we don't let them be out of service. Pfab/Well I imagine a lot of people don't. But is that a, does that get to be a problem? Franklin/It has not. Pfab/Okay so as of now we've never had a problem with a lift station. Franklin/Well I can't say never Irvin because a long time we could have. Pfab/Last 5 to 10 years. Franklin/Right. Pfab/That's probably close enough for never. Franklin/Okay. Lehman/Excuse me the folks siring in front of the door you have to move because of the fire code, we can't block the exit. Franklin/Okay are we done with that one? Pfab/There's chairs here. Lehman/Yes Karin go ahead. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 5 C. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 14- 6E-8 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONE, TO ALLOW DWELLINGS ON OR BELOW THE GROUND FLOOR OF HISTORIC LANDMARK BUiLDINGS BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION. (PASS AND ADOPT) D. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS IN JOHNSON COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST SAID AGREEMENT. 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) 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) 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 BRANCH ROAD AND EAST OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE. (ANN01-00001) H. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 105.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, COUNTY RS, TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, RS-5 (45.08 ACRES) AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, RS-8 (60.13 ACRES), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF COURT STREET, SOUTH OF LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD, AND EAST OF HUMMINGBIRD LANE. (REZ01-00004) Franklin/Okay now we get into the annexations, just to refresh a little bit, we have two annexations that have been proposed, the Plum Grove Acres that included the Frank property and a piece of Hummingbird Lane and then we had the Lindeman Southgate annexation which included the properties on the east side of August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 6 Hummingbird Lane. At the last Council meeting there was a suggestion made by the Mayor that an agreement be considered in which the properties on Hummingbird Lane would be annexed at some later date. We have had discussions with the property owners, those on Hummingbird Lane as well as the property owner of this piece right here Mr. Frank and there is a annexation agreement which is in your packets, except for a minor change that we had to make today to just put the legal descriptions of all the properties in there. The property owners are agreeable to that annexation agreement, and basically what it says is that the owners will agree to petition for voluntary annexation in 5 years from the date of the signing of the agreement. At that time the City agrees that they will not be required to hook onto municipal sewer and water for 15 years, that the transition in property taxes that was with the original proposal would be put in place at that time so that once the annexation took place there would be a five year period of time in which there property tax would be transitioned to go from the county rate to the city rate. And that at that time the City would take over the maintenance, would improve at least to chip seal and take over the maintenance of the north portion of Hummingbird Lane. Essentially those conditions, those provisions in which the City provides the tax transition don't have to hook on taking over Hummingbird Lane are all things that were attached to the original annexation position. What changes is that with this agreement, these properties would be out of the annexation that is before you presently. How am I going to do this? Oh, so that what you see would be roughly the corporate boundary configuration with those properties taken out of the annexation proposal. Champion/Oh, Okay. Franklin/Okay, do you understand? What this is showing you is if the Council goes for the voluntary annexation agreement and at this point in time we take those properties out of the annexation. This is not an agreement that the staff supports, you have a memorandum from myself and from Sarah Holecek in your packet explaining why we don't believe this is in the best interest of the City right now so I don't think I have to go into that much further. I guess the only other thing I would say in terms of process is that if you decide to pursue the annexation agreement then tomorrow night you need to make a motion on the floor which will eliminate from consideration the properties that were previously included. So Emie I'll put together a motion for you that will take out these properties right here, it takes out the north part of Hummingbird Lane plus the Frank property from the Plum Grove annexation, it takes out all of these properties from the Southgate Lindeman annexation. Once you have done that neither the Plum Grove annexation nor the Southgate Lindeman annexation will need to go to the City Development Board. So that upon your passage of the resolution of annexation the next step is we send it to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State puts their stamp on it basically, there's no particular review, and the property August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 7 is annexed. You can not go back and take these property except by an involuntary annexation action which means an election, a rather long process. Champion/Are all the property owners agreeable to the so called Mayor's resolution? Franklin/Yes it is my understanding that they are, I have been working with Bob Wolf and he's been in touch with all the owners, all the owners are in town except for one but they have had communication I think you received an e-mail from Mr. Minos kind of explaining what the discussion was and the feeling of the neighborhood so it, yes it is my understanding that they are all agreeable to the terms. Lehman/Well let me just, I think I heard you but would you repeat. If we do not, if we accept the agreement that we have for those folks on Hummingbird Lane and for whatever reason they choose not to voluntarily annex we can not annex that in the future except by a general election. Franklin/Okay, there' s, if you do the agreement you have two avenues that are always open to you, one is to sue them in District Court for breach of contract, the other is to propose an involuntary annexation. Now the third possibility, but it is only a possibility, and depends on other parties is that you have an annexation proposal for the Peterson property, and the Pacha property and something that is big enough that this will be 20 percent or less of that other annexation. Wilburn/That's after the 80/20 rule which is why because of the island staff recommended. Franklin/Right. Wilburn/(can't hear). Franklin/Right that's the 80/20 rule and that is what we propose these under, yes that's fight Ross. If the Peterson's were to come in, if this property which I believe, this is the Pacha's here, so it would have to be all of the Pacha' s, if only those were to request coming in, say it was this block right here, I think there's another line here that would include this property and the Peterson's. These two properties if the Peterson's were part of it or not, and all of these would need to be included in that 20 percent, that, I mean that's the basis of the staff's concern is what it does to you in the future. Champion/I think you have a legitimate concern, I mean I understand your concern, but because the area, whatever direction it is toward West Branch (can't hear). Lehman/East. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 8 Franklin/East. Champion/Is not developed, the sewer isn't there, it's probably going to be a couple years before that is serviceable and I can understand their reluctance to start paying city property taxes, I guess I've got to put some faith in the people who are signing the agreement. Franklin/Sure. Champion/I have to do that. Franklin/Sure, sure, I mean it's pointed out in our memorandum any agreement you have to put faith in the fact that there' s people are signing the agreement. Champion/Right. Franklin/The peculiar thing about this one is there's so many parties, it just increases the possibility of risk but we've made those points. Wilburn/It just takes one to, it takes one to renig to cause problems later on. O'Dormell/All of our work (can't hear). Franklin/It depends which one it is. Wilbum/I see. Franklin/If it's this one down here yea. Pfab/I have a question, I thought I understood it when I was in touch with several members, now I'm not so sure that I understood this. I think what I asked them and what I'm going to ask you is what can, what can the City and the people here, what can they not obtain under contract as since we plan to contract with them that they won't have to pay taxes for some years some arrangement on taxes, why can't we do that now and start here and say okay this is what the agreement is, however we decide the formula for adjustment of taxes and sewer and water and all that other stuff, why can't we do that and be done with it because I'm really uncomfortable of the possibility of future Council's in putting a very precarious position and you know people move, people die, people change their mind and I think that that's, I'm really uncomfortable once I understand a little more than I thought I knew when I talked to those. Franklin/The proposal in the original petition for annexation that we brought to you included a tax transition for five years. It included not being compelled to attach to municipal and sewer and water for 20 years. It included the upgrade and taking August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 9 over the maintenance of Hummingbird Lane, I think the crux of it is is that these folks do not want to be annexed and it's putting it off for five years. Pfab/Well but it's, it looked to me like the biggest problem to them is to watch their taxes basically skyrocket, well we're already. Franklin/Well increase. Pfab/Right, pardon. Franklin/I said increase. Pfab/Okay all right, that's an increase, I'll accept that but we are making contracts, we agreed to contract with them on a number of things why don't we put whatever it is, whatever the meeting of the minds is to do that with the taxes, is that not allowed? Franklin/You can under state law you can do the tax transition but it is strictly prescribed as to how you can do it, you can only do it for the five years and you can only do it for the percentages allowed in state law. So we can't, we can't monkey with that. Pfab/So we couldn't put an enticing enough proposition on the table to pacify what they want to do? Okay, okay. Wilburn/I have a question about just a couple language things and the proposed agreement, towards the bottom of the page the non therefore, I'm looking at, what am I looking at? The voluntary annexation agreement draft, the bottom of the page after all the whereas's, the now therefore, in number one, "Property owners, their successors and/or assigns will submit petitions for voluntary annexations to the City of Iowa City promptly after the passage of five calendar years", isn't that wide open to? Isn't the word promptly wide open to? I mean if it came to ideally everyone would comply and voluntary apply but if there were a problem. Franklin/What promptly means? Wilburn/Yea. A year, two years, five years. Dilkes/Well we could say a certain period of time within six months, within three months, something like that. Franklin/I thought it was the day of. Dilkes/Promptly means pretty, promptly means pretty quick, immediately, promptly, it's not reasonably and it's not. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 10 Franklin/I think the idea it's five years after the day that this agreement is executed, there ought to be some petitions flied and that's what they understand also. Dilkes/But your right but Ross I think what the question you've asked, (can't hear). Franklin/It sort of bags that question. Dilkes/Illustrates the point, that if we're going to have disputes about what promptly means, I mean this whole thing is going to be a mess (can't hear). Vanderhoef/Karin on the conditional zoning is it necessary to put it in there that there are the sewer tap on fees and so forth for that development? Franklin/It probably is a little redundant but we'd often rather be redundant than leave something out, I mean the sewer tap on fees, it's a matter of law and we do it with the subdivisions generally speaking. Vanderhoef/But if years from now and new ownership or whatever, I don't know I'm just more comfortable with it in there. Franklin/Wait, now what are you? Are you asking if that be included in the volunteer, the annexation agreement or the conditional zoning agreement? Vanderhoef/Both. Champion/It's understood. Pfab/Well when you assume things you can get into trouble. Champion/Oh that's what everyone says it's still a contract. Franklin/There's no commitment on the part of the city with this to install the sewer to someone's house, in fact when we started with this agreement we were talking about the installation of sewer because that was the issue around which the discussion hung at the last council meeting was well the sewer' s not going to be there so why should we have to annex even though they don't want to use it and so the obligation of the City even to have the sewer there is not in this agreement, I believe it will be there within five years, I would hope it's there within five year so we're serving the Iowa City Care Center. Vanderhoef/That was another piece, another question I have. Pfab/But their not, they are not intending, by the end of the time they still have a period after that right before? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 11 Franklin/Right it's. Pfab/So I mean at the time. Franklin/Okay under our code right now you are not obligated to hook onto municipal sewer and water if your currently on a septic or well until your within 300 feet of that sewer or water. So if the infrastructure is not in place we can not require somebody to hook on, if it is within 300 feet we can require by law for them to hook onto it. Now there are cases in which we don't do that, I mean we don't go out as soon as we put in a sewer and make somebody necessarily put on hook into the city system. But we have the authority to do that under the law, what this is saying is that we will not exercise that authority for 15 years after their actually annexed. It does not obligate us to put in the sewer, it does not obligate us to put in the lateral lines, they will need to run the sewer from their house to wherever the trunk line is, and that will be likely within the subdivision, well for the Frank property there's a sewer that goes to his property line to the south, the Mitros' will probably go along Lower West Branch Road and hook into the main trunk coming north south, and then these properties on Hummingbird Lane there will be a point at which a trunk will go down to them, the major mink line running north south and they will have to get to that point and that will be up to them as to how to get there. An easement will be reserved along this boundary that is half of a sewer easement and the developer's of this property have agreed to that, these folks on Hummingbird will need to have the other half of it on their property to get access to the city sewer and they'll have to work it out as to how their going to do that. Pfab/Is that something that can be put in the contract now? Franklin/I don't think you want to, I think you want to leave that to them as to how that's going to be worked out. Pfab/Okay but now also if there's a development there and the tnmk doesn't go far enough for them or 300 feet is that it? Franklin/300 feet yea. Pfab/Well then somebody's going to have a disruption in their back yard or their from yard or their side yard if it isn't at that point. See in other words the city if, in other words I would say that eventually their going to have to go to the sewer and it's not a great distance that probably be should put into development now to get there so it isn't a big disruption down the road. Franklin/Okay what we're making provision for in this development is that the sewer line will go to this property line. Pfab/Oh to the property, so that takes care of this. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 12 Franklin/Not to each individual property line. Pfab/No, no, no, because I mean, so in other words so that people in this development don't have to have another back hoe and digger whatnot go through their back yard. Franklin/Right, right. Pfab/Okay that' s fine. Wilbttm/I kind of understand what your saying about trying to negotiate good faith, I'm just looking at the language to, I think of several times where we're sitting thinking well what was the intent of a past council and I'm just looking to how do we make sure if we go with this that it's the intent that since this is within the corporate boundaries that this. Champion/That's a good point, I think also about the idea about putting this off is people do need a plan for increased expenses and I think even when you talk about putting in sewer lines that's not little money that's big money going from your house to a trunk sewer and this just gives them more time for planning. Lehman/Well the real issue probably is the taxes. Champion/Right it would be an issue with (can't hear). Lehman/Because it's 20 years, they have 20 years to wait to hook up the sewer and water. Vanderhoef/To the time it, yea, so putting it off, your saying 25 years basically. Lehman/No it really doesn't do that, it says 15. Vanderhoef/Start it in five years. Champion/Well I don't know what the lifetime of a septic system is but I think they would start replacing a septic system they would want to hook up into the sewer so hopefully the sewer would be there when they need to think about that. But I don't think this hurts the city, maybe I'm wrong but I've been wrong before but I think we ought to go with the Mayor plan. Lehman/Okay we'll. Pfab/I'll support it for the simple reason that there's a five year, you can't get around five years is that right? The five year tax. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 13 Franklin/Right the tax transition can only be for five years at a set schedule. Champion/Yea that would be ideal if you could change that one. Pfab/Yea if you could say well just do whatever put in plug in X year and see if we can agree on it and go with it. Okay that's fine. Lehman/Okay. Pfab/And the sewer gets up to their property and nobody else has to, there's no, what about the water? Where does the water end up at? Lehman/Water is across the road from it right now isn't it? Franklin/Yes they can hook onto water right now. Pfab/And that' s city water. Franklin/Yea. I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (I-1 ) TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1 ) FOR APPROXIMATELY 12.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 (REZ01-00002). (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Okay Item I Ruppert rezoning, and our favorite access easement in the whole world. You have a letter from Chuck Meardon, basically this whole issue of relocating the access easement exactly where it's going to be has totally disintegrated and Chuck Meardon representing the Ruppert's would like to go with an amended conditional zoning agreement and get this property rezoned to I-1 and we support that and would like to get through it also. Lehman/Does that require another public hearing? Franklin/It does. Lehman/So we will. Franklin/What you can do tomorrow night is during this item have a motion to set a public heating for September 11 on a revised conditional zoning agreement. We' 11 start over, he' s requested expedited consideration and we' 11 just however you do that now. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 14 Kanner/Wait tell me what's the change in the conditional zoning agreement that' s being pursued. Franklin/The change, oh man I don't have the language with me, do you Eleanor? It just came through today. The change basically ensures that the City has the right in making the determination of the location of that access easement that consideration for the through flow of traffic from Westport Plaza to Menards is a factor in that consideration. Lehman/That's set for September 11. Franklin/That's correct. Okay remember the issue was we were trying to get agreement on where this little hummer was going to be. Pfab/So what is, where, what is the, what' s on the table now? Franklin/Okay what will be on the table is nothing in particular for the lot because the buyer has backed off, we're now in a general rezoning mode, the Ruppert's who own the property, this piece want to get it rezoned from I-1 to CI-1 and we're going back to a conditional zoning agreement which ensures that we have the access easement between here but leaves some of the flexibility that was put into the conditional zoning agreement you were previously considering. Are you totally confused? I am. Pfab/No, no, what I'm concerned is we can't agree now how are you going to agree after? Franklin/Okay there' s the owners who are the Ruppert's, they had a buyer. Pfab/Right. Franklin/The buyer wanted a very specific location for that access easement. Pfab/Is the buyer off the table now? Franklin/The buyer' s off the table now and so what we're back to is the Ruppert's wanting the flexibility of where you can put the access easement, us coming to an agreement on what that language would be in the conditional zoning agreement given all that we've been through and getting this conditional zoning agreement done to CI-1 and through the Council. Lehman/And then they work with whoever buyer they happen to find and we work through that. Franklin/And then they work with whoever the buyer happens to be, yes. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 15 Pfab/Since they don't have a buyer now what is the advantage, or what is the pressure to change the zoning now? Franklin/They believe that this property is more marketable as CI-I than as I-1 I must assume and that's why they came into us with the request, we don't have a problem with that, we just want to make sure we can get traffic through here and not have it go out to Highway 1. Pfab/Well I would be a lot more comfortable if while we still have some bargaining power here to get that road settled, is that part of the zoning or not? Or does that have nothing to do with the zoning? Franklin/They would prefer to have the flexibility of moving that access easement on the lot instead of having it right straight across which is what it was originally and they would like to include in their conditional zoning agreement the flexibility to move that access easement but yet we still want to have certain provisions related to it so we can get that through flow of traffic. Lehman/And that will part of the public heating that we're going to have on the I lth. Franklin/Yes and you'll have a new language in your September 1 lth packet, you can look at that language, I think it will be a lot clearer when we're talking about the specific language. Pfab/If the city wants a certain right of way, is that the right term or road way or whatever? Franklin/It's an access easement. Pfab/Access easement why don't we put that in as part of the zoning? Franklin/Because we are willing to be flexible and where that access easement is within certain bounds. Pfab/Can I suggest that we put that in where we feel it should be at some point in time that the Ruppert's can or whoever the buyer is can say come to the city negotiate? Franklin/But then we will have to go through a rezoning process again because it will be in the conditional zoning agreement and will be a condition of that property and I think rather than making somebody go through that process all over again that if we build in the flexibility of the conditional zoning agreement we can work that out with the buyer at the time? Pfab/How much leverage do we? What leverage do we? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 16 Franklin/We have infinite leverage in it. Champion/Right we are. Lehman/Karin let me just, Irvin. Pfab/I don't want to give away the (can't hear). Lehman/Irvin we're not giving anyway anything, we have to approve whatever comes before us, all we're saying is that them will be an access road, we're not going to tell you exactly where it's going to be because them may be a Kentucky Fried Chicken and there may be a car dealership. Pfab/Okay if we have control, if we don't give up control in doing it this way then that's fine, that's my only question. Champion/We don't have to control everything. Kanner/I had a question. Lehman/Yes. Kanner/What' s the city's position in terms of purchasing the property? Franklin/I have no idea. Lehman/Why would we purchase it? Franklin/The airport was pursuing it at one point in time? Kanner/I read minutes that we still have an option on that and I yea I don't think we. Dilkes/I think there was reference in. Kanner/I don't think we would want to purchase it if possible but it seemed we were still pursuing it in the minutes. Dilkes/We are not pursuing it, I think there was reference to an option, an continuing option to purchase and I believe Mr. Meardon's language and that is not accurate, those negotiations have ceased. Pfab/So we have, you say all contact has ceased as far as negotiating. Dilkes/Yes. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 17 Franklin/Are we done with that one? Lehman/Okay. J. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FiNAL PLAT OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT, A 57.13 ACRE, 17-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION WITH TWO OUTLOTS LOCATED WEST OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. (SUB00-0021) Franklin/Okay the North Airport Development, the Aviation Commercial Park, and that one I evidently we've worked out the financing agreement and it's just a mailer of remembering to do Item 10 before J. Vanderhoef/So we'll just vote to amend the agenda? Franklin/Yea. Vanderhoef/Before or after the public hearing? Or public comment. Franklin/It's a resolution on a final plat. Vanderhoef/I understand that but the amending of the agenda should that follow? Dilkes/But that needs to happen before you vote. Vanderhoef/Would you like it at the start of the meeting or right before J prior to? Dilkes/Right before the item. Lehman/We'll just take it right after Item I. Vanderhoef/Item I. Dilkes/Right before Item I. Karr/J. Lehman/In between. K. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROViNG THE FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE GREEN PART XVIII, A 9.54 ACRE, 3-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH 2 OUTLOTS LOCATED WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF VILLAGE ROAD. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 18 Franklin/Okay, the next item is considering a resolution approving the final plat of Village Green Part XVIII, this is more of the Wellington Condominiums and basically is a final plat of something you have already seen. Kanner/I have a question for you on this Karin. Franklin/Okay. Kanner/Who pays for their relocating and upgrading of sewer? I didn't see that mention in there. Franklin/They do, they do. Anything else on that one? Okay. Item L. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SALTZMAN SUBDIVISION, A 2.8 ACRE, 3-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED EAST OF RIVERSBE DR1VE SOUTH OF BENTON STREET. Franklin/Oh this is a resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of the Saltzman Subdivision, this is on South Riverside Drive. There were some issues with this related to a sewer easement and access for Ground Round, we have a sewer easement in place and we have negotiated with the developer that at such time as Ground Round is redeveloped, if it happens ever that we have the opportunity then to close this entrance way for Ground Round and have the access come out here and it's just for the future that we have the ability to consolidate those access points there on Riverside Drive. I'm done. Karmer/Karin a couple questions on this. Franklin/Yes. Kanner/Is the concern with the Ground Round and the sewer easement the building was built over the sewer? Franklin/Yes. Kanner/And we want to make sure that the owners take care of the sewer if there's anything that goes wrong with it. Franklin/And that they are aware that we have an easement for it. Kanner/The building shouldn't have been built there how ever many years ago probably? Franklin/I can't tell you exactly what happened and why it's that way but yes it was to preserve our rights with the easement. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 19 Kanner/And the other question I have is in regards to in the analysis we got, it talks about the comprehensive plan recommending that further low density strip development as a means that avoids further low density strip development on Riverside Drive as a means of discouraging sprawl. How was that looked at and how can we use platting and approval of platting to encourage or discourage those kind of things? Franklin/Where? Kanner/This is on page 188 in our package. Franklin/In the memorandum from John Yapp. Kanner/It's in the memorandum on the analysis page two of the staff report. Franklin/Oh okay. Kanner/And it talks about 5th paragraph down the comprehensive plan, it talks about we want to avoid sprawl and low density strip development and so I'm concerned with how our platting encourages or discourages at. Franklin/Well in the ideal you would consolidate the development in this area and have it more coordinated in terms of where the, I makes me want to dance, where the access points are but basically this is a subdivision which is not doing a lot one way or another. What's happening is it's creating one more lot along the back and giving more land to the Ground Round and Payless. In the best of all possible worlds we would be looking at a mdevelopment of the whole thing which would be much more coordinated and compact and we did the best that we could with what we have. I don't know if that answers your question or not. Kanner/What does that mean in the best of all possible worlds, what? Champion/They tear down and start over. Franklin/Yea, that instead of having two access points, another lot that's developing in the back along the river potentially that all of these were combined in some kind of coordinated fashion, there was shared parking for the different businesses that were in there, maybe all of the businesses are consolidated in one building, you can cut down on the amount of parking. Kanner/Why don't we do that when we look at that, why? Franklin/Because you don't have the right to. Kanner/Why is the comprehensive plan? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 20 Franklin/The comprehensive plan is a guide, it gives you principles on which to base your decisions but then you have to adopt very specific laws that implement the plan. The subdivision laws and the zoning laws implement the plan, the zoning that has been in place here for some time there's also been a subdivision of this land that has been in place for some time. So what we're trying to work around is an existing situation and make the best of it that we can which is why we negotiated this single access point for the future ifthere's any redevelopment. We can't force that now, we can't force them to close the driveway for Ground Round but we were able to negotiate it through the subdivision agreement for the future. Pfab/I have a strange question here. Is there a way that, is there any possibility of a meeting of the minds of the people involved to take a look at what' s the best of all worlds? Franklin/No. Pfab/No way shape or form. All fight. Franklin/We had a lot of talk on this one. Lehman/Well Irvin I don't think you'd tear that building down either. Pfab/Well I don't know but it's in the sense that where economic development funds might be of use if there was any way they could get together. Franklin/I doubt it and I say that only because we have had extensive discussions with this developer. Pfab/So I mean in other words you have to discuss with the other people involved. Franklin/We've tried that. Pfab/Okay that's all, I just, that was my strange question. Kanner/Just to finish up on this point and then one other point in regards to this application. When we're reviewing our zoning are we going to look at some of these to strengthen our zoning capabilities to implement some of the comprehensive plans in regards to this sprawl? Is that something that? Franklin/Well I mean one of the things that we're looking at with the development code review is to look at the code and how it relates to the plan and get a better match between the code and the plan. Kanner/Okay. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 21 Franklin/So whether it's going to fix a situation like this no because you can't go back and take away fights that are already there, but in terms of how we build for the future yea. Kanner/So I'll be looking for that when we've got some of those issues before us. Franklin/Sure. Kanner/Then the final thing is if we wanted to build a trail back there we would have, the report is saying basically we would have to condemn the land if that time ever came, that's the only way to do it right there. Franklin/In our subdivision regulations right now we do not have the power to require a trail. Kanner/And that's another thing that maybe will be looked at see if we want to have that power or not? Franklin/Yea. Lekman/Was there some change in the Iowa law about condemning property for trails? Franklin/Agricultural. Lehman/Agricultural. Franklin/You can't condemn agricultural property for recreational trails. Lehman/Okay thank you. Kanner/Thank you. Lehman/I have a request to take a short break which we will do. (BREAK) Lehman/Review Agenda Items. Review A~enda Items 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. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 22 Atkins/Emie I have one Item for you, the replacement of the boilers at the Robert Lee Recreation Center. Lehman/That's. Atkins/Open to bids this aftemoon and they were way over bid and so we'll recommend you reject them and we'll go back out. Lehman/Okay that is. Vanderhoef/Number 11. Lehman/Okay other agenda items. ITEM NO. 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT CERTAIN FUNDRAISING ACTWITIES BY CITY OF IOWA CITY EMPLOYEES SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE. Lehman/I have one Steve and I don't know that it's, it's just an observation on Item 16 which is a resolution declaring that certain fundraising activities by the city employees serve a public purpose. 1A says that all proceeds from fundraising activities are donated to a not for profit charitable organization or a raised in conjunction with such an organization. And I wondered if the word "all" is the correct word. (END OF SIDE ONE 01-77) Atkins/We needed a policy on this Ernie and that's where you come in. Lehman/No, no, no, and I don't have a problem with that but I do know that there have been fundraising efforts that are for non profit organizations that our folks have been involved in where all the proceeds there are certain costs associated with collecting those moneys or whatever. It makes no difference to me as long as this says what we want it to say. Helling/Emie the intention was that all the proceeds would go there that if there's some way that that's handled within that organization I think that's fine the idea is that nothing stays here. Lehman/Nothing stays here. Helling/In the hands of the employees. Kanner/A 100 percent that's raised goes to the organization, don't take anything out here for administrative here as an employee. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 23 Helling/Right. Champion/Administrative, what about postage? Lehman/So we're not talking net proceeds, we're talking about 100 percent of the gross proceeds. Helling/Right. Lehman/That's a significant difference. Helling/For instance the MDA thing that the fire department does with the boot, now that money all goes to the MDA. Now does some of that go to the people who are involved with the fundraising or how much we don't know that but the fire department sends 100 percent of the money that they collect to that organization. Atkins/That' s what we're (can't hear). Kanner/So Emie your saying that maybe we should allow some to go for expenses. Lehman/I just think that the phrase is misleading because I know there have been other, I have no problem with net proceeds going to but maybe we should say net proceeds because if there are costs associated with raising that money legitimate costs you have to cover those costs. Pfab/Well maybe you can go at it another way and say that there will be no expenses taken out from either this or that. Lehman/Well it makes no difference to me if this is what we want to say. Pfab/So in other words no overhead or no employee fees or something. Dilkes/Number one I don't think that's been the history of these kind of fundraising efforts, there haven't been any funds needed, it's been a charitable donation by the City and the purpose of this resolution is to say that's okay. Lehman/Okay, that's fine. Pfab/Well I concur with Ernie there's a problem there because some fund raisers I know using the University of Iowa Foundation and it says all proceeds will go, no, University of Iowa proceeds, the University of Iowa Foundation gives some hair cut, in other words not all the money don't go because there's an overhead and I think that, and so when they say all the funds raised here are used for this purpose they are not and I think Emie has a legitimate point to say that don't say August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 24 something if it isn't 100 percent true especially when your dealing with fundraising. Champion/Well it is 100 percent. Dilkes/Well and I think what Dale was saying, I think Dale has the history with this is that we haven't, the city hasn't taken a cut for it's expenses on any of these things that we (can't hear). Pfab/Well another way is to say it that the city will take no expenses and employee will not get paid and then that I think that' s what Emie wants to mean, when he says all it's got to be all but there might be another way of saying it say that the city will not assess any charges for use of facilities and employees will not be paid any fees or however. Lehman/Dale the only reason I brought this up, kind of wish I hadn't, I know there have been fundraising efforts involved with city folks for really, really worthwhile causes where there have been organizations hired to solicit those funds and they take a commission on that. Now according to the way I read this that all proceeds from fundraising activities will mean all of the contributions which I think is not correct. Now all net proceeds to me is correct because then it allows the employee organization to cover the cost of the fund raiser if it means paying commission to outside people or whatever. Helling/I'm not aware of any situations where local Iowa City employees or organizations have done this kind of thing and had overhead. Lehman/Well let me give you one "Shop with a Cop" hires an outside firm to come in make phones, solicit funds from the public and they pay that firm 20-30 percent or whatever of what they collect as their commission for collecting their money. Now according to the way I read this they could not do that. Helling/Well it would all go to "Shop with a Cop". Lehman/It doesn't all go to "Shop with a Cop". Helling/It doesn't all go for. Lehman/30 percent goes to the person who makes the phone call. Helling/Which is part of the "Shop with a Cop". Lehman/No it says or donated to non profit charitable organizations, the people making the phone call are not a non profit charitable organization. If you were to put the net proceeds then I think you have something that is (can't hear). August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 25 Pfab/I think maybe the way I suggest would still be the better because what they do after that at least we don't give the intention that we are taking anything off, right the public says we're going to give $100.00 to "Shop with the Cop" well $75.00 or $65.00 maybe what goes but the rest goes to someplace else. O'Donnell/Why don't you and Irvin get together and work out the wording and bring it back to us. Lehman/All right that's fine. Any other agenda items. Kanner/I had a couple. 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 HART COLLECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE ARTIST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SAME. Karmer/Number 12 just to clarify for the Nancy Seiberling art work we're not paying for any of this correct. Lehman/It says accepting a gift. Franklin/That's right it's a gift. Lehman/So I guess you wouldn't be paying for it. Kanner/I just want to clarify. Franklin/And since you brought that item up I'm going to ask you to amend the agenda tomorrow night, I've got a little script for you to do that at the beginning of the meeting under the special presentations, the resolution. Lehman/Oh good, and you'll give me the information prior to the meeting, thank you. Franklin/I will. Vanderhoef/Karin while your there then I'll just go ahead and ask this, this is something new and different for the city to accept these and the city did look for an appropriate place to display these artworks. My question is is there anything that says that they have to remain in that location? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 26 Franklin/No, that's why in the resolution it refers to a contract, that contract with Ina Loewenberg will give us the right to relocate the pictures, the portraits, it gives us certain rights to those properties and that's why we have to have this contract. Vanderhoef/Okay then following up I guess with the particular location as I understand where it's being placed I guess I would consider having Art Committee talk about it and see if that particular location ought to be a rotating location because I suspect we will, once we accept this one we may well get more requests for similar and if we could design something in the way of a Plexiglas kind of covering or something so that it could be periodically changed rather than doing a permanent kind of thing just for this one. Franklin/The installation that we use even though it appears permanent, that is you can't take it off, if you have the proper tool you can remove it, it's stuff that's used in museum' s all the time which has which has portraits or pictures being taken out and moved to other locations. Vanderhoef/So your saying we could periodically change this without having to redo the wall and all that stuff. Franklin/We could, that's right, yes. Vanderhoef/Good that's what I wanted, thank you. 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. Karmer/Steve I've got a question for you on number 14, resolution eliminating the AFSCME Maintenance Worker II public housing position. According to this resolution we've been contracting out for worker for public housing and the position has been vacant and we're going to switch this position to a housing assistant because of increased traffic flow in here. Why have we been contracting out for worker for public housing? How much money are we saving? Atkins/We're not saving, it's $1,000 in additional cost. Kanner/No, not the elimination. Atkins/Okay. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 27 Kanner/But I'm going back to the original decision, let me preface it with saying that I think we ought to fill that position with a worker and not contract out and therefore this resolution would be moot. So I'm asking why did we make the decision whenever we did in the past to contract out as opposed to have one of our city workers, one of the AFSCME positions do the work in the public housing? Atkins/I'd have to ask Maggie that, I'll ask that and get it for you tomorrow. Kanner/Okay. Vanderhoef/So in my mind then following up on that Steven is that no it's not costing us an additional $1,000 whatever the number of dollars are it's a full position because we're already paying the contract price for that previous position so it's in mind like adding a whole new position in cost to the city. Karmer/Well we're adding a half time. Vanderhoef/But we're paying for that other half time in the contract situation so if we're looking at general fund expenditures we're increasing our general fund expenditures more than the $1,000. Atkins/This is not general fund, this would be housing authority. Lehman/Right, right. Vanderhoef/It would be housing. Arkins/Let me confirm, yea I will confirm with Maggie what her thinking was and I'll have that for you tomorrow night. Vanderhoef/Okay thank you. Kanner/So there's two different issues, the issue that Dee brought up about expanding another half time position in the housing department and then my issue is the issue of using private workers versus our own city employees, we made the decision or the City Council made the decision in the past to use city employees to clean the library as opposed to private contracting and this seems to go against that philosophy. Atkins/We'll get Maggie, I'll get that for you sure. Karmer/So give me that information. ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE AVIATION COMMERCE PARK August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 28 FINANCING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND THE IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. Kanner/And in regards to, I'm going to bring this up tomorrow also but the Item number 10 regards the resolution for financing agreement with airport for the Noah Commerce Park. I'm of the opinion we could have gotten a better deal and just to bring to your attention I requested some information at our last budget time and I requested it again in regards to the total amount of debt that we have with the airport and it's in the envelope that we received tonight. And so we're going to be voting on an agreement that basically pays back for the newly incurred debt and I would suggest that we also should try to, we should get a better deal, we should try to capture past debt which is in January it was $2.169 million dollars and so with the new debt it would be about $500,000 in debt service payments or $250,000 a year. So my question is why not get a better deal with the airport which services a small amount of people and we put out a lot of money, the Feds have put out a lot of money and I would propose that we can get a better deal from the airport and they can find other source of money such as increased fuel fees, landing fees which they don't use, increase lease fees for their hangers, I think we need to get a better investment back for the people of Iowa City and so that's something that will be brought up tomorrow. Pfab/I would like to make a comment, from what I understand the FAA, FFA, whatever it is, which runs that has a very strong interest because they have an awful lot of money in that. So if they say if you make the airport pay you their going to be next in line, say okay if they're making money pay us, and they have a lot bigger interest than the city does I believe is why that is not touched. I may be totally wrong but I sat in on several meetings and this is the impression that I walked away from and said well it's a sleeping dog and I don't know if we want to wake it up. Kanner/Yea, and I've heard that also, I don't know that we've explored enough and to see if sometimes there are things that are decided in a court of law and this is something we might want to pursue to get more money back that we put in. Pfab/I agree with your concept but I think it's going to be very difficult because of laws that you don't have any control over. Lehman/Well we'll talk about it tomorrow night. Kanner/So maybe though there is information on what the FAA allows. Atkins/The short version I'll try to answer because what your proposing Steven to my knowledge is not out of the question, it would be a policy position that you all would have to make. The Federal Aviation Administration fimds most of the capital projects associated with the airport on a 90/10 basis, what we show is our August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 29 share of the debt is our 10 percent. Now one project where we did fully fund the cost was the terminal renovation and that was $700,000, that's a direct out of pocket expense on the part of city government. Could you remove to recoup that I assume the answer to that is probably yes but before you make the move I would encourage you to meet with the Airport Commission because certainly we're not expecting you to go back and try to pick up some of the past expense, but I don't think what Steven is proposing is out of the question. Pfab/Is there, if that was the case where we provide all the funds to renew the headquarters or whatever it is? Atkins/Terminal building. Pfab/Terminal, is there federal fimds available to assist with that? Atkins/No the terminal building was not eligible. Vanderhoef/No. Pfab/Not eligible okay. Dilkes/We would want to though just follow up on what Steve said we would want to look into that and talk to the FAA about it because even in connection with this transaction we had to get the FAA's blessing about the trail of money and this whole thing and so it, we'd have to do some checking on that. Lehman/Okay other agenda items. Appointments Lehman/Council appointment for the Parks and Recreation Commission, do wc have a, wc have two applications? Wilbum/I'd like to nominate John Westefeld. Vanderhoef/And I would like to nominate Kcvin Boyd. O'Donncll/And I would second Kcvin Boyd. Pfab/I would support Mr. Wcstefcld. Lehman/Well is there any campaigning before we? Wilbum/I like his background, past community involvement on some human service boards, I know he's got a personal interest in some recreational aspects, I also August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 30 know his family just past involvement in Parks and Recreation and interest in expanding our parks (can't hear). Kanner/I talked to both candidates and I like Kevin Boyd the life long resident and his enthusiasm, he's in turn with the Chamber of Commerce and has involvement in the city. John Westefeld though I think the qualifications he has or what he's putting out there are, weigh heavily in his favor, and when he talks about expanding opportunities for people with special needs and his prior involvement like Ross was saying and his prior involvement, she was a head of a committee, I think there's a good working knowledge and he can fit right in there. Lehman/Okay. Pfab/I think it's a case again where we have two excellent candidates and I think either one would be good (can't hear). Lehman/Okay let's do a show of hands for Westefeld, Kevin Boy& Well Kevin will get the nod. Hiahland Avenue Traffic Calminll (IP2 of 8/16 info. packet) Lehman/Okay Highland Avenue Traffic Calming, Jeff this is kind of like (can't hear). Jeff Davidson/Mr. Mayor you asked this item to be placed on the agenda for discussion, I believe based on some correspondence you received from a resident, not actually of Highland Avenue but an adjacent street. And I think you had some follow up correspondence with Mr. Reese has kind of been the point person for the neighborhood group on this. And I provided you with a page and a half memorandum kind of summarizing some of the history here and basically whatever you want to talk about and consider evaluating let's discuss that. Lehman/Would it be appropriate to survey the neighborhood again as we normally do when we do traffic calming? Davidson/Well if there's a majority of Council that is in favor of reconsidering traffic calming on Highland Avenue again I think that would be a wise first step. You know the program that you have setup is deliberately intended to not impose traffic calming on a neighborhood but rather if a neighborhood wants to empower itself to decide that a majority of the neighborhood is interested in traffic calming then we have a process for subsequently evaluating that. But I think determining, well a couple of things, determining if there's a majority of the neighborhood or you've been using 60 percent at least 60 percent of the neighborhood in favor of it would be a first step and then the other thing we probably need to do is update our traffic count because it was very close to the threshold of not being eligible for the August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 31 program by virtue of being over 3,000 vehicles per day and unless you wanted to make an exception to that you know we'd probably want to check that out as well. Lehman/What' s your pleasure folks? Vanderhoef/Well I have a whole different vent on this having sat on this Council and had this come back several different times, it seems interesting to me that we have a policy for traffic calming on collector but we as a Council do not have a policy on arterials and what triggers traffic control on arterials. This to me a very plain issue that we haven't upgmded arterial street intended to carry certain volumes of traffic and we have nothing on the books that says we will implement the most expedient traffic circulation on that arterial. For instance we don't have anything that says arterial volumes of X number per day will trigger putting a stop light on it. We don't have any thing that makes assessments in the neighborhood that is proiferal traffic that is avoiding that arterial because it's not working as an arterial. I would personally like to see us go forward and look at some sort of a policy that addresses arterial use and then we can talk about Highland again if that becomes necessary. Davidson/I would just add to Dee' s comments that we do have ways of measuring the efficiency of the arterial system. Whether or not a traffic signal should be installed, whether or not additional travel lanes are needed, or mm lanes are needed, I mean we have plenty of nuts and bolts ways of doing that, however we then on a local system road in other words not a state route or a federal route we turn that over to you and you can either pay attention to it or ignore it as you wish. Kanner/Jeff I have a question for you. I think in the memo from you you talked about you don't recommend speed bumps or the traffic circles for this particular area. When the chicanes were put on there it appears that it was doing the job and there was tons of people complaining now were the people complaining from Highland? Davidson/There were some complaints from people on Highland Steven and by the chicanes were approved by a 63 % to 37 % vote of the people on Highland. There were complaints from some people living on Highland, there were certainly complaints from the general motorist population, and there were also complaints from bicyclists, and transit drivers and certainly emergency response providers who basically just didn't like the fact that those things performed exactly as they were designed to do, slow people way down and that enraged. Kanner/Well I will bring this up again, I think we need to look at ways to lessen traffic on Highland through public transportation and do some modeling. Especially to look at we're having routes expanded and frequency increased for routes going out in that direction. We're doing the Oakcrest/Towncrest on every half hour and I think we need to keep an eye on that and see if that's going to do anything in August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 32 reducing traffic and see if adding perhaps more bus routes instead of looking at other expensive widening techniques can help us with the traffic situation there. Pfab/I have a question. Has wisdom been increased over time that maybe the chicanes may have a real place on that street? Davidson/Staff was never in favor of having collector streets be part of the traffic calming program because collector streets have as part of their function to circulate traffic. Council made a decision that you wanted collector streets up to a traffic volume of 3,000 vehicles a day not over that to be eligible for the program. In my opinion of what you saw on Highland Avenue was kind of an effect of when you have a higher volume collector street that's used a lot by the general public the kind of reaction your going to get to traffic calming. Our traffic calming projects that we've had on local streets have been I think relatively successful, College and Washington were the most recent ones and those are very much local residential type streets. Everybody knows that right or wrong whether you agree with it or not Highland has a part of it's function and certainly does cimulate traffic in that area of Iowa City between it's got Gilbert Street on the one end, Keokuk Street in the middle, Lower Muscatine on the other end, all arterials and it certainly does circulate traffic and when you bring that element into the traffic calming equation that's when you get the wide spread opposition from people who like all of us are in a big hurry to get wherever they happen to be going. Pfab/I saw another possibility, it was on a television program and I believe it was in Washington DC where they sat there with this car that had a camera equipped with a that was testing the, or tracking the, or radar and took pictures of the car and the license plate and the speed limit and they sent them out a little ticket. Now that was they found it to be very effective, that might be another alternative. Lehman/It's not legal in Iowa. Pfab/Well maybe it's one we ought to test. Lehman/I don't think so. Well, it would seem to me that if we're interested in, and I guess I don't know what we're interested in, if we're interested in looking at Highland again the obvious way if we want to look at traffic calming is to survey the neighborhood. Do we want to do that and based on that survey then look at the, basically I imagine your going to be able to Xerox the recommendations you gave us last time? Champion/I think we would do a traffic count before we do anything. Davidson/I can certainly do a traffic count first but I guess let's at least be prepared for the expectation of okay what ifit's under 3,000 and still eligible then would you August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 33 like us to proceed or not. And just one other piece of information for you is I did go back to the last time we collected the traffic information for when the chicanes got put on in 98 and I tried to find, I found I guess 10 or 12 other collector streets in Iowa City to see how Highland compared to them and it's very similar with respect to traffic volume and especially traffic speeds. Traffic volume wise Highland is probably in the 80th percentile, I mean it's at the higher end of collector streets with respect to volume. But respect to speeds, Friendship Street, Dover, Glendale, Greenwood, Kimball, Lakeside, River Street and Sheridan were, they're all right around that 30-32 miles an hour which is what Highland is as well so I think you know there may be the can of worms aspect here that if you know if people in other neighborhoods get wind of at that level of traffic volume and traffic speeds we're prepared to start doing traffic calming I think we should be probably prepared for some other streets to be requested. Pfab/I would like to go back to something that Dee mentioned here and I'm thinking what she' s talking about is the fact that there's not a light on Kirkwood is that what your saying? Vanderhoef/I would like to look at arterials, which Kirkwood is an improved arterial to see how it best functions as an arterial and to make policy that says that these are the first things that we do is make sure that our arterials working, we've done down on Burlington, we've synchronized lights to be sure that we have it. We've done it down on Highway 6 to make sure that the main streets are being used the way they were intended and in my mind Kirkwood is not being used as it was originally intended as it was upgraded into a arterial with 3 lane capacity. Pfab/Okay could I ask, how has Highway 6 traffic, the movement of traffic work since you put on the motion detectors? Davidson/I think your referring to the video detection and that really has no effect on efficiency, what it does it helps us in maintenance but it detects traffic same way as a loop (can't hear). Pfab/But is that more accurate? I think I noticed quite an improvement on Gilbert Street when you went to that, that was my. Davidson/Not aware that it actually makes the signal system work better. Pfab/So your saying other than the fact that it's easier to maintain and change and modify. Davidson/Yea, Highway 6 works as a very very effective signal system for moving traffic on Highway 6 and we know that because people complain all the time about not being able to get on from the side streets because they have to wait so long. And the reason they have to wait so long is that we do favor traffic on the August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 34 highway to try to keep it moving and keep people on it and offof streets like Kirkwood and Highland. Pfab/Okay but is, so it's Kirkwood and Highway 6 are the altemative right? Davidson/Yea. Vanderhoef/Or Highland. Pfab/Right, I mean alternatives to Highland okay. Vanderhoef/For east/west so this is why if your traffic counts and usage I'd say we need traffic count on Kirkwood, we need to use your modeling and find out how long a delay it is, you know at the stop signs and how many stack up. Davidson/Well you know Dee without putting out traffic counters that traffic moves very slowly along Kirkwood Avenue because every single motorist has to stop at Dodge Street and Keokuk Street and that's been a decision of Council that that's the way you want that street to work. Lehman/Jeff is it not, it seems to me and what Dee is asking for I think is certainly in line, but isn't there a rule of thumb or basically a policy that we have now regarding the use of stop signs, stop light, turn lanes whatever based on the number of automobiles and the number of turning folks and all of this. And even, and with that set of guidelines that you use I believe you told us 3 or 4 times since I've been on the Council that you would recommend traffic lights for Kirkwood. Davidson/Traffic signals are warranted at both the Dodge Street and the Keoknk Street intersection. Lehman/But the Council has chosen not to. Davidson/That' s correct. Lehman/Accept basically what your asking for a policy to put in stop lights where they are warranted, I mean that' s a Council decision and not a recommendation from traffic. Davidson/Yea and please understand that just because a signal is warranted doesn't mean you have to install the signal. Lehman/No I know that. Davidson/But it should be warranted if you do install a signal. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 35 Lehman/Right. Davidson/What Council has done is very clearly made a policy decision about Kirkwood Avenue. Vanderhoef/But it's a policy decision about one street, and what I'm asking for is policy no matter what arterial that when we trigger up to certain points and I'm not going to write the policy, I leave that to you as expert and I'll get information from you but therefore it takes it out of the realm of this neighborhood, that neighborhood another neighborhood, it is a Council policy that when we reach these criteria and then we will move forward with the expedient policy that we put in place. Champion/What your saying Jeff is that Highland doesn't carry anymore traffic than a lot of other collector streets. It also doesn't have cars that are going any faster than a lot of other collector streets. Is that what your saying? (can't hear) Davidson/The speed part is, Highland is very much like all those other streets, if you lined all those streets up from lowest traffic volume to highest there would probably be two that were above Highland and six or eight that were below Highland so it's up near the higher end in the volume. Pfab/But one thing about Highland is what's different than most other ones is, has so many driveways, that most other. Davidson/Although some of those other examples have a lot of driveways as well. Pfab/My point is, is the problem at Kirkwood and Keokuk, is there, there's not a turn lane there is there? Davidson/No. Pfab/I think that would help a lot, now I think that would help a lot. Davidson/Excuse me, Kirkwood and Keokuk yea, I thought you were talking about Highland and Keokuk, Kirkwood and Keokuk has turn lanes yes. Pfab/I'm trying to recall, a right turn lane. Davidson/Left tum lanes. Pfab/A right, okay but. Davidson/A right turn lane from westbound southbound and I believe there's a left turn lane from northbound to westbound. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 36 Pfab/I don't think there's, and I was trying to think of that, I don't think if your going east on Kirkwood that you have, that you can split the traffic. Davidson/No east on Kirkwood there' s no tum lane because there' s no left tum unless your going into. Pfab/No but a right turn lane. Davidson/No there's no separate right ram. Pfab/Is there, I think that would make, I think that would solve a lot of problems because everybody whether you turn right or not everybody has to stop there, otherwise you could have two people stopping and moving on. Davidson/The traffic control system at that intersection Irvin is set up deliberately to make traffic crawl through that intersection and that's what it does. Pfab/Okay, okay. Lehman/What do we want to do guys? Champion/I think we should (can't hear). Pfab/I don't know what to say right now, I mean I just, I can't see a solution that works for everybody. Kanner/I would say put it back on the agenda, put options ofchicanes, options of the idea of increased bus use and see what people think about those things, and let the neighborhood vote on it and bring it back to us. Lehman/Well I think the procedure is we first check the neighborhood, correct me if I'm wrong, and if it qualifies to see if there are 60 percent of the neighbors who are interested in some sort of traffic calming then you look at the various options and go back to the neighborhood and explain to them which options would be, or would be available with the, would be recommended by staff. Davidson/So what your suggesting is a survey that would simply say is anybody even interested in looking at traffic calming again. Lehman/And then after that you would make whatever recommendations you feel comfortable with and then you'd come back with the Xerox copy of what you told us the last three times we talked about and then we'd tell you we're still not interested in putting stop lights on Kirkwood. Champion/And we're certainly not going to put in chicanes. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 37 Kanner/What I asked Ernie asking is what's the usual procedure? Davidson/The usual procedure Steven is would be that the neighborhood would bring a petition to us. Lehman/Right. Davidson/Saying look there's all these people that are interested in traffic calming please proceed with your process and we would do so. Now we haven't received that yet is that something you would like me to ask Mr. Reese to provide? Pfab/We had somebody speak here at one of those. Lehman/That's why we're talking about it. Pfab/Right. O'Donnell/I think Ernie's got his mind made up on how he's going to vote. Lehman/I don't know if it's going to come up but I. O'Donnell/What I think we should do Emie is we check the speed, do a survey so we can have some sort of an intelligent comment and your suggestion that there are, we don't even have to vote because it's already predetermined. Lehman/Well that's just the way it's been the last three or four times it came to us. Vanderhoef/Yea, I think this holds out hope for some sort of pie in the sky solution for something that in my mind is not going to go away until we address the entire neighborhood. Champion/I have to disagree with you Dee. Vanderhoef/Well that' s fine. Champion/I mean you do have to address the entire neighborhood that's exactly right but you have to remember that this is an older part of town and Kirkwood is a terrible arterial under any circumstances, I don't care how many stoplights you put on it, it's never going to be a good arterial, it's got bad curves and everything in it. And the way the streets are set up over there I'm convinced that Highland' s traffic is coming from HyVee, Drugtown, that business and people are not going to go onto the highway to get to Keoknk or Kirkwood, they're going to go down Boyrum and down Highland, it's just a natural course of way to do it, I do it myself all the time. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 38 Wilburn/It's been mentioned a couple times that. Champion/We've closed (can't hear). Wilburn/Highland is comparable to other collectors and so given that I'm not wanting to set up a false expectation. Champion/Me either. (can't hear). Davidson/Is there four in favor of going (can't hear) Mr. Mayor I don't? Lehman/Are there four folks that want to msurvey this again? Pfab/I think the problem doesn't go away, I don't, at some point in time you hope something, somebody can figure out how to crack the nut. Champion/It's a collector street. Lehman/I don't think I hear four people wanting. Kanner/Well yea I'd like to do it. Lehman/All right we've got one. Kanner/I think we should be creative and offer solutions that weren't offered before and see if we have the political will if chicanes or something the neighborhoods comfortable with to stick with it. But I think it's a matter of political will. Pfab/I would say it's obviously a problem to the people in the neighborhood and that' s who we're here to serve so I would say let's take another run at it. Champion/But is it a problem that is any different than any other problems on collector streets? I mean every neighborhood who's on a collector street, I'm on an arterial, I'd like traffic calming too, what I'm saying is are there are more traffic on Highland than there is on other collector streets? And there are collector streets that have more traffic than that, so would you stop (can't hear) on collector streets? Karmer/Well you look at each case individually I think that's worthwhile to do it. Lehman/All fight, how may would like to resurvey Highland and look at this again? We just finished Highland. Davidson/Thank you. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 39 First Avenue Sidewalks (IP1 of 816 info. packet) Lehman/Sidewalks on First Avenue, Mr. Schmadeke. Chuck Schmadeke/You have a memo in your packet from Rick Fosse on the sidewalks on First Avenue south of Rochester on the west side. There are two properties that do not have sidewalk, and we've made an attempt to persuade those people to put sidewalks in and to date we haven't been successful. And we're just wondering if you would consider a special assessment project for those properties. Kanner/Let me ask you Chuck, it said that Council wanted sidewalks finished on First before extension is completed, refresh my memory on where that came from, I don't remember that. Schmadeke/That was just our understanding. Lehman/Oh I think that was probably said more than once by Council folks during the First Avenue discussions. Davidson/Yea that was a specific direction fi'om Council. Champion/Even the school district (can't hear). Lehman/Didn't that also include signalization of Court and First? Davidson/Right. Lehman/I think that was also (can't hear). Davidson/Those two things by the time the streets were opened. Kanner/Could you give me a copy of that Jeff?. I don't recall that being a specific. Davidson/Madan could you check Council minutes for that. Karr/Okay. Lehman/Well anyway obviously that's one of the things Council requested, the question now is if we. Kanner/Well no Emie it's not obvious. Lehman/Well I think, does anybody else? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 40 Wilburn/My recollection, this could be wrong, it came up as part, just comments people concerned about safety on First Avenue in general and at the time there was no sidewalk on the west side and the school wanted it put in, people said oh that's great, so it seemed like it just arose, I can't point to a specific moment but it seemed there were. Lehman/Let's approach this a little differently. Is there interest on the part of the Council to see to it that the sidewalks on the west side of First Avenue be installed prior to the opening of the First Avenue extension? Pfab/I think for public safety issue I think we have to. Kanner/Well let me ask a question. Did we talk with the property owners to see if we can negotiate with them in anyway? Lehman/That' s already occurred is that correct? Kanner/No to see if there's some bargaining that might go on instead of just saying you have to do that, maybe we'll pay part of it. Schmadeke/We didn't offer that to contribute any (can't hear) payment. Lehman/We generally do not do we? Vanderhoef/No. Schmadeke/Not with sidewalks. Lehman/I mean that would be a precedent that would be pretty hard to live with if we started to pay for some folks sidewalks and not for others. Vanderhoef/I guess I have a question about the sidewalk and the First Avenue extension. As I recall the design of the First Avenue extension it included an over wide sidewalk that also met the needs for our trail system along that busy arterial and what I see on either side of First Avenue right now is narrow sidewalks and I would be interested if we're going to go forward with something like this to be sure that we have our sidewalk/jogging trail. Davidson/Yea our policy for new arterials and it's evident in the new arterials we've built recently is an 8 foot sidewalk on one side, 4 foot sidewalk on the other side. Certainly we have plenty of arterials in the older part of town even just as old as First Avenue that have 4 foot on each side because that was the design standard back then. You know it doesn't make a lot of sense to us for example in the case Chuck' s talking to you about to have two pieces that are 8 foot wide when the rest of it isn't so we usually just try and go with a continuous type width. It could then August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 41 possibly be an initiative of Council to go back in an entire corridor at some point and put an 8 foot sidewalk in in an entire corridor. But we probably wouldn't piece meal just have one property owner do so, we'd ask them just to be consistent. Vanderhoef/I wasn't suggesting that. Davidson/And I believe Chuck on the new portion of First Avenue noah of Rochester isn't the 8 foot sidewalk on the east side of the street or. Oh it's on the west side. Lehman/West side. Davidson/Okay so, at some point Dee it might make some sense to take it further south. Pfab/I think this is one of the problems that a number of citizens had with the extending of First Avenue but the voters have decided and so now let's live with it. Champion/You know with the schools there it's ridiculous that there haven't been sidewalks long before now including the schools property didn't have a sidewalk. So whether First Avenue is there or not there needs to be sidewalks there, there's two high schools, junior high, two elementary within a block of that so I don't think First Avenue is even an issue here, the sidewalk should be there. Pfab/Well it is an issue because we want to get it done before we open First Avenue. Lehman/Well I think the question is is the Council willing if necessary. Vanderhoef/I am. Lehman/To make special assessments to pay for that sidewalk, isn't that the issue? Champion/Yes. Schmadeke/Right. Lehman/And well I think. Pfab/I don't think we have any other choice. Lehman/Well how many folks are willing to make a special assessment to require that sidewalk to be installed? Kanner/At this time I'm not sure, I think there are other areas we say we're not going to demand sidewalks, I can't name the specifics now but I recall some conversations about that and so I think we ought to consider negotiations and see if there can be August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 42 a win/win situation. It might be that we pay part of it, it might be some other agreements, there's room for negotiating and I think we need to have a better process than what we did in this. And also I think it is an issue of First Avenue extended, that is part of the equation, and so at this time I'm not saying I wouldn't be agreeable in the future but at this time I am not comfortable with that. Lehman/All right are there 6 of us who would vote to require a special assessment if necessary? There are 6. Schmadeke/I think it's going to take 7. Lehman/It's going to take 7 is that correct. Kanner/(can't hear). Karr/It's going to take 7 if 75 % object, when your only looking at two property owners. Lehman/That means if two people object you've got a 100 %. Schmadeke/Well 75 % of the value of the assessment so the larger property is at least 75% of the project so if that property owner objects then it will take all 7. Davidson/And when we discussed it with them they did object. Lehman/All fight, Steven you think about it if you think that the. Kanner/Well also I'd like others to think about let's see if we can talk and do a win/win situation. Lehman/Win/win I don't think is city paying for sidewalks that we required everybody else to pay for their own. Kanner/Well there are places where we say we're not going to demand it, I'm not saying again that perhaps it doesn't need sidewalks but I think we need to have a different approach in just saying flat out your going to do this or we're going to assess you. And so I say let's go back and negotiate and let's talk with people especially in this area we have a history with this property owner or perhaps not having the best communication with one of the property owners. We had an issue that we had an ordinance that was passed in the past. Lehman/Who's property are we talking about here? Oh Mr. Thomas's I didn't know that. Kanner/Yea the same place where the car ordinance. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 43 Lehman/Okay, okay. Kanner/Was passed, and so I think we could perhaps do a better job or look at see if we could do a better job, maybe we can't, I'd like to explore that a little more. Lehman/Well I don't know I mean what can, can staff visit with these two folks a little further and see if we can get any farther? Schmadeke/Sure. Kanner/Maybe have someone from City Council, maybe the Mayor sit in on it. Lehman/I'd be, that's fine with me. Davidson/So long as you do understand though there is a little bit of an imperative here because if we're to have, if we have to go through the assessment process it is rather time consuming and then actually get sidewalks built on the property. Rick' s indicated that we need about a year to get through that entire process and you know about a year from November is when we hope to have both the streets open so we are, time is of the essence in this. Vanderhoef/You know, as I think I recognize I what the constraints are on putting a sidewalk on that particular property, the large property owner there. I would like to consider getting the easement and so forth because I think that's where the trail will end up going and if we don't. Davidson/Yea sidewalks will be within the public right of way Dee we don't need property for it. Lehman/We don't need (can't hear). Vanderhoef/But the cut away of that hill. (END OF SIDE TWO 01-77) Vanderhoef/I and it's going to take retaining wall and. Lehman/Are there (can't hear)? Vanderhoef/It's an tinusual situation and I sure would hate to put it in now and two years from now say oh that's where the trail is so I'd like that investigated at least at this point before we go forward on that sidewalk. Lehman/Are there extraordinary elevations out there that would make construction of this sidewalk particularly expensive? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 44 Schmadeke/Yes in front of the apartment building that' s tree. Lehman/Well maybe we should, I mean if we're looking at other than normal situation when it comes to a cost of the sidewalk, why don't we, I'd be glad to visit with those folks, or sit down Chuck, I don't know who from the city visits with the neighbors about that but I'd be glad to sit down on that too, I think we need a little information on this one as far as what we're talking about construction wise. Vanderhoef/And since the adjacent property to that one is just being developed fight now if we truly are going to put a trail along the west side of First Avenue then that new developing property before they lay their sidewalk it might behoove us to think about an 8 foot one there. Champion/Why do we want to put a short span of 8 foot sidewalk? Pfab/You've got to start someplace. Vanderhoef/Well it's starting at the comer, and that' s the concern where the Memy building is being built and it's adjacent to the apartments so if we look at 8 foot in front of the apartments fight now, it's a Parks and Recreation situation of designating that fight now of is that or is that not going to be the side of the street where we're going to have our 8 foot sidewalk. And if it is then I certainly think we should let our property owners know now before we lay any more concrete. Davidson/Yea there's no plan to put that 8 foot walk in that area right now. Vanderhoef/Not fight now but I think, I would appreciate having Parks and Recreation look at that and let us know the intent of that on First Avenue. Lehman/Could we have some sort of indication, can we do this by the meeting of the 1 lth or the 10th work session as to what' s involved in this extraordinary as far as doing that sidewalk? Schmadeke/Sure. Lehman/I mean if we've got to do some cuts and put in retaining walls and whatever, that' s a whole lot different than just pouring a regular sidewalk, I think we need to traderstand that. Vanderhoef/That's right. Champion/We have other parts of town where we don't have sidewalks for that very reason, it's a burden (can't hear). August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 45 Lehman/See what we can get by the 10th. Schmadeke/Sure. Lehman/Thank you, now the trails. Hickory Hill Trail Project Presentation (4e(4)) Terry Treeblood/In view of our new high tech easel I thought it might be better for me to talk from back here. We have an item on your agenda which is setting a public hearing for this project for September 1 lth, so we thought it would be a good idea to bring you up to speed on the project. Just to acclimate you a little bit first of course the brown line represents the approximate borders of Hickory Hill park except right over in this comer that represents that new little acquisition made less than a year ago so now the park now abuts First Avenue as it curves around. Up here is by the Press Citizen, Dodge Street, Highway 1, here's the entrance to North Hickory Hill, (can't hear) Conklin Street, down here is Davenport and Bloomington Street, 7th Avenue, right up through there, and of course First Avenue over here. This is a project that as you know is taking quite a long time and there's been a lot of community involvement with it particularly from the Friends of Hickory Hill and the Johnson County Coalition for persons with disabilities. It was a compromise situation I guess that you would say that all parties seemed to be pleased with it at this point. From the very beginning our goals, the two primary goals have been equally important, those being to preserve the sensitivity of the park, protecting the environment, but also to provide a trial system that would be totally accessible, meeting ADA standards and this plan does that. We have nearly 3 miles of accessible trails on this plan. One of the other objectives were to provide loop trials, as you can see we have one here, we have another one around here incorporating two loops, another smaller loop down at the south end and a sizable loop over at the east end. The purpose of those loops is so that people with disabilities or elderly folks or people who don't get around as well can enjoy walks through the park without having to traverse through a long trail and then come back on the same trail. The trails will be 6 feet in width, they'll be constructed of crashed limestone, we hope through a grant we will be able to incorporate a substance called road oyl, that' s OYL, it's not black tar like you see on the roads, it's made out of tree resin, and what that is is a binder that will solidify the trail to the point where it's almost as hard as asphalt and would be even more accessible than the crashed compacted limestone for, not only for wheelchairs but also mothers with strollers, people with walkers, crutches, whatever. Some of the old trails that are currently there will be reclaimed, in other words won't be trails any longer, some of the others will remain open. The booklet that Steven has right now is just to pass around, that' s the grant application that has been submitted for the road oyl substance which is estimated to cost about $120,000. Now our plan right now is if we get the grant obviously we'll go with the road oyl. If we don't get the grant, we'll just go with August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 46 the crushed compacted limestone which does meet ADA standards but isn't as solid as the road oyl, therefore there would be more maintenance involved with it, but certainly not nearly as much maintenance as what's involved with the trail system right now. The, ifyou rtm across the cost estimate in there, that's been revised already downward so, yea that's always the good news. We've also incorporated into this three small wetland areas and also a prairie area fight there, the prairie area has already been planted by the way. So at any rate we think we have a good plan, it's been a long process, and I would just open it up to any questions that you might have. Kanner/Terry, do you have any kind of organized trips from any of the Rec. Centers out to Hickory Hill Park at all? Trueblood/No we don't. Kanner/Any plans to do things like the camp or things like that? Trueblood/Sometimes you know our summer camp program will take nature trips yea so we do have that but we don't just have like a public sign up where we might meet people there or take trips whatever. Now if we had a full time naturalist of course we could do things like that, or even a part time naturalist. But no we don't do that fight now other than through our summer day camp program. Anything else. Pfab/Could you say that again if you had a what? A full time. Trueblood/I wasn't sure I should say it again but Steve said yea a naturalist. Pfab/Okay, I was hoping that' s what you said. Kanner/He's not talking Robert Redford the Natural. Pfab/No I knew what he said I just wanted to give him a chance to emphasize it. Vanderhoef/To make sure. Lehman/We're setting the public hearing for this tomorrow night, when is the estimated is that construction for this project? Trueblood/To begin this fall, it's a project that will take the better part of a year to complete because of the nature of it we're going to require smaller equipment to be used so we don't turn bulldozers loose in the park. Lehman/Okay are there other questions for Terry? Champion/Wow, great, thanks Terry. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 47 O'Donnell/Very nice. Lehman/Thank you, I liked your high tech presentation. Pfab/Well I like to work with, I know there's an awful lot of work went into to get where you are so I really appreciate that. Lehman/Yes there was. Trueblood/Karin Franklin told me that this is a power point demonstration so that's the extent of my power point. Lehman/I think we relate to your power point some of us do. Smokin~ In Restaurants Lehman/Smoking in restaurants is back on our agenda, the last time we met we agreed to be (can't hear) with this again and you may have seen, I've talked to Jim Fausett who's the Mayor of Coralville and suggested that there's an opportunity for the Iowa City Council and the Coralville Council to do something together that I think is in the best interest of both communities and I've suggested that we meet with the Coralville Council, give them the information that we have, see if we can reach an agreement that will ban smoking in restaurants in both communities. I think this is a, I think this is a goal that is really worth our effort, I think it's worth our time asking or showing our willingness to cooperate with the City of Coralville, in no way would I think that would diminish our resolve to do something within Iowa city but I would like you permission to do that. I would also, I talked to Marian about putting this on the agenda for the meeting of September 5 when we meet with the County, Coralville, North Liberty, the joint meeting to discuss smoking in restaurants at that meeting as well. Comments. Pfab/I think that, this is a place where Iowa City can exert leadership and I suggest that's what we do, I know we've tried several things once with the drinking ordinances and things like that, they all looked at it and that's fine but somebody has to take the lead and I think this is where we have to do it. There's nothing wrong but I think this has been kicked around long enough and I think the, it's a public health issue and I think it's time we get at it. (audience clapped) Wilbum/I don't think there' s anything wrong with your suggestion, I'm still skeptical because of the meeting we had a joint meeting with those same bodies about a year ago where at the time they in so many words suggested that they were going to wait to see what we were going to do. I would suggest that I'd be more excited August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 48 about that meeting if we had a draft proposal Iowa City for them to consider what we were doing and since you yourself suggest that they may or may not be swayed one way or another to draft an ordinance but at least it might be a framework for discussion for them and amongst ourselves rather than wide open discussion. And so I guess what I'm asking for is that we go ahead and give some indication to Eleanor what it is that we would like to see in that ordinance and then if it's finished by the time of that joint meeting that they that they be sent copies of that ordinance prior to the meeting so that they could comment, discuss as a basis of framework for discussion at that meeting. Vanderhoef/Well that's one way of looking at it and yet if we do all the designing I'm not sure whether they'd buy into it as much as if they have opportunity to help frame the whole ordinance. Wilburn/I just. Vanderhoef/There are some things that have come up for one thing the ordinance in Ames speaks to 90 percent and 10 percent versus the 50/50 that we're talking about so they are declaring nearly everything as restaurant up there. Wilbum/They've also allowed for several exceptions. Vanderhoef/They have some, one of the things that interested me though is that there have been several comments made in our community that it's not working well and that the Ames City Council is going to do some changing on it and I was at a meeting with Mayor Tedesco this last week and he and I sat and visited about their ordinance for about 15 minutes and he said it's going very well and they have no intention of doing any changing up there that they're very pleased and that their restaurant owners are delighted with the way it has been designed for them and so I though I would just offer that as information for us to look at because I'm not sure in my own mind that a 50/50 is the right way to go and that' s the kind of things that I would like to negotiate with Coralville and truly I'd be happy if we had North Liberty and Tiffin involved in it too and just do as our County Board of Health has been pushing for a long time and I think if we got the major players all together and did this that the rest of the small cities in Johnson County would listen up and listen to their Board of Health and move forward on it themselves and I think we could start something here in total that would be recognized as County wide versus one city doing it. So I will support setting up this meeting with Coralville and asking them to be a player in this with us and the other two cities I would invite them to come and certainly would welcome them if they would come and help us design it so. Wilbum/I think that again I will point back at that meeting roughly a year ago that there was ample opportunity for Coralville to express interest in moving forward on something simultaneously and you know Emie I'm glad you had the conversation August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 49 with Mayor Fausett and that he seems to be in favor of the smoke free ordinance but according to newspaper accounts and informal conversation with some Council members, some (can't hear) but some seriousness to those informal conversations I received no indication that they, that the Coralville Council is either at the point we are, but also I guess I would point out that, Irvin you brought up the alcohol issue and in my mind this isn't as complex and doesn't need to be as complex as the alcohol issue, I think that you know that there were different circumstances and question about what some of the effectiveness would be. But in my mind the bad parts of second hand smoke are going to affect Iowa City residents equally as well as Coralville residents and anyone else in the county so I'm willing to address it for Iowa City residents right now, I would be glad to have that joint meeting I just would like to walk in with something that we in our own minds have wrestled through because it seems that we at a couple meetings now have struggled with what we exactly want to have on paper. Pfab/I think again in counter to what Dee said I think that we as a City Council are responsible for the citizens of Iowa City and their health and safety where we can make a difference. Also going back to you on alcohol, if you don't drink alcohol it doesn't affect you but you don't have to smoke to have smoke affect you the cancer causing problems with smoking. And I think that we sat on this long enough and I think it's really time that do it and get it done with. Champion/I have a couple things to say, first of all I think your wrong, I think there are a lot of victims of alcohol, people who don't drink are frequently victims of alcohol, I think that's a (can't hear) statement. As you all know I have some problems with, not with restaurants being smoke free, I don't have any problems with that, I have problems with who' s going to be smoke free the way our town is set up, the way businesses are set up. So, I went on my family camping trip, there were people from all over the country and I asked them about smoking ordinances in their towns and there were several exceptions and several things that I'd like us to think about. They differ, some of the towns differentiated between a bar that serves food and a restaurant that serves alcohol. My concem is with some of the larger restaurants downtown who really become bars at night so I thought today and I was thinking about this maybe one of the ways to address that is increase in the number of instead of 50/50 maybe it should be 60/40 if60 percent of your profits are from, I don't know, but I think we need to address some of those people who will be directly affected by this ordinance. It would almost be easier if we were making everything smoke flee. Pfab/I would agree. Champion/We wouldn't be dealing. Pfab/I would agree. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 50 Champion/Well that's not going to happen now, then you wouldn't be dealing with all these particular situations that I think might be harmed by a partial ordinance. Pfab/Where are you going to start? Champion/Well you've got to start somewhere right but I don't think starting, I don't want to affect people's businesses and I know that that' s very important to me. (can't hear). Pfab/Well I guess from a business proponents point of view that' s perfectly fine but at the same time this is a health issue, plain and simple. Kanner/So in response to Emie and some of the other things and Connie what you said I would agree with Ross plus I would add I think there was a 3-2 vote, I don't know if that was formal or informal in Coralville that didn't want to look at smoking bans. So I think we have a lot of evidence that says Coralville at this time doesn't want to get into it or if they do get into it it would be greatly watered down version and I think that's something we want to avoid. We see, there's evidence from companies like Philip Morris that they like a strategy of accommodation of watered down ordinances because they know it's not really effective so a green light ordinance, green light, red light ordinance doesn't do the job, it doesn't do it on a number of fronts, one the time very easily slips back and back and it's harder to enforce. Perhaps more important as I've learned during this period of education on the issue nicotine particles still cling to the tables so if you stop smoking at a certain time it doesn't mean that you escape the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, second hand smoke. But I think that's a real concem, I would say we want to keep this is as simple as possible, that's the solution to this, other people have mentioned that, and I would agree with you Connie to make a level playing field I think we have to up the percentage because there are almost everyone serves alcohol it's a restaurant in this town and so to say 50/50 is not quite fair. And I would say bring it up even to 80/20 percentage instead of 60/40 that if you have to have 80 % of your profits or revenues from alcohol or we could put it the other way 20 % can't be from, more than 20 % can't be from food whichever perspective you want to look at it from. So I'm saying go with your 60/40 but take it perhaps even further so we make sure the ones that are exempted at this time are the ones that truly are the most part serving alcohol except for a few chips or something like that. Champion/I wouldn't go that far but. Karmer/Well I think we have to if we want a level playing field and we want to say. Champion/(can't hear) opposite where you want to go, I want to change it, well never mind I don't think is interested in changing it but me. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 51 Kanner/No I want to hear what your saying are you saying that we should? Champion/Right now it's 50 % of the food and 50 % of the alcohol and I would like it a little more liberal so places that are restaurants during the day and are bars at night could have smoking in their establishments at night. Kanner/So you want to do what's red light green light. Champion/No I don't care about, maybe the solution. Kanner/No that' s what I'm trying to find out, that's what your saying. Champion/I'm throwing out those as options, that if your making 40 % profits on alcohol then your bar then if your making 60 percents on foot then your a restaurant. Or if you, I mean I don't know (can't hear). Pfab/Cormie, let me, you had said making your profits I think what you meant was gross receipts I mean just so (can't hear). O'Donnell/You know I'm going to end up supporting this at one time or another, and I'd like to one time and do it right. We worked on that alcohol ordinance for an indefinite period of time and I'm one of the people that don't believe we got it right. Doesn't Ames do like 6:00 in the moming until 8:00 at night. Lehman/6:30 to 8:30 1 think. O'Donnell/See that's ludicrous, does that mean after 8:00 smoke doesn't hurt you? What I would like to do is I would like to do this and I'd like to do it 24 hours a day but what I want to do is you find, I just want to define exactly how we define a restaurant, and Cohme I think 60 pement is a good idea, I mean that's a good start but we need to do this and move in the right direction and you know what I don't think Coralville cares what we do across the river. Lehman/Well you know that' s strictly the Council's, well I mean that's the Council's call, I feel that I would like to have Coralville tell me they don't care, now they have said that, my understanding is that they have kind of tabled to see what we're going to do. Pfab/Well let's do it. Lehman/I think that it would appropriate for us to sit down with them and have them tell us that they're going to wait to see what they're going to do instead of taking an opportunity to do the same thing we do. We also I believe owe it and this may be a political thing but I think that we owe it to the establishments in Iowa City that we have made an attempt with our neighbors to the west to get them to enact the August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 52 same ordinance that we are so we have a level playing field for all folks that are in the restaurant business whether they're in Iowa City or they're in Coralville. Obviously they're close enough that they're I think the competition is very key both places. If Coralville chooses, doesn't want to visit with us, or does not want to do it obviously we will proceed and I think that I think as a courtesy to Coralville and I think as an opportunity to perhaps get this thing in both communities we should pursue that, now that's your call. Wilburn/All I'm suggesting is that we go ahead and draft our ordinance working with the questions that Eleanor outlined in her memo as a tool to construct that, we can have that meeting, an ordinance needs three readings and there' s ample time if a majority of Council wishes to incorporate or think about some suggestions there's ample time within three readings plus even perhaps a public hearing to make those modifications. Lehman/Would you be interested in Coralville having any input into the way the ordinance was written? Wilburn/If I had a stronger indication from both a direct conversation, informal conversation and media counts up there progression through this, if I had a stronger indication that they were moving passing of an ordinance I would be more willing to hold off on working together to construct the framework for the ordinance. Since I have not had that what I'm wanting to move forward with this. O'Dounell/Well I'm perfectly willing to sit down and talk with Coralville, I don't know how they feel because I've not sat down and talked to them and the only thing I've heard is the only knowledge I have is whatever in the newspaper. Kanner/We had a joint meeting Mike where we (can't hear) talked to them face to face. O'Donnell/No, I don't think that, did you get anything out of it Steven? Kanner/Yea. O'Donnell/I got absolutely nothing out of it. Kanner/Yea what Ross pointed out, I think we heard that they don't want to do it at this time and they want to wait till we get. O'Donnell/That' s not the way I understand it. Vanderhoef/At that meeting they were just primarily saying we haven't had an opportunity to talk about this as a Council. O'Donnell/And now they have and so maybe we should sit down and meet with them. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 53 Vanderhoeff Now they have. O'Donnell/But let's do that and let's do it fairly quick. Pfab/And that's what? I'm sorry I didn't hear you. O'Donnell/I said let' s do it and do it fairly quick. Pfab/Well I would say but let's us also proceed on what we're going to do and then if they can say whether they're forward or against it, that' s fine, then we'll welcome with their input. O'Donnell/We're going to meet with them maybe they'll have a good idea. Pfab/Well that's fine we'll listen to it, I think. O'Donnell/There's a substantial amount of work that' s going to go into this and like I said let's do it and do it right the first time. Wilbum/Are they meeting tonight as well or tomorrow night as well? Lehman/I don't know. O'Donnell/Tomorrow night. Wilburn/They're meeting tomorrow night. Pfab/I also think that I think I discussed something about what Coralville did in a couple meetings ago and I think you had a statement that you answered me with that Connie that we're not Coralville. Champion/Not Coralville, dam right. Pfab/That's right so I say let's do it. Wilburn/Is Mayor Fausett planning on asking tomorrow night whether they're? Lehman/I just asked Jim if he would be amenable to meeting with us, he seemed to feel that that would be a good idea. I didn't go any further than that because I don't know and I still don't know if this Council is interested in sitting down and talking to Coralville. Pfab/I'm not interested if it means delaying our action. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 54 Champion/I don't think it's a delay, we don't move that. Pfab/But we use it as a, how long have we been delaying on this? At some point in time we're going to have to say yes or no. Champion/We all say know we're going to say yes we just don't know what we're going to say yes to. Pfab/Well let' s get working on what it is. Kanner/Connie actually my (can't hear) is we're not all going to say yes, we've seen across the country, the patterns are the same everywhere, the pressure comes to water down a bill, make it weaker and weaker and I see this just as part of that pattern of delaying it, talking to the neighbor who has shown that they don't want to deal with this at the present time in any meaningful way and this is just one more excuse to not pass something strong and make it a healthier environment for the workers and for the children that go into these places. Champion/Of course you know that's the thing that bothers me about this ordinance, I mean, I have a lot of problems with this ordinance although I'm going to support it in some form is that like I said I think it's easier if we're just dealing with no smoking in public places. But I don't like that statement it's for the health of the employees and the customers because then your saying to me well but we don't care about the bar maids and the bartenders and the people who are working in the bar because they're health isn't important, so I think you've got to be careful how you word that. Kanner/Well I'm for, if your for a total ban, are you for a total ban? Pfab/Sure. Kanner/Ross. Champion/Well I don't think the town is ready for that. Kanner/So there' s four of us Connie if(can't hear). Pfab/If you'll stick with us we'll do it, we've got the votes, as Emie keeps asking me but do you have four votes, we have them if we stick with it. Kanner/Counie we'll saying that. Champion/I said it would be easier, I think we need to start somewhere and I think we need to start with restaurants, I think in a few years your going to see a total ban. And it's too bad the County doesn't do it on a County wide basis or on a state August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 55 wide basis because then I we wouldn't be dealing, or I personally wouldn't be dealing with the political pressures of business, people's livelihoods are going to be threatened, maybe they won't be threatened at all but they feel like they're going to be and we've got to be careful of that. Kanner/And that' s why, well I agree and that's why we need to make it a level playing field. Champion/Right. Pfab/And I think Mike has a wonderful solution, vote once, vote everything then we've got five votes. Champion/Well you, no, I'm not going to (can't hear). Pfab/You want to vote once fight and Connie just says. O'Donnell/(can't hear) in your pocket Emie. Pfab/You said you want to vote once and. Champion/I would like you to meet with the Coralville City Council (can't hear). Lehman/Well don't say me because I think if we met with the Council it should be a meeting of this Council and the Coralville Council, but that's your guys call, I mean I think it's. O'Donnell/You know Ernie I really don't think we're getting anyway here at all, I think everybody is going to support some form of this and you know let's just take, and it's not a delay Irvin it's plan. Pfab/No I don't think so, we'll that's my opinion. O'Donnell/Well agree to disagree on that, but we need, I think if you want to sit down and talk with Coralville, let's see if there aren't four people Ernie and do it and then let's move on. Wilbum/Just in interest in time I'm going to suggest you know set up the meeting, I'll say I'm disappointed, the last meeting we said we were going to, we were prepared to discuss the questions that we had discussed ago a year from Eleanor from constructing the ordinance so I'll say I'm disappointed with not doing that. Lehman/Well I mean we have to find if there are four people who want to sit with Coralville, I also think we need to put a time frame on it because if, I mean it has to be within a certain time frame or I think we have to move forward. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 56 Pfab/Under ideal circumstances how soon will we get an ordinance passed? Lehman/Well it depends on how much time we sit around and talk about red light, green light, 60, 80, 10 percent. Pfab/No how much does Coralville have a chance to meet with us and have some input. I would say let's proceed down the track and we're glad to have Coralville's input, we've got to sit down with them see what they if they want to do, but this is what we're going to do Coralville do you have any suggestions, we're listening, we'd like to hear what they have, maybe we'll modify it, but let' s move. Lehman/My suspension is that we will get an indication from them rather quickly as to whether or not they have an interest, if they do not have an interest fine we do our own thing. If they do have an interest and we can bring them along with us I think we're much better off community wise for both of us to be in the same boat. I also think that if they know full well and I think that this is a fact that we are going to do something, it's going to make it easier for them to move along, it's going to be harder for them to say no if we meet with them and discuss it with them and give them an opportunity to have some input in it. And again I don't think it's going to. Pfab/How are we going to find out if they have an interest in it? Lehman/Well I would say we sit down and talk to them. Wilburn/Can you ask Mayor Fausett if is there a chance you can give them a call to find out if he can talk to their Council tomorrow night to find out the. Lehman/Sure. O'Donnell/You know what you want to avoid is we have a buming ban in Iowa City and it makes a great deal of sense to me because some people are affected by smoke, you can't bum leaves. Champion/Oh okay, okay. O'Donnell/But we're surrounded by Coralville you can bum leaves in, you can bum them in the county, you can bum them in University Heights. But we're this little island and we're thinking the smoke doesn't affect us you know and it's just like the smoking and no smoking in the restaurant, where is the invisible wall. Pfab/Okay but when I give a good example when they still haven't bought into no burning of the leaves so. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 57 O'Donnell/Well I think that' s coming. Pfab/So what is the insurance that they're going to buy into going along with a good solid no smoking ordinance. O'Donnell/It never hurts to ask. Pfab/However we do it, I still, I like Connie's idea, let' s do it in one vote, I like that only vote once, but there' s no indication that they have any interest in doing it other than a nice casual conversation with the two heads of our little metropolis here and that' s what it is. Champion/Well I'd like Ernie to meet with the City Council or. Lehman/No don't say Emie to meet with them this is the Council's, both Council' s. Champion/(can't hear) all right (can't hear) but I still think we need to go over some of those questions we have about (can't hear) let's move onto that or do you want to discuss it, talk about a wait and talk with Coralville? Lehman/What's your pleasure folks? Pfab/I would say. O'Donnell/Let's meet with Coralville and then discuss this Emie. Pfab/No let's discuss this and then meet with Coralville I would go along with that. O'Donnell/That's basically just the opposite what I said. Pfab/No, we agree to disagree, then I think Ross is under, let's go down through the questions and that's a side issue, if Ernie wants to meet, go Emie. Lehman/Don't say Emie. Pfab/I wasn't going to, I was just teasing. Lehman/No, no, if the Council isn't. Champion/We already have a joint meeting coming up, we already have a meeting. Lehman/We have a joint meeting on the 5th of September which this is going to be a topic of that meeting. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 58 Pfab/And at that point we'll be able to tell them this is what we already agreed to and is there any suggestions that they. Lehman/May I suggest the 5th of September is what week after next, we're going to be discussing this. O'Donnell/I have no idea. Lehman/Well it comes sometime after tomorrow, but we're going to have a meeting with the county, with Coralville, with North Liberty, whatever, that might be the opportunity for us to get some generally there are several members of the Coralville Council there. If we don't sense that there are particular interest on their part of meeting then let's forget it and move on (can't hear). Pfab/Why can't we start now with what we were going to start? Lehman/We can do whatever we want to do. Pfab/Let's do it. (can't hear) Lehman/What's your pleasure guys? Pfab/What was the first question we were going to discuss Ross? Wilbum/I don't sense that there's interest in discussing the questions tonight. O'Donnell/Not at 9:30 at night in this frame of mind, no I think, Emie why don't we see if there's not four of us that aren't interested in meeting with Coralville then sitting down and looking at this seriously with questions answered. Lehman/All right, do you want me to call Jim tomorrow and ask him to ask his Council tomorrow night if, they could tell us they're not interested which means that we won't have to worry about meeting them. Do you want me to do that? Pfab/I'm sorry I missed, there' s something I missed. Vanderhoef/I think that's a good idea, go for it. Pfab/Okay say that again. Lehman/I asked if you'd like me to call the Mayor of Coralville tomorrow and ask his Council tomorrow night if they'd be willing to meet with us and discuss this. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 59 Pfab/But we're going to hold up until then. O'Donnell/Until tomorrow night. Pfab/Well we have a meeting tomorrow. O'Donnell/Yes we do. Vanderhoef/And they have one. Pfab/And we have a meeting now and I don't see us moving as we I thought was on the agenda, I thought that's what we suggested or told the City Attorney to prepare for us and now we're just saying well your work was fine but we're not interested, that's what it looks like we're saying. Champion/Oh Irvin your just being nasty that' s not. Pfab/Well I think, it's something, Connie there' s something' s going to the wall for and this is one of them for me. Champion/Bathroom. Lehman/I think we're going to have a five minute break. O'Dounell/I think we'd better. (Break) Lehman/Let's resume, Connie has an idea. Champion/I have an idea, I think we should talk to the Coralville City Council and then I think rather than doing this kind of piece meal at a work session, we ought to schedule a special work session that starts at a reasonable hour when I've had dinner. Lehman/I'd go for that. Champion/Invite the public, invite the people, the bar, the restaurant owners to speak, have them get, it's impossible for them to get together, have a time limit like the first 45 minutes would be bar and restaurant owners, the second 45 minutes would be CAFE, but the third 45 minutes would be the general public who wants to speak and kind of, we really haven't had any input except from ourselves and CAFE, we haven't had the opportunity to see if somebody has some ideas to direct the concerns that I have, to address your concerns, and we were going too late in the evening, too short of periods of time getting pressured, why doesn't August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 60 everybody think about that. Can we just get together as a group at a special work session, that' s all we're going to discuss with some input from bar owners, input from CAFE, input from the public, does that sound reasonable at all? O'Donnell/It worked very well on the alcohol ordinance. Lehman/No but I think that' s a good idea to have that as a single topic for a night' s discussion. Champion/Yea this is not the time of night to be addressing this. O'Donnell/There's a lot of merit to what you say and I agree with it, I'm ready to move forward with this to this degree, let's sit down and talk and develop a plan then I think it's a good idea. Vanderhoef/With or without Coralville? Champion/Well Coralville can join us if they want to but I mean I do agree it would be nice to have Coralville become part of this but I did say we're not Coralville and I did mean that but I think we need to get together on this, we're all for something, we don't know exactly what we support we're all for something, we know we're going to do something so let' s get the input to address concerns that some of us might have and come up with an ordinance that works and that because you know what I don't think the alcohol ordinance is working. I didn't mean to say that, but I think we just really need to get together and discuss it as a separate topic, it should not be on this whole list, it's a major ordinance, and like I say it's 9:30, I haven't had dinner, I'm tired, I would like to at least spend some time, real time on this, and I think the way to do it is have a separate meeting where that's all we discuss. Vanderhoef/I will go with that if Coralville will sit with us. Lehman/Well if they choose not to sit with us it's their choice. Champion/We may still sit together. Vanderhoef/All right but I still want that option out to negotiate a date with them so we Can. Champion/Right we're going to say that. Vanderhoef/Say that they chose not to sit down with us. Pfab/How about a week from tonight? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 61 Champion/I'm out of town. Lehman/Good we'll do it then. O'Donnell/Wait until they're both gone. Lehman/When are you going to be gone Irvin? Vanderhoef/Well we'll be doing calendars here shortly so. Lehman/All right. Pfab/That's fine. Lehman/Do we have a consensus that we want to spend a work session on this that we had nothing else so we don't? Kanner/Well if we do it sooner, if we do it like the 281h I think we should try to set a date for next week. Lehman/Well but irregardless of the date, do we want to spend an evening on this? I think we need to do that. Pfab/I would do it but not irregardless of the date. Kanner/Yea I don't want it to it after September 5. Champion/Well we've got to do it when we're all be here guys. Lehman/Well if we do it it's going to be at whatever time we can everybody can get here. Kanner/Right so my proposal is I'd say it is important that we say before you make your determination yes or no on just doing it I'd say it's important that we do it sooner so I'm in favor of doing this if we do this sooner. Lehman/You know Steven I think the important thing is we get it done, people have smoked in restaurants for 200 years, a few days one way or the other is not critical, the critical thing is we get it done and we get it done right. If that means we dedicate a work session to nothing but that that' s time very well spent whether it's the 5th of September or the 6th, or the 291h of August I don't think is relevant. Vanderhoef/When we do our calendars here shortly I would like us to. Pfab/Let' s do it now. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 62 Vanderhoef/Pick out two or three dates that would be possible for us to meet with Coralville and offer those dates to them and see if they have anything that they would bring back to us if those dates don't work for them. Kanner/Emie I'm going to quote you on that for some other issues there so I'll keep that in mind. Lehman/Well fine do we want to? Are we interested in trying to (can't hear)? Pfab/If it's extremely soon. Kanner/Next week. Champion/When we can all come, it's. Pfab/Well okay. Kanner/Of course Connie that' s a given. Champion/Some of us have to work and be out of town. Kanner/It's a hard life to get a break in. Pfab/When will you not be out of town Connie? Lehman/Well what' s wrong with, well I think we need to pick like. Vanderhoef/I'm out. Lehman/Two or three dates that we can open and that we can see if we can get one of those three days that we can get Coralville to meet with us. Champion/Okay. Pfab/I would say sometime within a week or two weeks but no longer after that I'm not interested. Lehman/And after that your not interested in doing any thing at all. Pfab/No not if it's a delay longer than two weeks I'm opposed to it, if we can get something done in two weeks that' s fine but not any longer. Lehman/Well we're not, listen, you got your calendar. Champion/No but I have it in my head. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 63 Lehman/All right next week who's, next Tuesday who's here? Champion/Out of town. Lehman/Out of town, Wednesday's out. Pfab/What about Monday? Champion/I'm out of town, I'm on a buying trip. Pfab/Okay, when are you not going to be out of town? Champion/I'm not the only person who. Vanderhoef/When do you get back Connie? Champion/I get back late Tuesday. O'Donnell/She'll be tired. Lehman/30th. Pfab/Have a headache. O'Donnell/Now Irvin let's, you know you talk about a candlestick in a tendon. Pfab/That's exactly what I'm thinking but I didn't want to say it. O'Donnell/Let's do this, you know we'll do it as quick as we can when we're all in town. Pfab/Okay but is two weeks, is two weeks reasonable? Lehman/All right Dee made a point and she's right, we are going to be working on calendars as soon as we finish the rest of the agenda tonight and (can't hear). Pfab/Is there any reason we can't work on calendars now and change our agenda? Lehman/Well I don't have a problem with that. Pfab/Okay let's do it. Wilburn/Why don't we, some others here interested in. Lehman/Why don't we do the rest of the agenda. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 64 Wilburn/(can't hear) and we can sit around and knock our heads together about calendar. Lehman/All right we will do that during calendar time. Charter Amendment Lehman/Charter amendment is the next item, and I think we have some information here (END OF 01-78 SIDE ONE) Lehman/And also some information from Eleanor, it's my understanding that we have filed today at the Clerk's office petitions for Charter Amendments, is that what your memo said? Karr/Yes it is. Lehman/Would you tell us what the process is, we have received those petitions, what is, what do we do with those petitions after, or what do you do with them after you get them? Karr/We took a look and we verified by counting the signatures received that there were enough to verify them as sufficient and all three petitions have been verified as having enough signatures as required by state code. Vanderhoef/How long does it take then to verify that these are valid signatures? Dilkes/I gave you a memo on the just a brief memo which you likely haven't a had a chance to read but I wanted to be able to structure myself tonight as well as maybe you. They have been accepted for filing, Madan has accepted them for filing, meaning the five day objection period, that they are valid unless there is an objection filed within the five day period by a person who is entitled to vote on the amendments and at that point there is a hearing held, if there is an objection filed there is a heating held by the Mayor, the City Clerk, and another member of Council chosen by ballot to address the objection and make it a determination as to whether the objection is valid so that's where we stand right now. Karr/Simply stated Dee we accepted them on face value. Dilkes/Which is what the code provides for. Vanderhoef/Okay. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 65 Dilkes/The code and just let me remind you all there are very few code provisions, state code provisions, although there are code provisions applicable to this situation, there are not, we have to, we look to the ones dealing with nomination petitions because they are the most comparable other type of petition, there are not a lot of ones that are specifically addressed to this situation so and the tenor of the language of the code in my view as well as some discussions that both Madan and I have had with the Secretary of State is that you review those petitions for facial validity, are they valid on their face? You do not get into a lot of detail, that kind of detail can be raised by objections, objection process that I just laid out. For example there were a number of dates missing, and Marjan and I discussed how we should deal with those and it was my determination that because the number of signatures were present that we were not going to address the date issue so that's, they've been accepted for filing, I think we have the numbers somewhere. Karr/Correct, each of the three petitions were over 1,500, more than double the required. Lehman/Okay. Vanderhoef/Okay, then the next question is an earlier memo that you put out outlining the declaratory judgment by the courts. Dilkes/There's, I have a memo tonight that deals with what I view as the procedure from this point forward and what Council, Council's going to have to make some choices on how it wants to proceed here. The memo lays that out fairly briefly, you don't have to discuss that tonight, you know I can go through it orally if you want me to it's up to you all. Lehman/Well I think I'd like to hear you go over it, obviously we have, because of the requirements of code we have certain time constraints that we're dealing with and I think we need to know what our options are and what results of each option would be. Dilkes/Okay in my view here's the process and here are the options. I have discussed with you the objection procedure, that is an objection that in my view that is not made by the City Council but would be made by, (can't hear) be made by any individual who has the right to vote on the amendment's, basically any Iowa City resident. If those objections come in, we'll follow the process, get the hearing set up and there will have to be a determination on those objections. Wilbum/Is there a certain number of objections that have? Dilkes/That have to be made? Wilburn/For example there are certain requirement of signatures on a petition, is there a certain? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 66 Dilkes/No there are no objections have to be filed. Wilburn/I see. Dilkes/It's just up, that's up to every citizen in the City of Iowa City if they want to file an objection, they can file an objection and we'll have to deal with them. Wilburn/I see. Dilkes/But the petition, absent and objection and absent and objection of the sustained by the group of three, the Mayor, the City, another member of the City Council, and the City Clerk, it is a valid petition. That five day objection period runs, if they were accepted, if they were file stamped right at 5:00 today, it would run it's five working days so it's 5:00 Monday, yea. Kanner/I have a question in regards to objections. My assumption was that people could object because they feel they didn't have valid signatures. But apparently your saying here your not sure exactly what the basis of legal sufficiency as of the petition that they could object not only perhaps on whether or not the signatures are valid but whether or not it's legal, that' s something your looking into. Dilkes/I anticipate that question may come up and so I'm looking at it. The code provides for objections to be made to the "legal sufficiency" and I'm trying to determine if there is case law that's helpful in determining what that means I think your right that one way to read that is that it's objections to what makes a petition valid such as date, signatures, residency that kind of thing. Wilburn/But not like wording or anything? Dilkes/As opposed to the substance of the proposed amendment. Wilburn/Okay, oh I see. Dilkes/I don't know what I think about that yet. Kanner/And just for the public to know this, will you be coming out with a memo in the next couple days addressing this what you feel is legal sufficient, legal? Dilkes/My feeling is, my feeling has been, it is not my role to advise persons who choose to object as to what they can and can not object to. If an objection is made I suspect that that three person group would look to me for determination as to what they mean. If the Council wants me to try, I mean it's going to, I'm going to have to look at it, I haven't really, it's kind of an issue that I haven't looked at yet. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 67 Kanner/Well it says your in the process of looking at it I think we should affirm that you should continue to try to define that. Dilkes/I plan, I have every plan to continue to do it, I just don't. Kanner/So I assume we'll have a memo then as soon as possible. Dilkes/Well there's only five days to object so if there's an objection filed you'll have advice on that. Karr/If I could just clarify, my interpretation our discussion earlier today, again any citizen can challenge and ifa citizen wishes to do so they should not wait for the City Attorney to make her decision, that citizen should file the objection, the Board meet and would rely on the City Attorney to furnish that advice. I think the key here Steven and one of our concem is timing, we want to move quickly and we don't want citizens to step back and wait for this, if they feel there are ground, the worst case that's going to happen is that those grounds will not be upheld but they would have filed in the appropriate time. Kanner/No, I'm not so, I agree with, I'm not concerned with but I think we still should get that memo from your opinion on this, no matter what happens as far as people file or not. I think it's important to hear that information. Lehman/What are you asking for Steven? Kanner/We have here that Eleanor says she's in the process of researching what legal sufficiency means and I think we should ask as a Council that we get that in a memo and make it clear that we want that. There was some concern about request of information in the past and this I think we should make it clear that we want to hear in a memo what legal sufficiency mean. Dilkes/I don't have any problem telling you that. Pfab/Or we don't want to hear. Dilkes/I don't have any problem telling you that in a memo I just don't know that that's going to be tomorrow or the next day it'll be, it could be by the end of the week or by the beginning of next week but the five day period runs on Monday, so I think we need to be very clear that people shouldn't be waiting for my memo on legal sufficient. Kanner/I'm sure they're not going to wait on your memo, I'm sure there are people that are aware of their options I'm just saying from our point of view I'd like to get that as soon as possible and to get a memo. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 68 Dilkes/Well, that' s no, if the Council wants it no problem. Lehman/Well in the absence of any challenges and we have the appropriate number of signatures, if there are no challenges by next Monday at 5:00 then this would be able to be certified to be placed on the November ballot is that correct? Karr/No there's another step in there. Lehman/What's the other step? Wilbum/After the five day. Dilkes/No, let me finish going through the memo. Lehman/I'm sorry go ahead. Dilkes/Okay we've got the objection process, after the five day objection period is over it seems to me that Council has the following options, number one to submit the amendment to the voter's at a special city election to be held at the time of the regular election in November. The City Council would do so by resolution and that has to be done so that Marian can get the resolution to the Commissioner of Elections on August 31 st. Wilbum/And those are considered individually? Dilkes/Yea your going to want to do, each one is separate. And let me, as I say in the memo all these options apply to each amendment. Wilbum/Right. Karr/There are a total of three. Dilkes/There are three and so you need not choose the same option. Wilburn/Right. Dilkes/The second is to file a declaratory judgment action asking the court to rule on the legality of the proposed amendment seeking temporary relief from the court regarding the issue of putting in on the ballot. I think it very unlikely that you would get such temporary relief from a court by August 31 st. If you did not and you wanted to walt for a court ruling prior to putting the question on the ballot in my view you need to act by formal resolution before 5:00 on August 31 declining to put the amendment on the ballot indicating that a declaratory judgment action has been filed and stating that you will accordance with a judicial determination. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 69 Wilbum/And these are related to the substance of the amendment? Dilkes/The substance of the amendment as I talked about in my earlier memo. Number three is to submit the amendments to the voters as I discussed earlier meaning you have to act before 5:00 or August 31 st or before 4:00 on August 31 st. Karr/I need it to be there at 5:00. Dilkes/It needs to be there and ask for court intervention was a second option if the amendment passes, i .e., if you believe them are questions about the legality of the proposed amendments challenge it if and when it passes as opposed to before. In terms of when so what Council needs to do is they're going to need to take formal action one way or the other before 5:00 on August 31st, one way or the other I think because I think this is a Council decision. Two if you want to pursue a declaratory judgment action you need to let me know that because I would want to put that on file as soon as possible after the 5 day period runs which would be Tuesday moming, next Tuesday morning so you need, in terms of the filing of the declaratory judgment action you could set a special meeting later in the week if you wanted to, you don't have to decide that tonight. Vanderhoef/It takes a vote though right? Lehman/No. Dilkes/No, the filing, you can give me direction to file, I can file a declaratory judgment, you can give me direction to file it. Lehman/It would seem to me that in view of your opinion that we received three weeks ago or two weeks ago that there may in fact be some legal questions relative to these petitions. And it would seem, if them are questions of a legal nature that it's incumbent on the Council to see to it that whatever's put on the ballet is in fact legal and so I guess I for one would want you to file for a declaratory judgment if these petitions are certified. I believe the people of the community have the right to know that what's on the ballet is true and accurate and according to state law instead of going through the effort and the expense, and the time and tribulation of an election and then finding out later that what they just passed or didn't pass isn't legal. So I think we need to tell the City Attorney at this point that we do need a declaratory judgment just to clear by an impartial court just to clear this up. Vanderhoef/I agree, I would move forward with a declaratory judgment. Lehman/That's something we can tell you know is that correct Eleanor? Dilkes/Yes. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 70 Lehman/How does the rest of the Council feel? Pfab/If, so suppose we declare it's not valid. Lehman/We can't declare anything the court would. Pfab/Right so that will be appealed no matter who win, so what does that do to the getting it on the ballot? Lehman/Well the point I believe is this that if one of these petitions or any one of them is invalid or illegal why would we ask the public to vote on an illegal amendment? Pfab/Who is going to decide ifit's legal or illegal? Lehman/The court, that' s the declaratory judgment. Pfab/Which court State, Supreme Court? Lehman/Well it would start out with District Court I presume. Pfab/Right, see it's not finished there so the election is long gone. Lehman/No, no, the Charter provides that we must have an election, it doesn't say it has to be at the general election, it can be a special election or whenever we want to set the election so it doesn't have to be November, it could be December, January, February, March, whenever and if it, if the court would come back in September with a declaratory judgment saying these are in fact valid petitions and they can be placed on the ballot we would have a special meeting at that time to set a special election. Pfab/Do you think somebody won't challenge it then? Lehman/I have no idea. Pfab/I mean at what point is it done? When you get to the Supreme Court? I think that doesn't make sense to me, I may be wrong, but it doesn't. Dilkes/Irvin you need to address your comments to the rest of the Council, what makes sense to me is not the issue here. Pfab/There are people who have looked at these and there are differences of opinion but at some point in time if you take it to a judge or your opinion whatever it is somebody else will have a different opinion you take it to a court, the court may have an opinion, it will be appealed and it will be appealed and appealed. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 71 Lehman/At some point you do get to the end of the appeal process but that is a process that your probably going to have to go through. How else would you handle this? Pfab/Well is that, does the election? It's going to be appealed no matter whether it passes or doesn't pass . Dilkes/I think there is no. Karmer/Let me jump in here for just a second, I may be able to answer some of your questions from my point of view Ernie. One I think it probably is in our best interest to find out if it's legal or not, I personally like the option of number 3 submit the amendment to the voters as discussed and ask for court intervention as discussed in number 2 if the amendment passes and I'll tell you why I like that, one because it's not going to be a great deal of expense, we're having an election in November anyhow, to put this on the ballot is really no additional expense, we have all the precincts that are going to be open anyhow so this is just one more line on the ballot. Two, even if it's ruled invalid, let's say the appeal process goes to the U. S. Supreme Court, I think we've learned something in our community we have a good debate, I think these are good issues and I think it's worthwhile for us to have that debate especially if it's not going to cost us any money. If the parties involved want to put some money into educating people on their point of view so be it, that's up to them, I don't think they're going to go broke doing that but I think people are interested in this kind of issue, it's out there, I've talked to people and one of them or two of them I'm not quite sure how I would vote at this time and I would desire more debate and I think by putting it on the ballot we get that debate it's good for the community. Vanderhoef/Well you said something about educate the community and in mind we could educate them in the wrong way, the more conversation there is until it has been legally declared one way or the other creates confusion for a long time in the future if "one group educates in their opinion another group educates in their opinion and another group and their opinion" and it goes around like this then finally everybody is saying "and what is legal"? For me I want to know what is legal and what isn't and then proceed. Pfab/I think I would support Steven in this regard, it's going to be disputed no matter what happens but if it tails to the election with little or no expense or effort on anybody's part, now at that point and we've proceeded and citizens have their right to make their stay and then at that point ifit's over, if the issues use and they pass the court process would continue on whether it would be before or after. Kanner/I think we live in risky times Dee and we don't live in stalenistic Russia and where the law' s the law, the law is fluid here in the United States and it changes from time to time and we have courts that make those decisions. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 72 Vanderhoef/That' s why I want to ask the courts now to make that decision before we get into "miseducation" if that's a term that we can use so I would like to know how many people are in favor of declaratory judgment. Dilkes/I want to just emphasize a couple things, I think Irvin is correct in that the filing of a declaratory judgment action clearly will, I mean the court takes some time, okay, it's going to take some time. And number two I think that as I attempted to say in my earlier memo when I said these are likely inconsistent with state laws, there are arguments to the contrary, there's no doubt about that, this is my judgment so we just need to be clear about that. Lehman/It would seem to me that as a Council that if we have reason to believe that there may be illegality in these proposals that it's incumbent on us to discover that or to determine that prior to putting it on the ballot for the community, I mean I think that that's, we have been told that there's a pretty good chance that some of these things are not legal and I think that we have an obligation to let the population know whether they're legal or not. Pfab/Ernie I believe (can't hear) Moses bringing them down in a stone tablet there is no defining thing until you get to the Supreme Court. Lehman/Well that may well be but the question is whether do you ask for that determination prior to putting it on the ballot when you have reason to believe that it maybe illegal or do you wait and put something on the ballot that you have reason to believe is illegal and then try to fix it. Pfab/Okay so if you put it at the ballot if it doesn't pass it's over forget it, now if it does it's going to go on and it's going on no matter who wins it's going to be a hard fought issue, it may be mute if it doesn't pass. Lehman/Yea but no it won't be mute because if you don't challenge it and even ifit's defeated then there's the opportunity for the same thing to be back on the ballot again. Are there four people who would like to file for declaratory judgment in the probability that this is certified? Vanderhoef/Yes. Champion/I am going to file, I mean I would like you to file because although I'm sure I know there's all the signatures on these and I think they should be voted on, I don't think we should ask the citizens of Iowa City to vote on something that is illegal so I think it is important that we know are these legal documents? Lehman/Is it appropriate? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 73 Champion/It's only appropriate to put something that's legal on the ballot as a City Council Member, I mean I'm not going to have people voting on something that's illegal, that seems ridiculous to me. Pfab/But who' s going to make that judgment? Champion/The court. Lehman/The court obviously. Pfab/Supreme Court. Lehman/Ross you have a comment. Wilbum/Yea, I. Pfab/Potential to go there. Vanderhoef/Ross. Wilburn/I'm wanting to get declaratory judgment as well, I'm not trying to minimize, I mean I can only speculate as to some of the sentiment behind some of the folks who out on the street were deciding whether or not they wanted to sign these petitions or not but I think that again you know we swore to, I guess I'm looking along the lines of having the public, the public having us make a determination that what we're putting that what we are doing is legal, I wanted to have that because we said we would uphold the law when we took our oaths. I think the other thing, you know Irvin your bringing the question about well does this go on in perpetually or does it go to the Iowa Supreme Court of the U. S. Supreme Court, while that may take time I'll put one example, for example I don't particularly agree with the item related to the City Manager and the Police Chief, the think related to the home rule charter but that's up for review in a couple years. Lehman/Yea I think so. Wilburn/So in a couple years I mean that might be, if this were still going on that would be an opportunity for folks who disagree with the Council Manager form of government to have that discussion anyway so I am wanting to have that judgment so that I know what I'm putting on, just for clarity sake but for the public. Lehman/Mike. O'Donnell/Well I agree totally with you I think it's the only responsible thing to do is find out if it's legal, (can't hear) put it on the ballot if it's not legal. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 74 Kanner/Let me come back at you Emie with what folks mentioned before I think tomorrow we should allow people to speak to this we should have people, give people the opportunity to speak to, we're talking about cigarette issue, we wanted people to have input. And this is similar to what happened with the barriers on the roads before we made a decision at an informal meeting but we didn't have public discussion. So I think it behooves us, even if we're just going through the motions but hopefully we're not to have discussion tomorrow before we make a final decision on this. Lehman/Them' s nothing anyone can say that' s going to influence me not to ask for an opinion on what we've been told by our legal staff could be an illegal petition put on the ballot, I mean that' s a matter of law. Kanner/There' s nothing that anyone can say, okay? Lehman/No, and for that, and if the rest of you prefer to wait until tomorrow night to do this that' s fine, I for one as far as I'm concerned we have an obligation to the public to see to it that what goes on a ballot is legal and I don't think it makes any difference how many speak to us in favor or opposed to it, I think we have an obligation and I agree with you Ross, we did, when we took office we took an oath to uphold the laws of the State of Iowa and if this in fact is, we have, if this is in contrary to the laws to the State of Iowa we have an obligation to find that out, if it is not we have an obligation to put it on the ballot and let the public vote on it. Wilburn/I'm fine with the us making the decision whether or not we're going to give direction tomorrow because I don't wish it held against me that I did this in some secret meeting or something like that so I'm willing to, some folks, I'm sure some folks are going to come anyway, some sponsors of this to speak tomorrow but my comments will stand to affirm. Champion/But it's not on the agenda. Lehman/It will come up during public discussion tomorrow night. (all talking) Vanderhoef/For us we'll do it at Council time. Lehman/Wait a minute I'm not sure we can do that, Eleanor. Dilkes/I would feel more comfortable if your not going to give me direction tonight and you want to take public discussion tomorrow and the only time that would be obviously is for public discussion for items not on the agenda that then you August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 75 schedule a special meeting, a work session to talk about it because it's not on the agenda tomorrow. O'Donnell/I think the agenda is fairly clear. Lehman/Well the direction is clear if we wish to make it clear. Vanderhoef/And we can take comments, we have never shut people with their five minutes at public time anyway so I think that's fine but I'm not about to change my mind on this. Lehman/Well I think we need to give either, we have our choice of either giving Eleanor direction now or having scheduling a special meeting. Vanderhoef/I choose to give her direction now. Dilkes/You can always change your mind. Lehman/Oh no, no, no. Dilkes/You can give me direction tonight, you can listen to public discussion tomorrow and if you think your going to change your mind you set a special meeting that we can give the property notice to talk about it, how's that? Lehman/What's your pleasure folks? Wilbum/I'm comfortable with the latter. Vanderhoef/Just do the direction tonight, we don't need another meeting. Lehman/All fight we've got. O'Donnell/Let's do it. Lehman/You do not want to be one of the ones who would like to see a declaratory judgment until after the meeting tomorrow night? Wilbum/Right. Lehman/Okay but there are four so I think you can proceed with that Eleanor. Meetin~ Schedule Karr/Yes Mr. Mayor I sent you a memo just summarizing a couple of conflicts that have been brought to my attention and suggesting that if we're going to make any August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 76 changes to the schedule we do so now simply because we are also entering an election time and there's a number of forums and other issues that are coming forward and so I think we should make any changes and if not we'll just adhere to the same schedule. Lehman/Somewhere I have that schedule. Pfab/Is that what your looking at? Lehman/No that's not it. Pfab/Oh okay, you need something else. Vanderhoef/Was it in the info. packet? Karr/Yes it was. Lehman/Yes it was. Kanner/What page on the info.? Lehman/No it's on the handout tonight wasn't it? Champion/Yea because it's only two (can't hear). Karr/No it's in the info. packet. Pfab/Does anybody know where it's at? Kanner/It's on page 48. Pfab/48 of the info. packet or agenda. Kanner/lnfo. packet. Pfab/Okay. Lehman/Okay. Vanderhoeff What does it follow? Karr/IP6 is if that helps you in the right hand comer, and I can, again I can just summarize your meeting, 10th and 1 lth, 241h and 251h. Lehman/Now wait a minute. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 77 Karr/September. Lehman/September. Vanderhoel7 We'll put it between us, there it is. Kanner/And again you said the possible conflicts were the primary. Karr/The primary is October 9th. Kanner/And what was the other conflict? Karr/National League of Cities, there was a possible conflict with Veteran's Day with your work session on November 12th. Lehman/September is okay though. Karr/Well the only reason I mention September is if your going to change October but yes September is fine. Pfab/Or are we going to try to get our tobacco thing. Karr/Well there' s a number of issues that if we want to start, yea there' s a couple of other things in August and September, do you want to start going? Lehman/Well can we go through the Council first though? For example do we wish to meet on the 8th and 9th of October which is the primary is the on Tuesday the 9th? Do we want to meet that night? Vanderhoef/I'm okay with that. Lehman/I don't have a problem with that either. O'Donnell/I don't have a problem with that. Lehman/Okay so we'll keep the Council, the 8th and 9th will be regular meetings. Is that okay with everybody? Vanderhoef/That's fine. Karr/Could I just note the reason it was changed is because we thought the primary was the 2nd, your regular meeting time is the first and third so it would be the second and the 16th. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 78 Lehman/Oh. Pfab/Should we go back to our regular thing? Lehman/Just a minute, just a minute, we have a meeting on the 241h of September, two weeks later is the 8th of October, so that's a two week. Karr/That's exactly right. Lehman/Which is fine. Karr/So you want to leave it at the 8th and 9th? Lehman/8th and 9th and then the 22nd and 23rd, does that work? Karr/Okay. Vanderhoef/So we're, we're going. Pfab/So there's no changes yet to what's in here? Lehman/No. Karr/No. Vanderhoef/Informal and formal, and then your going to go to the October 22-23 your going to leave those alone? Karr/Correct. Lehman/Now election day is on the 6th and I. Karr/And we did change those to 12/13 and 19/20 in November. Lehman/Well I wonder why don't we change that to the 26 and 271h so we'll have two weeks in between instead of one week. Vanderhoeff Wait a minute. Pfab/Instead of a week apart is that what your saying? Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/Okay 12 and 13. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 79 Pfab/But we've got Thanksgiving coming in there. Lehman/Well Thanksgiving is on the 291h. Karr/22-23 is Thanksgiving. Vanderhoef/22nd. Lehman/I'm sorry 22nd, yea. Vanderhoef/The Veteran's Day is on the 12th. Karr/Correct. Pfab/We already have two, we have two meetings in November, the 12th and the 19th. Lehman/Yea but why. Pfab/Or the 12th. Kanner/(can't hear) Veteran' s Day. Karr/Pardon me. Lehman/But the 261h and 271h will give us two weeks in between each meeting. Atkins/I don't (can't hear). Pfab/It makes no difference to me but I just, I'm just looking at if you have. Lehman/Is that okay with everybody? Kanner/What are you proposing? Lehman/Well in November we meet on the 12th and it would seem to me that we would be wiser to wait until the 19th for the second meeting rather than having the meetings one week apart. Champion/I agree. Pfab/But we've had them scheduled here both places on here. Lehman/No we would change them from Monday the 19th to Monday the 261h. Pfab/Oh okay I see what your saying. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 80 Vanderhoef/Following. Pfab/After Thanksgiving. Kanner/The mason we didn't want to do that is because people are going away for Thanksgiving and didn't want to have to do the packet thing, we did it last year and (can't hear). Pfab/And they also might stay over. Kanner/And I would recommend we keep it like that. Lehman/Well what does that do to us in December? Vanderhoef/Well the point is that the third and I'll be leaving for National League of Cities on the 4th and anyone else who chooses to go so. Champion/Didn't we have one meeting last December? Lehman/Yea we have done that. Champion/One work session in December. Karr/Yes. Champion/Let's do that. Vanderhoef/Do it on the 10th and 1 lth. Karr/(can't hear). Vanderhoef/Do you want it? Champion/Yea that's fine. Kanner/Or we could have. Vanderhoef/Or 17th and 18th either one we could do. O'Donnell/Do it as early in the month as we can. Kanner/Or December 3rd we could have the double meeting. Vanderhoef/What? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 81 Kanner/A work session in the early evening or afternoon. Vanderhoef/What date are you talking about? Kanner/December 3rd. Vanderhoef/No. Champion/You know I don't, I'm going to make a (can't hear) I don't think it's a good idea to have a meeting on the night of the primary, I don't, I think we should avoid that. Lehman/We can. Champion/What do you think? Vanderhoef/I think, you folks that are. Champion/(can't hear) respected night. O'Donnell/I will not. Champion/Why don't we like the 8th to the work session meeting. Lehman/Do what? Champion/The work session on the 8th like we did that one time. Lehman/You mean have the informal and the formal both the same night. Champion/Yea. Vanderhoef/I'm not. Pfab/I'm neutral one way or another. Vanderhoef/I'm not pleased with those nights. Champion/Well nobody is either but we've done it before. Lehman/What's your pleasure? Pfab/Why don't we have it the day after? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 82 Champion/Them are going to be three of us involved in that primary I don't think we should be meeting. Vanderhoef/I respect you for asking that but then do we want to move everything else then to the 15th and 16th rather than? Lehman/No then you'll change everything, if you have the meeting on the 8th. Champion/Do it all. Lehman/At 4:00 and have the work session and the formal that night. Champion/Right, let' s do that, that gives the staff the night off. Lehman/That means we wouldn't have a meeting on the 9th. Does that work for folks? O'Donnell/I don't have a life Emie, (can't hear). Lehman/Hell none of us have lives anymore, does that work? Wilburn/Both on the 8th. Lehman/Both on the 8th. Wilbtun/I guess (can't hear) you all would be involved in the primaries so I'll O'Donnell/You have a problem with it? Champion/Yea. O'Donnell/Then I have a problem with it. Lehman/You have a problem with what? Champion/Meeting on the 9th. Lehman/Well ifit's all right with folks we'll meet. Champion/I'll be biting my fingernails and going to the bathroom every minute. Wilburn/Double meeting on the 8th. Lehman/Double meeting on the 8th, formal and work session on the 8th. Karr/Okay, and. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 83 Karmer/Start it at 4:00. Karr/Well we won't know until we get an agenda I mean I think. Lehman/Get the agenda but it would be probably no later than 4:00. Karr/It could be earlier depending. And then are we going to leave the 22nd and 23rd then in October? So we'll have the 8th, 22nd and 23rd of October? Kanner/I would say yes. Karr/If four of you would go yes I could go on. Vanderhoef/Yes. Lehman/Yes 22rid and 23rd are okay. Karr/We're okay so November do we do with 12, 13, 19, and 20? Lehman/Well 12th and 13th I suppose we almost have to do those. Vanderhoef/Well your looking at Veteran's Day on the 12th so do you both of them on the 13th? You know we don't have any staff here all day on the 12th. Karr/Is the Veteran's Day Banquet the 12th also? Vanderhoe~ Yes. Lehman/Are you sure it's the 12th because they almost always have it on the day (can't hear). Vanderhoef/Yes they do. Lehman/Well Veteran' s Day is the 1 lth, they've always had it in the past on the 1 lth, my guess is that' s when it's going to be. Atkins/It's a Sunday night. Lehman/Sunday night, that would be my guess. Karmer/What banquet is that? Lehman/Veteran' s Day. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 84 Kanner/Who throws that? Atkins/Chamber. Lehman/Well there's a Veteran' s Committee in Johnson County, it's the biggest one in the state. All right. Karr/So leave on the 12th, 13th, 19-20. Champion/They're just a week apart. Kanner/Steve you (can't hear). Atkins/No I'm fine, sure. Lehman/I still would do 26th-27th. Champion/What are you saying? Will you speak up. Lehman/I know that we have traditionally not had the meeting the Monday following Thanksgiving but we would get a packet on Wednesday instead of Thursday that week is that not correct? Atkins/We'd have to move it up. Karr/Yea we'd have to move it up. Lehman/Well we'd have Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and I have to think we would have an opportunity at some time during that period to look at a packet. Karr/Well you'd have a Council meeting Tuesday night and a packet going out the next, let me see, Tuesday the 13th and your packet going out Thursday morning the 15th for the 20th. Or your saying move it to the 26th-27th? Lehman/Well that' s when I'd do it but I don't. Karr/And skip the 19th and 20th or move the, skip the 19th. Lehman/Yes move the 19th, that way you get two weeks in between the meetings. Champion/(can't hear). Lehman/Eleanor just shot herself in the head. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 85 Kanner/I like the 19th and 20th (can't hear). Pfab/I like them all. Lehman/Well I know everybody likes everything but we need to put some dates on there. Vanderhoef/I'm willing to work it on the Thanksgiving weekend, I am the one who has always requested that and if people really want to go to the 261h/271h ifthat's okay with other people. Karr/From the 19th-20th and leave the 12th-13th, so go 12-13, 26-27, going once. Kanner/I'm voting 19th-20th. Lehman/Okay we've got one for 19th and 20th. Pfab/It doesn't make any. Kanner/Just make a vote Irvin. Lehman/How many for the 261h and 271h? Pfab/Yes. Lehman/All right it's the 261h and 271h. Karr/And 12-13,26-27. Lehman/Can we wait on December? O'Donnell/Oh we have to. Karr/You can wait on it I think there are advantageous of nailing it down. Lehman/All fight, no, no, your fight. Karr/I'm sorry I really do. Lehman/10th and 1 lth. Champion/10th and 1 lth. O'Donnell/One meeting. Lehman/Does that work? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 86 Karr/Of course, 10th and 1 lth it is. Lehman/Yea. Karr/Okay. Now do you want to go back and look at the, you've got a couple other ones you wanted to schedule. Lehman/Yes. Marti Horan/10th is the first day of Hanukah. Champion/Is it well? Lehman/Well. Vanderhoef/Then we may have to go to the 17th and 18th. Champion/17 and 18. Lehman/I don't have a problem. Karr/17 and 18th. Pfab/I'm for it, whatever. Vanderhoef/Is that okay? Karr/December 17th and 18th. Vanderhoef/Steven. Kanner/Why not the 10th? Vanderhoef/She said that was the start of Hanukah. Kanner/Well it's Hanukah it's a different kind of holiday, it's not one that (can't hear). Vanderhoef/If you don't object I don't object. Lehman/All fight leave it alone. Karr/10 and 11. Lehman/10 and 11. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 87 Karr/10 and 11, okay. Lehman/What other dates do we need to talk about? Karr/You had, we will need to special meeting before 5:00 on the 31 st. Lehman/31 st. Karr/So we can set it early in the moming, we can set it late afternoon, it just has to be done. Kanner/I'm sorry what date are we talking? Lehman/The 31 st. Karr/No later than 4:00 the 31st so sometime next week. Lehman/Can we set it 4:00 for next Friday? O'Dormell/We better. Karr/4:00 the 31st. Lehman/4:00. Vanderhoef/Wait a second, wait a second. Kanner/Emie I missed. Lehman/We have to have a special meeting to either vote to put the charter amendments on the ballot or to not put the charter amendments and it requires a vote one way or the other, is that correct? Pfab/Can we have our tobacco thing then too? Champion/No. Lehman/You can do whatever you want Irvin but we're going to talk about this. Karr/If your going to do that then 4:00 isn't enough time. Vanderhoef/So we're August 31 st. Champion/Your talking a 5 minute meeting or so right? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 88 Lehman/August 31 st 4:00, it may be more. Karr/So it is 4:00 the 31st. Lehman/4:00 is fine. Pfab/Now I let you guys fight over your thing now let' s go to the tobacco one. Champion/We're not done yet Irvin. Pfab/Oh excuse me. Champion/The 31st, what day of the week is that? Karr/Friday. Lehman/Friday. Karr/Friday aftemoon at 4:00. Champion/Okay. Karr/Okay the tobacco meeting. Dilkes/There will be little opportunity for public discussion. Karr/At 4:00. Dilkes/If you schedule it at 4:00 because. Karr/We've got to by state law have it to the auditor's office by 5:00. Champion/How about 8:00 in the morning? Dilkes/If you vote to put it on the ballot, if you vote not to put it on the ballot it's. Karr/Yea that's right. Dilkes/But we need to assume I think that. Karr/The flexibility, the flexibility. Dilkes/We want to have the ability to get to the auditor's office. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 89 Champion/How about 8:00 in the morning? Lehman/No that won't work for me. VanderhoefJ No, 3: 00. Lehman/If we do at 4:00 in the afternoon we'll see to it that we're done by 5:00. Dilkes/No. Karr/No, no. Vanderhoef/They have to have it hand delivered over them. Lehman/Did you say? Kanner/What about after your radio show Emie that Friday moming? Lehman/I can do it. Pfab/9:30. Lehman/9:30. Kanner/Can people do 9:30 Friday morning? Lehman/All right we just moved to 9:30. Kanner/9: 30 August 31 st. Champion/Make sure she's got enough time to deal with it, that' s not fair. Dilkes/Yea, I don't. Karr/All right so now your tobacco meeting with the City of Coralville you were going to come up with two or three different meeting dates I think. Lehman/And these are going to be evening meetings I presume. Vanderhoef/Yes. Lehman/291h or 30th work for anybody? Pfab/Yes. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 90 Champion/I'm sorry, what day of the week is that? Lehman/That's Wednesday and Thursday next week. Karr/The 30th there' s a forum, there's a candidate forum here the 30th. Atkins/I've got Council candidate forum Thursday night, I do the (can't hear) with candidates. Lehman/Friday won't work, next week. Vanderhoef/Okay we're talking 291h and 30th. Lehman/How about that week? Karmer/But actually it can be done perhaps after or before the forum. Champion/(can't hear). Kanner/What? Champion/The forum's at 7:00. Atkins/Mine's at 6:30. Kanner/6:30 so it could be either at 8:30 or. Champion/That's too late or folks can go, your forum could go to another place perhaps. Arkins/Gee I had planned to have it here, yea. Lehman/Well. Karr/I don't think. Karmer/I'm just saying there are options that are available. O'Donnell/I'm not going to sit down with this group at 8:30 at night. Champion/No. O'Donnell/I just won't. Kanner/Could start earlier. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 91 Vanderhoef/I love you too. Lehman/Well we need to, what I really think that the meeting if we're successful in scheduling a meeting with the Coralville Council it's probably going to have to be probably a 6:00 or 7:00 at night. Champion/That's right. Lehman/Which is most convenient for them. Pfab/Okay 6:30. Lehman/What day? (all talking). Vanderhoef/You said the 291h didn't work is that right? Atkins/That' s a Wednesday. Wilbum/28 is better. Lehman/28, no but somebody else can't be there. Vanderhoef/Connie's out 271h and 281h. O'Donnell/(can't hear) option. Atkins/Connie can't be there the 27-28. Lehman/281h is out, 291h is. Pfab/Good. Vanderhoef/Out. Lehman/Out. 30th. Pfab/Good. Lehman/That's the date you've got a forum. Atkins/I have a Council candidate finance workshop, now three of you know you've been through a couple of these already, I can go do that in a separate room while you have your meeting. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 92 Champion/No you need to be here. Vanderhoef/Well you need that amount of space. Karr/Yea it's the space Steve if we have a number of people. Lehman/All right let's go to the following week, the 3rd or 4th of September, the 3rd is Labor Day, 4th of September. Champion/What day of the week is that? Karr/The 4th is the day before your joint meeting. Pfab/Tuesday September 9th. Lehman/That' s the day before the meeting with. Karr/With Coralville and School Board and. Lehman/Well I don't know that that' s a problem is it? Karr/No, I'm just saying. Lehman/ Is the 4th evening? Don'tjust put a question mark. Champion/Yes it's fine. Pfab/I think it's. Kanner/(can't hear). Lehman/It's not okay with you, okay forget the 4th, the 5th is with the. Champion/You want to have a meeting on the (can't hear). Pfab/Yes. Lehman/Could this Council stick around and meet with Coralville after that meeting with the County, let's say we schedule that at 6:00? Pfab/Sure. Lehman/Or 5:30. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 93 Kanner/Well what about Saturday morning? Pfab/Can you not stay that evening or can you get to that one? Vanderhoef/No not Saturday. Lehman/We're not going to get people on a Saturday meeting, I don't think we're going to do that. Karmer/Oh yea I think you will. Lehman/I don't think we will because your looking at one that's not going to work. O' Donnell/Three of them. Lehman/But how about the 5th? (END OF 01-78 SIDE TWO) Kanner/We've got (can't hear). Vanderhoef/We'll provide dinner. Lehman/Oh that night over at the library. Atkins/Those two nights there, I mean your free to come and go as you please, it's just the presentation by the developers. Lehman/Is that Wednesday and Thursday? Atkins/Yea. Pfab/I think next Tuesday is still the best. Lehman/That won't work. Pfab/What about Friday, this coming Friday, about 9:30? Champion/I have (can't hear). Lehman/Well we have a Council meeting Friday morning. Karr/Friday morning the 31 st or the 241h? Pfab/241h I guess, this coming Friday we have what? We have a Council meeting? August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 94 Karr/No the 31st is a Council meeting. Pfab/I mean obviously, it's going to, (can't hear) hear all used up, so we're going to have to, we're going to have to tuck it in here, 23rd or 241h. O'Donnell/Emie how long should it take after a joint meeting to sit down and talk to Coralville? Lehman/Well if we actually, I think that if we found some mutual agreement that we could do this then perhaps it probably wouldn't take very long if they say they want to work with us and we could probably make that a short meeting and schedule something of a meeting nature. O'Donnell/Well I think that would be convenient for all of us. Lehman/Well the thing is everybody will already be there. Pfab/Speaking of that is there a JCCOG meeting coming up? O'Donnell/Wednesday. Pfab/What about contacting at the JCCOG meeting, finding out if there's an interest. Lehman/Can we shoot for the 5th which is that joint meeting and just ask them? Champion/Yes. Pfab/Oh yea, I'm for anything as long as it's less than two weeks. Lehman/Well let's for the time being we know the majority of the Council is going to be there so I don't think this is a question of scheduling several dates because there shouldn't be a conflict if the majority of our Council is there and their Council' s are there we can find out whether or not there's any interest in pursuing this if not we'll drop it and go on our own. Champion/Right. Pfab/That' s the 5th then, that's great. Lehman/The 5th. Vanderhoef/And then we're available the 6th if they want to do it the 6th. Pfab/I think the 5th is. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 95 Vanderhoef/Well we need to offer them more than one. Lehman/The night of the 5th and 6th of the presentation by the 64-1 a folks and our folks may want to see that. Vanderhoef/Well but if we offered Coralville. Karmer/Yea like maybe 5:00 or something on Thursday. Vanderhoef/The 5th or the 6th. Lehman/Well they're going to be here for the meeting on the 5th. Vanderhoef/I'm aware of that but if they have evening plans that they can't stay late offer two dates at least. Kanner/Yea offer them the next day at 5:00 let's say. Lehman/Thursday at 5:00. Vanderhoef/Then we'll go to the developer's whichever night we're not. Lehman/Thursday at 5:00 as an alternate date, all fight. Pfab/I'm like the Marines. Lehman/Can we communicate that to them Marjan and ask? Karr/Yes I have to call them tomorrow about joint agenda items anyway. Lehman/Well if we could ask them ifit's possible, it would really work out best for everybody if we could get together. Karr/I'll call first thing in the morning. Champion/(can't hear). Lehman/5:00 or 5:15 ask them to meet with us. Vanderhoef/Well first of all you've got to talk to Faucett to see whether he'll even schedule a meeting. Lehman/Well I don't think, this meeting is already scheduled, if they'll just ask them if they'll meet with us after that meeting. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 96 Karr/Just stay after okay. Is there any other joint agenda items, other than the smoking I restaurants? Lehman/Anything else you want on the agenda for meeting with the County? Karr/Because that will make a difference as far as the duration of the agenda. Pfab/No, no, keep it simple. Kanner/(can't hear). Council Time Lehman/All right guys we're at Council Time, Marian you've got an item in the packet regarding the applications for Boards and Commission' s, there' s a confidential page, we had an applicant who had not filled out that page, we appointed that applicant anyway and I think we need to tell Marian at this point whether or not that confidential page either has to be mandatory or taken out and thrown away. Vanderhoef/I thought it was mandatory. Lehman/Well it wasn't because we appointed somebody the last meeting we had who had not filled it out and we knew it. Vanderhoef/Oh, oh, because we. Lehman/No she told us that. Vanderhoef/Previously, I wasn't there. Lehman/Oh if you would have been here we wouldn't have, oh your right. Vanderhoef/Previously we had tumed down a possible candidate because they had not filled it out, this was several months ago, like a yea ago. Lehman/Is that a mandatory? Vanderhoeff In my mind it is. Karr/It is not optional, it's labeled with the pages 1, 2, 3. Lehman/All right but I think it needs to be very clear that if someone doesn't fill that out they will not be considered for appointment. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 97 Pfab/Well the other thing is it's important and would be, if it's not filled out that would be taken into consideration just like the (can't hear). Lehman/No I think the point is that without filling out the application the application will not be received. Vanderhoef/That' s the way we worked on it the previous time but that had happened. (All talking) Pfab/I'm happy either way, I'm easy, now t hat I've got my tobacco meeting I'm easy. Lehman/Just a minute. Karr/Well it wouldn't be our judgment call not to send it to you, we'd received it and not that it was an incomplete application. Pfab/You might put a note on it that it's not filled out that it may. Karr/Well there is a note on it, that is the note. O'Dormell/The question is is it mandatory or? Vanderhoef/Yes it's mandatory. Lehman/Yes, and I think it's mandatory. O'Donnell/Let's make it mandatory. Vanderhoef/It is mandatory and my request would be that if. Pfab/Will that come up at the vote tomorrow? Lehman/No this is a policy item. Dilkes/So we will be changing the language at the bottom of the form that says Council may not consider your application if this isn't filled out to will not. Lehman/Will not. Champion/Will not. Vanderhoef/Will not. Karr/Okay that's fine. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 98 Vanderhoef/And I don't know what happened that it got missed previously but I would like to see that page sent to whoever was appointed and ask them to be filled out. Karr/That person has been asked and they choose not to do it. Lehman/Refuse to do it. Vanderhoef/Then I think that's. Lehman/Too late now. Pfab/Yea you can't. Vanderhoef/I'm sorry. Dilkes/We talked about that with Council when you weren't here and I think it was made very clear at the time that the individual had specifically said I will not fill this out, Council choose to appoint anyway, I think we're done with that one. Karmer/Well if you want to, Dee even though I won't agree with this if you want to propose the procedure for bringing someone off of a committee, I suppose you can do that. Vanderhoeff Let me think about it. Lehman/Well no but I think we have, there are only certain circumstances where we can remove someone from a Board or Commission isn't that correct Eleanor. Dilkes/Yea you have to just cause for removal so I think you'd have difficult and the facts were all known to you at the time you appointed. Lehman/The fact that we approved him knowing that is good enough. Pfab/(can't hear). Dilkes/Right. Lehman/We've taken care of it, all right anything else on Council Time. O'Donnell/One thing on Lexington Avenue I understand the barricades there, I got a couple calls today saying that it, that the first couple weeks or months after this is up should be better marked. Atkins/We've got all the signs up. August 20, 2001 Special Work Session Page 99 O'Donnell/But I mean when you turn, I looked at it tonight. Atkins/More signing. O'Donnell/Well I think so or even a flashing light because you know that' s hard, it's 2:00 in the morning when people are driving down that street and (can't hear) or what they've got in them, (can't hear). Dilkes/I know there have been some issues about what signage is comply with whatever that manual is about signage. Atkins/Well we can that battery operated flashing light. O'Donnell/Well take a look at it. Atkins/I'll look at it. O'Donnell/All right, nobody else has anything. Champion/I don't, I have to (can't hear). Lehman/All right. Atkins/Good night all. Adjourned 10:45 PM