HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-13 Transcription #2a Page #1
ITEM NO. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS.
2a. Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau 85% Seatbelt Usage Award
Lehman: Jan.
Jan Goldsmith: Thank you. That's quite an introduction,
Lehman: I read it just the way they gave it to me.
Pfab: And she wrote it.
Goldsmith: I've been coming over here...we just figured up, this is almost the end of
my seventeenth year of coming over here. And I start out by seeing seat
belt use in this community about like every place else about 18%. And
over the years I've seen it climb and climb and climb and it's a whole lot
harder to do it where you've got new freshman coming into town all the
time, every year. And I'm just really very, very proud of what you've
done. You've done a great job here. We gave you a 70% seat belt use
award, which is the only thing that was given at that time in 1991. And
then they've worked really hard and in '98 we gave you an 80%. And
now you are up to 88%. That's really, really, really doing well. I think
Sergeant Lord hem would like to explain just briefly if he could about how
that survey was done.
Sergeant Lord: Good evening. With the department, the officers that received the grant
money to conduct the enforcement process on a monthly basis well do
their jobs and a large quantity of what they do is the seat belt enforcement
that has taken place. There's two surveys that are then done each year.
One we did in March of this year and then the second one, as was said,
was done in September of this year. The first one that we did, there were
ten locations that were picked in the City of Iowa City and at each location
100 vehicles would have been counted and the drivers of those vehicles
observed to see if they were wearing seat belts or not. The locations that
were picked were scattered all over the City, several on the East Side of
town, several in the downtown area, and then also on the West Side of
Iowa City and vicinity of the University, etc. All in all then there would
have been 1,000 cars that would have been checked at each location. And
in March we had the 86.9% and then again the survey was conducted at
these same locations in September. And again 1,000 cars were checked
and it was in the September survey that we then came up with the 88.1%
of drivers wearing their seat belts properly.
Karmer: That's just an eyeball, looking into the window?
Lord: That' s correct.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#2a Page #2
Karmer: So a lot of cars have the automatic seat belt. You can't tell though if
they're wearing...if they put the lap belt on?
Lord: What was done at the second survey was to stand at the curb as a car
approaches you and being able to physically look in. In some cases you
can't tell if the person is wearing the seat belt or is not wearing the seat
belt and in those cases they are not counted.
Lehman: On the other hand, if they're faking it at least they think it's important.
Lord: Evidently.
Kanner: Well actually that...
Pfab: They spill you watch...
Kanner: ...automatic belt that they don't have a chose and it's more dangerous
actually, I've heard, to just wear the shoulder hamess in some ways.
Lord: By itselfit's not the safest. Correct. Both the seat and the shoulder have
to be worn.
Lehman: Well certainly congratulations are in order for the people of this
community. That's really, that's really im...I think that's amazing, 88%.
Lord: I think the City's done a good job.
Lehman: Let's give ourselves a hand.
Goldsmith: I would like to read this. It's the safety belt honor roll. The Governor's
Traffic Safety Bureau in partnership with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration presents this award to the citizens of Iowa City for
achieving an 85% seat belt usage, September 1991.
Karr: Chief would you like to...would you like to come up here and we'll
have...we can have some...Jane?
O' Donnell: Careful.
Lehman: Buckle up folks. (can't hear) fight angle lens. We don't bite. Thank you
very much.
Goldsmith: Oh, by the way Mr. Mayor.
Lehman: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#2a Page #3
Goldsmith: We do have a 90% award with I would love to bring back in just a real
short time since you've got 88.
Lehman: All right guys, let's work on it. We can do it. We can do it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#2b Page #4
2b. Outstanding Student Citizenship Awards - T~vain Elementary
Lehman: Well tonight we got a couple other really, really good things happening.
Now during the summer months we do not have our student citizenship
awards and that is probably one of the things that, at least I as Mayor and I
think the Council shares this, we find is one of the most enjoyable things
that we do. We do give outstanding student citizenship awards for
students in the community. These kids are selected by their peers and they
receive the award from the Council. So if I could have the three students
who are going to receive the award come forward please. This is the
greatest job in the world for a grandpa. I promise you. It is absolutely
perfect. So, I would like each of you if you would give us your name first
and then why you were nominated.
Emily Artz: I'm Emily Artz and I think I was chosen for this award because I'm a
conflict manager on a safety patrol at my school. And I volunteer at the
Iowa City Animal Shelter. I'm also a member of 4H and of Girl Scouts
and we do a lot of service projects in both of those.
Ben Dolder: I'm Ben Dolder. I think I'm...I got chosen because I've been a conflict
manager at Mark Twain Elementary School. I've also been on a safety
patrol at Mark Twain for over two years. I'm also very helpful to my
classmates in school, which is why I was elected to receive this award.
I'm also a Boy Scout, which gives me the opportunity for leadership and
citizenship every day. I try to do a good turn every day. I also participate
in Boy Scout service projects such as Scouting for Food. Some of our
scouts have also taken a tour of the Salvation Army to see how they use
the food collecting during Scouting for Food.
Lehman: Why don't you stand over here so I won't have to hold this in front of you
so you can see everybody. Go ahead.
Beri Mazariegos: My name is Beri and I think I was chosen for this award because I'm a
safety patrol at my school and I am like...I do my best at that I can in my
classes and I work hard and I do my best.
Lehman: Let's give these guys a hand.
(applause)
You know there's some folks out here that are even more proud of you
than we are. I think I see some moms and dads and I know there's
grandpas and grandmas out there. These awards read "for outstanding
qualities of leadership within Twain Elementary as well as the community
and for sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others. We recognize
these students as outstanding student citizens. Your community is proud
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#2b Page #5
of you. Presented by the Iowa City City Council. November 2001 ." And
Ben, Emily and Bad...Okay, thank you very much.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#3a Page #6
ITEM NO. 3a MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS - WORLD AIDS DAY -
DECEMBER 1
Lehman: (Reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept is Andy Weigel.
Andy Weigel: I guess I just wanted to say that as... accepting the proclomation on behalf
of the Healthy and Positive Interventions Committee, also known as HAPI,
which is just a coalition of HIV service providers in the community here. I
just wanted to thank you Mayor Lehman and the rest of you Council
Members for recognizing World Aides Day. And I just want to remind
people to look for the press release that's due to come out soon just to
outline the events that are happening for World Aids Day.
Kanner: Andy?
Weigel: Thanks.
Kanner: I had a question for you. In Johnson County is HIV infection going down,
up or slowing down.
Weigel: I know that as far as in comparison to other counties, Johnson County is
still one of the highest, I mean per capita. It's a year ago, I think, it was
first and now it's second. So whether that means it's going up or down I'm
not sure of the specific numbers. It's pretty close the same. But it's in...in
relation to the other counties in Iowa it's definitely one of the higher ones.
Kanner: Okay.
Weigel: I can get you the specific numbers if you are interested.
Kanner: Sure. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
Lehman: Thank you.
Weigel: Sure.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#4 Page #7
ITEM NO. 4. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Champion: Move adoption.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Karmer: A couple points. In regards to item number c in licenses for alcohol, I had
a question about The Summit Restaurant and Bar that is on the agenda.
And Steve, perhaps you could help me with this. My understanding is you
are not allowed to have alcohol served on the top floor at a bar...at a bar?
Atkins: (can't hear)
Karr: We have a...we have a provision, excuse me, that does not allow ifit's a
drinking establishment only. If it is a restaurant it is permitted. This is a
restaurant and bar.
Kanner: Okay so at any level of food you're allowed to serve any amount of alcohol
on the second floor?
Karr: Full service...full service on all floors.
Karmer: Okay.
Karr: Correct.
Kanner: And are we getting reports on the...when are we going to be getting reports
on capacity?
Atkins: I've asked for that but I haven't received it yet. As soon as I have it I'll get
it to you. The capacity checks we were doing?
Kanner: Yeah.
Atkins: Yeah. I haven't received those yet. I'll check for you tomorrow.
Kanner: It's something we might want to look at as far as...I thought you weren't
allowed to serve alcohol. It seems then that almost every place serves food.
And the idea for the...when this law was passed my understanding, talking
to police officer to, is that it's dangerous up on the second floor. It gets
crowded and serving alcohol late at night, dark, smoky. And it's
something that Council might want to look at to see if we want to set limits
on capacity.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#4 Page #8
Champion: We do have limits on capacity.
Lehman: I think we have limits on capacity.
Kanner: Well even less limits. Keep it as...is it going to stay as a dining area
upstairs or is it going to turn into a place where there' s dancing and a lot of
things? We're getting a dancing permit actually. There probably will be
dancing up there. So it's going to be more than just a sit down dining place
upstairs it appears.
Karr: There is a dance floor on both floors.
Kanner: So I don't mean to pick on The Summit necessarily but I think we need to
look at this law again that was passed probably ten years ago was this?
Atkins: More than that.
Kanner: Fifteen years ago? And see if we want to limit it to keeping it just a sit
down dinner place on the second floor. Any thoughts from Council on
that?
Lehman: Well I think that's a subject that should probably come up at a work session
if we want to talk about it. That's certainly not part of the consent
calendar. Is there other discussion on the consent calendar?
Kanner: Yeah, I just so...I would like to have Karin come up to talk about...there's
a resolution here that we're approving to okay a grant application with the
Iowa Arts Council.
Karin Franklin: It is an application to the Department of Cultural Affairs, the State
Department of Culture Affairs, for a program that would be called the
Sense of Place. And it would bring artists into neighborhoods to work with
the neighborhoods in a charette to determine the appropriate public art for
neighborhoods. It's kind of moving the public aft out of the downtown and
looking at the rest of the community.
Kanner: So, it's a way for the City to put some money into art, not just downtown
but out in the neighborhoods as you're saying. And...
Franklin: And to engage the neighborhoods in making the decisions on what that art
will be.
Kanner: And a charette is a discussion of sorts. A focused discussion trying to
come to some decisions on what the best art... so it's a real way for
neighbors to get to know each other and have a decision and spend some
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#4 Page #9
money in their neighborhood on making it more appealing from an ascetic
point of view. And what are the neighborhoods that are being picked first?
Franklin: Northside, Longfellow and Weatherby.
Karmer: And the goal is to apprentice people, artists to lead other neighborhoods in
this process down the road.
Franklin: Correct.
Kanner: Eventually get all the twenty-eight neighborhood in the City.
Franklin: Right.
Kanner: Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin. Other discussion? Roll call. (7/0)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#5 Page #10
ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Lehman: This is a time reserved for the public to address the Council on any item
that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you would wish to address
the Council, please sign your name, address and name and limit your
comments to five minutes or less.
Doren Kuster: I'm not sure where to place this, the label I signed in.
Lehman: Is there a place to sign?
Kuster: Oh, just over here. Okay.
Karr: Just right on the pad.
Lehman: Put it on the pad that's there. You can use the label instead of having to
write it.
Kuster: Okay. I guess it takes more talent than I have to peel the label off.
Karr: That's okay. You can just leave it there and I'll get it. It's fine.
Kuster: Thank you.
Champion: Mother Madan will take care of it.
Kuster: Good evening. My name is Doren Kuster. I am regional sales manager
for a company by the name of Advanced Drainage Systems. And I'd like
to take my five minutes, if I could please, to read an open letter to the
Cotmcil Members at large and also, quite frankly, to the City of Iowa City.
(read letter)
I've got some letters to hand out too ifI could please. Thank you very
much.
Lehman: Thank you.
Karr: Do we have a motion to accept correspondence?
O' Donnell: S o moved.
Champion: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion, to accept correspondence.
All in favor. Opposed? (all ayes) Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#5 Page #11
Kanner: Now, we went over this like a year or so ago didn't we?
Champion: Yeah, we did.
Karmer: With ADS?
Vanderhoef: Yes, we did.
Kanner: And could you just refresh my memory. Why?
Atkins: No. Cause I honestly don't recall, Steven. I'd have to go back and look
up the file.
Champion: But maybe we could have a second (can't hear)
Atkins: We did go...there was another gentleman that presented something and I
do recall writing a report and I do recall submitting it to you. But, I'm
sorry, I just don't recall the details of it. I can. ..I'll get it. I'll get it for
you.
Kanner: (can't hear) Thanks.
Atkins: Okay.
Pfab: So, I guess a question I would ask...were any bids specified that that was
an alternative in any bids that we put out?
Atkins: I can't tell you that, Irvin. I don't know.
Lehman: We need to refer this to engineering.
Champion: Right.
Kanner: But we can though, maybe, bring this up again, Irvin, when we're talking
about the Court Hill resolution...
Pfab: Okay.
Kanner: (can't understand)
Lehman: That's the sanitary sewer. I don't think you can use it for that.
Atkins: I think it's too...
Vanderhoef: This is for storm water.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#5 Page #12
Kanner: This is storm...strictly storm water.
Vanderhoef: Yes. The discussion that we had at one point was about using it on the
Highway 6 project.
Karmer: Okay.
Lehman: Other public discussion?
Atkins: But I will get that file pulled together for you.
Rick Prueter: Hi. We got troop 218 working on working on their citizenship...their
community citizenship...
Lehman: Just give us your name.
Prueter: Rick Prueter.
Lehman: Rick. And you have how many young men here?
Pmeter: And these guys could stand up or...
Champion: Sure.
Lehman: Sure. Stand up.
Pfab: Or are they?
Pmeter: They're looking at your jobs here in a couple more years.
Lehman: Okay. That's exactly the time that we have the re-election too. Thanks
for being here fellows.
Champion: Welcome.
(applause)
Lehman: Any other public discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6b Page #13
ITEM NO. 6b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
NOVEMBER 27 ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE WEST
BENTON COURT NORTH OF BENTON STREET. CVAC01-00003)
Lehman: Mike can read this one. I can not vote on this.
O'Donnell: (Reads item)
Champion: Move the public hearing.
Vanderhoef: Move to set the public heating.
O'Donnell: Moved by Champion, second by Vanderhoef. All those in favor?
Opposed? (all ayes) Marian?
Karr: Do we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilbum: Second.
O'Dormell: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. All those in favor?
Opposed? (all ayes)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6c Page #14
ITEM NO.6c. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 1.38
ACRES FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
RM-44, TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
RM-20 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1045-1075 W. BENTON
STREET. (REZ01-00020)
Lehman: The public hearing is open and we have been asked to continue this public
hearing until the 27th of November. Does anyone wish to speak to this
public hearing at this point?
Judith Klink: My name is Judith Kink. I live at 1101 Harlocke Street and I initiated the
rezoning application for the Cox property on behalf of myself, my
husband and out neighborhood. I'm speaking to you tonight to tel1 you of
recent conversation we have had with one of the developers, Jim
Anderson, of West Cobb Partners. Shortly before the last Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting on November 1st, he showed us a projected
redesign for the property, which dealt with many of our objections to the
first plan. Because of that we requested that Planning and Zoning defer
their second consideration of the application until their next meeting,
November 15th. If this new plan meets our concerns we intend to
withdraw the rezoning request. A primary objection we had was that one
of the proposed three story buildings would be placed directly beside a
residence on Harlocke Street. And that's what the illustration number one
shows, that' s an architects rendering of how that first plan would have
been realized. It shows how one of the buildings would dominate the
landscape, the street and the house, which faces Harlocke Street as well as
the patio on the backyard. And that's on the back, the other side. That's
why we were so upset. I think this shows it pretty directly. Mr.
Anderson' s designers are working on a plan, which effectively divides the
southwest unit in two and adds to the ones close to Benton Street. The
present apart .ments there are going to be removed. There'll be a third
building in the southeast comer, which should have less impact on the
neighborhood. We are very encouraged but with the appearance of this
new design and the cooperation of the developers we hope we can
withdraw our rezoning request after study of the new design is completed
and reviewed by the neighborhood. We had our first look at the new
design this afternoon. There are other problems of our neighborhood,
which are related to the down zoning, and I want to briefly mention four
of them. Number 1: The problem of incompatible zoning in our
neighborhood still exists. There is not step zoning in our area between
RM-44 and RS-5. Step zoning is standard practice in city plarming, a fact
even emphasized by the staff report of the Cox property. Also the
Comprehensive Plan in this area calls for a desire density of 16 through 24
units per acre. After the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the rezoning
was not initiated by the City. The neighborhood, at that time, had no idea
that rezoning could be initiated by private citizens so we did not consider
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6c Page #15
doing it ourselves. This lack of follow through has lead to much distress
in our neighborhood over the years, as you doubtless remember. Number
2: If central planning district design standards had been applicable to our
residential neighborhood, it would have greatly lessened our problems
with the first plan for Benton Villa. We hope the Planning and Zoning
Commission and you will move soon to apply these more stringent design
standards to neighborhoods on the periphery of the downtown. This is
particularly appropriate with the City's present in-fill (sp?) policy.
Number 3: One member of the Planning and Zoning Commission
suggested that the eight homes in the block north of Harlocke and south of
Benton Street apply to up zone their properties in order to financial
recuperate expected loses from a oversized apartment building put in their
midst. We found this suggestion highly inappropriate for people whose
homes may be the major financial investment they make. This suggestion
demonstrates a disregard for our existing neighborhoods. Number 4: The
City's good neighbor policy needs a second look. We did indeed see the
plans for the Cox property before they were submitted to the City but at
that time the developers had already invested considerable amount of
money in planning and were not amenable to neighbors' suggestions. The
conclusion I draw from this last point is that involvement of
neighborhoods in planning should be done at a much earlier stage. The
developers, we were told, started negotiating with the Cox's in June. This
was shortly after the City Council agreed to select the Southwest District
for their next major, future planning efforts. Thus in our area we see again
that developers slip in just before legislation which might be unfavorable
to them as adopted. Our neighborhood saw this earlier when the
developers of Forest Ridge on Benton Street added their back buildings
just before the sensitive areas ordinance went into effect. These are events
which have led us to request a moratorium on building in our area until the
Southwest District plan is completed, including time for appropriate
mzoning. Robynn Shrader will speak to that item later in the agenda. We
are however, at this point, pleased that the developers of the Cox property
have chose to move around some of the buildings. And we look forward
to studying their completed design. After it is approved by the City, and
reflects the changes we have discussed with them, we plan to withdraw
our rezoning request. Are there questions? Yes.
Pfab: Have you...you said you saw the completed des...new design?
Klink: Yes, this...
Pfab: It is completed?
Klink: Well, it was submitted to the City, I guess, on Thursday and we saw it
today.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6c Page #16
Pfab: So it's...
Klink: We saw...you all saw a rough...no, it was planning and zoning...there is a
rough draft of it we saw earlier but this is more detailed.
Pfab: So it is complete and now you have a chance to (can't hear).
Klink: Yeah, we haven't studied it yet.
Pfab: So now, what is the deadline date if you don't...at what point does this
cause you a problem if you don't work out your differences?
Klink: Well we talked to Karin Franklin last night and I guess she talked to you
also and I think we're okay as long as...there seems to be time enough to
schedule the special meetings needed if we don't...you know, if we're not
agreeable to the changes.
Pfab: If you can't get to an agreement with the builder?
Klink: Pardon?
Pfab: In other words...yeah...okay.
Klink: If we can't, yes.
Pfab: Okay.
Klink: Anything else?
Kanner: Yeah. One of the things I'm concerned about is that it's good that you've
reached a preliminary agreement with the developers now but this is...
could be a problem again ten, twenty years down the road. So, you're
involved with the Southwest District planning that's going on now.
Klink: Yes.
Kanner: So I assume that you and other folks in your group are going to be looking
at this particular piece of property to suggest other zoning options and
possibilities?
Klink: You mean to use it as an example? No. I mean...
Karmer: No, to look at possible rezoning it in the district plan?
Klink: I really hadn't thought about that but maybe we should.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6c Page ~17
Kanner: Because that...we just pushed it...it seems down the road quite a bit but
it's something that could come up again in twenty years. And this
problem has been going on for forty years so that' s not unreasonable to
think that...
Klink: Good suggestion.
Kanner: ...that might come up again.
Klink: Anything else?
Lehman: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item? Do
we have a motion to continue the public hearing to the 27th of November?
Pfab: So moved.
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries. (all ayes)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6d Page #18
ITEM NO. 6d. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OVERLAY (RS-8/OHP) FOR PROPERTIES
WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD TO
ESTABLISH THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT.
(REZ01-00019)
Lehman: Public hearing is open.
Richard Carlson: My name is Richard Carlson. I'm here to speak for the Historic
Preservation Commission. I'll keep this short and I won't be coming back
up for each of the three items here but there are three historic district and
conservation districts being designated in the Longfellow neighborhood.
We, of course, urge the Council to approve these. We've been working
with the Longfellow neighborhood for a number of years now to put
these...put this nomination together. And in all the talks we've had,
correspondence, public hearings, neighborhood meetings, we've had
overwhelming support for this in the neighborhood. So, I think, it speaks
for itself at this point. One point, I know that Steve Kanner, at one point,
mentioned or brought up the issue of gentrification as a possible problem
with designation and I can talk to the Council now or with you at some
point, you know, later. But I would just say briefly that in my experience,
and I've...I wrote my masters thesis on economic effects of historic
district designation in residential areas. And my findings and that of all
the studies that I read, at least all the responsible, you know, well
researched studies that I read, was that there was no statistically significant
effect of designation per say. Designation usually occurs in an area
because there is already some interest in the area and it's that interest, if
any, that spawns the mass investment that causes gentrification. But that
really only occurs in, sort of, blighted areas and bigger cities then Iowa
City. In the stable, middle class areas like the Longfellow neighborhood,
there's simply no effect of designation.
Kanner: Well let's look at the dream home, affordable dream home that we're
doing. You might not be familiar with that; it's going to be an
accessible...it's a model as for making an accessible house for people with
disabilities. Now in certain historic areas where it's tradition that there's
two houses, it would be very difficult to do a single story house such as
the one we are building, an accessible one. Is that correct?
Carlson: Yeah, it's probably tree if it's an area dominated by two story houses your
right. That would not...that would be...I'm not saying it's impossible I
just think...okay you want to address that issue?
Shelley McCafferty:
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6d Page #~9
Yes, I'm more familiar with the universal designed house. In terms of
building a universal designed house within the Longfellow neighborhood,
that would certainly be a possibility. Characteristics of the Longfellow
neighborhood include a number of single story houses as well as a mix of
two story houses. In designing the universal house, that was certainly
designed to be an in-fill design that fit in with the neighborhood and that
would also be an appropriate design for the Longfellow neighborhood
based upon the characteristics. So certainly there would be opportunities
to do affordable universal design within the Longfellow area.
Kanner: I have some other questions for you...
McCafferty: Okay.
Kanner: ...in regards to the designation. Let's start with windows. If one wanted
to put in energy efficient windows, again it would probably be very cost
prohibitive that they would also have to be in keeping with the historic
framework of the neighborhood to do that. Windows are a big thing with
the historic district, from my reading of the minutes and also of the
ordinances. And I know that our...I know that our Historic Preservation
Commission is pretty good at working with folks and trying to keep costs
at a minimum but, I guess, it gets to my overall concern. And I was
wondering if you could address this, that the things that...the qualities in
these neighborhoods that we are looking at are walkability and trees and
neighborhood feeling? And some of that is due to the housing but it seems
it's more a question of density to a larger extend. And I'm just worried
about the higher costs that are incurred when you make the historic
designation for a neighborhood and the extra hassle that one has to go
through. It seems to me there's other ways to deal with these things,
especially in a neighborhood that we see. When you read the history as
what's presented to us, it's changed over eight decades. Not like it's
locked in time. And that's one of the good things about this
neighborhood, it changes. And this makes it difficult in a way that I don't
know if that really helps the neighborhood overall. I have heard from a
few people. There're concerned with the hoops that they have to go
through with the historic district preservation. So I was wondering if you
could speak to some of those concems that I had?
McCafferty: Certainly. In terms of issues, for instance, like windows, siding...some of
those issues, particularly windows, we have quite a few salesmen out there
dealing in windows and so there is, I think, some misconception about the
energy efficiencies in windows. There are statistics that support the fact
that a lot can be done with existing windows in terms of re-glazing them,
rehabilitating existing windows and adding energy efficient storm
windows. Wholesale replacement is not necessarily the answer to
having...to the energy issue in historic neighborhoods. And there are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6d Page #20
certainly some quality contractors within Iowa City and the area who
could give you additional information on that, as well as, the Iowa
Alliance for Historic Preservation. Another issue with regards to
materials, certainly it's more affordable to put vinyl siding on a house;
however, one of the issues we have got to look at in term of dealing with
this synthetic materials is that they are not maintainable. So we need to
look more at the long-term issue of maintenance with regards to materials.
Certainly traditional materials like wood, even the new fiber cement
board, excuse me. Those are items which can actually maintained in the
long term and are therefore are more sustainable material even though the
initial up front cost might be somewhat more expensive. The des...the
Historic Preservation Commission is also concerned about working with
the owner to find the most affordable and appropriate solution for these
historic districts. One of the things that does detract from the historic
districts, it's not just in...a mater of density, it's also a matter of the
architectural character. You'll see quite a difference in character between
a district that has the open porches, that retains the original railings and
some of the original details as opposed to those districts where those
details have been stripped off. Porches have been enclosed reducing
opportunity for social interaction with your neighbors and so forth. So
one of my goals is now staffing the Historic Preservation Commission is
to also build a greater library and more resources available to
homeowners. To assist them and to education them. That indeed there are
alternatives to the mainstream vinyl window replacement, vinyl siding,
and those type of situ...materials in dealing with properties.
Kanner: So you're saying it isn't necessarily more expensive?
McCafferty: There may be some initial costs that are more expensive but certainly in
the long haul of maintaining a home... You know, in fifteen years, if you
put vinyl siding on a home, that's about the life span of vinyl siding.
You'll have to do a wholesale replacement then. As opposed to putting on
a product, such as, repl...patching or repairing, for instance, with original
wood material or similar wood material to the original. You can repaint it.
You can maintain it. So, I think there is...we need to look beyond what
we are sold by those people who deal in these products and really look at
the real issues. Vinyl siding and aluminum siding can do extensive
damage to historic homes. It may be cheaper but it also traps moisture
within that wall, a wall that was not designed to have vinyl siding and
cause extensive rot. So there are other issues besides just the initial up
front cost.
Karmer: And in a conservation zone... I going on to another question...those that
are contributing structures, they have the same restrictions that whole
historic district has? Is that correct?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6d Page #21
McCafferty: They go on through the same process and I think I failed to address the
issue of process. There' s really one additional step. If you are going
to do work that requires a building permit in either a conservation or
historic district, and that is reviewed with the Historic Preservation
Commission which we try and make as painless as possible. In terms
of the difference in terms of the historic and conservation district,
they're subject to the same guidelines but there are exceptions within
the guidelines for conservation districts, which are less stringent than
for historic districts. So, for instance, we do allow vinyl siding and
some of these products within the conservation district. We're more
concerned with preserving the character of an entire district as opposed
to a historic district where we are also concerned about individual
properties as well.
Kanner: Would it have...would it be possible to make the Longfellow historic
district into a conservation district even though you have more than
60% contributing structures?
McCafferty: I would have to look at the ordinance. I believe that based upon the
ordinance conservation district can not have more than 60%
contributing. We have that in an historic district, in the Longfellow
historic district.
Kanner: Yeah, okay.
Champion: The only time, though, a window becomes an effect is if you are
actually changing the cut out of the window.
McCafferty: Yes.
Champion: You don't need a building permit to put...to replace your windows or
to put storm windows on. And I just did some. And I live in an
historic district and there was many choices in the City. And I'm very
concerned about maintaining the integrity... the outside of my house,
and the inside as far as that goes. And it was not difficult. There was
plenty of choices available. There really were a lot.
McCafferty: And certainly a case in point I have right now is this Sununit
Apartment Co-op which we are currently doing a restoration project.
And I received bids in terms of doing some different levels of window
restoration, from having exact duplicates made to having new Marvin
windows... wood Marvin windows put in, to rebuilding the existing
windows and adding storm windows. And by far the rehabilitation
End of side two, 01-100.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6d Page #22
Champion: No big deal.
Lehman: Anyone else wish to speak to the issue? Public hearing is closed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6h Page #23
ITEM NO. 6h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 3.07 ACRES FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTIFAMILY, RM-20, TO MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE
FAMILY, RS-8, LOCATED AT 747 W. BENTON STREET.
(REZ01-00013) (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Move first consideration.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? This is,
I believe, the first occasion since I've been on the council where the
property owner has requested a down zoning.
O'Dormell: So what's your question?
Lehman: I don't know. Roll call. I asked if there was discussion.
Mary Hitchcock: Well I wanted
Lehman: Please.
Hitchcock: My name is Mary Hitchcock. I'm the home person at 1506 N.
Dubuque Road. Luckily I'm not a resident in Brookfield, Wisconsin.
Honorable Mayor and Council the Buss and the Rupperts see this issue
a great deal differently. Buss wants to protect his former home by
rezoning it and the Rupperts believe that this down zoning will set a
zoning precedent that is damaging to the future of their vacant parcel
next door. In an effort to develop all parcels in Iowa City wisely,
Thursday, November 8th the Planning Department began a study of
this district just to say a systematically study other areas in the City
makin it...they plan to hold a second meeting November, I believe,
it's 27t~. Through this process, many had any questions and concerns
will be addressed and the future zoning of the vacant areas in this area
will be determined. It is possible for the Council to alleviate the
concerns of both the Buss' and the Rupperts with a compromise. The
Buss home sits facing Benton Street on the front one acre of the parcel
between two zones, the RS-8 home on the east and a hidden RM-20
apartment complex on the west. The vacant rear two acres of the Buss
parcel sits between that same RM-20 apartment complex and the
vacant Rupert parcel. If you would zone the home and the lot on
Benton Street RS-8 to line up with the other RS-8 property next door
and leave the RM-20 zoning on the vacant two area in the back, which
would match not only the developed area to the west but the vacant
Rupert area to the east, this would protect your home but it would not
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6h Page #24
prejudice the Southwest Districts planning process or the Zoning
Commission with regard to the Rupert parcel in the future. Thank you
very much.
Lehman: Mary, I would just like to say that the...when the Southwest Districts
plan is...and this is a process, it does take a while.
Hitchcock: Right.
Lehman: But it's my understanding from last night's discussion at the work
session that if the southwest plan determines the zoning for whatever,
it's not the way it belongs, the City will then institute the zoning to
match the Comprehensive Plan.
Hitchcock: That's my understanding also.
Lehman: So, so... right...So what this is zoned today or yesterday or next week
may not even be relevant because...
Hitchcock: Well...
Lehman: ...they can just designate whatever zone they choose and the City will
institute the zoning.
Hitchcock: I appreciate that but I've read the commissions notes on...when they
were discussing this and it was quite clear to me that at least one
commissioner was thinking of this parcel as some kind of buffer.
Meaning that he meant to establish...meant to continue that zoning to
the east. I'm going to address that issue through the southwest
planning process.
Lehman: Right.
Hitchcock: I'm going to address it, probably, before you many, many times. And
I...you know... my point here is that I appreciate Mr. Buss' concerns.
You know, I think that's fine. I realize his part...his vacant parcel is
pretty...youknowit'stotallyun-developable. Okay? Ijustthinkthat
it's...we've taken a lot of rack in that neighborhood over things that
are largely misinformation, fear, you name it, the people who don't
understand the issue. And now after much lobbying we have come to
the point where they're actually going to have this Southwest District
planning session and in come a whole bunch of other issues, which I
guess I'll speak to later. I'd like you to keep an open mind and the
only way to say unequivocally that you're open minded, to me, is to
say okay we'll wait until this process is finished. We can do it any
time. Why do you have to do it right now if it isn't kind of a punitive
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6h Page #25
thing aimed directly at the Rupert family? And I guess that's my
feeling.
Lehman: And you'll...and you're going to be involved in those southwest...
Hitchcock: Oh yes I've been...
Lehman: ... discussion?
Hitchcock: ...to the first one. I've been to...private meetings are going on with
different people. There's a whole lot going on there.
Lehman: Very good.
Hitchock: Which is another good point of why not wait. Why do you have to
rash through and do this when you have this coming right up? I just
think it's grossly unfair. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Mary? I'm sorry. Tell me again why you think it's punitive.
Hitchcock: Well Mr. Kanner you just have to have been here for the last fifteen
years. The Rupperts have owned this property a very long time. This
is one very small piece of property now about 23 acres and there have
been six attempted takings on it, six on one lousy little parcel. Now
don't you think it's a little strange that the City wants it twice
for... only two of them were successful but, I mea~, we're kind of a
little tired of these things coming up. That's why I think it's punitive.
Kanner: The down zoning is punitive because...
Hitchcock: Well the down zoning is punitive because it's unnecessary. I think we
really need to address that a little bit later. It's going to come up. But
it...yeah, it is. We have a right to that zoning. We have defended it
many times. I mean it's okay if you want to do it but I think you're
just punishing the City. I think that the...times are tough here. It's
time to evaluate the property based on really it's tremendous potential
for contributing to the City of Iowa City instead of trying to destroy it.
Kanner: Thanks.
Hitchcock: You're welcome.
Lehman: Okay Item I.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the lowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6h Page #26
Karr: Excuse me. Could we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilbum to accept
correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? (all ayes) Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6i Page #27
ITEM NO. 6i. REZONE APPROXIMATELY 6.15 ACRES FROM INTENSIVE
COMMERCIAL, CI-1, TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CC-
2, LOCATED AT COMMERCE DRIVE AND LIBERTY DRIVE
(REZ01-00015)
Lehman: Public hearing is open. This is continued from the last meeting
whatever date that was.
Ann Bovbjerg: Good evening. I'm Ann Bovbjerg, 1710 Ridge Road in Iowa City.
I'm speaking as the chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
You've seen the minutes and there' s been a lot said and written about
all of this. I'd like to underscore the Planning and Zoning
Commissions thinking, that we think that this zoning would be an
unwise mix of uses. And it's industrial park area. And also that it
would diminish the value of the industrial park as an industrial park.
Since our vote we have learned that the 6 acres would be only partly
for the possible grocery store that people have talked about which
leaves 3 other acres for other kinds of uses which further underlines
the problems that we have mixing these kinds of traffic. At your
meeting last meeting and also in the papers this morning there were
talks of some kinds of resolutions. Putting this particular proposal in
another area in that same zone along Scott Boulevard. To my way of
thinking, it's the same problem just moved even farther into the
industrial park. Changing the uses in CI-1 to allow a grocery store
starts getting into actual uses and again gets into incompatible uses.
The change in use for CI for a grocery store would apply not only to
this small section but to every CI district in the whole city. And that
is something that when we get into changing ordinances that we need
to think about very quickly...very carefully. Changing a word,
whether something is allowed or not allowed, exceptions or
provisional, doesn't really have any meaning as long as all your
changing is a word. If your not changing the reality then the problem
of the traffic next ...and the industrial park integrity are still there. So
unless we were going to be changing the basis of those words, it would
be meaningless to change the words. The words in the ordinances and
the words in the map on the Comprehensive Plan have come from
citizen input, the best planning knowledge, experience, case law, lots
of background. And so the words in the ordinances are not just
meaningless symbols. They have a great deal of meaning to them. So
I'd like you to consider those very carefully. The Council and the
Planning and Zoning Commission are planning to meet on this item
and we are looking forward to listening to you and finding out your
concerns which are different from some of ours. Thank you very
much.
Lehman: Thank you, Ann.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6i Page #28
Kanner: Ann?
Bovbjerg: Yes.
Kanner: Would you say the number one concern is the traffic that would be
generated and the mix of traffic?
Bovbjerg: I don't know whether that's number one. It would be...number one in
importance it's number...it's just the first one I mentioned.
Kanner: I'm just wondering, you know, if that isn't number one we have in a
CI, we have restaurants, computer supply stores, clubs. What's the
difference between that and... and a grocery store?
Bovbjerg: The make...
Lehman: Ann, before you...
Bovbjerg: Yealn.
Lehman: Before you answer may I suggest that these sort of things that we
should be discussing at our joint meeting...
Bovbjerg: Yep.
Lehman: ... between the commission and the Council.
Bovbjerg: And our joint meeting is an open meeting.
Lehman: Right.
Bovbjerg: And so people...people should come and listen to it.
Lehman: There'll be a lot of questions, I'm sure.
Bovbjerg: Yes. It's a...again it's a process that was instituted because these
kinds of things come up. And the only way to resolve them is for
everybody to know what everybody knows and go on from there. And
other questions.
Kanner: Well, yeah Ann. I would like, Ernie, if we could get just a little bit of
an answer here. Do you think maybe some of these things should be
taken out perhaps of CI-1, that I mentioned? That they might generate
the same kind of problems that a grocery store might generate next to
an industrial?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6i Page #29
Bovbjerg: What we voted on were the kinds uses, not any particular kind of store,
the general retail stuff. These...some of these will be res...will be
looked at as we are re-writing the codes and ordinances for the City
and that ongoing now. So these kinds of things are going to be coming
up in the next year, year and a half. And if times have changed and
thinking has changed then that will come out in the re-write of the
codes.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. We mentioned this last night and I would like to suggest
to the Council that we defer this to November 27th and instruct
applicants to discuss other options that are available to them. And
schedule a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission. And I
think last night we mentioned it and I have idea if any or all of these
options are attractive to the applicant. But there are ways of
accomplishing what they would like to do that would not require
rezoning or changing the Comprehensive Plan. One as a provisional
use, one as a special exception, one would be to relocate within the
same general area. Is that acceptable to the applicant?
Bob Downer: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Bob Downer, attorney for Streb
Investment Partnership. We would entertain these kinds of
discussions. We feel that there are some viable possibilities in the
options that you expressed as possibilities from your vantagepoint. I
think the relocation probably is not one but otherwise, I think these are
discussions that we'd entertain.
Lehman: Is that something you could discuss with staff and then...
Downer: Be happy to discuss it with staff.
Lehman: What's the...what's the...
Wilburn: (can't hear) defer it to the 271h.
Lehman: Do you move to defer to the...
Vanderhoef: Move to keep the public heating open.
Lehman: We move to continue to November 271h...
Wilburn: That's what I meant.
Lehman: ...by Wilburn and seconded by Vanderhoef.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6i Page #30
Kanner: Ernie?
Lehman: Yes.
Kanner: I'll probably go along with the vote but I don't think your proposal's
really changed much. If they do go for move it's a short distance, it's
still bordering on the same industrial. And putting a provisional part
in the code, amending the code, the zoning code doesn't get to the core
issue of whether it's appropriate or not, I don't think.
Lehman: I think that's exactly right and I also think that's why we need a
meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm not sure that
any alternative is going to work out there. But I can, from my
perspective, if the Council were to choose that...say something might
work it is certainly better to do it in a way that does not change the
zoning nor does it change the Comprehensive Plan. I mean that's an
available object. That's not saying Council will approve that or that
it's even appropriate. I think that' s the kind of discussion that has to
take place with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their take
on it.
Pfab: Mayor?
Atkins: Emie?
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: Go ahead. Excuse me
Pfab: What is that going to do time wise? How does that effect...
Lehman: My guess is, and Eleanor correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that
should one of those options be acceptable or whatever it probably
would require less time than changing the Comprehensive Plan and
going through three readings on the rezoning.
Pfab: Would we not have to go through the same process?
Dilkes: Can...I think there's...there's a...the first issue here is regardless of
whether one of those other options is pursued, unless you are prepared
to vote no on the rezoning tonight, in accordance with P and Z's
recommendation, you've got to continue this and defer it so you can
have your meeting with P and Z.
Champion: Right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6i Page #31
Lehman: Right.
Dilkes: So...
Lehman: No, I don't think... what I'm saying this is not going to delay the
process any more.
Dilkes: I don't think it would delay it.
Lehman: No.
Pfab: Okay that was my question.
Atkins: Ernie, do I understand that at our next work session you wish to have
the P and Z there? That's the plan?
Lehman: Well schedule that with...I think that's... Ann and Marian can work
out something. I was...ifit's possible I would like to see us meet, for
example, at 6:00 on a work session. So that if this takes more than a
half an hour or so we're not...we won't be there all night.
Kanner: Well Emie maybe we should take a straw poll or an actual vote and if
we do deny the...if we do find we have the majority and deny the
rezoning we still accomplish the same thing in talking with the
applicant for the rezoning. And it's perhaps a cleaner way of doing it.
Champion: I don't know if I'm willing to do that. I like to...putting...prolonging
the public hearing. The word just slipped my mind.
Lehman: Continuing?
Champion: Because, you know, some of us, well I can only speak for myself but I
feel strong that this store should go there. So I don't want to deny the
rezoning because that may be my last resort.
Kanner: Right. That's why I'm saying we should take a straw poll. If there
are...if there are the four votes to do the rezoning we should...
Champion: Well no I don't...
Kanner: ...do it. Just see now. (can't hear)
Champion: I don't want to do it unless we have to.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6i Page #32
Vanderhoef: From my perspective, Steven, we really need to have this conversation
in which P and Z, in my mind. This is one of things that I was talking
about last night at the work session in that all of these zones of
neighborhood commercial, CC-2 commercial and intensive
commercial, that we're talking about in this case, they are all so
interrelated and we need to have a conversation with P and Z and this
Council and maybe we will have our ideas put in place long before the
total zoning upgrade is put in place. But we had a number of things
that have happened over the last couple of years that I wished (can't
hear) this conversation had happened sooner rather than later. And I
think this is the prime time for us to do it.
Pfab: If we don't...what is going to trigger our need to meet with Planning
and Zoning? Do we have to vote?
O'Donnell: (can't understand)
Lehman: Well I think...
Dilkes: I think if you vote on the motion to continue, which is on the floor,
you'll see where you're standing.
Pfab: If that will trigger it? The...
Lehman: The mo...
Champion: We don't have to trigger it..
Lehman: No, but there is a motion to continue this public hearing and to meet
with Planning and Zoning anyway.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: That's the motion. All in favor of the motion to continue the public
hearing to November 27th say aye. Opposed? (all ayes) Motion
carries. Do we...
Karr: Could I have a motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilburn: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn to accept
correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? (all ayes) Motion carries.
We also need a motion, I think, to...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6i Page #33
Vanderhoef: The move to defer to the 27th'
Lehman: ...continue the conskleration. Moved by Vanderhoef...
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: ...seconded by Wilburn to defer first consideration to the 27th. All in
favor? Opposed? (all ayes) Motion carries.
Pfab: Mr. Mayor?
Lehman: Yes?
Pfab: Do we need to make a motion to meet with the Planning and Zoning
Commission?
Champion: No.
Lehman: No, we just (can't hear)
Pfab: Okay. That's okay.
Kanner: We just what?
Lehman: We just made a request to meet with them so it's a matter of setting
that meeting up.
Kanner: Yeah, I think we should, though, try to meet before the 27th.
Atkins: I'm assuming it would be the work session on the 26th. That's you
next (can't hear)
Lehman: Well the only problem is, I think, next week is going to be an
abbreviated week because of the holiday and it (can't hear) be such a
thing as this may drag longer than we would like. But the soonest we
could probably do this would probably be the work session two weeks
from last night.
Atkins: The commission and the staff are represented in the audience so I
don't see any reason why we couldn't put it together by the 26th.
Lehman: Right. Well let's go for that.
Atkins: Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#6o Page #34
ITEM NO. 60. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILD PRAIRIE ESTATES PART 4,
A 35.86 ACRE, 22-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
WITH TWO OUTLOTS, LOCATED AT THE NORTH
TERMINUS OF WILD PRAIRIE DRIVE AND THE WEST
TERMINUS OF DUCK CREEK DRIVE. (SUB01-00022)
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: I'm going to vote yes for this reluctantly but really, I think, that we
need to make more of a proactive effort in trying to follow our
Comprehensive Plan in getting more mix... a greater mix of housing
types and densities in the west side there. I think we're getting more
and more single family sprawling type. And hopefully, when it comes
to us with our Southwest District Plan, we'll look at some different
type of zoning and consider zoning up in density a few of the areas out
there. So that we can have...offer better cohesive services like transit,
water, things like that, sewer.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 6/1, Pfab voting in the
negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#7 Page #35
ITEM NO. 7. AMENDING THE lOW CITY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
CODE BY ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ON DEVELOPMENT VClTHIN THE AREA ROUGHLY
CIRCUMSCRIBED BY MILLER AVENUE, U.S. HIGHWAY 1,
HARLOCKE STREET, AND BENTON STREET IN IOWA
CITY, IOWA.
a. Public Discussion.
Robyrm Shradcr: Robyrm Shradcr, 1104 Wccbcr. Thank you for your consideration
tonight and to staff for drafting this ordinance. We feel as though we
have bccn before you way too much lately and this moratorium could
give us both a break from the stress in the Weebet Harlocke
neighborhood. I was gratified to hear all of the talk about supportive
neighborhoods during the recent campaign and was actually really
glad that process took place when it did as it gave me some insight into
the position of the incumbents. I wish you all a productive and
positive four years. We are being as proactive as we can be with the
moratorium request. Believe me, we don't enjoy the notorieties
surrmmding the down zoning petition on Benton Street and wc have
certainly experienced our share of criticism over the Southgate
litigations still not resolved. Wc would like to participate in the
Southwest District planning process under the protection of this
moratorium so that we're not always on the defensive in having to play
the part of antagonist to developers and to the City. From what I heard
during the campaign, we all want safe, strong, family friendly
neighborhoods and wc have had to spend a great deal of time in the
last year protecting ours. We'd like to channel that energy and focus
into something positive with the southwest planning process. It is tntc
that the moratorium will mostly effect the Rupcrt property. A group of
us met with several Ruperts last week to begin discussions about their
development ideas for their land. It was great to have discussion like
this before a concrete plan is submitted and the deal is effectively
done. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with your...with the
Rupcrts. I enjoyed it and fccl good about the encounter. But the fact
is that them is no guarantee about those discussions continuing or that
the outcome of any development plans would respect the existing
neighborhood in place. We all know what can happen when a really
good deal comes along and there's a lot of money involved. We need
a strong Comprehensive Plan that considers all cffected parties when
developing in such a dense urban area. We wcrc forced to take
extreme measures in the case of Bcnton Villa. We knew that it would
bc considered bold and audacious to petition the down zoning of
someone else's land; however, this action made our issues public.
And when the stairwells actually forced a rcdcsign, our concerns were
addressed in a way that will help, although not solve, the problem of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#7 Page #36
transition. The Benton Villa conflict is the best example of what the
law currently allows being not in the best interests of the greater
community. I think we all agree that three story buildings should not
be ten feet from single story homes. Yet the same lack of zoning
transition exist from the Rupert property to our neighborhood and
there are other concerns further east in relation to the Miller Orchard
neighborhood. We do not want to be in reactive mode again should a
developer want to move quickly on the Rupert property prior to the
adoption of the Southwest District plan. What the law currently allows
for their land could be just as unsavory as the original Benton Villa
proposal to the people in our...living in our neighborhood. And to
your point, Steven, when deciding whether to pursue or withdraw our
petition to down zoning the Benton Villa property, we were faced with
the reality that the developer told us he would effectively put the same
number of bedrooms on that property within an RM-20 zone, the same
as he would have for an RM-44 zone. So we effectively took the bird
in the hand knowing that we were faced with the prospect of trying to
convince a super majority of this Council to down zone someone's
property midstream and felt that we could at least...had at least
effected some change in the design and layout of that. Although we
recognize that it does not solve the problem of zoning for our
neighborhood into the future. Karin Franklin said last night that the
Weeber Harlocke neighborhood is a key area to be addressed. And we
are hopeful and trusting that the planning process will yield a plan that
corrects some of the problems currently plaguing us. Of course,
adherent in this expectation is the need for zoning changes to be
initiated by the adoption of the final plan and I was very please to hear
Karin say, last night, that this will occur as part of the process.
Problem areas should be tackled and addressed not allowed to
languish, as has been the case up to this point with some our zoning
anomalies. We had a great start to the planning process. It was
actually really fun. Please demonstrate your support of that process
and our neighborhood by voting for this moratorium. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Hitchcock: Hi. Here I am again. Moratoriums are important. I know a lot about
cities because I use to audit a municipality. Moratoriums are used by
cities to keep property taxes low by discouraging properties outside the
utility service area from developing until these lines can be extended
in orderly and physically responsible fashion. This is not the case
here. Utilities have been present in this area for many years. Due to
the generosity of the Ruperts who gifted the sewer easements that
provide these services to their neighbors who seek this moratorium.
This is a political action. Obviously, as you've just heard, again the
Ruperts who are still waiting patiently for the right opportunity to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#7 Page #37
come along. It's been forty years. There have been many discussions
over the past nine years with staff over when and how this parcel
might develop. The Ruperts totally embrace the Southwest District
planning process. Through it we hope the residence will become
educated about this parcel and discover their parcel is not... our parcel
is not a treat to them nor was it ever a threat to them. It should be
noted that there was no moratorium during North District planning
process, even though there' s a great deal of vacant land there that
could be developed at any moment. The Ruperts have defended their
zoning successfully several times. They've tried to work with zoning
and their neighbors. They could have filled a formal objection to the
Buss rezoning and forced a super majority vote. They chose to offer a
compromise rather than an argument. It's time everyone shows a little
character, a little class, and a little cooperation. The years ahead are
likely to be very difficult, much more difficult from the last twenty
years for the City. With the recent interest rate cut, the City can expect
interest...income this year to be substantially less than last year. I
would guess maybe, depending upon what you're investing, 30%
down this year and who knows what next? Short falls will mean
cutting and deferring services or increasing taxes unless new sources
of revenue are found. Iowa City must redesign itself and focus on the
future. It's time Iowa City maximizes the opportunities of their...that
are available to us. These parcels are opportunities waiting.
Take...you're right, they could develop almost any time but I think
Ernie's been around long enough and some of the rest of you to know
that...just look at the airport parcel that you...that some buyer wanted
to buy really badly but...How long has that been going on? About
three years? A moratorium is unnecessary. If tomorrow a buyer
stopped up here it would take a year. So you're just doing this as an
inconvenience and I think as an insult. And besides that, it delays the
Miller Avenue Park. Thank you very much.
Kanner: Does it effect the public area?
Hitchcock: No, I'm not talking about the public area. I'm talking about the larger
park...
Chumpion: Can't hear.
Hitchock: ...that's beenplanned since 1995. (can't hear)
Lehman: Mary, if you're going to speak you really have to speak into the
microphone; otherwise, we don't record it.
Hitchcock: I said I'm not talking about the little two acres that the City finally
bought for park. I'm talking about the park agreement between the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#7 Page #38
City Manager Berlin and the Ruppert family in 1985. Okay? To
donate the comer of Miller and Benton for a park as soon as the City
properly zoned the rest of it so that it could be developed. We have sat
and waited, and waited, and waited for a buyer to come up who would
either accept the zoning that is there or propose something new.
Several other things have been proposed. The City has not been very
excited about any of them. Okay, we're still waiting. But Harlocke's
sitting there waiting, oh my god there're going to develop any minute.
We got to have a moratorium. Come and save us. Well there's no
saving necessary. If we're to start developing tomorrow on that
parcel, we don't even want to start on the Harlocke end. We would
start on the Miller Benton end because we'd really like to see the park
before...you know, while somebody's still alive who donated it. I
mean, it's just a sad, sad situation. I'm really ashamed of you all if
you must know. But I just...I'm supposed to be nice, polite,
responsible. So okay, move on. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you, Mary.
Tim Walker: Good evening, I'm Tim Walker from the Northside neighborhood.
And I just want to speak to an issue that I've heard brought up. I
don't...I haven't been here for all the hearings tonight but I've heard
this brought up in similar contexts. The issue of property rights. And
I'm afraid the property rights of the large property owners have
received far more consideration than the property rights of the
neighboring smaller homeowners who only have, you know, $100,000,
$150,000 mortgages. Well that's a big stake to those people and they
bought those properties, they invested in those properties, they're
caring for those properties with the assumption that they would have a
reasonable use of the property next to them. A use that did not include
a high density apartment right next to their lot line. A use that did not
include the traffic associated with such a high-density development as
this. So that's really all I want to say. Please consider the property
fights of the people who have invested in that neighborhood and
neighborhoods in general and are just hoping to live the same life there
that they've lived, you know, when they bought their property. Thank
you.
Kanner: Tim, are you representing the association?
Walker: No, not at all. I'm just here.
Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to the issue?
Ann Kohl: I'm Ann Kohl. I live on Giblin Drive. I'm in the Miller Orchard
neighborhood and I can speak for the neighborhood in the respect that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#7 Page #39
we are very much interested in having a park in that area. We have
nothing against Rupperts but we have been interested in adding that
land to the two acres ofparkland that we have if it's possible. So we'd
greatly appreciate it if something like that could happen. We think it
would be very nice for the whole area.
7b. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)
Lehman: Thank you. Do we have a...Does the Council wish to take first
consideration on this tonight?
Champion: I'd like to move it for consideration.
Pfab: I move.
Lehman: We have a motion by Connie Champion and second by Irvin Pfab for
first consideration. Discussion?
Champion: I just have a little bit I want to say and that is I don't think this is a
political decision at all. I think it's a neighborhood decision. I think
the neighborhoods surrounding this area are fragile. I think they're
about ready to break. I think they've had a lot of crap. And I'm not
willing to stop a legal development that's underway but I am willing to
prevent further erosion in this neighborhood by City development and
public planning (can't hear). So I support this moratorium. I think
it's the right thing to do and I think it's the healthy thing to do.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Vanderhoef: I'll follow up on that. I was one of the people that pushed to have this
particular district for planning right now verses another neighborhood
that had been higher on the list shall we say.
Champion: (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: And it was because of the changing types of activities going on in that
area. And in my experience over the last six years sitting on Council it
is certainly better to have a planning process in place before each of
these individual little pockets things come up. Yes, we've had a few
and that always happens...I mean historically it...there is some word
in the wind that something is going to change in an area, someone who
maybe has been thinking about doing something there for five years.
All at once it spurs them on to go forward because they don't know
what they'll have in the end. The...I will support the moratorium. I
look at that September land I'm a little concerned that that' s quite a
long time. We did have a little discussion last night that perhaps some
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#7 Page #40
of this could be done sooner than that and I will keep pushing to have
that happen rather than later.
Lehman: And that includes the rezoning too?
Vanderhoef: Um-huh.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Kanner: I'm going to vote yes for this. I think there is some...there is always
harm done when we take away certain rights and it is a political
process. That's what we're here for. And I think that's a good thing,
actually, that we're part of the City making that process. I don't think,
though, the harm is that great with the moratorium that it merits voting
no on. And that's why I'll be voting yes to this.
Lehman: I'm going to support the moratorium. I have been so tired of being
criticized for trying to enforce the laws out there when we have a
situation that is untenable. It's been that way for years and it's time
that we get this thing straightened out. And I know I've complained to
the neighbors that why you wait until somebody wants to build and
then you come in and try to stop them. And that really frustrates me
and it frustrates the neighbors. Here is an opportunity to get this area
straightened out, planned the way it needs to be planned so we're not
going to have the conflicts. And we've had several, since I've been on
the Council and certainly back into the '80' s, proposals that might
have worked and for whatever reason they didn't work. And so I think
it's time that we do a Comprehensive Plan of that area and I will
support it.
O'Donnell: I also am going to support it. We have had several run ins with this
neighborhood. This Council has been a very neighborhood friendly
council. We've asked...we've asked people to come to us before we
have a project in front of us and they've done it so I'll support it.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries (7/0) and we're going to take a recess
until twenty minutes to nine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#8b Page #41
ITEM NO. 8b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
TO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
NOT TO EXCEED $10,250,000 SEWER REVENUE BONDS.
Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Wilbum...
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: ...seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion7
Pfab: Are these Aaa rated bonds?
Lehman: Steve's not here. I don't...yes, here we go.
Vanderhoef: But utility bonds are rated differently.
Lehman: They're revenue bonds.
Kevin O'Malley: Irvin, these are revenue bonds and they are rated A2 but we had them
insured, or the person who bought it insured it and so they sold us Aaa
rated bonds.
Pfab: And that's the...and still you're coming up with that interest rate?
O'Malley: Yes, they always...the credit risk always looks at the underlying
rating, A2.
Pfab: So, but we bought it at Aaa (can't hear) right?
O'Malley: The person who bought the bonds bought the insurance.
Pfab: Oh, the person who bought the bonds. Okay. Okay, that was my
question.
Lehmm~: Okay. Further discussion?
Vanderhoef: (can't hear)
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries, (7/0)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#8c Page #42
ITEM NO. 8c. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SALE OF
$10,250,000 SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2001.
Lehman: These were received at 11:00 on the 13th. The recommendation is for
the sale to be to US Paine Weber for...
Pfab: You (can't hear)
Lehman: ...a rate of 4.7807%, which is an awfully good rate, is it not? Do we
have a motion to that effect?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilbum: Second.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Roll call.
Motion carries, (7/0).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#9b Page #43
ITEM NO. 9. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND
ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COURT HILL TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT,
ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO
ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME
AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
9b. Consider a Resolution Approving
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Pfab. Discussion?
Kanner: No, there's a trail that's associated with this and Hy-Vee, didn't
they... we get some land in exchange for when they built there?
Atkins: We received some dedicated property and an easement, I recall time
that was put together. I'm not sure whether I can tie it directly back to
that but I do...Dee's nodding, I'm pretty sure we did.
Kanner: And are we...is that trail going to be connected with what's outlined
further up, further east?
Atkins: All of the trails are to be interconnected. Exactly how this one will
work, Steven, I couldn't tell you right now but they all are to be
interconnected. That's the plan.
Dan Scott: Steve?
Atkins: Oh, Dan is back there, excuse me.
Lehman: Hey.
Scott: Yeah, I can answer that.
Arkins: Thank you, Dan.
Scott: The...this trail doesn't go quite to Hy-Vee. It goes from Beach Street
east to Scott Boulevard. I'm not sure when the rest of that...piece of
that trail will be installed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#9b Page #44
Lehman: That's not part of this though?
Scott: No.
Atkins: There is a trail associated with this project as we traditionally do when
we have those easements.
Scott: Right.
Atkins: We also have easements or dedication of property from Hy-Vee for a
trail.
Scott: Right.
Atkins: But those are two separate projects.
Scott: Yes.
Atkins: Okay.
Vanderhoef: Because that trail...
(End of side one, 01-102)
...but there is a space in there.
Scott: Right.
Lehman: Okay. Further discussion. Roll call. Motion catties, (7/0).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page
ITEM NO. 10. AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED
"PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY" BY REPEALING
CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES"
AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED
"SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS".
Lehman: Public discussion?
Arkins: Emie, before the discussion starts...
Lehman: Yes?
Atkins: Dover Street.
Lehman: Oh. That's...
Atkins: Excuse me.
Vanderhoef: Thank you.
Champion: Very good.
Kanner: (can't hear)
Roger Gingerich: Good evening. I'm Roger Gingerich. I live at...with my family at
2035 Abbey Lane in Iowa City and I'm a strong advocate and
supporter of the smoke free restaurant ordinance. I'm a medical
oncologist and have been in practice at the University of Iowa
Hospitals and Clinics for the past 20 years where I have helped wage
the war against cancer by treating patients with cancer, by educating
new oncologists, by doing and supporting cancer research. I'm
director of the adult bone marrow transplant program at the university
hospital and I am Associate Director for Clinical Affairs at the Holden
Comprehensive Cancer Center. As importantly, I am father of John
and Abby Gingerich who are frequent visitors to the downtown
restaurants, and father to Abby...to Rebecca Gingerich who works in
one of those restaurants. I am a non-smoker and I enjoy very much
eating out frequently with my family and my wife at these restaurants.
I would like to thank the Council this evening for addressing this issue
and moving foxward with it. I would also like to thank the Council for
the opportunity to express my concerns as a citizen of this community,
as a father, and as a physician. The question that rests before the
Council is not whether cigarette smoke causes lung disease, heart
disease, cancer, whether inhaled the first time or the second time. We
know from tons of published data over the past 20+ years, for certain
that it does. The question also is not whether cigarette smoke wafting
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #46
around ones eyes and in ones nostrils enhances the taste of food or the
experience of dining. I can tell you for certain it does not. The
question is not whether one leaves the restaurant...when one leaves the
restaurant the stench of cigarette smoke stays behind conveniently. It
does not. It hangs around for an embarrassingly long time on your
clothing, begging to be washed away. Finally, the question is not
whether in the same restaurant, often in the same room, there are
effective barriers that prevent cigarette smoke generated in one part of
the restaurant for contaminating air in the non-smoking part. No such
barriers that are effective exist. Restaurants that allow cigarette
smoking in effect, by default give preference to those who smoke and
care not for their own health nor that of their children nor that of their
fellow dinners nor that of the people who work there. I think the
question before this Council is whether you are willing to demonstrate
that you have the courage, the intelligence, the wisdom to do for this
community what is fight and that is to pass this smoke free ordinance.
Again, I voice strong support of this ordinance and I encourage you to
do the same. Thank you.
Ralph Wilmoth: My name is Ralph Wilmoth. I'm the director of the Johnson County
Department of Public Health and I've come to...this evening to
support this and to read a letter that was sent from the Johnson County
Board of Health to this Council on October 11th of this year. It says,
dear Members of the Council, exposure to environment tobacco smoke
is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. In
fact, there is not safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. U.S.
Surgeon General has concluded second hand smoke is a cause of
disease including ltmg cancer in healthy non-smokers. Studies have
shown childhood expose to second hand smoke increases risk of
developing cancer as an adult. Passage of ordinances that support
smoke flee environments protect employees, children and others from
exposure to second hand smoke. At its regular meeting on October 10,
2001, the Johnson County Board of Health discussed the clean air for
everyone groups request to support a smoke flee ordinance for
restaurants. Upon proper motion the Board of Health approved a letter
supporting efforts to support smoke flee environments. Thank you.
And it was signed by the chairperson of the board. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
John Streif: My name is John Streif. I'm general manager of Midtown Family
Restaurant, 200 Scott Court, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of
America where people still have a choice. I'm here because, you
know, you've singled my out with your readings and this and that. I'm
a restaurant. I have no liquor, no alcohol. So you're telling me that I
have to be non-smoking. You know you don't give me a choice.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #47
You're going to read somebody maybe they got 35% alcohol so they
can smoke and drink in there and eat, you know. My customers...have
served them a long time, (can't understand) only a long time. And
the...I've been a smoking restaurant and they've always had their
choice, you know, and I want to keep it that way. That's all I got to
say.
Lehman: Thank you, John.
Jim Mondanaro: My name is Jim Mondanaro. I own Fresh Food Concepts with my
wife, Maureen, which manages four... five restaurants in the Iowa
City, Coralville area. Three of those five restaurants are non-smoking
of which we have been at the edge, at the very cutting edge of making
this a non-smoking community along time ago. We had one of those
restaurants, Mondo's downtown, that we opened up last December as a
non-smoking venue as well as our restaurant in Florida. Which, both
were greatly hampered by our insistence of those customers not being
able to smoke. In some cases this has been a very good thing for us
and in other cases it's been a terrible thing for us. What my point in
being here tonight is to talk to you about the essence of the ordinance
that you want to pass. It's important for us as a business within this
community that this ordinance has a level playing field about it when it
is past. Meaning that we don't think that it's fair for you to skew this
for those who are not involved in the restaurant business such as
ourselves. Mickey's and Mondo's downtown are 75 to 80%
restaurant, food sales and beverage sales on a per month bases but we
do generate revenue on our liquor sales which is 20% of that gross
revenue that we take in every month. For us to lose that means that a
competitive advantage goes to our competitors who are not fully
involved in the food industry. We think that it's a public issue, health
issue here that we're talking about. And I admire all these people that
want these restaurants to be non-smoking but I don't think that it
should be at the sake of us not having a competitive...for us to have a
competitive disadvantage with other people in the segment of the
restaurant industry. We think that if you're going to open up this door
and ask that the people of Iowa City be protected by not having
smoking in a part of the restaurants or bars we don't understand the
hypocrisy behind that. We should open the door, if this is a public
health issue, and walk completely through the door and say non-
smoking period. But to have non-smoking in a percentage of
restaurants because of what they do percentage wise for food and
liquor it unfair. And I just ask you to think real hard about how you
effect everybody under this ordinance that comes into play with the
sell of food. That's all I have to say.
Lehman: Thank you, Jim.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #48
Daryl Woodson: Hi again. Daryl Woodson. I thought we went through things a couple
of weeks ago but I understand them may have been some changes.
Not knowing that for sure, I'd just like to address...question a couple
of technical aspects of the draft ordinance. One that says the affidavit
stating... shall state the actual percentage of sales. Will those figures
be available to the public on file?
Dilkes: Yes.
Woodson: Yeah, I have a bit of a problem with that, having, you know, business
information being available to the public. I don't know why we need
the actual percentage rather than just a statement of over or under but,
you know, that's sort of business information of how much you're
doing. It may be a relatively minor thing but, you know, if their could
be a change in that that would be nice. Under the penalty on Eleanor' s
memo that was attached, and this may be governed by state law, I
don't know, but the penalty for the smoker who lights up in a non-
smoking area is $25. The penalty to the business that permits that or
doesn't stop it fast enough is $100. Is there a state code the governs
that disparity?
Dilkes: That was Councils... that was Council's direction.
Woodson: Okay. I would, you know, ask that the penalty be the same. When we
were discussing the liquor ordinance we could not raise the fine for
underage drinkers because that was governed by state law. But if you
have the penalty very low for someone who is violating the ordinance,
as an individual, and a much higher penalty for the business, you
know, for not stopping that quickly enough... I mean if we don't have
somebody standing right there and this person lights up a cigarette and
somebody complains and we get a $100 fine and they get a $25 fine
because we didn't move fast enough or we didn't have somebody
standing over them all the time. I think that should be equitable or
maybe even a higher fine for the individual who violates the law,
makes us the policeman. You've heard all my discussions three weeks
ago about the fairness or unfairness of this and I said at that time that I
sort of agree with Jim and I'll put his sticker on here, that if we're
going to do this, if it is a public health issue that's overriding, possibly
we should ban it in all commercial establishments in Iowa City, all
buildings that hold conkmercial occupancy permit. But more than that
I think that it is a place that we do not need to go right now. Let the
citizens, let these people who do not wish to be in a smoking
establishment don't go. There are more and more places opening
every year in Iowa City that do not have smoking. The choice is
growing and choice should be maintained. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#i0 Page #49
Lehman: Thank you, Daryl.
Beth Ballinger: Good evening, I'm Beth Ballinger and live here in Iowa City and I am
one of the spokes people for Cafe. We want to thank you tonight for
beginning the important task of working on a smoke free ordinance for
restaurants. Tonight as you discuss this ordinance I ask you to
consider what the people of Iowa City have told us, Caf6, time and
time again. They want an ordinance that protects the health of workers
and dinners in restaurants. They want an ordinance that protects them
24 hours a day. They don't want an ordinance that allows for red
lights or green lights. They want an ordinance that covers restaurants
both big and small. Is smoke any less harmful in small restaurants
than big restaurants? Is smoke any less harmful before or after 8pm?
The finding of a survey that Caf~ commissioned in the summer of
2000, over a year ago, confirmed these facts and they have given us
the support we've needed to carry on with our effort. The people of
Iowa City told us then, they are not ready for an ordinance that covers
bars and there has been no grass roots movements despite the wide
publicity of our movement in the subsequent year and a half since.
And so we as a group have not expanded our efforts in that direction.
For over a year in our discussions with you as a group as well as
individually we have supported an ordinance that defines restaurants
as establishments that acquire a 51% or greater of the receipts from
food. We have not veered from that. This number is supported by
state code, by an opinion from the State Attorney General regarding a
smoke free ordinance, as well as by common sense. We strongly urge
you to support to continue to support this 51% figure. You've
embarked on a challenging task at the request of the citizens of Iowa
City and that is to craft an ordinance that protects their health. As City
Councilors you are the stewards of many aspects of your citizens
wellbeing including their health. So please do not waiver in your
original goal and that is to craft a strong and effective ordinance. And
a strong ordinance is meant to do one thing only. It's not meant to
create hardship for those that it effects. It's not meant to be convenient
for some and not for others. It's meant to do only one thing. It's
meant to serve only one reason and that's to save lives. And you folks
have the opportunity to do that tonight. You have the power to save
lives. It's here in your hands. And we the members of Caf6 as well
as, I'm sure, the other citizens of Iowa City support you in your
efforts. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Beth. Do we have a motion to consider for first
consideration?
Karr: Could we accept correspondence first please?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #50
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef...
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: ...seconded by Wilbum to accept correspondence. All in favor?
Opposed? (all ayes) Motion carries.
b. Consider an Ordinance.
Lehman: Do we have a motion for first consideration?
Vanderhoef: Move first consideration.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef...
Wilburn: Second.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: ...seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Vanderhoef: I would like to offer an amendment to what is before us. I would like
to change our definition of restaurant from what is quoted in the Iowa
Code of public place and to have our ordinance read all establishments
where food is prepared and served on premise to be considered
restaurant. Just a little...well I'll wait for a second.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: All right continue.
Vanderhoef: Okay. Thank you. A little discussion on why I was looking at this.
The Iowa Clean Air Act made this provision of defining public place
when they were looking a smoking in restaurants a number of years
ago and when they established a smoking area and a non-smoking
area. And in that discussion apparently they decided that a restaurant
of 50 seats or less was a place where they couldn't technically have a
smoking and non smoking area that was very effective, or they didn't
feel it would be effective. And therefore they exempted those small
areas of public place. And I feel like if we have aplace that has
serving of food in a small place should be considered along with all
the other restaurants no matter what. So I would choose to do this in
our own ordinance and define it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #51
Lehman: Any other discussion?
Dilkes: Dee, ljust...I need to clarify here. Based on our discussion, the
discussion at your work session last night, it's my understanding that
your interest is in modifying the public place definition only in so far
as it talks about the restaurants and not applying to seating capacity
under 50.
Vanderhoef: Right.
Dilkes: There are other aspects of that definition that need to be maintained...
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Dilkes: ...i.e. it's a public...
Vanderhoef: Thank you.
Dilkes: ... ect.
Lehman: Only as it applies to restaurants.
Vanderhoef: As it applies to restaurants is what I was addressing.
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: Okay?
Lehman: Other discussion?
Kanner: Which section would that be in this ordinance here?
Vanderhoef: It is...
Kanner: Six, seven...
Vanderhoef: Six, seven, two, three and four are the three.
Dilkes: There are a number of places in the ordinance...
Lehman: That refer...
Dilkes: ... that refer to the public place definition of...in the State Code.
Lehman: Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #52
Dilkes: And if the amendment passes what I would do is just modify that
definition but use the rest of the definition. Just modify it to apply to
all restaurants as opposed to all restaurants with a seating capacity of
more than 50.
Lehman: Further discussion? All in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed
same sign. (all ayes) The amendment carries. Discussion of the
motion as amended?
Champion: Yeah, I would like to amend this too. I think...I like the idea of fining
the person who's smoking in a non-smoking area as being the primary
criminal and not the restaurant. So I'd like to offer and amendment to
switch those two fines.
O'Donnell: I would second that.
Lehman: To switch them or just increase.
Vanderhoef: Increase one.
Champion: I would...I would switch them. I would fine the smoker $100 and the
restaurant $25. I don't think the restaurant is going to want people to
smoke ifit's a non-smoking restaurant. I don't think they're the
criminal. And I don't think they can stand over everybody. And I
guess...how do we...how do we decide that they've let them smoke?
Dilkes: No. The infraction on the part of the owner or the manager would be
failing to post no smoking...
Champion: Oh.
Dilkes: ... it was a non-smoking restaurant, to take reasonable... basically that.
Champion: (can't hear)
Dilkes: And...or to designate a smoking area when they weren't allowed to.
Champion: Okay, so it isn't just because somebody lights up a cigarette is it?
Dilkes: No...you're...there's no vicarious liability here. You're not imposing
the fine on the owner or the manager because somebody else is
smoking...
Champion: Okay.
Dilkes: ...as long as they've taken reasonable efforts to prevent by signing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #53
Pfab: Connie, would you accept the (can't understand) amendment?
Lehman: Well, first of all, we have...
Dilkes: Just a second, I don't...
Lehman: We have the motion to...we have a amendment to increase, to reverse
the fine for business owners to be $25 for smokers $100 made by
Champion and seconded by O'Donnell.
Champion: Well can I...can I...can I amend my own amendment?
Lehman: You can retract...
Vanderhoef: Withdraw one and start over.
Lehman: ... you could... you could... you could withdraw...
Champion: Can I withdraw my amendment and start over?
Lehman: ...as long as the seconder agrees.
O'Donnell: I totally agree with Connie.
Lehman: He agrees with (can't hear).
O'Donnell: Whatever she said.
Lehman: All fight.
Champion: Then I think the fines for each ought be $100.
Lehman: So the amendment now states that the penalty for the person who
lights up is $100 as well as for the owner of the business who allows
that to occur. Do you second that Mr. O'Donnell?
O'Donnell: Gladly.
Lehman: We now have a motion and a second to amend it.
Dilkes: That's for first offense for the owner? The way it's written it's 100.
Pfab: For the owner or smoker?
Champion: Well you can't keep track of the smoker.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13~ 2001.
#10 Page #54
Dilkes: No.
Lehman: We have changed only the...
Dilkes: First time.
Lehman: ...fine for the smoker. Is there discussion?
Wilburn: I don't support that. $25 is a pretty steep cigarette.
Champion: It is? Oh, I tell you it isn't.
Pfab: Voice of experience.
Wilbum: And in...probably in line with some of our parking fines and fees the
intent is for compliance and not...not to make a profit off of this.
Vanderhoef: (can't hear)
Wilbum: So I believe $25 is sufficient for that.
Champion: That's a good point too.
Wilburn: I understand what you're saying but I think it's...
Pfab: I would support the $100.
Lehman: Other discussion?
O'Donnell: What is the fine for the restaurant owner?
Lehman: $100.
Wilburn: If they fail to desig...
O'Donnell: If they fail to designate and...
Wilburn: and post it.
O'Donnell: Post the sign.
Wilburn: And if they refuse to set aside a non...a smoking section.
Lehman: If they put ashtrays all over the counter you probably are going to get
them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #55
Vanderhoef: And look the other way.
O'Donnell: Okay and what is the fine for the smoker is $25.
Dilkes: Currently.
Lehman: The way it's proposed is $25.
Pfab: And Connie's and...motion that Mr. O'Donnell seconded is $100 and
I would support that for the smoker.
Lehman: Right. We have... any other discussion?
Dilkes: I think just...just to remin...I think where you got these figures from
was, at least the $25 one, was from the Ames ordinance. I think that's
where we started with that.
Kanner: I think that the... ultimately the way the... any kind of smoking ban
ordinance is successful is when it's self-enforcing. And that... I think
how it works throughout most of the country where there are these
bans that it's self-enforcing to a large extent and that fines are
secondary. So yeah I think $25 is reasonable at this time and I won't
be voting for it.
Vanderhoef: I can understand why... why you want it, to get their attention but it is
sort of punitive for...it...
Lehman: That's the idea.
Pfab: Yeah.
Vanderhoef: I'm really mixed on that.
Wilburn: Excessive might be...
Lehman: Yeah.
Champion: It might be excessive. I mean, I thought...
Lehman: Let's vote on this excessive amendment.
Champion: Right. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page
Lehman: How many are in favor to raise the fine for smoker from 25 to $100
say I. Let's raise our hands. I see three. How many are opposed?
The amendment has been defeated. Shall we discuss the motion...
Champion: I don't feel bad about it because I thought...I didn't really understand
how the bar owner or the restaurant owner was going to be penalized.
Lehman: Right.
Champion: But now that it's been clarified I don't feel to bad about it.
Lehman: All right.
Champion: But I still think $25 isn't high enough.
Wilburn: (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: (can't hear)
Lehman: We are now discussing the amended motion.
Vanderhoef: And I would like to offer another amendment. I would like to see the
pementages changed in the amendment from the 63/35 to state a
restaurant will be a restaurant, considered a restaurant if over 50% of
the gross sales are in food.
Dilkes: So can I...can I just ask a question, Dee? So the way we have this
phrased, we talk about the exception. So you would want alcohol sales
to be more than 50%, is that what you're saying?
Vanderhoef: Um-huh.
Dilkes: Okay.
O'Dormell: I would say to do that it's necessary to start this entire process all over.
Pfab: Point of...
O'Donnell: We've been... excuse me.
Pfab: Point of discussion, I'd (can't hear)
O'Donnell: We've been in...on the radio, in the papers, on television and we
posted 65%. I think to do 50% now without having public hearings is
wrong.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #57
Lehman: Right. Let's get a second to that motion.
Pfab: I will second it.
Lehman: We have a motion by Vannderhoefand seconded by Wilbum to change
the percentage that would be used in the ordinance from the present
65/35 to basically 49/51 or anything over 50%. Okay, now we can
have discussion and your point Mike is that...
O'Donnell: Everything to this point has been based on 65%. It's been well
publicized and, I think, to go back to 50% right now is just not being
fair to the community. So I believe that we have to...we have to go
back and have the public heating again and start all over.
Wilbum: I disagree. I think for the majority of the time that we've been
considering this a rough figure has been talked about, this 50/50. Or
perhaps another way to look at it is a simple majority type figure. I
think at that last meeting where we had instructed staff to go ahead and
construct the ordinance we...Well, I'll speak for myself. I was frankly
surprised, especially given that we were in the middle of the campaign
season that we were even at the point of drawing up the ordinance
after having bounced around this and look at questions from the City
Attomey for a year. The reason I support this amendment is we have a
foundation for the 50% figure. We discussed before and the business
surveys that were sent out were based upon that... If I'm... correct
me...that 50%, that figure.
Dilkes: That's correct.
Wilbum: We decided long ago to focus on restaurants and if you take a step
back from the numbers... and all throughout the summer as I've been
talking with folks...when they wanted to know how are you going to
define restaurant and you'd say sell more food, you're a restaurant.
And just from a common sense point that seems to make sense. And
again it's another way to look at it is perhaps a simple majority.
And...let's see...This is the first reading of the ordinance and there
will be more. No one's pushing to, you know, condense this down to
two readings. And so I think this change adds no more confusion to
the issue than the different comments made during the campaign and
to the press. And so, I think, tonight serves as a helping focus that
discussion a little more.
O'Donnell: And I disagree because we did instruct staff to construct an ordinance
based on what percentage? 65%.
Wilbum: And we've made amendments...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #58
O'Donnell: But that's what we also told the community. We told them on the
radio, on the television and in the papers it's 65%.
Wilburn: I disagree.
O'Donnell: We advised staff to construct an ordinance based on 65%. For us to
change it tonight I do not feel...
Wilbum: And...
0' Donnel 1: ... is unfair without proper notice to the community.
Wilbum: I disagree. Again I feel this serves as notice and we've given staff
instruction and modified those, those plans accordingly...
O'Dounell: Well then...
Wilburu: ... based on deliberation.
O'Dounell: Then we'll agree to disagree.
Lehman: Well the only...
Vanderhoef: There will be opportunities... in two weeks at the second reading there
will be more opportunities to (can't hear) at...
Wilbum: And at the second meeting.
Vanderhoef: In four weeks for this to come up and as we all know at any time along
the process we can change it if we are convinced there should be
something different. So I think we could go ahead with first reading
on this no matter which way the amendment goes.
Lehman: Well my only concern and I believe, and Eleanor you correct me if I'm
wrong, that this is an ordinance that has required a public hearing. We
had a public hearing where we had the 35/65 number and we changed
that number by amendment. But on the night of the first vote you
would instruct us to go back and have the public hearing over because
it significantly would change the ordinance.
Dilkes: Well technically when we do a...your policies that with the public
heating, when a public hearing is required, you do not schedule first
consideration so you would not be doing first consideration on the
night of a public hearing. There's no public hearing required on this
ordinance.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #59
Lehman: I'm well aware of that but what I'm saying is that this represents...
Dilkes: I would...
Lehman: ...a significant change. I have no problem with...
Dilkes: I wouldn't require you to do another public hearing. I would require
that if you did first consideration of the ordinance and then changed it
that you back up and start again.
Lehman: Right. All I'm saying is that...and I have no problem with changing
the percentage. I do have a problem with the process of changing the
percentage and voting on it at the same time. I think that if we want to
change this to...I would certainly recommend that, to the Council, that
if we want to change that to 51% or anything over 50% we pass the
amendment, defer first consideration until two weeks from tonight and
vote on a ordinance that has the 51% in it. The public all knows about
it.
Pfab: I would support Ross' point and I think that his point is very solid and
I think we would be on the thinnest of ice trying to defend our 65%
especially at the way we arrived at it. We might as well have just
reached up in the sky and swatted numbers the way that was going.
And I don't think there is any way in the world that we can defend
that.
Wilburn: Emie?
Lehman: Well lets talk about the amendment. Cause then...After we...We are
going to talk about the amendment then we are going to talk about...
Wilbum: Emie? (can't understand) ask a qualifying question of the City Clerk?
Lehman: Well sure.
Wilburn: When we had that, that meeting where we discussed with the public
and those for and against. Did that occur before we set a percentage or
after?
Karr: That was October 16th and at that meeting you set the percentage.
Wilbum: At that meeting?
Karr: Correct.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
# 10 Page #60
Wilburn: Okay. All right.
Lehman: Well lets do the amendment.
Wilburn: Okay.
Lehman: The amendment is...
Champion: Well can I speak first?
Lehman: Yes you certainly may.
Champion: Connie's here. Don't forget about me. I have concerns about
changing the percentages tonight. My concerns have not changed
since the beginning when we talked about this ordinance. Number
one, the same argument, if it's not safe for workers in a restaurant why
is it safe for them in a bar? Okay we've gone through that. Then I'm
concerned and I'd like the people who are for this amendment to
maybe address this a little bit for me. I am still very concerned about
establishments in the community who are going to be effected by this
partial non-smoking ordinance. And those are the places that are
restaurants in the day and bars at night and they are dependent on the
bar business to sustain themselves. It's not just food. They're
dependent on the bar business. And I think we have several of those
establishments in town. They don't pretend to be family restaurants,
they pretend to be restaurants in the day and bars at night. I'm still
concemed about those restaurants and how do those of you who are in
favor of changing this feel about the possibility that those restaurants
will maybe quite serving food and become bars because that's
probably the easiest thing to sell in Iowa City. Or, you know, how do
you expect them to address those concerns, a competitiveness of the
bar market which is a big business in Iowa City I'm sorry it is.
Vanderhoef: Well Connie, I'll take a stab at it. When I look at the ordinance, the
way it was written for us, and the purpose of this whole ordinance has
to do with the public health. And at that point when I started thinking
about all the input that we have had from the medical community and
those with medical problems, it became apparent that we're going very
slowly if we go by choice in this City. And yes we had that list and
I'll look at it and I kept hearing these words, level playing field. And
it was like I can't justify in my own mind drawing a line that says this
person is going to be on this side and this one on that side so I went
back to if you sell more food than liquor then you are a restaurant.
And I honestly can not tell you what restaurants will fall in those
different numbers and for me I feel better about it to just go forward
with the definition of restaurant and see how it works.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #6I
Wilbum: And if I could I would just add that several of those restaurants that
also make a good portion of sales off alcohol, I believe that from the
input that we received from the community, that those places will still
be supported. They will...They have a good food product and people
will still support that. And loads of folks will not make...exclude
themselves from those they still believe have the good food product.
Champion: I don't think it's the food that's the problem. I think it's the alcohol. I
don't think anybody hesitates to go into a restaurant because it's non-
smoking. But because we aren't going to make bars non-smoking then
my fear is that those restaurants that are bars at night, and I think
Mondo's has showed that, that that simply didn't work. They lost their
bar business and that's why they went back to smoking. I think the
restaurants that Jim Mondanaro owns that are non-smoking are not
really bars after you close. Can you answer that question for me?
Mondanaro: Yeah, the Bread Garden, Giovanni's...
Champion: Ah, no...
Mondanaro: ...and Mondo's Tomato Pie...
Lehman: Mr. Mondanaro has indicated that he's going to indicate in the
microphone.
Mondanaro: Okay. Mondo's Tomato Pie, Bread Garden and Giovanni's are all
non-smoking period.
Champion: And they're really not bars at a certain time of the night?
Mondanaro: No they're not. When we built Mondo's downtown it was with the
intent of a bar and restaurant business venue because that' s what it was
before it burned. But we've always embraced non-smoking element...
Champion: I know that.
Mondanaro: ...because it's the way to go. And it's going to be the way to go.
Champion: It is.
Mondanaro: But it doesn't work for us. It just didn't work. And we had nobody in
the place and so then when we went back to smoking we've gradually
built our bar traffic back up. So that's when I say level playing field,
that's what I mean by level playing field. Because I'll lose all those
customers that I have to the people that are liquor oriented.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #62
Champion: Right.
Mondanaro: It's a tough issue. I know it is. And...But I want to say one thing.
You know if it's really public health that we're talking about here I
don't see how you can take a position that' s in the middle of the road
and say that it's okay for people to smoke and go into a bar and people
that don't smoke to go into a bar and have secondary smoke. Yet
restaurants can't have...I just don't understand that. And I'm saying
lets go right to the edge and walk through the door. If you're going to
do it, go all the way. I shouldn't have probably said that.
Champion: Well that would solve my dilemma.
Mondanaro: Huh?
Champion: That would solve my dilemma.
Pfab: Jim?
Mondanaro: Yes.
Pfab: I asked you this when I talked to you and I said if you feel that way
have you made any attempt to garnish support for that amongst the
public and you said you haven't.
Lehman: Why would he?
Mondanaro: Well...
Champion: Well (can't hear)
Pfab: No, no, no, I mean I asked you that. Right?
Mondanaro: Yes you did.
Pfab: And I mean...I...This is not...I'm not ambushing you, that's not my
attempt but the public won't support that. It won't go the 100%. I'd
be for it. And I would tell what I would like. I would like to have the
sign that says welcome to Iowa City, underneath it a little swinging
sign that says no smoking.
O'Dounell: We can't do that. We have that nuclear free zone.
Pfab: I know. That sign is missing I noticed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #63
Lehman: Okay we're talking about the amendments, changing it from 35/65 to
50%. Is there further discussion?
Karmer: Yeah I...And Emie I'm going to bring up some other points because I
think this vote is critical to me in determining how I'm going to vote in
general. And part of the problem is people have brought up is...Beth
had said no grass roots efforts to ban smoking in bars. Well we have
problems, we don't have bars for the most part. There's a few bars but
most of them are food oriented and alcohol oriented with a few food
only and a few alcohol only. So that's a problem ofwhere we're
going to set the percentage. And I think Caf6 they said a total ban
wouldn't work. I still think it would work. I think the public is ready
for that. I think they made a political decision not to pursue that
partially in fear of, I think, the tobacco companies in coming in with
some large bars perhaps, or larger businesses, food and alcohol
businesses in the City fighting it. I think they're going to fight us
either way and I think it behooves us, if that' s going to happen, to go
all the way. And I think that would solve a lot of the problem. So
before I offer another proposal, again I'll ask could we go all the way?
We've heard some people out here...We've heard Caf~ say they'd like
to have it but people aren't ready. I think it's a matter of us having the
political will to do that, to lead the city to that step. And I think we
can do it. I think we have 75% of the people not smoking. we have
people included on this council that smoke but are in favor of some
sort of ban. And I think we can do it. And I think lets go for the ban
and see what reaction there is in the next two readings for this. Would
anyone else go for a full ban?
Pfab: I told you I would all the time but it's not enough support. That's the
problem.
Champion: I'd have to think about that.
Wilbum: We all have to make our own assessment andjudgement as to what
incremental change the community or (can't understand) community is
ready for. And in my mind in conversations with folks and looking at
e-mails and what we take here, my assessment is restaurants at this
time. But we disagree about that.
Lehman: I think there is really only two positions on this. Either you ban
everything or you ban nothing. On the other had I don't think the
public is ready to accept a ban on everything and so my...and I think
it's an indefensible position. I can not argue that it's okay for people
who drink to get lung cancer from smoking and those who eat don't
get cancer because we don't let them smoke there. I mean there is no
logical reason why but it is a method by which I think you, we can
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #64
start a process that has been...It has been successful in some areas of
the country. And I think a single step is better than no step. And I
don't think that the public is ready for a total ban. I think this is the
first step and the second step perhaps will be... And I fully expect my
grandkids will probably, they'll be going into places where them will
be no smoking in bars and there will be no smoking in restaurants.
But I think we... Sometimes we may be better to get there
incrementally than to try and jump and then not be successful. But I
totally agree. A total ban is the logical way to go. I don't think it
politically is possible so I'm willing to do what we can.
Vanderhoef: I think that the majority of us on this Council that we would go the full
way if we thought it would be successful and I agree with Emie that at
this point in time I don't think the community will accept it.
Lehman: We're still talking about...I'm sorry go ahead.
Kanner: Well then I wanted to follow up on that. So if we don't go for a full
ban we're going to get something convoluted. And then the goal is to
get the least convoluted ordinance that we can. And I want to throw
something out that seems in my mind after thinking about it... What
will help us reach our goal of protecting workers and patrons in
restaurants and bars as our number one goal? And what struck me is
that perhaps the red light green light or no smoking before 8:30pm is
something that might work better than 65% or 50%. And let me tell
you why I think it works. With 50% we still have a significant amount
of businesses where workers and patrons are not protected. We're not
sum of the exact number but let's say maybe half of the restaurant and
bars are not protected. With no smoking before 8:30 and allowing it
afterwards we still have the problem of nicotine being in the
environment which is a problem. But still before 8:30 you don't have
the direct smoke, which I believe, is a strong agent for carrying that
nicotine. So you protect all the restaurants and bars before 8:30. So at
the worst it's a wash as far as protecting workers and patrons, I would
project. I'm not an expert but that's my gut feeling. And then looking
at administrating it from a business point of view and a City point of
view. It seems in my mind that it's easier to administer something
where you just say 8:30 before and after as opposed to trying to get all
these figures of how much money you make from alcohol sales. And
that also lends itself to people fudging, whether they do it deliberately
or subconsciously. I think the temptation is there to do a little fudging
with the numbers. And it makes it difficult in my mind, this whole
process of 50%, 65%. So if you say before 8:30 or after 8:30 that's
easier in my mind to administer from both ends. People say that that
this so called green light red light is a cigarette industry tool to weaken
any ordinance and I believe that that's probably true to a certain
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
# 10 Page #65
extent. It's just...Which is less convoluted and which helps us get
more of a level playing field, which is the third consideration. And I
think it's not the perfect answer, like none of the solutions we are
talking about is a perfect answer. But I think this is a better first step
is to do the no smoking before 8:30 and smoking allowed after 8:30.
And so I throw that out for consideration and discussion of the
amendment that's on the floor.
Champion: That does have the advantage of making it a level playing field. That
would certainly solve my problem with the unlevel playing field.
Wilbum: I would...I'11 disagree and I'll say this good-naturedly, Connie.
You're (can't hear) has been played out. If you're willing to spend
$25 for a cigarette then somebody's going to light up at 8:29 and 30
seconds and it puts, it puts...I think it puts the restaurant and the server
in more of a awkward position to, you know...
Champion: I didn't say I'd pay $25 for a cigarette. I really...It would not be an
expensive fine.
Wilburn: Okay. All fight. Okay. But my main point being that I think, I
actually think it would make it more difficult. It puts the server in a
more awkward position (can't hear).
Pfab: I think...It looks to me like the only way to handle this is if you make
a motion if you're going to do that.
Lehman: We have... We're...
Dilkes: There's a motion on the floor.
Lehman: ...working on an amendment right now.
Pfab: Okay.
Kanner: So I...Yeah, I would think if people were in favor of the idea that...
End of side two, 01-102
Vanderhoef: My personal feeling is that it defeats a lot of the purpose of having the
ordinance. From the literature that we've received, I don't think that
the air cleans out that fast that, that it is a positive thing. It also leaves
our police force in the position of having... knowing which restaurants
are smoking and which bars are...or, which restaurants are non-
smoking and which bar restaurant combinations are smoking. So they
don't have to worry about it. That's a black and white list as far as
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #66
that goes. And it's a black and white list for the patrons, which is the
important piece. The red light, green light thing changes all of the
health issues backed into it which is the purpose of the ordinance still
is a health issue and clean air part of the health issue. So I'm not
interested certainly in the red light, green light.
Kanner: Dee, to address your first point, I don't think it's black and white
because every year it changes and it's quite a list that the police have
to know about, or anybody who might be concerned with this. It
changes every year. There's a reporting requirement that could change
and...It gets a little complicated in that way.
Vanderhoef: I don't suspect that there' 11 be any changes. That the list will stay
fairly static.
Kanner: I don't know. I think we'll have a lot more alcohol sales to...
Vanderhoef: That could be.
Karmer: ... get over that.
Vanderhoef: That might be but until we try it we won't know that.
Lehman: First, you know, any of these I just...We're just rattling around trying
to find some logical way to do an illogical act. Certainly a red light,
green light...I mean where... Dee's worried about half the people.
Two weeks ago we were worried about 65% of them. By 8:30 at night
we are worried about (can't hear). So, I mean, really, seriously, in any
scenario we're talking about, we're not really worried about all the
people. We're concerned about a level playing field, which I do think
is a serious consideration. That is a consideration for me. But any
scenario we do does not address the public health issue as a health
issue. It is one of convenience. Which is going to be best as far as the
bars, restaurants, whatever. But, we really don't because we feel we
can't impose a total ban. But obviously, a red light, green light it's all
day until 8:30 at night. That means there is no place you can eat in
town that can allow smoking when the kitchen's open. And those
folks that are worried about that, then at 8:30 or 9:00 or whatever
when the kitchen's closed they can have smoking in their bar. I don't
know how the differs significantly. I do know there's second hand
smoke and there's all kinds of things that linger from smoking in a
restaurant. I guess there are. I've heard all that.
Pfab: I think you've got the (can't understand)
Lehman: What do we want to do folks?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #67
Wilbum: (can't hear) amendment.
Pfab: But I would...
Vanderhoef: I think that was calling roll.
Pfab: Steven there's no way I can support this, the red light green light. I'm
just telling you that because of my person experiences having gone in
and out of places that non smoking or smoking and from one to the
other. No way. That's just my person experience. So there'd be no
way that I'd ever support that
Lehman: Actually, we're still talking about amendments, to change it to 50%.
We have been now for half an hour.
Vanderhoef: And I think, probably, we have a... someone who's wanting to know
how that one is going to go before the vote.
Lehman: Is there any more discussion on the 50%? That...I mean we vote on
the amendment we still have to vote on the motion. The amendment is
to change the 35/65 to anything over 50% in sales constitutes a
restaurant.
Pfab: Are you asking somebody to call the question?
Lehman: I'm just...
Kanner: Well, before we do that I would like to inquire if other people would
let me know if they would consider this. If we had a majority that
would consider this as an amendment if we defeated the 50%.
Champion: Well, Icould...I think lcould support you. Iknow it's not what the
caf6 people want, but I think that it does give everyone a level playing
field. And it addresses my concems about people who are going to be
greatly effected by this ordinance. People who don't smoke might go
to these restaurants that are going to be non-smoking but I don't think
they are going to go to the bars. You know, I don't think they're going
to. So, I would consider it. I just want to hear...again I think we
would have to have another little public hearing. I think we'd have to
address this whole ordinance over again just like I do with Dee' s
amendment. These are major changes and we need to start over.
Kanner: Mike, would you...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #68
O'Donnell: Well, I see some merit in it but again I think...I think we need to sit
down and talk about this. We directed staff to go a particular way and
we're changing it and...
Lehman: All right, could...let me suggest that we vote on the amendment. If
the amendment at 50% passes I really believe, in all fairness, that this
could be continued until two weeks from tonight at which time if we
want to discuss the red light green light or this...or this ordinance, I
don't have a problem with that. But I just think that is a significant
change and obviously a red light green light would be a huge change.
But it sounds to me there is interest in at least talking about that.
Champion: Well I was happy with the ordinance the way it was presented. I mean
I'm...you know... There may be...
Lehman: Well lets...Let's vote on the amendment because if the amendment
fails then you're going to be happy because the amendment won't
have changed. All those in favor of the...
Champion: (can't hear) I want to be fair to Steven though. Then I would probably
support...
Lehman: We still have to vote on the ordinance after we take care of this.
Champion: He knows what I'm saying.
Lehman: Now we're voting on the amendment to change it to 50%. All those in
favor of changing it to 50%, raise your hand.
Champion: You got four.
Lehman: I see four votes. The amendment is now passed. We are now looking
at the ordinance as it was presented except for the definition of
restaurant and of the number of 35% instead of 50. Do we wish to act
on this tonight?
Champion: I do not.
Pfab: I would.
O'Donnell: I would like to defer it.
Lehman: It would...
Dilkes: Some...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #69
Lehman: ... take a motion to defer...
Champion: I move we defer this...
Lehman: ... or table or whatever.
Dilkes: Defer.
Champion: ... defer this ordinance.
O'Donnell: Until the 27th. And I second it.
Lehman: We have a motion by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell to defer until
November 27.
Karr: Point of order.
Lehman: Yes.
Karr: As amended?
Lehman: As?
Karr: For which version are you amending cause this will be...?
Lehman: I think it has to be as amended.
Champion: It has to be as amended.
Dilkes: Yeah.
Karr: Okay. I wanted just to clarify.
Dilkes: Deferred as amended.
Lehman: As amended.
Dilkes: So I'm going to go ahead and amend the or... amend the written...
Lehman: The definition and the 50%. All right, is there any discussion on the
motion for deferral?
Vanderhoef: I...
Lehman: I'm sorry.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#10 Page #70
Vanderhoef: I was just going to say, I think we could go ahead with the first one
and I will defer to be sure the whole Council is comfortable with
this...
Lehman: All fight.
Vanderhoef: ...before we move on it.
Lehman: All right. All in favor ofdeferral raise your hand, please. Opposed?
The vote is 5/2 in favor of deferral, Pfab and Wilburn in the negative.
All right folks, the 27th.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
# 11 Page #7 1
ITEM NO. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DETERMINING AN AREA OF
THE CITY TO BE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA
AND THAT THE REHABILITATION, CONSERVATION,
REDEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, OR A COMBINATION
THEREOF, OR SUCH AREA IS NECESSARY IN THE
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR
WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY;
DESIGNATING SUCH AREA AS APPROPRATE FOR AN
URBAN RENEWAL PFOJECT; AND ADOPTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY-UNIVERSITY PROJECT I
(PROJECT NO. IA R-14) URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND
PLAN AREA THEREFOR.
Lehman: Boy, that's a long one. Do we have a motion?
Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Wilbum.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. And is it this time...
Vanderhoef: I need...
Lehman: ...I'm supposed to indication that I do not own property in this area
but I am leasing property in the designated area?
Dilkes: Right. Per the memo that we sent you earlier you're not conflicted but
you should put your interest of record.
Vanderhoef: And I will do the same in that my family owns property in this area.
Lehman: And Connie.
Dilkes: And Connie I think you have a lease in the area.
Champion: I don't own property.
Lehman: No but you lease, as I do,...
Champion: Oh.
Lehman: ...in the area. We do have businesses located in the area even though
we do not have a financial investment in real estate.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#11 Page #72
O' Donnell: That' s Catherine' s.
Champion: Right. I know that, Mike. (can't understand) conflict of interest.
Dilkes: That's kind of what I'm thinking.
Kanner: I use the bike track downtown once in awhile.
Dilkes: No, it's not a conflict of interest.
Lehman: All right. We have a motion. Is there discussion? Roll call. Motion
carries, 5/2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#13 Page #73
ITEM NO. 13. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9,
ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER
8, ENTITLED "BICYCLES," SECTION 6, ENTITLED
"PARKING VIOLATIONS," SUBSECTION A, ENTITLED
"IMPOUNDMENT OF BICYCLES" TO ALLOW THE CITY TO
IMPOUND ABANDONED BICYCLES. (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef: Move first consideration.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell.
Kanner: I'd like to offer an amendment.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: That the so called administrative rule that incorporate into the
ordinance that will add seven days once a ticket is given before the
bike is taken away and impounded.
Lehman: Is that in...I thought that was in the ordinance.
Dilkes: No, the way the ordinance is drafted is that the vehicle...the bike is
tagged and then you wait seven days before it's impounded.
Wilburn: Right.
Dilkes: If you all want to expand that time period for enforcement purposes,
the best thing to do would just say ticket it and wait ten days. We
don't want to have two seven day periods where they have to go out
and look at it and see how long it's been there and then ticket it. And
then...
Pfab: Maybe he's asking for fourteen days.
Lehman: Well, I thought it...
Dilkes: Well, whatever timeline you want.
Lehman: (can't hear) fourteen days to me.
Atkins: You're reading the comment. Let me read from the ordinance.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
# 13 Page #74
Lehman: Yeah.
Atkins: I did check this with the police. Abandoned. A bicycle is abandoned
if it's left unattended at the same location on public property or
attached to public property for more than seven consecutive days
(can't hear).
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: I asked the police, tell me how this works. We will receive a
complaint. The officer will go out where they would observe it. The
bike is tagged. It stays there for seven days. Seven days later the
officer will come back. If the bike is still there, tagged, it is
impounded. When it is impounded it is kept for ninety more days in
our impound center. That's how it works.
Champion: That' s fine.
Atkins: Now, if you want more than seven days, that's okay.
Lehman: No.
Champion: No, that's it.
Lehman: Fine.
Atkins: I mean, it's just a matter of that seemed reasonable.
O'Donnell: Fine.
Atkins: This is not an overwhelming number. It's offofa complaint of a
merchant or something that...
Champion: Right.
Lehman: All right Steven, what was your amendment again. I'm sorry.
Kanner: Well. Just to question what you said. Seven days tickets then by
practice they allow that ticket to be on there for seven days. That was
my...
Dilkes: No, no that's misconstruing the comment in the ordinance. That's not
how it works.
Karmer: Okay, so that's...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#13 Page #75
Atkins: I'm the officer. I observe the bike. I tag it. The clock starts tarruing
for seven days. I come back a week later, still there, still tagged. I can
then impotmd it. I take it to our impound. It stays there for ninety
days.
Lehman: But it is there for seven days before it...
Atkins: It is tagged for seven days.
Pfab: Is it tagged or ticketed?
Champion: No, it's...
Dilkes: It's tagged.
Kanner: What does the tag mean?
Dilkes: The tag is the mechanism by which we identify the bike.
Kanner: Right but...
Dilkes: And identify the...
Kanner: ...is it...But is the tag identified to the possible bike owner or anyone
else that...
Atkins: I'm sure we'll put something on it that says...
Dilkes: It's like we do with abandoned cars. It says like notice...
Atkins: Yeah. Notice or something to that effect.
Dilkes: ...if not removed. It's one of those kind of tags, I believe.
Atkins: And I did find out, the overwhelming majority of the complaints are
bikes that have been there for some time, damaged, bent wheels,
junked.
Lehman: Literally abandoned.
Arkins: Yes. Literally abandoned.
Lehman: All right.
Atkins: And it does go back to our impound for ninety days.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#13 Page #76
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: And if someone were to say my bike has been stolen, file a report,
describe it, we will return the bike to the person.
Pfab: Is there a cost involved?
Atkins: No, not to return the bike.
Pfab: Not to return the bike. Okay.
Lehman: Okay. Now...
Atkins: This is truly a compliance matter. Just clean it up. We're not out to
make any money.
Lehrn an: That... Is that?
Kanner: Yeah, I'll withdrawal any thought of amending it.
Lehman: No I had the same concern. And it is ticketed...it is tagged for seven
consecutive days and who knows how many days before. So, okay.
Atkins: So you understand...
Lehman: We're not out to have a bike.
Atkins: ...this is something...yeah, this thing is more likely to occur in
December, January. I mean, downtown bike racks are full during the
warm weather because people are riding their bike, that's when we're
going to notice these things. And that's when we get the complaints.
Lehman: Okay. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 7/0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#15 Page ~77
ITEM NO. 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING IOWA CITY'S 2001-
2006 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (A.K.A. CITY STEPS)
Champion: Move the resolution.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Pfab: And this is in regard to the percentage of money that's used for
economic development?
Lehman: That' s right.
Pfab: I'll be voting against it. I don't think that's where development money
should come from.
Kanner: And I too think that the Housing and Community Development
Commission is the proper place to look at use of this community
development block grant funds or CDBG funds. And that the 5% is
not hard and fast. It's a benchmark and I think that's appropriate. And
I think they're the first group that should be looking at this. And I
don't want to take them out of the playing field there.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Vanderhoef: Well, I'll just comment that this Council, as a council, chose to put
together an Economic Development Committee and I think that
committee is first in doing these kind of activities. And the real reason
that we looked...there were several reasons. But one of the reasons
that we chose to move this to the Economic Development Committee
for recommendation and then bring to Council was the fact that the
HCDC funding cycle is an annual affair rather than a monthly affair.
And in that the Economic Development Committee meets monthly and
can convene rapidly if we need to have additional meetings and so
forth. Since it's a three member committee verses a large one we felt
it was very appropriate to have monies available when a prospective
business owner comes in rather than say, the monies all spent and it
will not be available for another year.
Pfab: I have a question for you. Is that...in that...how much money is in the
fund now that is appropriated at our budget meeting? Only budgeted
month in the beginning of the year...each year?
Vanderhoef: The general fund?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
# 15 Page #78
Pfab: No. I mean there was money set aside...
Atkins: If two funds are... are you talking about the economic development
fund of $700,000.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Right.
Atkins: Yeah, there's that fund and then this would be a separate one.
Pfab: But how much is in the other one?
Atkins: 700.
Lehman: I mean, but we've got some of that...
Vanderhoef: Earmarked.
Atkins: You it appropriated and it comes from a variety of sources.
Lehman: Yeah.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Atkins: This is specifically recommended for economic development. You
must meet CDBG guidelines if you want to use these funds.
Lehman: Right.
Champion: Right.
Lehman: Okay. Further discussion?
O'Donnell: Roll call.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries, 5/2, Karmer and Pfab voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#19 Page #79
ITEM NO. 19. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Pfab: I would ask...I believe these people came here and what is this ADS
pipe. What can we expect to happen from the City Council point of
view?
Champion: We already asked.
Pfab: (can't hear) made a comment. I didn't hear what it was.
Arkins: They'd come, I believe, well over a year ago, someone else. We
responded. Steven had asked me about it. I just didn't recollect
exactly what the details. I'll package that information together and get
it back to you in a couple of days. Because I know we prepared a
written repor~ for you on it.
Kanner: I think Rick did.
Arkins: Yeah, Rick did. I'll just...I'll round it all up for you.
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: (can't hear)
Lehman: Connie? Mike?
Champion: We're tired.
O'Donnell: No, nothing.
Lehman: Steve?
Vanderhoef: Not a thing tonight.
Lehman: Ross?
Wilburn: Nope.
Lehman: Steven?
Kanner: Are you saying, Steve...when are we going to hear about the sustained
complaint by the Police Citizen's Review Board?
Atkins: Sarah, from Eleanor's office, and Catherine, the attorney representing
the PCRB, had a discussion on this issue I believe a week or so ago.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#19 Page #80
We were preparing a written response for you. We are aware that you
want it...we have not forgotten that you want it on your agenda.
Kanner: I think whether we get a response or not we have to at least before the
end of the year we should be looking at this.
Atkins: Oh, you'll have it before then. But my concern is... we have, and
we've pointed out, we have a disagreement with them and I want to
make sure that all of it is discussed because they have made a
sustained finding that I personally and the police department question.
And I want to get all that information to you so at least you can discuss
it so you have all sides of the story.
Kanner: I'm just worried though. I hear disagreements on both sides...
Atkins: Sure.
Kanner: ...and we're never going to resolve that. We can't let that stand in our
way if it's never going to get resolved.
Atkins: Okay.
Karmer: I think we have a responsibility to look at it.
Atkins: It was your decision to bring it back to you as a body and I intended to
do that.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: Okay.
Kanner: Them...we had a speaker in town, Kevin Zeets. He's an attorney from
DC who founded the Common Sense for Drug Policy Foundation and
he spoke and his lecture in form is going to on public access,
November 14th at 7:30 p.m. It's the War on Drugs, Impact on Local
Communities. I understand he gave quite...a quite powerful
presentation and in light of the discussions we've been having, I think
it's very apropos. And hopefully people will tune in to that, November
14th, tomorrow at 7:30pm. War on Drugs, Impact on Local
Communities. And speaking of that, we got a memo from our City
Manager in regards to cite and release policy for the police. And I had
a question.
Atkins: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#19 Page #81
Kanner: You mentioned that we had approximately...we'll we have 411
marijuana arrests for the year.
Atkins: Only marijuana.
Kanner: Only...that was the only thing...
Atkins: The criticism was that the police were seeking out people and arresting
them for marijuana. So what I did was I asked them, I want only
marijuana, not whether it was part of some other charge. Only
marijuana and that was the 400 and...
Kanner: 11.
Atkins: 11.
Kanner: And the point you made is that it's a very small percentage of calls for
service. Of police situations it's a little bigger, 1.7%. It is somewhat
substantial for individuals in custody at 11.7%. I guess my main point,
and this is in regard to the discussion we are having about the jail,
those 411, that's over one person per day. I assume that they're taken
to jail?
Atkins: Yes, those are people arrest.
Kanner: My question to the Council and perhaps to the City Manager is, could
we not think about giving citations for appearances in court? From
what I read of the memos, that we don't have an obligation to take
them to jail before they're arraigned. Is that correct?
Atkins: If you would choose to change enforcement policy under marijuana
laws that's up to you all. But I think we'd want to do some research
on it. My point in preparing that report was that our police department
was being criticized for basically irresponsible activities with respect
to marijuana enforcement and that' s simply not the case. Secondly,
when it comes to the jail issue, that number of arrests is infinitesimal
as far as an issue as I've understood it from the folks who mn the jail,
the number of people. And it was being made a case that it was
something far more substantial that the numbers showed us. And
that' s all...that's the only point. And I think the third point that I'd
like to make is that we continued to receive requests for our
involvement in jail policy issues. Folks, we've not been invited. It's
not our issue. And, I mean, I'm...I will do as you see fit but the
bottom line is this an issue that rests with the County Board and the
Sheriff. (can't understand)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#19 Page #82
Lehman: Yeah, but that was an issue...there was a meeting that I did attend at
one time...
Atkins: Yes we did.
Lehman: ... that they asked us to be a part of it and I've not heard from them
since.
Atkins: And neither have I.
Champion: (can't hear)
Lehman: Okay, well, we'll come back to this I hope.
Dilkes: You know, I ...
Kanner: Well, I...
Dilkes: If you want...If you want to talk about this I think you should set the
schedule for a work session.
Lehman: All right.
O'Donnell: That's a good point.
Kanner: And that's the point I was going to make is that, Steve, you bring up
some good points and I think it's worth having some debate because
we do have some control in this regards of policy.
Atkins: Yep.
Kanner: And that's, I think, what the County has asked us to look at these kinds
of things. And I think it behooves us to set a work session to look at
this policy...
Champion: Amen.
Kanner: ...of whether we can do citations for non-violent offenses. Some
people might say it's not a non-violent offense and we should discuss
that. But I think we should put it on the table. So I would ask that we
put it on a work session to look at this.
Lehman: Well, are... is there interest in putting this...
Pfab: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#19 Page #83
Lehman: ...on for a work session?
Pfab: I would... I think it's...I was going to ask more questions.
Lehman: Well...
Pfab: And I think that Eleanor's right that this has gone on far enough for a
non... unannounced...
Lehman: That's what I'm asking. We have one, two who wants to put it on a
work session. I wouldn't mind doing this at such time as the County
contacts us about it's jail. But until then I'm not really interested.
Champion: No.
O'Donnell: I'm not either.
Lehman: All right. Anything else, Steven?
Kanner: So now wait. How many...what...how many people did we have in
favor of it?
Lehman: I think we had two, you and Irvin. Is that...?
Wilburn: (can't hear) to wait until see what happens.
Lehman: Well, I think, when the jail issue comes up that may very well be an
issue.
Vanderhoef: I think that would be a perfect time.
Lehman: But there's two that wish to put it on as an item right now.
Vanderhoef: And I think we'd be looking at...
Pfab: I think we've recruited them.
Champion: No, you haven't recruited me.
Vanderhoef: ... several things.
Karmer: Well, we did have a request from the County already to see if there are
things we can do to be proactive. I think this might be something to be
proactive about.
Karr: May I note that the joint meeting is coming up January 9.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#19 Page #84
Lehman: Oh, that's a good place to bring it up.
O'Donnell: Good.
Lehman: Okay. Anything else?
Pfab: Is that something that will be on the agenda then?
Lehman: If we'd like to put it on the agenda it certainly can be.
Pfab: Okay. Let' s do that.
Vanderhoef: Are we hosting that?
Lehman: I don't know.
Kanner: No.
Lehman: Do you have anything else, Steven?
Kanner: No.
Lehman: Just one thing. If you notice lights, holiday lights on the trees
downtown... putting those lights on is courtesy of the Electrical
Workers Union. They've got some folks from Iowa City and Cedar
Rapids who started putting those lights up. They're doing it for this
community and I think they deserve a great big thank you from all of
US.
Vanderhoef: Wonderful.
Truly (can't hear)
Lehman: It's a lot of work. And we have been very fortunate over the years to
have folks who have donated efforts to do that. This year it is the
Electrical Union that is doing it and a big thank you from all of us.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.
#20 Page #85
ITEM NO. 20 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF
Lehman: Steve, do you have anything?
Atkins: Nothing, sir.
Lehman: Eleanor?
Pfab: And what made...
Lehman: Marian?
Pfab: ...may the record show what union numbers they have...that they're
coming from.
Lehman: I don't have any idea what number they are. I know who they are.
Pfab: Maybe out of courtesy...
Lehman: And I like very much the fact...and I don't think the average person...
the number isn't nearly as important as who's doing it and I think
that's really neat.
Vanderhoef: And they volunteer.
Kanner: IBW is the (can't hear)
Lehman: Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Pfab: This is for the benefit of...
Vanderhoef: Second
Lehman: All in favor? Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of November 13, 2001.