Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-10 Transcription September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 1 September 10, 2001 Special Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Pfab, Kanner Staff.' Atkins, Helling, Karr, Matthews, Franklin, Schmadeke TAPES: 01-79 SIDE TWO; 01-84 BOTH SIDES Plannin~ & Zonin~ A. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, ARTICLE O, SIGN REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT CANOPY ROOF SIGNS. Franklin/Okay the first item on the agenda is a public hearing on an amendment to the sign regulations to allow canopy roof signs. This is an amendment that was precipitated by the Mondo's sign which you see on the slide on the screen and basically they came to us and said we'd like to put this sign up, we felt that it was possibly something we should look at for permissible signs in the downtown and so we issued a temporary sign permit and then proceeded to look at how to actually regulate the signs. Now I don't know what slides are on here so I'm going to have to just kind of wing my way through here, well, maybe I'm not going anywhere. Okay, this I believe is a simulation of how Malone's could look with a canopy sign. Champion/It's nice. Franklin/And what we did is we looked at the signs in relationship to the store front because in the downtown, respecting the pedestrian scale was part of what we were trying to achieve with this and that if you look at it in the context of the store front and also if you look at it in relationship to the mass of the building. The consequence was the sign ordinance that is proposed which has gone through the Planning & Zoning Commission and was recommended by the Commission 7-0 which basically allows canopy roof signs and that, this is canopy, and then obviously above the canopy is the roof. It does not mean that there would be any allowance of roof signs along the roof s of the building, it has to be above the canopy and it can only be at the first floor level. Vanderhoef/There was something else about. Franklin/Yea I know. Vanderhoef/Could only be so many inches offof the roof of the canopy. Franklin/Okay there' s a maximum area, maximum height and maximum thickness. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 2 Vanderhoef/Oh I thought it could only extend like 4. Franklin/The bottom edge of the sign shall be located no more than four inches above the canopy. This is also, what Shelly did in our office, Shelley McCafferty is she just went downtown and looked at various store fronts to look at what it would possibly look like with a canopy sign. I'm sorry Irvin you were going to ask something. Pfab/I was going to ask you if there was, say there was multiple entrances, or more than entrance at an opening, maybe like up at the post office is down a little. Franklin/Okay if you have more than one store front. Pfab/Right. Franklin/In a building then the dimension that one uses to start out with and you look at it, it says the length of store front up to 39 feet and then 40 feet to 59 feet you use the length of the storefront from the outside wall to outside wall of that storefront. Okay. Pfab/Okay. Franklin/Now I guess this one really isn't a good example, I'm looking for, no all of these are on single store fronts so we don't have an example that' s like that on a comer. Lehman/But if you had three store fronts you could have three separate signs. Franklin/You could potentially have 3 canopy signs. Lehman/But they'd be in much smaller scale. Franklin/That' s correct. Lehman/Right. Franklin/They would be in scale to the storefront that it was in front of and then the canopy's of course are regulated by the building code anyway. Okay. Lehman/Okay. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 3 B. CONSIDER 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) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Next item is first consideration on the rezoning for RR-I to OSA-5 that's for the development offof Bristol Drive, we had the public heating on that last time. C. 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) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) D. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE 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 HUIVIM1NGBIRD LANE (REZ01-00004) (SECOND CONSDERATION) Franklin/Item C and D are the second considerations on the zonings for the annexations on the east side, you do have a letter in your packet from Monica Mitros asking for reconsideration, that would have to be done by simple motion at tomorrow night's hearing if you choose to do that, or tomorrow night' s meeting if you choose to do that and it has to be done by someone on the prevailing side. E. 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. (REZ01-00002) Item E is the rezoning of the Ruppert property from I-1 to CI-1, this is the one that we've gone back and forth and back and forth on about the access easement, what you have before you is an amended conditional zoning agreement which we expect to be signed by tomorrow night and you would have a public heating, open the public heating on that, revised conditional zoning agreement, then you would have third consideration because the language of the conditional zoning agreement is not a substantive enough change to require going back through three readings. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 4 Lehman/Okay. F. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SALTZMAN SUBDIVISION, A 2.8 ACRE, 3-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED EAST OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE SOUTH OF BENTON STREET. Franklin/And then Item F the applicant has again requested that you defer this to October 8. Pfab/Which one is that? Franklin/That's the Saltzman subdivision. Okay, and I'm done. Lehman/All right, thank you. Franklin/You're welcome. A~enda Items Lehman/Review Agenda Items. Kanner/Mr. Mayor. Lehman/Yes. Kanner/Under the Procedures of Roberts Rules of Order Parliamentary Procedure in compliance with City and State Code I move that the three resolutions in regard to charter amendments 1-3 as they appear in the info. Packet number 5 be placed on the agenda at least 24 hours hence for the formal 9/11 city council meeting, so I'm looking for a second. Pfab/I'll second it for discussion purpose. Lehman/Andy would you care to respond to this? Andy Matthews/I'm sorry. Lehman/We have a motion to put on the agenda for tomorrow night the three amendments for the charter by Mr. Kanner and seconded by Mr. Pfab. Matthews/There are several issues with respect to that request, first with respect to Iowa Code Section 21.4 there is a 24 hour advance requirement for posting of an agenda's or agenda's are posted by 7 so that 24 hour period could not be met, This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 5 there are provisions in the code that permit somewhat less than 24 hours, the wording of it is "where it is necessary to hold the meeting on less than 24 hours notice or at a place that is not masonable accessible to the public but at a time that is not reasonably convenient to the public, the nature of the good cause just to find the departure of the normal requirements should be stated in the minutes." The General rule is that if there's a 24 hour advance requirement and unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical in which case as much notice as is reasonably possible shall be given. Now apart from that is whether or not there's anything for the Council to do with respect to those issues, the matter is presently in litigation if it's something the Council wishes to discuss I would urge them to do so in closed session where you can discuss ending litigation. I'm sorry, thank you Madan, additionally the item does not, is not listed specifically as an action item on today's agenda either so we. Kanner/Well it's on, we've traditionally have taken information packet items as part of things that can be considered at agenda time, so I would make the case that this is appropriate to talk about and also appropriate with 24 hours notice to add to the agenda 24 hours from the time we're done discussing this. Wilbum/Has the City been served Andy? Matthews/The City has been served, individual Council Mmembers have not been served. Wilburn/I'm not going to discuss pending litigation, (can't hear) executive session. O'Donnell/I think that makes a great deal of sense. Lehman/Your recommendation of this is not be discussed outside of executive session is that correct? Matthews/That would be my recommendation additionally I have real concerns whether or not you would be in compliance with public notice requirements of Section 21.4. Kanner/I would argue that once again we have met 24 hour notice and we had planned a meeting, Council had called for a meeting that never took place for August 31 to make a decision and I would think that as Council Members we should show some leadership in taking official position on the amendments whether you wish to adhere to the committee of three's decisions that they make or not that would be up to you but I think as a Council we are elected to as a body to represent the citizens of Iowa City and this is an issue that we should make an official decision on, I think on a Robert' s Rules of Order anyone can place something on an agenda with a second, that is what we go by, now if you wish to change Robert's Rules of Order that's up to you, that's been changed before. That procedure has been This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 6 altered by the majority of Council, but again I would argue that we have a right, that I have a fight as a member of this body and the Robert's Rules of Order to place something on the agenda, I don't think that the code works to prohibit that, I think the idea of 24 hours notice is not to never allow anyone to put something on so I would argue that it's our obligation to take a vote on the Charter Amendments and it's our responsibility to make that decision, it has not been made by us as of yet, we've had a City Attorney that' s recommended certain things, meetings that were canoeled and I think we have an obligation to vote on that so I would say legally this should be on the agenda for tomorrow for consideration 24 hours hence. Wilburn/Steve it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the decision of that committee and therefore since it stopped at that meeting they were sustained the objections, there was no action for Council to take and regardless of that, I mean that's addressing whether or not we should have had the meeting but otherwise I'm not going to discuss any litigation outside (can't hear). Karmer/That's fine, that's your fight to not vote for it or to abstain or to vote no. Pfab/You can't abstain. Karmer/Well you can't abstain and it's just counted as part of majority, I think that's your right. Wilburn/That's right. Karmer/And I think it's my right to call for something to be put on the agenda that's something that's part of Robert's Rules of Order which is written in City Code. Wilburn/I wasn't debating that, I'm just saying I'm not going to discuss a pending litigation. Kanner/That's fine you don't have to discuss it, I would think it's on the agenda for tomorrow. Lehman/Well my understanding, and I don't, I do know that on previous work sessions or as far as that goes at regular meetings we have been prevented from discussing items that were not published as part of the work session. Is there a reason for that? Matthews/It's required under state law that you generally apprise the public of the nature of the matters that are going to be discussed, that's the reasonable notice requirement both in terms of substance for what is going to be discussed as well as advanced notice of what items are going to be discussed. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 7 Kanner/Ernie we've constantly talked about things in information packets at previous work sessions under the agenda items. Lehman/If they appear on the agenda. Matthews/There's nothing on the agenda dealing with this other than council time and if you wish to make it in Council time. Kanner/No we've talked about things that weren't on the agenda for the next night under. Lehman/Council Time. Karmer/No under Agenda Items. Lehman/Well I'm not familiar with, all I know is we have been prevented by our attorney on several occasions from discussing something did not appear on the agenda for the work session. Matthews/If it were to be discussed in a substantive manner yes. Lehman/Yes. Pfab/Well is putting it on the agenda is that discussing it in a substantive manner? Matthews/That' s discussing the substantive issue of whether to place it on the agenda and if your going to have something on the agenda normally under state law you would want to apprise the public of what issues are going to be on the agenda. Pfab/Okay so if this is denied the other alternative would be to ask for a special meeting is that fight? Matthews/Or ask for it in advance of the 24 hour requirement. Pfab/Well when is the next formal City Council meeting scheduled? Karr/September 23rd I believe, September 241h, 251h. Lehman/251h. Pfab/That' s what two weeks and a day. Lehman/Tomorrow night. Pfab/So now if that, if this, well I'm concerned that there were so many citizens were involved in this that I believe that they, their wishes should be heard somehow or This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 8 other and I believe that it should come on as a topic or a discussion as a City Council so we can vote it up or down. Now I understand that the City Attomey's opinion is that this is final but there' s still a lot of citizens out there that have a right to be heard I do believe. Lehman/Well let me suggest that there is a lawsuit pending on this and depending on the outcome of that lawsuit we may very well have an opportunity to address this again but I think until that occurs that from my understanding it is inappropriate for us to discuss it because of the pending lawsuit. Pfab/Well maybe we should have it in executive session then. O'Donnell/How does that address all the people that signed the petition, that's what we're talking about. Pfab/Well I mean if we have to decide whether to put it on for a vote. O'Donnell/I have no intentions of discussing this while it's under litigation. Vanderhoef/But our legal counsel has already told us. Lehman/Well do we have an interest in putting this on the agenda tomorrow night? Wilburn/I move and second that (can't hear). Lehman/I don't think we can take a formal vote at a work session. Matthews/No, you don't, this is a Council work session, formal motion just are not generally required, you operate by (can't hear). Kanner/Well we, also we have, we operate, our City Code says we operate under Robert' s Rules of Order as our procedures if it's not in conflict with state code and there's nothing been said that ever to my knowledge that it's in conflict with our informal meetings that that is the fall back position is Robert' s Rule of Order in our state code. Matthews/I believe the Council has generally adopted the Robert' s Rules of Order when they're not in conflict with state code and this particular instance I believe it would be in conflict with state code that you haven't given 24 hours advance notice, if you wish to put it on a future Council agenda that's certainly Council's prerogative. Kanner/Well I'm putting it on for 24 hours hence, after 24 hours, that would be 24 hour notice, so let's say we. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 9 Matthews/But the agenda is prepared by 7:00 PM, you have already exceeded that. Lehman/But do, are you also saying that if it's to be on the work session agenda that also must be 24 hours. Matthews/You need, if your going to talk about it and we're getting to that line right now we don't have this on the agenda item for even Council work session, If your going to be discussing it substantively in the work session you should put it on as an agenda item, if your going to be discussing substantively informal council you should put it on council agenda in either case it should be done in advance 24 hours notice. Lehman/Which obviously we don't have. Kanner/Well again I would say and state for the record in the past we have talked about info. packet material that was not scheduled to be on the formal agenda, we've done that during agenda time and I believe it's probably happened numerous times so and informally the reason that this was brought to the City Clerk's office to be put on the August 31 st meeting that was canceled. That we had called and don't know why exactly it was canceled or (can't hear). Lehman/Well you do because according to the City Attomey's office by sustaining the objections there was no reason for the Council to meet because there was no action that could be taken. Kanner/I do understand that was the City Attomey's opinion. Lehman/Right, and that' s why the meeting ..... Kanner/But that doesn't over rule a City Council decision to meet. Lehman/Except if that's the purpose of the meeting then there' s no point in meeting. Karmer/I would argue there' s a purpose to meet to discuss it and I think we would take the City Attomey's advice into consideration. Lehman/Okay, I don't sense there being an interest of this going on the agenda for tomorrow night either legally or illegally. Are there other agenda items? Karr/Mr. Mayor. Lehman/Yes. Karr/For the agenda I'd just like to note a correction, on page 2 Item D(3), the resolution setting a public hearing for October 8th on amending the budget, the comment has This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 10 the correct date, the item does not, it should be October 8th and not September 251h, your resolution containing in your packet and your comment are correct. Kanner/One of the things that I had for agenda items which now I've been told perhaps is illegal is correction of council minutes that were recorded in our information packet for the work session and so how does the City Attorney role on that ifI had a comment on info. packet minutes. Matthews/I don't understand your question. Karmer/I had a correction for the minutes. Matthews/Corrections can, a motion can be made. Karr/We don't accept work session minutes, these are just info. minutes so there's no action. Matthews/At formal council meeting there's motion to approve minutes if there. Karr/No not work session minutes, we don't. Kanner/So these are corrections to be made to minutes. Karr/Work session minutes. Kanner/Work session minutes and they are not part of the formal agenda. Karr/That's correct. Kanner/Right, so I wanted to know how to proceed because in the past. Karr/We could bring it up under Council Time, you could bring it up under Council Time and if four agree we could just make the changes for tomorrow and pass out distributive ones, you do not act on the work session minutes. Kanner/I know we don't act but we correct things that we feel are. Karr/Absolutely correct. Kanner/Incorrect. Karr/You could do that under Council Time. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 11 ITEM NO. 3b(2). IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - JULY 24 Kanner/Okay. Agenda Item number 3b(2), Steve there was a "Know Your Neighbor" idea that was sent to you by the Human Rights Commission, we got that in our minutes and what happened to it, it sounded like a good idea, the "Know Your Neighbor" campaign. Atkins/I don't know because I don't recall receiving it. Champion/Wasn't that what that (can't hear). Atkins/Yea there was a program that they sponsored but they didn't send anything to me. Champion/Yea but it was advertised all over. Atkins/Yea. Champion/As meet your neighbor. Wilburn/Isn't that the activity that happened across the street (can't hear). Champion/Yes, yes. Atkins/Yes, it was the activity, they didn't send anything to me they did that on their own initiative. (All talking can't hear). Wilburn/There was an activity that was in the newspaper. Champion/It was a really nice write up on it. Wilburn/(Can't hear) neighbors is what they were. Kanner/This was from July 241h minutes of Human Rights. Champion/Well they already acted on it. Kanner/So this happened after that. Champion/Yea, just last week. Wilburn/Yea last week. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 12 Kanner/Okay thank you. Champion/Your not very informed on that Steven. Kanner/No I'm not Connie I try to keep up with you but it's hard. Champion/I know. Atkins/I suspect what it was is that they chose to report it in the minutes, Heather approached me with the idea and I said fine and that' s the last of my involvement in the thing. Kanner/Okay. Atkins/She probably needed a small budget or appropriation to do something. ITEM NO. 3e(1). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OFFICIAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR CITY STREETS AND PARKING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2001. Kanner/And then 3e(1), can we get a copy or could I and anybody else who would like one a copy of the report for streets and parking by tomorrow. Atkins/Sure. Champion/What item was that Steven? What page? Atkins/It's on the consent calendar, it's the annual form we have to fill out. Kanner/54 resolution e(1), 3e(1). Lehman/Right. Champion/Oh okay. Atkins/Sure. Kanner/And then e(2) that same resolution, could you refresh my memory on how the Project Green part of that beautification is going? Atkins/That's finished, they did their plantings last year, so far presume everything is taken, if you' 11 remember during the capital improvement project discussion that we talked about the possibility of Dubuque Street enhancement, fix it up, make it look like nice, and it was over $400,000, we set aside just simply as a matter of priority, we've learned of this grant, it's somewhat of a stretch but we figured This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 13 we'd talk a rim at it anyway to do that project, so it's Dubuque Street entranceway beautification. Wilbtkm/Roll the dice and see what happens. Atkins/Roll the dice yea. ITEM NO. 3e(7). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLIC HOUSING ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (PHAS) MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS CERTIFICATION OF THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR FY2001. Kanner/And then e(7) the Public Housing Assessment System Management Operation Certification, could you explain that briefly. Atkins/Yea it's our public housing units, approximately 100. What we have to do is send off to the Department of Housing and Community, Housing and Urban Development of the Federal Government, a whole list of management assessment issues, it's 9 pages, they ask us for questions and I don't mean to sound disparaging to the Federal Government but the number, the date the Public Housing Authority implemented it's current cooperative system of tracking and reporting crime to police authorities, the total number of units inspected by the uniformed (can't hear). I mean it's just a whole series of detailed questions that we have to fill out and send off, they then, the Feds. go through the answers to these questions and do an assessment of our management of public housing units. Kauner/Did we get this last year? I remember we got something last year and it was in the packet and wondering why. Atkins/No, You didn't, you wouldn't have gotten this, as far as I know, you can get it electronically, we can send it to you, I don't recall ever sending this out Steve but. Kanner/There was something else with public housing and evaluation. Atkins/It could be the voucher and certificate program where we have to fill out somewhat the same sort of thing, I mean your welcome to see this, it's just not going to mean. Kanner/Could I get a copy? Atkins/Sure. Kauner/Thank you. Pfab/I'd like a copy of it too. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 14 Atkins/You want one okay. Kanner/Because we're the housing authority. Atkins/You are the housing authority, fight, these are all management kinds of questions and your certainly welcome to have them, I'll get copies for you. ITEM 3e(17). CONSIDER A MOTION APPROVING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDS TO THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (IDED) FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING A BROWNFIELD RECLAMATION PROJECT AND COMMITMENT BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT SAID PROJECT. Kanner/And e(17) I'm going to ask to be most likely to pull from the consent calendar, it says we're applying for a grant for Brownfield reclamation. The reason I, in less I get information here that will. Atkins/Sure. Kanner/Make it that we shouldn't pull it from the consent calendar is that we're also being asking to spend up to $500,000 in local funding to match that. So I think that' s something that's important that should go beyond just the consent calendar. Atkins/It's approved by motion, this is a program we became aware of through the state, to date we have not been able to receive any state or federal, we had tried for state or federal money, had not succeeded, teamed of this program, this is the current public works site, the comer of the highway and Riverside Drive. If we could ever get some moneys to do that, it's about a $2 million dollar project. Our intent was that it's a grant program available, let's take a mn at it, what was the term, roll the dice. Lehman/Steve if we were to receive that grant, is there a time frame that we have to do the project? Atkins/Yes, sure, I'm sure it's several years, we'd begin to build the project, yea. Lehman/I mean just, if we receive the grant. Atkins/We wanted to get, basically Emie we wanted to get oil in the water, if it's available to us, because we're going to again moving off of that site over the next few years anyway and it's taken, at least take advantage of any federal money that might be available. (can't hear) Karin. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 15 Vanderhoef/I don't see the point then of pulling this off, this is a program that we lobbied hard through the League of Cities to get the funding number one and a year ago they put $3 million in it and they could have used $300 million, this year they only put $2 million in it and with the dollars available at the state legislature, this money may well go away, I say let's go forward with it, I see no point in pulling this off, I will. Arkins/Our chances are really slim. Vanderhoef/Right, this is just one of those (can't hear). Kanner/Well Dee the point just answer Dee's question Karin first. The point Karin that I'm making is that is a significant venture that we're attempting, not that I would want to vote against it but I think it's something that doesn't quite belong in the consent calendar that we should bring it out so the public knows about it and we're also being asked to possibly fund up to $500,000, possibly in kind contributions and not just cash but I think it's important them be that kind of discussion possibly among us and you say what you said tomorrow and also for the public to have a chance to comment on it if they'd like, beyond just the ordinary consent. Vanderhoef/I think that all of that comes about in my mind at least is at the time that we receive word that we have received a grant, then that also gives us time to look at our whole capital improvement plan and so forth. There's never any reason why we have to accept a grant, so yes we routinely have grants applied for and I think this is one of those routine ones that we should just go forward with and if we get it. Pfab/I have a comment here Dee and that is I think that not in the very distant past it was mentioned by somebody at this table that sometimes if a council person does something on their own everyone should be involved with it. All the people should have access of what's going on, and I'm not so sure here that this isn't something that anybody on the Council should not be informed as we go along. Now you say we can turn down a grant if we get it which we may not get, but at the same time we're also, if we get the grant we are automatic, and then we go ahead with it we are automatically committed to $500,000 a half a million dollars of citizens money. So I think that I think Steve's point is correct, I think this is something we should discuss, bring up some information and just talk about it. Wilburn/I'd like to point out, this is a consent calendar item, and if there's not consent then. Lehman/Then it comes off the calendar. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 16 Wilburn/And we move on so. Lehman/There are two. Franklin/Could I just give you some information? Lehman/Would you. Franklin/We have already, and I'm presuming this already has gone through the Council for your authority. In pursuing money from the federal government for this same project. What this $500,000 is is $500,000 from the state that would diminish our local match for the federal dollars that we potentially could get so at some point you already said we could go ahead and pursue the grant at the federal level which we have been doing to get a line item allocation for CDBG funds which would have meant we had a million dollar match from the city for a million dollars from the Feds. What this does is it allows us to get $500,000 from the state so that our local match in fact it's only $500,000 so it's kind of the same thing of something we've already been going after. Okay. Kanner/Thanks Pfab/Well if there's no change then why does it have to be on here? Lehman/Because it is for state. Atkins/The resolution for this, often grants require resolution to the legislative body, often they do not, this one requires one so that's why it's on your agenda. Pfab/I would support not it being separated from the consent calendar. Lehman/All right we'll just move on. Kanner/Yea it's not a big thing. Lehman/I think though for example the bus facility that we're going to be cutting a ribbon on in a couple of weeks, that grant of money we've had for like four years or five. Atkins/Oh addition to Old Capital Town Center, yea we stretched that one out about as far as we could stretch it. Lehman/No what I'm trying to say is even if we were successful in getting the grant it may be not be something that would have to be spent until it worked into our budget so. Anyway we're going to pull it out. Your going to suggest tomorrow Steve that we take it out. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 17 Atkins/Setting it aside folks is not a problem, to vote on it separately, it's not a problem. Lehman/We'll just vote on it separately okay. Okay other agenda items. ITEM 3d(5). CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC DISCUSSION FOR SEPTEMBER 25 ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WINTER 2001- 2002 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Karr/Mr. Mayor I have one, late this aftemoon we were asked by staff to add an item, it is posted, certainly if Council does not wish to do it we can remove it but it's a motion setting a public discussion for September 25 on the deer management plan, the committee met late this afternoon. Lehman/Okay. Pfab/Where would that go at? Karr/That will be on the consent calendar, I will pass it out tomorrow night, it's going to be on page 3, it's going to be 3d(5) and we'll pass it out tomorrow evening if it's okay. Lehman/3d(5) okay. Any other questions on the consent calendar or the agenda? Okay. First Avenue Sidewalk (IP1 of 9/6 Info. Packet) Lehman/First Avenue Sidewalk. Atkins/Let me give you a quick update on that, first of all there's a memo in your info. packet, paragraph 3 where it says the south property is estimated to cost $20,000, it's $2,000. Champion/Oh I couldn't believe that I read that $20,000. Atkins/$2,000, the machine hiccuped. Pfab/What page is that one in the? Champion/I am so glad to hear that. Atkins/First Avenue Sidewalk memo paragraph three, it's $20,000. Champion/I drove by that and I thought there's not a lot of work here how could this possibly be, good. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 18 Atkins/So we apologize for making your hand shake when you were reading your agenda so. Here's where we are on this project, we talked about it at the last work session, we've talked to the property owner of Mountclaire Apartments and there's only two property's, there' s the one the Thomas' the $2,000, the Mountclaire Apartment project is estimated about $50,000 because it requires a retaining wall. Now I did not sense on the part of the Council and the fact that it would be a special assessment that we could get a unanimous vote rather than go through the whole process of preparing a special assessment we're bringing it back to you for just one final time of discussion. We talked about it amongst the staff in an attempt and the issue was raised the other evening when you all talked about it about some sort of a cost sharing with Mountclaire. We have a little bit of a philosophical problem there in that Mountclaire is a for profit owned to make a profit owned rental properties. And we have traditionally not made cost sharing deals with businesses on those set of circumstances. Generally under our code everybody puts their sidewalk in at the time they build their home and it's paid for and it's done. The question I have for you is are you willing to allow us to have some negotiation room with the owner of the Mountclaire Apartments in order to put a project together outside the special assessment process? Pfab/Could you review the special assessment process? Atkins/Egad!! Pfab/Just real simple, real simple. Atkins/I'm going to make Chuck do this. Pfab/I mean I would be, I would lean towards that unless there are reasons why we shouldn't. Atkins/It's a very difficult process. Pfab/Okay that's what I'm asking. Chuck Schmadeke/There are several resolutions that are required but the primary one is that resolution of necessity where the Council determines that the project is a necessary city project and that' s the resolntion it would take 7 Council Members to approve if the larger project, the owners of the larger project would object to the special assessment. Pfab/Okay is there any reason why it was a necessity? Lehman/That' s the choice of the Council. Atkins/And that's the judgment call that you all have to make. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 19 Pfab/Yea but I mean other people have sidewalks, is there any reason why I mean that they shouldn't be? Champion/We have areas in town where we don't have sidewalks that are complete, Dubuque Street is a perfect example, one side of the street has a total sidewalk and the other side doesn't, for the reason it would be prohibitive to put it in. Lehman/I think the point is it's a matter of opinion. You could say I do not believe it's a necessity therefore I will not vote for the resolution of necessity it takes seven votes which means it takes one council person to stop the process of the special assessment. Is that correct? Atkins/Yes. Pfab/But is there a reason why, I mean this is a, obviously a financial stable organization and why wasn't the sidewalk put in when it was done? Lehman/It wasn't required. Atkins/I'm assuming at the time Irvin it wasn't required, it's 30 years old. Pfab/What happens when other places, what has been the precedent for places where the sidewalk was not put in because it was required and then the city changes it's mind and said? Atkins/Very generally in my time most of the property owners we contact you just let them know and they'll put it in, this one is just extraordinarily expensive. Pfab/Well but couldn't that have been part of the planning and plotting? Lehman/But it wasn't and that's why where we are. Atkins/There's nothing we can do about that, yea, we inherited this one. O'Donnell/It was required. Kanner/We have no code that speaks to putting in sidewalks besides this procedure. Atkins/Let me add. Kanner/Requirement of the sidewalk. Schmadeke/There's nothing permitted under state law except the special assessment process if the Council desires to move forward with the project. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 20 Pfab/I would ask the question are we getting into more details than we should here at a work session? Champion/No. Lehman/It's on the agenda. Pfab/Okay, that's all right, no that fine, I was just wondering. Because is, so if you have, how do you decide that these people are going to be an exception, or this organization is going to be an exception where other people aren't? Atkins/That' s the problem Irvin. Kanner/That' s where Council makes the decision. Lehman/That's where we are right now. Atkins/It's called a decision, you get the good portion of deciding of that. Pfab/I would say that I can't see any reason if what all the work that's going on over there why that sidewalk shouldn't be put in, I mean I just, that's. Lehman/I think we all agree that sidewalk should be put in the question is do we want to go through a special assessment which would require seven votes of the Council or do we wish to do it in another fashion and still see the sidewalk put in. I think the question is because of the extraordinary cost of the sidewalk do we want to enable our city staff to work with the owners and try to come up with some project where the city will share in the cost of the sidewalk to some degree? Pfab/Do we do it, have we ever done it on other places? So in other words what I'm saying is is this just an exercise of futility, why don't we go find out and see if we can get the special assessment through if it don't go then we can (can't hear). Lehman/That' s what we're talking about that, it takes seven votes to pass a resolution of necessity. Kanner/I raised some objection last time, one of the things that I asked was especially with one of the property owners being Thomas, there was another problem with another ordinance and I asked if the Mayor could talk with him specifically. Pfab/Okay. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 21 Karmer/I'm not so concerned about the other for profit places you mentioned, that' s my major concern fight now. And you said you would attempt to talk to them, and I wondered if that dialogue happened. Lehman/I haven't had a chance, perhaps I could talk to them tomorrow even. Kanner/In my mind that' s an important thing to have that because that' s one of the things he complained about publicly was that there wasn't that dialogue happening either with the neighborhood or city officials. Pfab/Okay, I just wanted information that's all. Vanderhoef/I guess I have (can't hear). Would that include the sidewalk on the empty lot or only in front of the lot that has the house on it? Atkins/There's only, he owns that second lot, that's what's being required to be, that's the last piece, it's Mountclaire Apartments and that one lot which is a double lot, it's a double wide lot that he has to be put sidewalk on. Vanderhoef/So two lots have been made into one now. Atkins/Yes, the walk is in the one part, it's just the one that, that one lot and the apartment complex. Lehman/Is there any way that a property owner can have a voluntary assessment for sidewalk improvement? Atkins/I don't know how you do voluntary Emie without some sort of contractual arrangement between it so it goes with the property, unless you sell it. Lehman/My only thought was for example, if there was a way it could be paid for by voluntary assessment you could spread it out over five or ten years or whatever. Atkins/Well the assessment process does spread it over what is it ten years? Schmadeke/Yes. Atkins/Yea it's ten year that you get to do that. Pfab/On both cases, on both properties they would have a ten year. Atkins/Sure. Pfab/So I mean and the sidewalk for the Thomas' property instead of $20,000 it's how This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 22 Lehman/$2,000. Atkins/$2,000. Pfab/Okay so that' s $200 a year. Atkins/Plus interest. Kanner/Plus 30 percent. Atkins/Yea you have to, Steven's right is that the whole special assessment process tacks on reserves and other things, it piles up the cost, a $50,000 project is really about $65,000 1 would suspect. Pfab/If it's not paid for 10 years. Kanner/I had a question, there's talk about First Avenue being widened there or other places, how would that affect sidewalks that are put in now, would they just be tom up in a few years? Schmadeke/If they interfered with the project yes, then they'd be replaced as part of the project. Kanner/Now I know, this was instigated in part, we had some people that their child had trouble walking down First Avenue, but if we're just going to be possibly tearing them up again in a few years, it might behoove us to hold off a few years to do this. Vanderhoef/Well that was part of my question with the eight foot versus the. Lehman/10. Arkins/But you would have a sidewalk all the way from Scott Boulevard to the Highway if we get this one little section finished out. And remember we pestered the school district for about 10 years and they finally put there's in. Vanderhoef/From Rochester not from Scott Boulevard. Atkins/Yea, yea, excuse me, well it would cross, no First Avenue has a sidewalk all the way. Vanderhoef/On one side. Atkins/On one side. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 23 Lehman/What would we like to do? Pfab/Okay what, okay what is the option? Vanderhoef/I think the special assessment is fair way to do it if they choose not to voluntarily do it. Lehman/But the special assessment. Vanderhoef/Because it will spread out the cost over a period of time. Lehman/And increase it by 30 percent. Vanderhoef/And that's a choice that the owner can make. Atkins/We believe the owner of Mountclaire will object and therefore will require the unanimous vote of the Council. Vanderhoef/I'm just stating where I am with this. Kanner/We might want to consider Economic Development Funding as a possible soume for Mountclaire if it becomes to that, negotiate, thinking about it, I think it might be good if the Mayor talked with both parties with staff there. Lehman/I'd be glad to do that, I think there' s an extraordinary cost involved with Mountclaim property, I mean there' s a bank there that' s got to be either a retaining wall or put in or you've got to regrade the yard I think if you don't put a retaining wall in and that' s why we're looking at such an expensive project. Vanderhoef/And there is big electrical poles there to so. Lehman/I don't think we'd have to move those. Atkins/We think we can get around that, the engineer says so. Vanderhoef/The west side of it. Atkins/Yea. Lehman/I don't think we would not be talking about this if it were not for First Avenue having being completed so I guess the question could be posed if the timing of the sidewalk precipitated by the city' s completion of First Avenue and then wanting this link to go all the way to City High School and beyond and if that is precipitated by our finishing the street is there an argument that is logical for us to This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 24 participate in the cost of doing a sidewalk which might not have been necessary to do for a few more years. Pfab/Well the citizen's spoke, they voted. Lehman/They didn't vote on a sidewalk. Pfab/No they voted on the First Avenue project. Lehman/I'm well aware of that. Champion/I would like to (can't hear). Pfab/So that's, when the decision, when you make a decision you accept the responsibility. Atkins/We can talk to the parties, do we have authority to share the cost? Lehman/That's the question we have right here? Atkins/That's your question. Lehman/Is there interest on the part of the Council in helping to share the cost of this sidewalk on those two properties? Pfab/I'm reluctant to at this point. O'Donnell/Your talking the two properties (can't hear). Champion/Mountclaire. Lehman/Either both (can't hear). Atkins/I do believe if you assist Mr. Thomas other residential property owners will have an expectation in the future. Pfab/Well so will Mountclaire if you assist Mountclaire. Arkins/And secondly if you assist a for profit venture I can almost assure you (can't hear). Pfab/Line up all the way out to the parking lot. Kanner/And we do in a sense assist others through the Longfellow PiN grants we've assisted people, so I would say talk, negotiate, but keep in mind also that we want This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 25 to use public money like we've used in the past to low income folks, possibly some Economic Development money if it's appropriate, a small percentage for the commercial venture. Pfab/I would ask a simple question. What percentage of the value of that property would the sidewalk consist of?. What is the value of that property, $2 or $3 million dollars? Atkins/Oh I would suspect Irvin, I don't have any units, a small amount. Pfab/No but I mean it's a relative small amount. (END OF 01-79 SIDE TWO) Pfab/Too ifI thought I wouldn't have to pay. Lehman/So what do we want to do? VanderhoefJ Either one of these properties falling in the low income. Champion/No. Vanderhoef/Or need for economic development kinds of dollars. We have guidelines for income and I don't think either one probably would fall into the proper category. Champion/Because other wise, yea I think your fight. Vanderhoef/Personally I still think the assessment is the fairest way to go unless they choose to voluntarily do it themselves. O'Donnell/Doesn't it seem to make sense to speak with them first and then make this decision? Champion/Yea I do. Lehman/Have we spoken with them? Atkins/Yes. Vanderhoef/To speak with them yes but are you say negotiate to pay for it? O'Donnell/I'm talking finding out where we are Dee. Atkins/We talked to the ownership of Mountclaire. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 26 Vanderhoef/Okay. Pfab/And they said that they are objective. Atkins/What do you have to offer was somewhat. Pfab/Sure. Lehman/Now if they object to putting the sidewalk in, the only way if I understand this correctly that we can put the sidewalk in is by a 7-0 vote of this Council to do an assessment. Atkins/Yes, right. Lehman/That' s the only way it's going to get in. Atkins/Unless you put in yourself. Pfab/I would say go for it, try it. Lehman/Well I think we need to some indication if we have seven folks on this Council willing to proceed with that, I mean I'm perfect, we have talked to the folks, we know, apparently we know that they are not going to do this voluntarily. Champion/Voluntarily. Kanner/No Ernie we, but we, the understand I had leaving last meeting is that you representing the Council were going to talk at least to James Thomas and I think that's important to do before I'm ready to vote with the rest of Council perhaps. Lehman/Okay I'll tell you what Steven if you or Chuck, make, set, call me to set up a time and I'll meet with you and the folks and we'll talk about it and then we can discuss this again two weeks from tonight. Atkins/Okay. Pfab/Great idea. Lehman/Fair enough. O'Donnell/We made a decision. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 27 Lehman/All right Regulation of Wetlands is the next item, and this is brought up because of apparently. Oh we have another regulation to take care of until 8:00 folks, we're going to take a break. Okay let's get started again. Regulation of Wetlands (I]72 of 9/6 Info. Packet) Lehman/The next item is Regulation of Wetlands, is there someone? Atkins/I'm sorry I was being distracted by a Council member. Lehman/Don't ever be sorry by being distracted by a council person. Atkins/Oh okay, so my question is what did you say? Lehman/Otherwise you'd be sorry all the time, you'd be the sorriest City Manager we ever had. Arkins/Yea, yea, yea, okay, now the question sir. Pfab/Find out how far down that road we want to go. Kanner/Are our wetlands all washed up? Atkins/No. You have in your packet as we discussed as a staff the positions of your professional staff, there's a diversion of opinion, I felt compelled to bring them both to you, I can say that the overwhelming majority of the staff people that participated in the discussion felt that we should follow basically what the Supreme Court decided, the somewhat minority opinion was that we would still like to identify the isolated wetlands say a proposed study and that would be our policy. If we were to do that then we would have to amend our sensitive areas ordinance because it does satisfy the Corps of Engineer's. Okay, Karin's nodding yes so I said it all right. Lehman/Okay. Atkins/So it's somewhat again up to you all. Vanderhoef/I have a question for Karin, do you have a sense of without going into doing the study which is not what I'm interested in just a sense of how many of these isolated wetlands we might have in our territorial boundaries? Franklin/No I'm afraid I don't, and I mean that's part of the problem and you can take a guess at it by you know looking at farm ponds or looking at the map like that big sensitive areas map that we have but that, that is not necessarily comprehensive This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 28 and it's not detailed enough to know that in fact those areas where it denotes hydrex soils that you have all of the characteristics of a wetland. Vanderhoef/Okay. Franklin/You have to actually get down in the dirt. Champion/Karin, are you done? Vanderhoef/Go ahead. Champion/What you've done now is the wetlands are destroyed, they have to be rebuilt somewhere, is that (can't hear)? Franklin/Well that's one of the things that has been allowed under federal law and is also allowed under our local ordinance to a degree, that if you destroy the wetlands then you have to provide compensating wetlands if in fact what you destroy is the jurisdictional wetlands. Champion/And you identify those when a developer comes in with a plot to develop, that' s when they're really identified. Franklin/And nothing will change for those wetlands that either feed directly into the Iowa River or there' s my reference in my memorandum about the blue line and the USGS maps so if you look at a map, I mean any of the major streams, anything that' s not an intermittent stream, if you have a wetland that feeds into that stream, it will still be covered by our sensitive areas ordinance, what we don't know is the extent to which there are these what are called isolated wetlands. For instance when we were looking one time to have a road connection between Rochester and Hickory Trail as an alternative to First Avenue, and we were looking for a road connection between those two streets. We looked at putting a road through the Smith property, when we did that we did an environmental evaluation and found on the side of the hill what's called a perched wetland, no place where you would expect to find it, but there was this small area that had the characteristics of wetlands, it was wet, it had hydophetic vegetation and it had some period of inundation although we don't know why because it was on the side of the hill but with the clay soils in Iowa you find that sometimes. So it's those kinds of things that I can't tell you how many there are or how big they are. Champion/Did that work pretty well? I mean you've been doing it for a long time, the old way, with the old rules. Franklin/Well, yea, I mean the old rules have been working and that whenever we had a suspension because of the sensitive areas map or because you had a stream or something that someone would have to do an evaluation of whether they had This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 29 wetlands or not. What we're talking about at this point is whether we have to go that extra piece and also you called in the Corps to do an evaluation which we wouldn't have the resource on the isolated wetlands. We also wouldn't look at old sand pits, we wouldn't look at farm ponds, which under the old rules those fell under the jurisdiction of the Corps because of the way they interpreted the clean water act. Vanderhoef/Okay if we held off on changing our ordinance, I suspect that at the state level there may be a push to identify these and in that I suspect also that the state would direct the Corps Of Engineers to continue to evaluate those forests or could they do that? Franklin/Well it probably would, no the state would direct the DNR to do it. Vanderhoef/The DNR. Franklin/Not the Corps, because the Corps, is the highest jurisdiction. The movement at the state level as I understand it has to do with a kind of geology that you find in some parts of Iowa which is called "Carst topography" where you have sink holes because the way the land is formed. And those sink holes are kind of isolated areas that then are stink and they have water in them and they have the other characteristics ofwetlands. To my knowledge we do not have that kind of topography here in southeast Iowa but it's more prevalent in central and north central Iowa. Champion/We have a sink hole. Franklin/Pardon me. Champion/We have a sink hole that's growing. Franklin/I know down at the old dump. Vanderhoef/That' s jurisdictional (can't hear). Lehman/We put asphalt in that. Franklin/We fill that with asphalt not with water. Kanner/Steve I don't think you meant to say that the Supreme Court is saying that we cannot regulate it, in fact they are saying that it's up to local people, local states and local regions and cities to make that decision that the only thing the Supreme Court is saying is that the Federal Government cannot regulate the isolated wetlands. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 30 Atkins/Yes, right. Kanner/So they're actually saying we make the decision. Atkins/Yes. Kanner/And that's what we're about. Atkins/That' s correct. Kanner/A couple things I would ask that the Council not make an informal or formal decision tonight that although this technically we're not changing an ordinance we are in the spirit changing the ordinance if we say we're going to keep things the way they are now we're changing the sensitive areas ordinance, although we don't have to do that by resolution because the courts have done that already. So I would say in a sense we are changing an ordinance and we should allow the public to comment on that and we should make a formal resolution at a formal council meeting about what we're going to do, if we're going to accept the ordinance as it is now without a Corps of Engineers definition or if we're going to bring it back to our former definition that we had before the Supreme Court decision. Lehman/Aren't we in a position right now where we are abiding by the Supreme Court decision? So right, I mean it would take a positive action on the part of the Council to revert back to what we started with. And Karin I have a question for you, when the ordinance with the guidelines that we have been using up until the Supreme Court decision, we're we using guidelines that were set out by the Feds. for those? I mean what we adopted were federal guidelines which now a change, is that correct? Franklin/Right. Lehman/Okay, so now our map if you will to start with was the federal map or the federal concept of what constituted wetlands and did not and that's why now. Franklin/With the limitations that map has. Lehman/Right, and now barring any future action of the Council we are still going to the federal regulations which are now less stringent than they were before is that correct? Franklin/Right, right. Kanner/And Ernie the point that I'm making that your correct but I think we should affirm that we're going to stick with that if that's the intent of the majority of This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 31 Council in a resolution so that people have the opportunity to comment on it at a formal meeting. We've had this problem before where decisions whether of a decision in a positive nature or a decision of just not doing anything were made at the meetings and people didn't have a chance to comment and I think we need to allow that, this is something that has big concern within the community, there's a lot of people, we heard from a couple of people a month ago or so that had concern and I think we ought to hear from them. I would also say that we should just as Julie had mentioned in her memo should try to get a gage on how many isolated wetlands there are and what the cost is for us to regulate in the same fashion that we did before. Karin you said that it would cost staff time and money to do that something that perhaps the Corps of Engineer did more of and we should look at what those cost figures are before we make a decision. Champion/When you deal with the Department of Natural Resources are we charged for that? I mean if they would take over our isolated wetlands for us? I mean whatever you have to do to mitigate them or whatever. Franklin/Well they don't, they don't actually take it over, when we consult with. Champion/I mean is there a consultant? Franklin/What happens is the property owner, the developer has to get, I think it's called a 404 permit and they get that from the Corps of Engineers, now if the state were to enact some legislation that required a certain permitting to cover other wetlands beyond that the Corps covered then the property owner would need to get a permit so the city doesn't pay anything as far as that is concemed, where the costs are to the city is in the staff time to work with the developer to evaluate where the wetlands are and if we're going to do this as a local issue as opposed to a state issue then it would be our regulatory body, our staff that would need to have knowledge in wetlands delineation and then work with the developers directly on the mitigation that was necessary. Now some of those same skills that Julie uses now for the other wetlands that we still regulate would be in play, and there are wetland specialists with various engineering consulting firms in town. So it is something we could contract for too. But if we're going to have a regulation that is just a local rule then we need to have some level of expertise on staff to work with the developer's to get through that. Lehman/Are there any rules similar to this in any jurisdictions around us? I mean I would assme Coralville, the Cotmty. Franklin/When you jurisdiction around us, Coralville, North Liberty, the County? Lehman/Well all of the County is subject to the same federal regulations as we are is that correct? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 32 Franklin/Right. Lehman/Beyond that there are no other regulations. Franklin/No, I mean none of the other jurisdictions yet have a sensitive areas ordinance, the County is looking at it but they haven't done it yet. Lehman/Well what's our pleasure? Vanderhoef/I have a suggestion, since this is new, since there is interest from our environmental groups which I agree with you that there are people interested in staying with similarly what we have now, I would like to wait until after at least this legislative session to see if it is addressed at the state level before we go through the process ourself and we can be part of that process if we choose to make a recommendation to the state legislature that we do or don't want increased coverage and the DNR to take action on this and likewise our local citizens would be good folk to lobby for their special interest of this, but I think we're too soon at this point in time and I'd like to get the state an opportunity to take it over in an even fashion as we have had previously. Champion/I like that too. Pfab/I have two questions or comments. At this point, is there, there is no staying action that says things have to remain as they were before the Supreme Court. Have we at this point lost, or have any wetland areas been demolished or covered over since that? Atkins/I don't think so. Franklin/The only circumstance that I am aware of and this is for the public project with Scott Boulevard in which under the old law we would have had to consider the farm pond that is on the Kral farm as a wetland and done mitigation. As it turns out the way the alignment of Scott Boulevard is being done it doesn't hit the pond anyway and so it's not an issue but that was one of the things we were looking at the alignment and the engineering for Scott Boulevard down to Rochester from the ACT property that we had some wetland mitigation to do, we still have some to do in the Ralston Creek branch that goes up through that property and there's a wetland there that is under our jurisdiction, sensitive areas, and the Corps that we have to mitigate but the farm pond which previously would have been included is no longer included. Pfab/Okay is there a way? Franklin/But it's not going to be destroyed as it turns out anyway. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 33 Pfab/Is there a way that we can keep things as they were until we decide what to do? Can we put a freeze action and if not what do we have to do to get it the way it was? Franklin/What the code, we would have to amend the sensitive areas ordinance, what the code says now is that jurisdictional wetlands are those as defined by the Corps and you've got the exact language in the memorandums that are in your packet. And so if were to do something different from how they are defined by the Corps of Engineers and the Supreme Court decision we would have to make an amendment to our code to more exactly describe them. Pfab/Could we go and amend the code and say on a temporary basis say 6 months or a year things will be the same as they were according to the Corps of Engineers, is there a way to do that? Franklin/You can do anything you want to do but it requires some processes to do that which would mean going through an ordinance amendment, taking it through the Planning & Zoning Commission, going through the City Council to change the sensitive areas ordinance and then six months hence doing it over again to change it back to whatever you decided. Pfab/Okay. Franklin/If your talking about doing it temporarily. Vanderhoef/And staffing. Franklin/Yes, and something in that interim so that we had the expertise on staff to take care of it. Pfab/Is it agreed that the wetlands ordinance and preservation of those wetlands however they're described is a benefit to the city? Is that? Franklin/The debate, the debate is whether the cost of identifying, regulating and mitigating these smaller isolated wetlands that have been taken out of the definition that the benefit of that is worth the cost, both to the city and to the private sector, that's the debate. Pfab/Okay at this point as we start getting into what it is storm water management, are these wetlands going to have an increased value? Atkins/I doubt where these isolated will have a dramatic effect on storm water management, or that's my gut reaction. Karin. Franklin/Yea because what we're talking. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 34 Atkins/We're using very small and very isolated and simply don't have that same contributing factor to the quality of water. Franklin/Clearly the larger wetlands and the wetlands that feed into our streams and into the Iowa River are still going to be regulated. Pfab/How? Franklin/Just as we are now. Pfab/Under what, if the Corps of Engineers doesn't do that. Franklin/No they do, they do. Lehman/They do that. Pfab/Oh okay so those parts are not changed, and so what I think I'm hearing people that are knowledgeable about this are saying that the small ones may not be worth, it's the kind of consensus that they're not worth saving as far as benefits to the city and the cost and the cost that goes with it. Lehman/(Can't hear). Franklin/As far as we know without having done an extensive evaluation that's exactly where they are, but that's the general statement yea. Pfab/My concern was were they going to be wiped out and if so were they going to be an irrevocable loss, a valuable loss, a loss that had value to it. Atkins/But you also know we're in the process of creating our own wetlands, the south Sycamore regional, with our own public resources we're creating a wetland because, we're expanding in affect the inventory of wetlands. Pfab/Because they have value, the wetlands have value. Atkins/Yes. Pfab/Okay so ifthere's no value. Atkins/The purpose is to clean the water. Pfab/Obviously over under the next 100 years we're going to need to have a lot greater need of water here for the city. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 35 Lehman/Well the question really is do we want to proceed as we are? Champion/I like Dee's. Lehman/Using the federal standards which have changed from the federal standards that we originally adopted or do we wish to make our own standards more stringent? Now we can go the way we are see what happens if it turns out that we run into difficulties that we feel merit a change in the sensitive areas ordinance to make it more restrictive we can do that, we can decide now we want to do that or we can leave everything alone and see what happens. Kanner/Well one I think Dee I think your ideas takes the idea of waiting to make it seem like that's keeping the status quo, and in a sense status quo was protection for isolated wetlands and I think we owe it to the citizens of Iowa City to continue to protect those and then put a sunset clause in there that says within 6 months or 8 months we may change that, we'll have to reexamine that, having said that I think we need to look at making it even stronger, we have evidence that mitigation is not as successful as original wetlands and we need to talk about perhaps cutting back on allowing mitigation and preserving wetlands. I think Julie makes a very strong case about what wetlands do, it slows the water down much more than storm water detention basins do, it cleans the water, it attracts birds that make living in Iowa City more worthwhile and I think you can put a price on it and you sometimes you can't put a price on that kind of thing but that's what makes it exciting to be in Iowa City and we need to encourage that she talks about Pelicans and Heron's going through Iowa City and they're attracted in part by some of these wetlands, some connected to rivers, some isolated. I think we are a leader, we found out that wetlands are beneficial to our city and our economy and I think we ought to put a moratorium on any further destruction of isolated wetlands. Pfab/That's the area that I would support in a sense tmtil we either decide, and maybe this is an ace that should be brought into, the public should be brought more into in making it's decision and public hearing I think you mentioned that earlier and I don't know the answer but I know the wetlands once they're gone they're very difficult to retrieve. Wilburn/I guess the part for me that, the concern that I have about not continuing to go back to look at some of the smaller wetland areas is related to flood control. Since we don't know how many there are I don't know how closely they are the accumulative affect might affect you know a new development go in and having you know someone show up with pictures of you know a back yard, yea, I mean that's kind of why I would lean towards trying to get some type of assessment of. Lehman/But a storm water management ordinance will prohibit development if it doesn't control rim off anyway. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 36 Wilburn/Well the question there is then will it be as affective? Will it hold as much water as? Lehman/Well I think the calculations, we have calculations that are required, I mean we do a subdivision or a development we have to control whether it be by wetlands, by storm water management or whatever, the detention basin, we've got to control run off now. Franklin/Chuck can probably speak to this better than I being an engineer but the storm water detention ordinance that we have is going to do a better job of controlling those storm occurrences and holding back the quantity. Wilbum/Okay. Franklin/The issue with wetlands is that of quality and the filtering that it does, but it's not necessarily, well it's going to contribute to storm water management in that it allows for the infiltration within that wetland. But if your building up all around a wetland you couldn't depend upon that wetland alone to handle the storm water management quantity that you would need to for storm water detention. Wilbung What about looking at quality though in terms of the numbers of these smaller wetlands since we will have to monitor I mean we're looking at in the future some type of impact fee, I mean if we know where some of these smaller areas are would that possibly be a reduction in a fee that we might have to collect from folks? Do you see where I'm going with that? Franklin/I think so although I think that our thinking so far has been kind of in the other direction in terms of going more regionally with storm water detention in which we build into the detention as we're doing with the south sycamore drainage area, the quality filtration as well as detention, I mean and that project it not only deals with detention over a fairly large water shed, it also deals with water quality. But your doing it then in a regional way as opposed to having these small isolated pockets and that's combining those two goals of controlling quantity as well as quality. Wilbum/I see what your saying. Pfab/I believe what I would state here, what my position is that I believe these are wetlands are potential asset to the city and as a result I would definitely encourage a moratorium until we either go back to where it was prior to the Supreme Court decision or having something that maybe is even stronger than that but at the same time I would also think that it would be a good idea to have the public input as to people that are a lot more involved and concerned than I might be. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 37 Vanderhoef/When you say a moratorium, are you saying do nothing with an isolated wetland during this moratorium period? Pfab/Right, in other words stand in place. Vanderhoef/Then what I would ask of you is how will that affect development? With the present rules that we have we have a way that we can work with the developers so they can go ahead and develop. If we put a moratorium on so that they can't do anything then what have we done? Kanner/Well I think Irvin are you saying keep the standards before the Supreme Court decision. Pfab/Right. Kanner/I think that' s what you mean by moratorium. Lehman/You can't do that without an ordinance. Vanderhoef/No. Kanner/Right, right, so. Vanderhoef/So that's a six month. Kanner/So he's not saying you have to protect every single wetland, he's saying the same standards that we've had for the last six years before the Supreme Court Vanderhoef/Well that's not a moratorium then. Kanner/Well in a sense it's a moratorium of. Pfab/I just said stand in place, I don't know what the term is, in other words things would not change, that the city would not permit change different than what it was before the Supreme Court decision until we made the study and had public input as to where to go from there. And I would say six months to a year I don't, I doubt if you can get this done in six months. Vanderhoef/Well that's just it, and that' s why I would suggest waiting until after one round of the legislature to see if they take care of it. Pfab/But then your six months behind again. Vanderhoef/I understand that. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 38 Pfab/I mean that's what I'm saying and then you have the potential for damage being done to them. Lehman/Well I think first of all the major wetlands are protected by the Corps, I mean the big, anything that blows into a creek or stream or whatever is protected by the Feds. that's under federal jurisdiction. Apparently we're talking about small isolated wetlands that could be pockets on a side of a hill or ponds or whatever. Personally I would do nothing with this until it becomes apparent that we're, that it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't know that we can say there is a problem if we address the jurisdictional wetlands that the Feds are covering. Pfab/Is it possible that we could have a public hearing on it so the people that have knowledge and are more concerned about this? Lehman/I think the only way you can get a public hearing is if we have a proposed ordinance. Pfab/Well maybe we ought to propose an ordinance for a public hearing. Lehman/Well that's why we're talking here, are there four of us who would like to propose an ordinance to change the sensitive areas ordinance to it's former regulations? Kanner/Well Emie I would say you could, if you wanted to go with the majority, it looks like there will probably be four people keeping it the way it is now, why not, this is a little unusual but make a resolution saying we affirm the state of the sensitive areas ordinance as it is right now, that allows. Pfab/As it was before. Kanner/No, no, no, I'm saying as it is now, so you put that resolution out there, that seems to be what the majority is going toward and then that allows debate on it so it's basically a proclamation by the City Council saying that they're affirming what's in place now and this allows there to be public debate. Lehman/How do we do that Andy? Matthews/(can't hear). Lehman/I mean how do we make an ordinance that says we approve of the ordinance. Kanner/Make a resolution, it's not an ordinance, it's a resolution, basically like a proclamation or a resolution in support of something. This is a sense of the body, it's done in all elective bodies do something like that, so you basically write up a This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 39 bunch of whereas's and therefore, and so I'm saying we can, since the majority seems to want to keep things the way they are. Champion/Who are the majority? Kanner/Well you four people seem to want to keep things. Lehman/I haven't heard a word from Mike and what I heard from Connie would kind of indicate to me that (can't hear). Champion/I haven't (can't hear) nothing, I mean I think your. Kanner/So then, so do you, so then, how, what do you indicate? Champion/Don't speak for me. Kanner/Okay do you have something different your going to say? Champion/Well I mean I feel like Ross does, I think we, I mean I don't know how to do it, I don't know if I, I need to find out more how these little pockets (can't hear) I mean I'd like to have somebody tell us and how much it's going to cost if we have to have expertise on the staff. I, when you think about all the country's how they're talking about preserving wetlands, and now the governments talking about getting rid of them. Lehman/No they're not. Pfab/They're creating them. Lehman/Keeping all the major wetlands, anything that goes into a creek or a stream or whatever is protected. Champion/I know I understand that. Matthews/Anything related to (can't hear) or stream. Pfab/But right out at Iowa County they're redoing hundreds of acres claiming them. Champion/Yea they are larger. Pfab/Yes but I mean so they have value and I don't know what the value is but I think the idea is to get a public hearing some kind of an ordinance for or against I don't care, just something so the people out there that in the city and have expertise we have the benefit of that. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 40 Kanner/So then lets, if Connie if your for that let's get an ordinance out there that says we want to have it the same standards before the Supreme Court. Champion/I would like to just (can't hear) talk to a few people. Franklin/Could I just make a suggestion? Kanner/But we're not going to vote on it the next time, it's something that people bring in an ordinance our staff brings an ordinance and then we. Vanderhoef/Are you saying ordinance or resolution? Kanner/I would say an ordinance now ifConnie is in fact in favor of this, I was mistaken I apologize and there seems to be four people that would be in favor of an ordinance, we bring it forward and we discuss it at a work session and then we have to do three readings, so let' s do that then. Champion/Karin what was your suggestion? Franklin/Well it seems that and understandably that you need some more information than what you have right now, that one of the things we might be able to do is bring the sensitive areas in one of your work sessions soon, bring the sensitive areas map in and delineate those areas in which those wetlands would be regulated under the new definition and show those areas that would not be because they're not connected to a blue line or to the Iowa River. We might also talk to someone like Wayne Peterson or Lon Drake that might be able to give you some more expert advice on the nature of these wetlands and how they're regulated, I do not consider myself an expert on wetlands. Lehman/Is that going to be a big job because I really think if we knew what we were talking about as far as. Franklin/That always helps doesn't it when your making a decision. Lehman/Yea but we don't have any idea if we're talking about significant areas or almost nothing. Franklin/Yea, I know, yea I guess I'm suggesting. O'Dormell/(can't hear). Lehman/Okay, why don't we do that. Franklin/Something short of that full fledged survey that was maybe suggested in Julie's memo that won't cost us so much. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 41 Lehman/And I really would like to hear from somebody like Drake who is a real. Franklin/Okay. Kanner/How about someone from IW1N, there' s a group out them with expertise, that's lobbying on the State issue, why don't we have them also here too to talk about what's going on? Pfab/I would just. Lehman/Get a, I mean I would assume Drake will give us some sort of a written opinion. Franklin/I don't know, I mean we'll have to talk to Lon and see if. Lehman/I mean we could that same thing with those folks, we could do it at a work session. Kanner/Could we request again from IWIN? From the staff. Franklin/I think you can probably request from anybody you want, it's a matter of. Vanderhoef/Lon's really familiar with the Iowa City immediate area. Franklin/How much obj ectivity you want. Vanderhoef/Which is very helpful to us. Lehman/I think it would. Kanner/Yea, I think it would be good to have that person and also IWIN who's lobbying locally and statewide. Pfab/I would have one question, if we do what your proposing, does that put any of these in jeopardy at this point? Franklin/Right now what our local law says is that we follow the Corps definition that means we do not look at isolated wetlands. And so to do that we need to change the sensitive areas ordinance and that's the question which it appears to there needs to be more information to make that decision. Pfab/But do we? Franklin/I don't think it's cataclismitic that anything is going to happen within a short period of time within a matter of months that we are going to see a grand This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 42 disappearance of significant wetlands, we will, we will never see a disappearance of wetlands, it's the smaller ones that we're talking about. Pfab/Will we, are we subject to those? Franklin/Those smaller ones. Pfab/Yes by taking the approach that you've suggested. Franklin/Possibly but we don't know exactly where they are, I think as we look at each development project we can have this in mind, but we're not going to be doing a full fledge analysis of each piece of ground. Pfab/But we would if the part (can't hear). Franklin/It depends on what you adopt as your local. Pfab/No, no, no, before the court decision we would have done a full fledged. Franklin/If there was a suspicion that there was a wetland on the property. Pfab/Okay, that's what I would like to see as soon as possible to go back to that, to get that back in place. Kanner/Yea I would like to see a model ordinance that we could look at when we discuss this information because again by accepting what's now the status quo we risk losing these wetlands and I think we need to look at a model ordinance and to look at some of these facts and figures as much as possible. Champion/I think we need (can't hear). Vanderhoef/A model ordinance would be just to change the definition rather than say the Corps of Engineers, we would copy what the old Corps of Engineers. Kanner/Right so I don't think it will take much staff time. Vanderhoef/So I don't need to see a, I don't need to see a model ordinance, I know what it's going to be. Kanner/Well I think it's easy for the public and for us to have an ordinance before so we can look at the pros and cons of it. Pfab/But I think you're both saying the same thing, your saying a model ordinance, and I think Dee is saying that is already in document someplace that the Corps had been using. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 43 Vanderhoef] Sure. Kanned And so let's just get it up, I'd say (can't hear). Lehman/Well can I suggest that until we know what we're talking about and see what' s involved in terms of jurisdictional wetlands the ones that would not be controlled that we wait on preparing an ordinance until we find out what we're going to control. O'Donnell/It seems to make a great deal of sense. Champion/Yea. Kanner/Well again it's a delay that if we don't put a moratorium of some sort it allows development of those isolated wetlands. Champion/We can't do a moratorium. Lehman/It seems to be, from at least what I think I'm hearing is a fairly insignificant problem in the short run. Do you hear that as well? Kanner/I heard some of that but I think it could be a problem Ernie. Lehman/Well I think it might be but not if we can, Karin, I don't know how soon we could, how soon could we get these maps sort of thing? Within month, six weeks. Franklin/Oh yea. Lehman/Okay so I mean we could have this within a month or so. Kanner/And what's the problem with, if the ordinance is so simple what' s the problem with looking at it? Lehman/What's the sense of proposing an ordinance if we haven't determined if we need it? Kanner/We're looking at an ordinance, it's an orderly way to do ordinances is to have something and then say this looks good, we're going to put this on the agenda. Lehman/Well we could do that with a million ordinances, why don't we determine whether or not we feel we need it? Karmer/Because this I think helps determine it Emie I think it's a better way of doing process. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 44 Lehman/All right, how would you folks like to do this? Champion/I think we just hold off, we talk and get the information, your talking a few weeks, it's going to six months before you get an ordinance together, so I don't think it's going to, I can't make the decision to write a new ordinance until I have more information. Wilburn/I'd like to see a map and presentation (can't hear). Vanderhoef/A map is fine. O'Donnell/More information. Lehman/All right your on. Sale of Old Water Plant (IP3 of 9/6 Info. Packet) Lehman/Sale of the Water Plant. Atkins/Hopefully the memo in the packet particularly for the Council Members that weren't familiar with the issues was pretty straightforward, it's gotten down to the point where we are ready to conclude the sale to the University, following the appraisals, and reappraisals, and all sorts of assessment, that's the wrong word assessment, all sort of evaluation that went on, I need your permission to proceed, put together the final. Lehman/Well let me just comment on this for those of you folks who were not, this, the water plant and the building on the comer where the Tower Place parking facility is now located, were involved in, actually there were three different discussions with the University, we needed the building where the Tower Place is, the University wanted our water plant, there were discussions everything from an even swamp to whatever and the agreement that was reached between the Council and the University was that we would purchase that building where Tower Place is for the assessed value appraised value, pardon me, and I think that we had provisions where the University would appraise it, we would appraise it, and then if we agreed we would just purchase the property, we would then be responsible for the demolition and whatever. The other side of that coin was that the University would appraise the present water facility site, we would also appraise it, if there was a disagreement we could ask for a third appraisal and my understanding Steven if I'm not correct tell me in the absence of agreement between the University and the City that we would both of us accept a mediators recommendation. Atkins/Well a third appraisal, a review appraisal which was done. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 45 Lehman/Right, and basically we have gone through the process that we agreed to three or four years ago. Atkins/At least. Lehman/Which was I think a really good process and I think it was a fair process, we paid appraised value for the property that we had, we tore it down that we bought. And the University is now offering the appraised value for the water plant site less the cost of demolition which again was part of the formula. Atkins/In both circumstances the buildings were of little to no, Eastlawn at the time needed such major renovation that it just simply was not cost effective. And then the water plant is also of no value to them, the value is the land, and that's how we arrived at the number. Champion/Don't we have something on that land though? Atkins/What we have in our agreement with the University on the water plant site, we will preserve the jordan well, we have an agreement or about to get an agreement with them, you will be considering it tomorrow on the booster station. Champion/Right, I couldn't remember what it was. Atkins/That we're proceeding with bids, there' s a number of, we have protected our water related interests and they are okay with that but the bottom line is the site will be cleared as you know it and they may preserve the newer portion which was built about 30 some years ago for some storage and we may even work an arrangement, they want the underlying ground, that' s the important thing to them because they own everything around it. Lehman/So what you need from is a? Atkins/I just need a nod of the heads that I can put together, I will bring it, you will all have to vote on this. Lehman/The final agreement. Atkins/But I want to wrap the thing up because that's where we are now. Pfab/Let's do it. Lehman/Is that? Vanderhoef/Are we to negotiate a date for? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 46 Atkins/I will do that, I'll try to get it done as soon as we can. Lehman/We need a new water plant. Vanderhoef/Take it off line. Atkins/Oh they were very cooperative Dee, they just simply wanted to secure that land, I think that's the big issue, I mean they know full well when you flip the switch on one you automatically flip the switch on the other, so that will be fine, I don't expect any difficulties there. Vanderhoef/I want some start up time. Atkins/I will. So does Chuck. Lehman/So don't worry, my suspicion is after they acquire that property it may take them a year or two or three to get funding to do something with it anyway. Atkins/Yea. Lehman/Okay. Council time. Vanderhoef/Get land brought. Council Time Kanner/Two things, one speaking of water, I took a tour of the water plant, the new water plant and it was quite impressive there, I went with Shawn who's the construction. Arkins/He's our employee, he's our construction manager, what we do is in major projects is we have one of our special projects inspector who is Shawn, and he's on the job representing our interest all the time, we have the same thing at the sewer plant. Kanner/And it looks like it's in good hands and one thing that hit me, that plant will have 15 million gallons a day capacity, I guess we do about 6 or 7 million now on average. I heard from someone that Coralville is reaching capacity and maybe we need to talk to them about sharing capacity and see if we can. Lehman/Selling water. Kanner/Well work things out and see if we get things in return for giving them water and we make some sort of mutual. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 47 Atkins/We have a shared agreement with them now, for example if they were ever in any difficulty, and the same thing we have with the University, historically Steven we did try to make arrangements with the University, Coralville and the City at the time we were going to build one plant to take care and that was rejected at the time. I've heard the same stories that there may be different circumstances now. Kanner/Well is it worthwhile to go back to Coralville at least and say. Arkins/Oh we talk to Coralville all the time, yea. Lehman/I think the doors open there. Atkins/I think the doors open and we'll knock on it again for you. Kanner/Okay. And then the other thing is I may be mistaken but I didn't see the discussion of the PCRB findings about the 11 year old in consent on our work session for future items. Atkins/Let me take a minute or two if I could with you on that without getting into the substance of it. I got a letter from the PCRB on Friday, and I had asked for information and I have somewhat of a dilemma, the Board informed me that the ordinance makes no provision for review or appeal of their findings, and they do not wish to participate in such a review. They did indicate that they would like to know what Chief and I specifically had a problem with in the finding. (END OF 01-84 SIDE ONE) Atkins/They came to one conclusion, our City Attorney's office representing our Police Department came to another conclusion, it sustained to me if and they sustained a complaint. If we're going to change policy procedure or anything I need all of the information before doing that and I intend to contact them again in order to at least have some discussions with them because they came to a conclusion in sustaining a complaint that we're not sure we agree with but then again we don't have all the information available to us so I will share this information with you in written form but I'm really in quite a dilemma, in one point I need to see what their investigative reports were, I'm not asking to divulge them or anything, I'm not even sure if they would be. Kanner/But I think at some point we as Council have to come to a deadline and consider this. Atkins/I'm ready for you to consider at anytime you want but the bottom line is there' s really nothing I can tell you, they sustained a complaint, we don't agree and. Lehman/It's a stand off. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 48 Atkins/And we have our City Attomey's office who advises the police department giving us information as well they should, the attorney for the PCRB apparently giving them some other information, now we have our own boards conflicting. Kanner/So again I would argue that this is a Council decision. Atkins/Oh I'm fine with that. Kanner/To, this has to do with policy. Atkins/You asked for that and I'm more than willing to give it to you but I will give you what you have right now and I'm going to sit there with a rather stupid look on my face because I don't have all the information. Kanner/But at some time we have to say they're not going to give us the information are we going to wait forever, we have to say sometime, I'm willing to wait a reasonable amount of time to get that but if they're not going to do it we have to I think we as a Council we have two opinions we have to be the ones that arbitrate and say which one we want to accept and how do we want to react to it. Lehman/But we would have the same dilemma that .... Atkins/Yes you would. Lehman/....that Steve does that we do not know the methodology that they used to arrive at their conclusion how can we say that one is right and one is wrong, we would probably come to the same conclusion that we need the information that you used to come to your conclusion. Kanner/I think that one being our Board that we can call for a joint meeting and perhaps there would be more, other information that would come out that way and we could talk about why they are not forthcoming with that information, I think there' s a few different ways we can go about it. Pfab/Are you suggesting even an executive joint? Lehman/No it would be a public meeting. Kanner/I think it would be a public meeting. Lehman/We could certainly do that or we as our Board we could request that they provide the information. O'Donnell/Why don't you send a letter Emie requesting all information? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 49 Atkins/I've done that. O'Donnell/You have, and it's not, then why don't we do that. Champion/Then Emie needs to do it. Atkins/Well I want to respond to this by they've indicated they're willing to discuss it with us about the comments and the recommendations, that' s okay but I need clarification, I mean need to know how did you get where you got. We have a sustained complaint, okay, does that mean there was some improper or incorrect behavior on the part of a police officer involved in these circumstances, by sustaining a complain they're saying yes. Okay before I can change a policy and determine a direction that we're going to go in with respect to dealing with that sustained complaint I need to see. Apparently they spoke with witnesses that our police did not get an opportunity to speak with, and I need to read that. Champion/Well the policeman may not have done anything wrong, they may be following policy that we want to change. Atkins/Absolutely and we may need to change that policy and I need the information. Champion/And that's why you need the information because the policy. Lehman/Is there anything you need from us? Atkins/No, I'm just updating you on it that Steven would like to have a date certain because I'd like to move the thing along too because it has it's been going on now for about two months. O'Donnell/It's clear Steve you can't do anything much unless you get the information. Lehman/Well then I think perhaps that by the next work session that we should be able to have you should have had a reply from them. Atkins/Okay well I have a reply and their reply is to discuss it and we'll need to set a meeting and I'll talk to Marian about that. Lehman/All right but I think that that' s you know in two weeks. Atkins/We're willing to go, I mean the Chief and I are willing to go and visit with them but I'm just, if there are legal arguments then Andy you had better go along with me because their attorney and our attorney may have a different view of the circumstances involved with minor consent. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 50 Lehman/Well let us know. Atkins/I will. Lehman/Two weeks from tonight where we are. Atkins/That I'll do. Lehman/Okay. Pfab/I'm concerned about the tobacco situation. Lehman/Yep we're going to decide right now when we can schedule a work session that we can all meet and discuss nothing but the tobacco ordinance. Pfab/Okay the time is, (can't hear). Kanner/What does that mean? Pfab/Time flies. Lehman/Do we have any? Pfab/Next week. Kanner/No I can't do it. Pfab/Okay what' s the? Vanderhoef/The first date I could do it is 21st of September. Pfab/That's the very first date. Vanderhoef/That's the very first date. Pfab/Well how about the 21 st. Kanner/No I'm going to be out of town next week. Pfab/Is that the 21st? Lehman/Yea. Kanner/Yea. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 51 Pfab/Okay. Champion/I think we should try to find a Tuesday since we're all kind of tuned into Tuesday's. Pfab/Well I'm saying that the sooner the better and. Lehman/Well the next Tuesday that we don't have anything going on is the 2nd of October. Atkins/2nd of October. Lehman/Is that a date that will work? Pfab/Okay let's, okay let' s try something else okay Dee will be away until the 21st, Steve you'll be away on the 241h that week. Kanner/No but we have City Council Monday, Tuesday. Lehman/City Council Monday and Tuesday. Atkins/Steve's going to leave the 17th. Kanner/Wednesday is Yom Kippur. Pfab/Are we? Vanderhoef/I'm out of town the 261h through the 30th. Lehman/Will the 2nd work? Champion/Yes. Pfab/Okay the 2nd. Lehman/The 2nd at 6:30, now let me understand this quickly, if this is going to be a work, we talked about this at the last meeting, this will be a work session devoted to the smoking ordinance only but we will accept comments from the public. Champion/Right, fight. Lehman/So that people who run restaurants, bars, those folks that would like to see us pass the ordinance, those who would see us not like to pass the ordinance will reserve like an hour at the beginning of the meeting. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 52 Champion/Half hour for pro, half hour for con. Lehman/Okay and they will then have an opportunity to discuss with us what they're concerns are and then we will at that point start discussing the sorts of things we would like to see the legal staff put into an ordinance. Pfab/Okay let me ask you this is it better to call it a Cotmcil meeting? Vanderhoef/No. O'Donnell/It's a work session. Lehman/I don't, call it what you want but it's going to be a work session devoted to the tobacco issue in which the public will be invited to comment. Pfab/Is it a public hearing? Lehman/They'll be here and they can hear, it's an official public heating. Pfab/Okay what I'm saying is there will no restrictions that we have now with a work session, anybody can speak. Lehman/That' s what I just said, there will be an hour for public discussion and people will have the same roles that they do at a Cotmcil meeting, they'll have 3 to 5 minutes depending on how many folks we have so everybody gets a chance to speak, after public discussion then it will be Council discussion. And the 2nd at 6:30. Pfab/The 2nd at 6:30. Lehman/All right. Wilburn/Glad it's on my birthday. Lehman/We can change it. Vanderhoef/Can we limit that to two hours there please? I'm serious. Pfab/Okay there's only one problem there, there's a neighborhood association candidate forum. Champion/A what? Vanderhoef/I'm flying out the next morning and I'm serious that we can limit that to two hours. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 53 Lehman/We can sure try. Pfab/A neighborhood association candidate forum. Champion/Oh. O'Donnell/At 7:00. Vanderhoef/Post it 6:30 to 8:30. Champion/We can't do it. O'Dormell/We can't do it, there's a forum. Pfab/What about Monday or Wednesday. Lehman/Forum when? Vanderhoef/What? O'Donnell/There a Council candidate forum. Kanner/Wait Irvin what are you asking for? Vanderhoef/On the 2nd? Lehman/Oh the 2nd won't work. Vanderhoef/Okay can we do this meeting on the lst? Pfab/Yea that's my next choice? It looks good to me. Champion/Yea, Monday' s are not really. Pfab/What about Wednesday then? Vanderhoef/I'm out. Pfab/Well maybe Mike, never mind. Kanner/What time is your forum? Lehman/I don't know, I didn't know. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 54 Pfab/It's 7:00. Champion/I think it came in the mail today I didn't read it. O'Donnell/I saw it in the paper today. Lehman/Oh I didn't see it. Kanner/Do you want to do like 4:00 or something? O'Donnell/I don't believe I do on that day. Champion/I can't do it at 4:00 on Tuesday, I could do it. O'Donnell/What about the following Tuesday? Lehman/Council meeting the next Tuesday. Karr/That's primary night. Lehman/Oh the 9th is primary night. O'Donnell/Then have it a week from that. Pfab/What about the Wednesday you say, any day, Wednesday your not available. O'Donnell/See we're trying to look at a Tuesday Irvin. Pfab/I know but Tuesday may not work. O'Donnell/Wednesday is not Tuesday. Champion/Well if we go any earlier people aren't going to be notified that need to be here but since we don't, I wouldn't mind coming in on a Wednesday the 3rd. Lehman/Wednesday the 3rd. Vanderhoef/I'm out of town. Pfab/What about the Wednesday previously? Champion/Dee's out of town. Pfab/If we're open to Wednesday is there. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 55 Lehman/That won't work. Champion/I'm not coming in on a Wednesday after I've had couple Council meetings. Lehman/The 261h won't work right? Vanderhoef/Right. Kanner/And Monday, you said Monday the 1 st doesn't work. O'Donnell/Monday the 1 st is bad for me. Pfab/Okay what about the 3rd then. Karr/Dee V.'s gone. Vanderhoef/I'm out of town. Lehman/And the 4th your gone. Vanderhoef/I'm out the 3rd through the 7th. Pfab/Well is. Champion/What is going on the 9th of October? Lehman/Well that's primary date but that, well no, no, there's no reason we couldn't meet. Vanderhoef/The 10th is the Parks and Recreation tour which I was going to announce tonight just to. Champion/What time is that? Vanderhoef/Late afternoon usually around 4:45 and then. Champion/Could we have sandwiches, come back here and have sandwiches and have the meeting then? Vanderhoef/Well it's not done until about 7:00. Lehman/Well we could, we could have them speed that up a little, it's getting a little dark that time of day and there' s no reason if we wanted to meet that we couldn't get back in time. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 56 Kanner/What about Friday the 281h in the morning? Lehman/I can't meet on Friday's. Champion/I don't think that's a good time, we want business people to come, well maybe it is better. Kanner/Emie is there anytime later than you can, in the morning, Friday morning? Lehman/Friday morning is out, that' s especially that Friday. Kanner/Afternoon? Lehman/No but I. Vanderhoef/What Friday are you talking about? Kanner/The 281h. Lehman/Oh I could, yea, probably. Champion/Oh I think I'm at market. Vanderhoef/The 281h of September. Lehman/Yea. Vanderhoef/I'm out of town. O'Donnell/Well this is going well. Pfab/Well is there some, draw lots and see if someone can't make it. Lehman/We can't do it Monday the 1st for some reason. O'Donnell/Can anybody do this before October 22nd? That's our next Council work session, that' s a Monday. Pfab/I would say that' s probably a long ways off. Vanderhoef/The 15th and 16th of October. Pfab/I think we would get criticized for that. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa CiW Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 57 O'Donnell/Well Irvin we're kind of covering all the dates we can. Lehman/Well how about the 16th? Vanderhoef/16th of October is a Tuesday. Champion/Oh of October oh yea that would be okay. O'Donnell/That's fine. Champion/Why didn't we talk about that before? Lehman/We were trying to do it sooner rather than later but that' s about how far we are. Does the 16th work? Vanderhoef/Yes. Kanner/What time? Lehman/6:30, 16th, 6:30 same rules. Champion/And that may seem a long way off but that (can't hear) can't take place too. Pfab/Okay let me ask this, would you consider 6:45 instead of 6:307 Champion/Why? Pfab/I have a commitment until then. O'Donnell/Wait a minute you want to do this sooner than later. Pfab/15 minutes, all right let's do 6:30, see so now I'm taking the hit, nobody else wanted to, I want you to know I'm taking the hit. Vanderhoef/And your so big about it, thank you Irvin. (All talking) Champion/(can't hear) 6:30, could we do it at 8:00? Lehman/6:30 on the 16th work session on tobacco, 6:30 to 7:30 will be public input, we will start at 7:30 with our discussion and trying to come up with. Pfab/Now since this is this far off we should have some ordinances modeled ordinances? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 58 Lehman/We are going to draft it at the work session what we'd like to do. Champion/No, we're going to just talk about it. Pfab/We can't bring anything. Champion/We don't need it. Lehman/No bring whatever you want to bring to it but as far as. Pfab/Will we have any model rules or proposed ordinance that we can discuss? Champion/We want to hear input from people and how they (can't hear). Lehman/I believe that we have received model ordinances from. Pfab/So the legal department will come fully armed? Matthews/No we're going to hear from you what you want in the ordinance. Vanderhoef/We've already got it. Pfab/But you will give us copies. Matthews/We're not going to write the ordinance for you, your going to tell us what you want. Pfab/Will you share us the models that you have because you have so many? Matthews/We can cimulate other copies. Pfab/Would you please. O'Donnell/So let's all be here the 16th and let's. Pfab/At 6:30. O'Donnell/6:30 mark your watch. I think we need some kind of direction on these work sessions, we've taken off the time and we sometimes will go for two hours on one of these items I think we're much more efficient if we go back to some kind of time slot, it also allows people who are coming here to see a certain thing on this agenda an approximate time they can be here. Champion/But we were so efficient before that we couldn't discuss the next item because we couldn't do it until the time slot, that's the reason we took the time out. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 59 Lehman/No but there is another way of doing it, you could reserve a certain amount of time for each item. O'Donnell/And I think that' s a clever way to do it, that way people are coming here to, you have a certain agenda item. Champion/Okay but what if you schedule these 20 minutes apart, well forget it, a half hour apart, and all of a sudden you go through review zoning items because we don't have a lot of questions that night and already your done in 5 minutes instead of 20 minutes so you can't start the next item for another 15 minutes. Lehman/Yea you can. O' Donnell/What's the difference of spending 5 minutes on one thing, what if we spend three hours on one thing which we're capable of, we spend 3 hours on it and then move on to the next. Champion/It's a lose lose situation either way we lose. O'Dounell/I think it gives us some kind of direction, but more importantly it gives people who are waiting to hear a certain thing on this agenda an opportunity to at least an approximate time to be there. Lehman/I believe that. Pfab/Mike is that 6:30 or 6:45. Lehman/I believe Mike that a target would be a good idea, for example, you know the First Avenue Sidewalk thing we said we'd allow 15 minutes and then at some point during the discussion look folks we've been at this 10 minutes what do we want to do, the same thing would probably, do we want to try to do that or think about it until the next work session? Pfab/Do what? Lehman/Allocating a certain amount of time for each agenda item. Vanderhoef/I'm willing to try that. Pfab/Yea I think that's a great idea. Lehman/I don't think you can do that for zoning items, I don't think you can do that for review of agenda items but specific items I think you can. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 60 O'Donnell/I think it's only courteous to give people an opportunity. Pfab/And also if there's, if people have something to say you've used everybody else, everybody else has had a chance to speak and we have the time they could. O'Donnell/Now we also here in our last Council meeting that went on I think about 26 hours, we had people waiting in the audience to speak about a specific item, and they waited for an endless period of time and I think that we ought to recognize that and try to be efficient in some manner that people who come from out of town to listen to us and I would like to see us work our agenda better and maybe be more efficient in meeting these folks. Pfab/Or another, I think we did at one of the other meetings was move things around on the agenda. O'Donnell/And that we could do that but I think we need to recognize that. Lehman/But as long as we engage the public and argue with the public during public hearing' s we're never going to move stuff along, and I think a lot of that is up to us how much time we spend. O'Donnell/I was about to get into that Emie. Lehman/Oh. Kanner/Ernie I think it. O'Donnell/Excuse me I was, one more thing. Kanner/Okay. O'Dounell/We seem to engage people and there are a great number of people watching us now and you know I read something in the paper that was a little disturbing and one of them said they're watching a surrounding commtmity for information and watching us for entertainment. There's many good things that are getting accomplished in Iowa City today I don't think we're being efficiently reaching conclusions. And I would like to see us try and be more efficient as a Council and be more direct, and more precise and be more civil so think about it. Kanner/I think it would behoove us to look at some of these things, at the Women' s Resources and Action Center they had a workshop on meetings and they talk about the role of past and that you should have the agenda at least halfway between your previous meetings, I think we need to look at how we set agenda's and that could move us along. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 61 Lehman/That isn't going to. Kanner/I think that's part of it Emie and I think that when we have a Council that's engaged in that it will help us move the meetings a lot faster and I think perhaps setting time limits might be a good thing. I would suggest that we have a work session, we bring in someone from Women's Resource and Action Center, someone like Monique De Carlo who has a lot of expertise on that to talk to us about some of those issues of how we could be more efficient in running a meeting. Lehman/I don't disagree with you but how is that going to affect the amount of time that Council takes to argue with and interact with the public when they stand there at the podium? Karmer/I think one of the main issues Emie is the length of the meetings and part of that is because of how the agenda's are set up and how discussion takes place. Now there are certain techniques that people can use that are out there that can make it move that much quicker and so it would help us in that aspect of moving it along quicker. O'Donnell/The only thing that's going to make our Council meetings more efficient is if we become more efficient, and we ask endless questions, we should know many of the answers, it's just, it's a matter there' s people who actually do like to watch a Council meeting until it's conclusion but they fall asleep around 11:00 and I don't want to be one of them. Lehman/There are a lot of questions that have come up at formal sessions that could very well have been answered at work sessions or talking to a staff person and that's something obviously we can control. If we've got a question about something on the agenda or the consent calendar and that answer is available by picking up a phone call the phone and asking Steve or someone else I think it would behoove the Council to do that rather than take up. One of my concerns is the amount of time that we take away from the public, you know we, you know the last meeting I let the public discussion go until 8:30 because we ended up screwing around and taking about two thirds of the public discussions time on stuff that probably was not particularly relevant and that's time we don't have to spend doing that because I think we can get those answers. And I think tonight we did a good example, we went through the consent calendar really well, we asked questions of the staff, they have an opportunity to have the answers to those rather than being asked tomorrow night a question that they could have had the answer to but we didn't ask it. So I think it would be behoove us all to try to be more. O'Dounell/Efficient. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 62 Lehman/Well you know I don't want to ever sacrifice being thorough in the name of efficiency and I don't think we have to do that and I think we can be more efficient and thorough at the same time. O'Donnell/Emie do you really think that's possible? Lehman/I do. O'Donnell/I don't think that we will ever sacrifice the ability for somebody to come to the podium and state their opinion, you know I would encourage them. Lehman/No but that's not what gets us in trouble. O'Donnell/And readdress them an endless conversation and then we lose our efficiency, speaking of bed it's time to go home. Lehman/No it's not quite, I've got a couple, tomorrow there's a dedication of the skywalk at the Senior Center, I can not be there, Mike would you? O'Donnell/Is that 2:00? Lehman/It's 2:00 at the Senior Center, but if you would say a few words for the Council I mean obviously you were a big supporter of the skywalk. O'Donnell/I would love to but I don't like heights. Lehman/You don't have to stand in the skywalk to do it, they're going to dangle you from a crane. O'Donnell/I will gladly do that. Lehman/There were two other events last Friday that were just marvelous at the Senior Center and you were there for one Dee and you were there for both of them but they were really, I just really enjoyed both of them. Pfab/You didn't notice me though did you? Lehman/Yes and Irvin was there, Steven was there. O'Donnell/Our 20 year volunteers, and it's outstanding to see a 90 some year old lady stand up still a volunteer. Lehman/It's amazing, I'll be glad to be able to stand up when I'm 97 some. Okay any other Council Time? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 63 O'Donnell/2:15 tomorrow. Vanderhoef/Just one thing I did mention earlier, the Parks and Recreation Tour is on the 10th of October, I picked that up out of the minutes in case anybody wants to write that one down and then I was going to double check, we talked earlier in the summer about maybe doing a fall tour for Cotmcil, where are we on that? Atkins/Trying to pick a date. I'm serious. O'Donnell/Don't do that now. Atkins/I understand that, I was trying to pick a date and I found myself in November. Pfab/The tour is when October 10th. Lehman/We can't even find a date to talk about the smoking ordinance. Atkins/I didn't want to say anything but that's kind of the, yea, because I need you for a block of time, because there' s lots of things I want you to see. Vanderhoef/Unless we did a daytime one. Karr/Steven did you want to talk about the work session minutes? Kanner/No, no, but Dee. Atkins/I'll get you a date. Kanner/About the park tour, do we need to officially that it will be a Cotmcil gathering or meeting too along with the Parks and Rec. I don't know if we did that last year. Vanderhoef/It's posted even for the public to go. Lehman/I think we had to have the City Clerk and the City Attorney there because it's the same as, is that correct? Karr/We didn't go to the Park and Rec. tour last year, we did a City Tour yes. Kanner/But not for Parks and Recreation, so maybe this year we have to make sure it's an official meeting. Lehman/Actually I don't think it's a problem as long as we don't have any. (Vanderhoef talking ) This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001. September 10, 2001 Special Work Session Page 64 Karr/As long as your not discussing any business. Lehman/As long as we don't discuss business it's quite. Kanner/The essence of it there is sort of a business discussion that takes place because your looking at project. Lehman/And asking questions. Kanner/And then we did veered off in some discussions and I think it would behoove us to make it an official Council meeting. Lehman/That's on the 10th. Vanderhoef/Yes. Lehman/All fight we'll determine at the next meeting which is two weeks from tonight how many of us are going to be on there, as long as there are four or more then we'll, we probably should post it if we're going to discuss or ask questions or get responses. O'Donnell/Or we take two buses. Lehman/Well we'll decide that two weeks. Champion/That' s skirting the issue I think, you need three buses. Lehman/Thank you folks. Adjourned 9:15 PM This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 10, 2001.