Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-11 Transcription Page #1 Lehman: Item number 2 is special presentations but before we do that we are privileged tonight to have some special guests with us and I'd like to ask Tom Baldridge to... if you'd introduce those folks to all of us. Tom Baldridge: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Iowa City is...has the privilege of entertaining two members of a Library of Congress program for Russian Leadership and they are Aleksandr Sergeyevich IGNATENKOV and Yelena Lvovna SARAYEVA. And traveling with them is their interpreters Yelena Aleksarmdrovna VANSYATSKAYA and Pavel Viktovich. Sysoyev. Champion: Wow. Baldridge: And I have brought along a junior faculty development (can't understand) who is... will be in Iowa City for the rest of the academic year. Thank you. Lehman: Well welcome to our meeting. It's certainly a pleasure to have you. I need to say this. About four years ago we had a lady from Leads, England who presented the City of Iowa City with a code of arms from the City of Leads and I don't think there is anyone who was here who won't forget that charming, charming woman. I got a Christmas card from her yesterday was that, day before asking if we remembered her. Anyone who was here could never forget that charming woman. So anyway, welcome and we hope you enjoy yourselves. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #2 Page #2 ITEM NO. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Lehman: Item two are special presentations and I'd like to ask the students from Roosevelt Elementary to come forward please. We had this prearranged. I'm going to get to stand by the girls. You see I've got these granddaughters who I think are just outstanding and this...you guy are kind of great stand ins. We do this during the school year before every meeting. We give outstanding student citizenship awards for students within the Iowa City community. And it's a real pleasure for the Cormell to do this and I hope you young folks feel as honored to be recognized as we are to recognize you. So I would like each of you to give your names and if you would tell us why you have been selected. Mayra Martinez: Hi, my name ifMayra Martinez. And every Tuesday our class has a class meeting and we decided to do a service project. Page Witkop: My name is Page Witkop and we are fifth and sixth graders from Roosevelt Elementary. And we brought in a speaker from the University and she talked to us about cancer and what it can do to the body. We decided to collect Yoplait Yogurt lids because for each lid turned in ten cents would be donated to the cancer society. We are proud to say that we collected 433 lids. Kyle Mason: Hi, I'm Kyle Mason. Since several people in Roosevelt have been effected by cancer we decided that we wanted to support cancer research. Lehman: Let's give these folks a hand. You know the mayor's not supposed to show any favoritism but both of my sons went to Roosevelt and I only live a few blocks from there so that' s one of my very favorite schools. But we have here a citizenship award plaque that says for their outstanding qualities of leadership within Roosevelt Elementary as well as the community. And for their sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others, we recognize all fifth and sixth graders as outstanding student citizens. Your community is proud of you all. Presented by the Iowa City City Council, December 2001. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #3 Page #3 ITEM NO. 3. CONSIDER ADOOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Champion: Move adoption. O' Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? We did have an addition? Champion: Yeah... Karr: And everything is in order. Champion: ...but you should have the amended. Lehman: And that is included in the... Karr: That is correct. Lehman: ... consent calendar. Pfab: Everything is up to snuff?. Karr: Correct. Lehman: There's no discussion. Roll call. Motion carries (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #4 Page #4 ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Lehman: This is a time we reserve on the agenda for the public to address the Council on issues that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you would like to address the Council please sign in. Give your name and address and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Lisa Parker: Hi, Council. I'm Lisa Parker currently president of the Library Board and Emie asked one of us to come tonight and give you an update on our Library project. And this is a particularly good time to do that because we opened construction bids on Friday. We had two bids and based on recommendations from our architects and from the city staff we awarded the bid yesterday to Knutson Construction. The tot...their base bid amount was $12,097,000. Our estimates from the architects for that, the base bid amount, was $12,900 and...$12,926,000. So the Knutson bid was substantially below our estimates. The amount for the total from Knutson, which included five alternate items, was $13,085,000 and the estimates from our architects were $13.6 million. So again we've got...it's very nice to come in low. The Board is particularly pleased with the bids from Knutson because it's a local contractor and because the city staff has told us that in their experience they've had good working relationship with Knutson. And projects that the City is working on so far have gone fairly well, including the water project. Knutson has also worked on the Engineering Building and there's a library in the Engineering Building so that gives us some additional confidence too. And...so we're excited about that and we'll keep you posted. And if there's any questions you have I'd be happy to answer them. Kanner: Lisa... Champion: Terrific. Kanner: ...I had a question. How's the foundation fund raising for the part that' s going towards the new library? Parker: We had a foundation luncheon on Friday last week and they announced at that luncheon that they've raised already 1.5 million of the 3.5 that's their goal. Of that 3.5, 1.5 is going to the building project, the remainder will go into an endowment fund. So everyone feels quite optimistic about how the campaign is going. Especially given, you know, current economic situations and what not. Kanner: Very good. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #4 Page #5 Lehman: Well congratulations. You're right, we are very fortunate to have good bids and it's also nice to have a local contractor. Parker: Yeah, we feel good about it. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. John Fitzpatrick: John Fitzpatrick, 721 N. Linn. Honorable Mayor and Council, I chair the Traffic and Parking Committee for the Northside Neighborhood Association. I am here on behalf of the Association to request that City Council direct traffic engineering to install speed limit signage on Church Street both directions between Dubuque and Governor Streets. We further request that a school zone of 20 miles per hour be posted on Church Street for the front entrance of Horace Mann. There is presently no speed signage eastbound and only one 25 mile per hour sign westbound. Our initial request to traffic engineering was very positive. Engineering staff even recommend the brightly colored check you speed signage. The request however did not receive approval from the administrator responsible for traffic engineering. His response was that drivers would ignore the speed limit anyway and that people, when they leamed to drive, learned the speed limit is in town 25 miles per hour. He went on to indicate that school speed zones were only located on school front entrance streets and that Church Street did not qualify. He followed up with a lengthy letter elaborating of his objections to accommodating the neighborhood request. Northside residents believe we have a problem with speeding on Church Street. We believe what appears to be a cynical response from the administrator is inappropriate in addressing our concern for safety. We understand that our recourse is to come directly to City Council. The front entrance to Horace Mann is on Chumh Street. It has been for many years, decades. I have letters from both the principal and the PTA requesting consideration of the school speed zone signage like that provided for other neighborhood schools. Church Street carries a volume of over 5,000 cars a day. Our neighborhood is diverse. Many living in our neighborhood received their drivers training outside Iowa and may not have been taught the 25 mile per hour within town rule. Many are old enough that they didn't have formal driver's education. Although the information is in the driver's manual, drivers forget. Our request seems reasonable. We realize there are drivers who will exceed the speed limit, however, we believe most driver's will slow down when they are reminded. Please install 25 mile per hour speed limit signs on Church Street with a 20 mile per hour school zone designated for the main entrance to Horace Mann on Church Street. Thank you for your consideration. O'Donnell: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #4 Page #6 Champion: You know that is tree. The front door of that school is on Dodge Street but nobody ever...or is that Governor or Dodge? Dodge...nobody ever uses it. It's not the door that's used. The door that's used is the one on Church Street. Fitzpatrick: That entrance actually was sealed... Champion: Is it sealed even? Fitzpatrick: ...a couple decades ago and it's a janitors closet. Champion: No wonder nobody uses it. Fitzpatrick: The front entrance has for decades been on Church Street. Champion: Well I guess that's why I never used it. But yeah, that's something we really need to look at. I mean we have school speed zone signs on...I know I've seen them for Longfellow and for Hoover and for Hom, right? O'Dormell: And Roosevelt. Champion: And Roosevelt. Vanderhoef: And Regina. Champion: And Regina, right. Lehman: Well they're not on Dodge because Dodge is a state highway. Atkins: That's right. Lehman: And that's why they are not 20 mile an hour there because the State says it has to be 25 but Church is a different situation. That's a different street. Steve, you'll get information on this? Atkins: I was just...I have not read the...I'11 pull the report, read it and get back to you. Lehman: Okay. Atkins: And I'll share it with John is there is any other information. Lehman: Okay. Champion: Thanks, John. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #4 Page #7 Fitzpatrick: Thanks you very much. Karr: Could we have a motion to accept correspondence from... O'Dormell: So moved. Vanderhoef: So moved. Karr: ...the principal of Horace Mann and the PTO President? Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. (all ayes) John Loomis: Hello, my name is John Loomis. I'm a member of the organization called Friends of Hickory Hill Park. And we've...we'd like to bring to your attention a land transaction that's going on up there now at the farthest north reaches of the park which is an area of land that is currently owned by the Press Citizen and they're planning to sell it for development. And we...we've seen the plat and it's being plotted into a twenty lots. And the land that's in question here is currently being used as park, I mean by people they don't know that it's not private land so it's being used as a park property I'd say. People are walking up there and walking through there. It happens to be the most...the highest point in the park I would say so people go up to the top and look south and they can see the entire park and they can see the business all around. It's a pretty good place to be. That land is now being...planned to be sold to the...for development and we've come...I've come to ask for your help for guidance in managing this sale because we feel that your ultimate responsibility is to approve the plat I believe. And we feel that it's an inappropriate use...the plat that we've seen is an inappropriate use of this land because we're concerned the Northeast Planning...that the plan that was designed in 1998 called the Noaheast Planning District calls for buffering the Hickory Hill Parks from that kind of development. The vistas should be protected by open spaces between the park boundaries and development. Those kinds of things disturb us quite a bit. The vistas, the water sheds, the kinds of things that development brings basically degrade the park to a point where it's kind of heartbreaking to think about this ridge being taken over by houses. It will dominate the landscape for, you know, I don't know, thousands of yards or quite a few acres, however you want to look at it. If you're in the park you'll see these houses dominating the noah end of the park. There is precedent in the past for this kind of controversy. Rochester in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #4 Page #8 '60's was a controversial land use question with the properties... the house being built between Rochester and the park. And then 7th Avenue, as you probably remember, in the '70' s had the same kind of controversy surrounding it. The backsides of houses come to the park, look over the park and dominate the landscape from the park. So ~ve're concerned that this use of the land at that point is inappropriate and we'd like to have some kind of guidance or help resisting that land transaction. It is being sold by the Press Citizen which is a representative... which is a member of the Gannett Corporation and we've been told that the Gannett Corporation wants this land sold as is and our resisting any kind of public input from the citizens or from....if hopefully from the Council or from the County. Lehman: Do you know whether or not the proposal meets the comprehensive plan... the Northeast Area Plan? Loomis: Well we feel it doesn't, no. Lehman: Well I mean...I suspect that ~vhen it comes to the City that the City planning staff and whatever will look at that and see how it complies with that and if it doesn't then I think you can be assured that they City will be involved in making sure that does comply with the plan. Loomis: Yeah. Well, I think that people will tell you that it does and, you know, there are what they're calling easements at the edge of the property... I think these are the formal development terms for how this property will comply with the zoning. The property's divided into plat...into lots and there'll be an easement the edge. We think that it's at the top of a ridge and it feed down so it subject to sensitive area review. Also the consequences of certain kinds of lots and properties will water shed will erode the prop...the park which is immediately below. Lehman: We have ordinances that control runoff. I mean that's something that won't occur because we won't allow it to occur. Dilkes: Eruie, I think though since we've not seen the plat we don't know what approvals are required... Lehman: Yeah, we haven't seen it. Dilkes: ...we don't know if we're talking about administrative approvals, rezonings or whatever. I think we just need to be cautious about, you know, what representations we make. Lehman: Probably, Steve...yeah, we need to see what's proposed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #4 Page #9 Atkins: Yeah. Loomis: We're...our feeling is that in the Northeast District Plan it calls for buffering the park more than with just an easement from property owners who may or may not do something on their property which we can't predict. Lehman: I think the attomey's probably right, we have to (can't hear). The plan will be gone over by staff and whatever and that's probably the time that we can make some analyses of it. Loomis: Okay. Well we're just asking to bring it to your attention and we're asking for your help if... Champion: John, just to clarify something though. The Friends of Hickory Hill are not against the land developing? I mean you would probably like to see it not developed but your primary aim is to preserve the vistas from the parks? Loomis: Yes, we're not against...we can't be against development. We're just a little affronted by the idea of houses crawling over the hill down into the park and being dominated by 4 or 5 individual homes rather than the public being able to go up there and use that area. Kanner: I had a question for Eleanor. If the sensitive areas ordinance kicks in anywhere, how do we treat public land that surrounds it in regards to the 20% protests rule? That would require a super majority? Dilkes: I don't think it's excluded from that calculation. It would be included. Kanner: It would be included and then do we as a Council say we want to count that as part...we want to kick in as part of the protest? If you have 100 acres that are surrounding this area lets say 50% are public, are Hickory Hill, so in order to get 20% they would have to get... If someone wanted to protest a rezoning of a sensitive areas ordinance they would have to get 20% of 100 acres? Dilkes: Well I think...your question is would the public land surrounding this area be included in that calculation. I think it would be and the question would be how would that protest be made. I'm assuming it would be made by the Council which is an interesting situation given the rezoning comes in front of the Council. So those are just issues we'd have to work through. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #4 Page #10 Kanner: Yeah that's something interesting. Maybe that's something we can get some staff advice on that. And I also think it, it's...we ought to keep that in mind. This connects with the...a lot a people don't know that Ernie proposed and a majority accepted that we should send a planning and zoning, a redoing of our sensitive areas ordinance. And it's coming up at the same time this issue of the Press Citizen and the proposals that you're making Ernie I think are very serious ones because they take away some of those rights for potential citizen awareness and protest. Lehman: We'll debate that when it gets back to us, Steven. Karmer: Well this is something though that's happening now and I think the public needs to be made aware of it, that this is coming. That the Press Citizen, selling property, and rezoning to make it easier... Champion: It's not being rezoned. Dilkes: I think we need to be careful about talking... Kanner: Not rezoning but... Dilkes: ...about things we're not sure of. We don't even know that a rezoning is involved here so we need to be cautious. Kanner: No, I'm saying a potential rezoning. Yeah I understand that. There is a potential rezoning because of sensitive areas and quite a coincidence. Loomis: We are...the City and the public and the people are the biggest neighbor to this property and I think we should be a major player in how that stuff gets developed. Lehman: Thank you, John. Any other public discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #5b Page # 11 ITEM NO. 5b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE WEST BENTON COURT NORTH OF BENTON STREET (VAC01-00003) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: Item b is an ordinance to vacate a street of which I have a conflict of interest. I shall recluse myself and Mike you may proceed. O'Donnell: Okay. Item b is an ordinance to vacate West Benton Court north of Benton Street. This is first consideration. Champion: Move first consideration. Vanderhoef: Second. O'Donneli: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Pfab: I had a question about the ownership of the utilities and I believe the attorney for the people there said they would get back to us with some...he would look into it and get back to us. I don't see them here. O'Dormell: I don't see them here, Irvin, and I also don't believe that there were four people on this Council that were willing to pursue that. Pfab: But he also offered to... O'Donnell: Okay. Kanner: What was the question? Pfab: About not purchasing...the City remaining responsible for the utilities after it becomes private property. And my point was the utilities should go with the property if they buy it, and the liabilities and the exposures. Steve Rowe: I can speak to Councilman Pfab's question. It was discussed at...My name is Steve Rowe, I'm the administrator at Oaknoll Retirement Residence and the question was discussed by our board. And they decided that it was not in our best interest at this time to pursue below ground. Though we would like to purchase the street. O'Donnell: Okay. Pfab: It's not in your best interest. It's not in our best interest...in the City's best interest to not sell it. Vanderhoef: Well we'll get to that when the purchase... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #5b Page #12 O'Donnell: That's right. Okay any further discussion? Okay. Emie. (5/1, Pfab in the negative, Lehman absent) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #5f Page #13 ITEM NO. 5f. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE 11,800 SQUARE FEET OF UNDEVELOPED KIRKWOOD AVENUE RIGHT-OF- WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST PARKING LOT AT 1320 KIRKVqOOD AVENUE. (VAC01- 00005) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: Move second consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Dormell. Discussion? Pfab: I understand that there's a rather wide disparity between what the City feels... Lehman: That comes up later in the agenda. Pfab: Okay. Kanner: Where's that in the agenda? Pfab: I was under the impression we weren't going to go ahead with this. Vanderhoef: This is second reading. Lehman: Yeah but there's... Karr: Item 147 Kanner: l 4. Lehman: Item 14. Okay discussion on the vacation, second consideration? Kanner: Well if we're not going to convey then maybe we don't want to vacate. Lehman: Maybe we aren't going to know that until we get to 14 and we just (can't hear)... Champion: This is only second consideration. Lehman: ...three readings anyway. Kanner: Well we heard yesterday that the...wasn't...the staff didn't think it was so hot to convey. I would move that we defer this. And it never hurts to put a little pressure on the other side if we're negotiating. Why go through with something? Why give all our cards away? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #5f Page #14 Lehman: We haven't given anything away on the second reading ofa third...ofa reading that requires three readings. And if we don't pass 14 we can't do it anyway. Pfab: I ... Lehman: We have a motion to defer is there a second? Pfab: I would second the motion. Lehman: Discussion on the motion to defer? All in favor? Opposed. Motion's defeated. Roll call. Motion carries, 5/2, Karmer and Pfab in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #5h Page #15 ITEM NO. 5h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 24.12 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY, ID-RS, TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY, SAO-5, LOCATED EAST OF HICKORY TRAIL. (REZ01-00012) (PASS AND ADOPT) Vanderhoef: Move to adopt. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: I am uncomfortable with the...that the fact that the ground is basically just chopped up and more land isn't available to the public use or the use of the people in that development open to them. So I'm going to vote against it. Kanner: Is this also the area where they tried to get a road up through ACT land? ACT wouldn't sell. Champion: No. Lehman: No, this is on the other...this is on the north side of Rochester and ACT is on the east side and out quite a ways farther. The south side... Kanner: Well our getting it up to eventual Scott... Atkins: I think Steven's correct. You could run the road up. I don't recall, Steven, that that was in the...Karin may be able to tell us. Vanderhoef: This is in... Atkins: But you could do what you're...what you're suggesting. Yeah. Vanderhoef: ...culdesac at this point. Karin Franklin: That was discussed at the Plarming and Zoning Commission. ACT declined to have any road go through their property at this time. And it was not a majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission that was concerned about that. I think it was raised by a member of the public during the meeting. Kanner: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #5h Page #16 Lehman: I didn't know they owned that property. Okay. Further 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 December 11, 2001. #6 Page #17 ITEM NO. 6. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING DAVID DAHLQUIST AS THE ARTIST FOR THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE TRANSPORTATION CENTER PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND DAHLQUIST CLAYWORKS~ INC. Champion: Move the resolution. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? We have a new agreement. You had some questions about this last night... Vanderhoef: And they were answered. Lehman: I think that the agreement is in order. Everything is ready for us. Is there discussion? Vanderhoef: I just want to let the people know that this is a combined project with the Federal Highway Administration and that 80% of this public art project will be funded through the federal grant. Lehman: Any further discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #7b Page #18 ITEM NO. 7. A REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SEABURY & SMITH, INC. AND SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 7b. Consider a Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution Of Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Champion: Ijusthaveaquestion. It says in here that the lease agreement has not been decided yet. Do we vote on something when there really isn't a lease involved? Lehman: It's subject to the lease being... Dilkes: The agreement will be null and void if the... Lehman: Right. Dilkes: ... if the lease is not negotiated. Champion: All right. Pfab: Is...what is holding up the lease? Is it that replacement because of terrorist insurance? Dilkes: No, that's the other amendment that's being made to this agreement, that the obligation to rebuild is only there is there are insurance proceeds to cover the rebuilding and that' s what's related to their concerns following the terrorist attacks in New York. Pfab: So is that subject to vote now? Dilkes: ThaCs one of the amendments being made that's subject to your vote now, yes. Pfab: So that's what we're voting on? Lehman: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #7b Page #19 Pfab: What is happening on the national level? The congress is working with the insurance industry to make some changes and does anybody know what that is? Dilkes: I can't address that. Pfab: So as it is right now, what does it say? That we will not... Dilkes: As outlined in Sarah's memo, the two changes that are being made or being proposed for your consideration and vote tonight are number 1, that the obligation to rebuild kicks in only if insurance is available to cover that. There are some un...there are some events such as the terrorist attacks in New York that were not covered by insurance. So that's one of the changes being made. Pfab: Well that's what I want addressed. Okay so in other words ifthere's any insurance available they will insure it. Dilkes: They have an obligation to insure it. Pfab: Ifthere's any insurance available. Dilkes: No. They have an obligation to insure it. The issue is whether if the building is destroyed they have an obligation to rebuild. In the previous agreement, the agreement that we've got now, the obligation to rebuild was unrelated to whether there were insurance proceeds to cover that rebuilding. The change being made here says that they have an obligation to rebuild unless it isn't...the destruction of the building is caused by an uninsurable event such as they experienced in New York. Pfab: Okay now on a national level they are working with the insurance industry to cover terrorist acts. Dilkes: I can't address that. Champion: We can't address that. Pfab: So I...My point is I think this should be deferred until that is solved. Dilkes: That's an argument for you... Champion: Them make a motion to defer it. Kauner: So you're... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #7b Page #20 Pfab: Go ahead. Kanner: You're saying there might be something a little bit down the road... Pfab: Well that leaves it...in a way what it says is that don't have terrorist insurance they don't have to rebuild. Champion: There's no such thing. Pfab: Well, that's not true. That is not true. Kanner: Yeah, you could insure...there's always a price for insurance. Champion: Right. Pfab: So what does it say. Under no circumstances will you insure it. Under all circumstances will you insure it? Is it not available? Is it a cost factor or what? Champion: Do we have a second to that motion? Dilkes: I don't know that I can answer those kinds of questions, Irvin. I can tell you... Pfab: That's why I think we should defer it. Dilkes: ...and that's what you need to address to the Council. Pfab: Okay. Kanner: I think Irvin brings up some good points. There's a lot of uncertainty in this and I would agree that we should remove this from here and consider it at a later date. I think the other part makes sense, the amendment to base it on a contingency of a lease signing. But what you say, Irvin, makes some sense. I was a little weary in the first place to sign it for any reason. I think if there were such a horrible event as a terrorist attack I think the City would work with people but I don't think we give them an open slate. We're already giving them a tax break here. I think they have an obligation at least from the start to fulfill that. So if you want to make a motion I... Pfab: I make a motion that we defer this. Lehman: We have a motion to defer. Do we have a second? Kanner: Could you...maybe to amend it instead. Can we defer part of it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #7b Page #21 P fab: Well if it's deferred it's deferred. It looks like it's... Kanner: What would the procedure be to defer... Dilkes: You could make a motion to amend the agreement that's on the floor to remove that change. Pfab: Remove that change. Okay. I would...I would...That's the motion I would like to make then that we remove that clause where they're asking to be excused under those cimurnstance which I don't think are carefully spelled out. And I believe that there are things going on...I think coming up close to the end of the year there's big arguments in Congress right now about this. I don't know what the exact thing is right this second. Kanner: I'll second all that. Lehman: We have a motion to amend this by removing the ability of Seabury & Smith not to have to rebuild if destruction were related to a cause because of an uninsurable event such as a terrorist attack. Is there discussion on the amendment? Vanderhoef: I want to know from Eleanor what the City obligation is in this whole agreement anyway to do with rebuilding. What legal... Dilkes: Well...the City wants the building to be rebuilt because you want the tax base, you want the thing to generate taxes. And so that's why the obligation to rebuild is in the agreement. But the agreement will...if the thing can't be rebuilt the agreement will not proceed because they won't be able to meet their other obligations. Lehman: Other discussion on the amendments? All in favor of the agreement say aye. Opposed the amendment the say sign. The motion is defeated, 5/2, Karmer and Pfab voting in the positive. Discussion on the original motion? Pfab: I think it leaves the City wide open here and I think if okay maybe we make a motion to defer it until we can get more information. I would oppose that. I would move that we defer this until that is resolved whether terrorist insurance is going to be available for that. And I ...at least until the next meeting. Lehman: We have a motion to defer. Do we have a second? Kanner: Aye. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #7b Page #22 Lehman: We have a motion, seconded to defer. All in favor ofdeferral say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion is defeated, 5/2, Karmer and Pfab in the position. Now discussion on the motion as presented? Roll call. Motion carries, 5/2, Kanner and Pfab in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #23 ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 2, "VEHICLES FOR HIRE," OF THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING DEFINITION OF VEHICLES FOR HIRE, ADDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED STATE OF IOWA CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY APPLICATION AND/OR DRIVING BADGE, AND REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DISTINCTIVE COLOR SCHEME FOR VEHICLES FOR HIRE. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: Move second consideration. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? David Stoddard: Good evening, my name is Dave Stoddard, I own Yellow Cab here in Iowa City. I would like to voice my concerns with the deletion ofthe color scheme for vehicles for hire. I think it's a safety issue for the community. It's important that the cabs are distinguished. There's a lot of female students in this community. I don't want them jumping into any car and thinking it's a cab. I don't want other companies being able to paint their cars yellow or have their cars yellow and ride on my coat tails. I've worked hard to get a decent reputation in this community and I'd like to keep it. And I don't want to get confused with other companies. Bottom line is if it isn't broke why fix it? Lehman: Marjan, last night we discussed this one. You indicated to us you have a number of different companies who'd like to do business in Iowa City. The present regulation requires that there be certain color. You know, I think we have what...we got a list of those in the packet tonight. Karr: There was a number of issues that we brought forth in the revised ordinance. This particular one was done for two reasons. As we distributed this evening, we have nine cab companies currently licensed. Part of their application is to have a distinctive color scheme and it's proving more and more challenging not to reuse the same colors and confuse people by use of the same colors. Since we were bringing an ordnance before you anyway on a number of issues we suggested doing away with the color scheme noting that Cedar Rapids has also done the same. StafFs position on this is we certainly can adhere to the present code but we wanted you to be aware of the number of companies we do have and the possibilities we have of distinctive color scheme problems. And secondly wanted you to be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #24 aware that other cities are facing these same type of dilemma and have answered it by again being requesting the two inch letting on the side be painted. And this evening we did also clarify the wording in the ordinance in light of the discussion last night to say that... it's before you, it's one page, it's a single page, that removable lettering... Lehman: Will not be allowed. Karr: ...will not be allowed. Lehman: Right. Karr: So again, our response is to adhere to the ordinance as far as the two inch painted lettering on each side of the vehicle. Lehman: Cedar Rapids has removed the requirement? Karr: That's correct. Lehman: Okay. Pfab: My question on this is the two inch lettering on the side, is that adequate. A person seeing a vehicle coming forward, you can't tell till it's right there or going away whether it's a taxi or not. Stoddard: You're correct. You won't be able to distinguish until it's either perpendicular with you or passing you by. And I don't know if any of you guys have been out late at night in this community but... Pfab: Not me. Stoddard: ...people are waiving cabs down and it's better for them to get a visual of it coming down the road... Pfab: Now that would be my only concern. Whether it has to be a color or not that's not my concern. My concern is that if the vehicle is coming down the road you should be able to tell as it approaches you whether it's a taxi or not...or vehicle for hire. Stoddard: And keeping a distinguished color would help do that. Karmer: Dave, what's the arrangement that you have with another company you...that has different colors. Do they use the Yellow Cab name? Stoddard: They currently use...We have one car that's white. And that... we tried to go to independent contractors and he was our first one we did This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #25 and we ran into this road block with the distinguish color because I wanted it yellow because he's running under my name, my dispatch, my phone number, my advertising, all that. But...and his distinguish color he was a separate color because he's a separate entity so he had to paint his white. We plan on rectifying that come renewal time. We didn't want to go through the whole hassle of painting it and paying the forty bucks for City of Iowa City, forty bucks for the City of Coralville just to redo it in yellow right now. Well take care of that during renewal come March. Pfab: So in other words the white is just a temporary color? Stoddard: Correct. And since then we've... (End Side Two, 01-107) Stoddard: They own the car, they provide the insurance, they provide their gas and repairs. And what that does is it enables them to keep their cars cleaner, I don't want to really say mechanically more sound but they take better care of their equipment than driver's that are jumping in and out. And thaCs why we were trying to go in that direction a little bit. Now like I said the first cab that we got was a white one. We hit the road block with the color scheme but we wanted...we want to be distinguish color scheme. We wanted him to be yellow and we just ran into difficulty when we first tried to do this January 1 of last year. Pfab: Well what will happen...okay so what happens if another independent...you hire another independent cab? Will they have to have their own... Stoddard: Currently I do. I have three. They're separate companies but they're doing business as yellow cab so they are painted yellow. That's how we circumvented it to get them yellow. Pfab: But, so they have a contradiction. They're registered as one color but driving as... Stoddard: No they're registered as our color. Pfab: Yeah but do they still have their own...are they still their own cab company? Stoddard: They're their own company yes. Pfab: I don't know ifI want to go down that road any farther. I want hail any more vehicles for hire right this minute. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #26 Stoddard: But I think it's important to be able to, you know, in this community visualize, you know, see the cab company coming down the street and know it's a legitimate company in this community. Lehman: You know I think you're right, Dave, but I think it's particularly significant for yellow because if you look at the other colors... there are several other cab companies that utilize dark blue and white, black and white, other colors and white that are...that even if we keep the designation that it will certainly keep your yellow cabs yellow and they will stand out on the streets as being Yellow Cab. And I understand why if I had a yellow cab company I would really want to keep that. Stoddard: Well even... Old Capitol's here too. Lehman: But from the publics perspective the color requirements that I'm seeing right here that we have right now doesn't...don't do a whole lot except for the yellow cabs. Stoddard: Well currently Old Capitol is pretty distinguished. You can see them coming down the road. Hippie Cabs, another cab company, and you can distinguish theirs. Maybe it's just me because I'm in the business but I can spot them a mile away those Old Capitols, ours and Hippie. Tricia Donatti: And I think that people do recognize... Lehman: Wait, you need to give your name. Donatti: I'm sorry, Tricia DeDonatti, 1825 Friendship Street. Lehman: Thank you, Tficia. Donatti: And Fm a (can't understand) at Old Capitol Cab and soon to be owner and I think that people do recognize the color of the cab company. I've been driving a cab for Old Capitol Cab now for the last nine years and people know the company as red cab. I have several other points (can't hear) get a chance but I do want to make that point that there...you know, the color scheme is important to the reputation of the company. Pfab: So your point is you would not like to see this color... Donatti: Yeah, I think that for several reasons I have here for color scheme issues. One I think that Iowa City is a beautiful community and that cabs tend to because they are driven so much end up looking not the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #27 best. You know you get into accidents and you do what you can to get the cab looking a little bit better but the color schemes that we have is something that is very beneficial to that. When you have, I don't know, you could have lots of different colors, dark browns and all sort of things out there if you just... or the color that the vehicle comes in. You know you sticker the side or paint the side and throw it on the road and I think that that will effect the esthetics of our city. And I think that that' s important also like I talked about with the reputations of the company at stake on those color schemes. If a company is allowed to put a red cab out there, even if it does have the two inch letters, by the way ours are four. I think it is necessary to have them taller than two inches to be able to visually...to be able to really see that. But they put two inch letters on there and they're using our color, what if that person doesn't have such a great encounter out there and all of a sudden their customer thinks oh red cab? You know it was a red cab and they don't really know. And late at night I think there are safety issues with that kind of thing. We already have issues with people coming out at 2:00 in the morning and picking up people in their personal vehicles and I think we've addressed the...that the police department has been called in about that and they've been noted and license plates have been taken down. But 2:00 in the morning they are far too busy to be dealing with that. They're glad that those kids are out of town. You know, and that they are out of the downtown area. And I do think that there are safety issues there. If you have...right now the police department knows that there are basically three colors that they need to look for and if somebody is out running around in a personal vehicle I think that you have some safety issues there. I would like to address the background check also. If (can't hear) a moment. Pfab: I also am...I am encouraged to see that you are using four inch letters. Two inches is not...doesn't stand out very well. Donatti: No. I agree and both of our companies have taxi bubbles which I think is a good think because that actually...it's something that you can do to the vehicle to make it stand out. Stoddard: Help stand it out. Donatti: And there are other companies that do not have taxi bubbles so if there' s something that you want to be considering to add to the code that might be something that you can consider. And the letter that I received from the City Clerks Office, the reason that this color scheme was going to be dropped is because it was causing problems...I'm sorry I don't have the letter here in front of me...but it was... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #28 Stoddard: Financial hardship. Donatti: ...financial hardship for companies opening up. And I would like to say in that account that if you can't paint your vehicle you can't fix it. You know if you don't have the money to start up a company then you don't have the money to take care of the vehicles or your customers or your drivers and that kind of stuff. And all of our cab drivers are independent contractors and drive under our cab color. Pfab: So you're telling me that the taxi bubble is not required? Donatti: Not as far as I know. Stoddard: Not currently in the City Ordinance, no. Pfab: I think that is something that certainly should be but that's just my o~vn personal feeling. Donatti: I recently also went through and repainted our cabs. That's when I took over managing the company in May. I thought that that was something very necessary to do. One to kind of separate the old Old Capitol Cab from the new Old Capitol Cab and two because of the esthetics of it. And we did have to go through quite a bit of work with the City Clerk's Office but I'd like to say that it was well worth it. I think that our cabs look 100% better and that the City is better for it. Pfab: What would have to happen that bubbles would be required on a cab? Donatti: I would assume just an amendment sort of like this. Stoddard: Probably, yeah. Question the City Clerk a little bit. Pfab: I... Dilkes: It's a decision for you all. It would just be an amendment to the ordinance. Pfab: I think that two inch lettering just doesn't get it, just doesn't handle it. I'm... Donatti: And there was some talk about painting of lettering too versus stickering of cars. Champion: It has to be painted. Donatti: It has to be painted? And is that in this amendment? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #29 Lehman: Right. It says... Donatti: Or...but it's not here on this one? Lehman: ...it can not be removable. Donatti: I'd like to say that maybe that's not necessarily such a great idea either. We've messed around a little bit ourselves with different methods of putting on information on the vehicles and right now we are decaling them with a clear background to your sticker. It's a large sticker that says Old Capitol Cab. Champion: But it doesn't peel off easily. Stoddard: No. Donatti: No, obviously if you peeled it off your paint would remove but it's not painted. Champion: It's permanent. Karr: Tricia could you move toward the microphone a little bit. Donatti: I'm sorry, but it is not painted so... Pfab: Okay. What does the ordinance say now, non-removable or painted? Donatti: Painted. Kanner: It says painted plainly. Pfab: I think the non-removable...I think the decal should be an option. Karr: Just to clarify, the ordinance fight now says painted. The ordinance before you says painted/non-removable. Pfab: Okay. I would think that it should say decal should be an option. Dilkes: Well why don't... we could just say non-removable. Pfab: Non-removable, fine. Champion: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #30 Pfab: So which would make it an option. But I think a taxi without a bubble just is not the way to do it. Stoddard: Well currently both our companies do have bubbles. But back to the safety issue you know how many times a year the police come down our office wanting to go through our files to track something down? Once a quarter. And if they can't distinguish what car they were in or what color even cab they were in it's going to create more work for the police to track a thing down. That murder case that happened on the east side of town... Donatti: And the police came (can't hear) through us on a regular basis... Stoddard: ... came through and went through all our records and everything like that. Donatti: ...for information. If you see a distinctive color you don't just say it's a vehicle for hire you say okay it's this color (can't hear). Pfab: When... Donatti: And I think that with color schemes you can choose to do a number of different color schemes. You can have red with black letters or, you know what...you can have red with white letters, red with yellow colors... Stoddard: Checkers. Donatti: Right. Your lettering color gives you different options too. Lehman: Excuse me a sec. We need to keep the doorway open for the fire folks so if you'd kind of move along the wall a little bit it keeps the fire folks happy. Pfab: Is the timing on this critical or would a motion to defer? Champion: Why would we have to defer? Pfab: Because... go ahead. Dilkes: Sorry, if we're going to make these kind of changes I think it would probably be easier to defer it, let us make the changes because you're probably going to have to back up and start over anyway with your readings. Pfab: So I would move that we defer. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #31 Donatti: Could I... Lehman: Well lets find out first... Dilkes: Let's find out what you want to do so we can... Donatti: Can I speak to the background issues first? Lehman: Sure. You had another issue. Go ahead. Donatti: I would like to know that there's been the talk of the background check and having a two week period of delay while I'm not sure where the information goes to about that person but for a certified criminal record. And I'm wondering, I don't know if all of you are aware but in order to get a taxi permit you do have to go to the City Clerks Office and they give you a form to fill out which is taken to the Chief of Police and the Chief of Police checks... is supposed to check the driving record and I believe criminal record at that time of the person and either okay or not okay their taxi permit. Maybe it's something that we need to consider making a list of guidelines for, you know, what qualifies as okay and what qualifies as not okay. But I think if we are looking for a two week delay for just a certified copy of that very same thing that a lot of people when they come drive a cab you're not looking for a career, you know, you're looking for an instant job. And a two week delay on that kind of thing will cause us some serious problems with hiring people which we already have difficulty doing. Stoddard: Most of them can't afford to wait two weeks to get a job. Donatti: And them my other question about that is who pays for that, that certified... Dilkes: I think that issue is a little bit different. First of all let me just say the PD has reviewed these changes and is okay with them so you should know that about the color scheme issue. One the background check as it's currently done the applicant has to fill out their criminal history and then the PD relies on that criminal history as disclosed by the applicant. What the criminal check is intended or what the background check from the DCI is intended to do is have that come directly to the PD from the DCI at the request of the applicant. The PD can not access that information for non-law enforcement purposes, which this is considered to be on its own. So it has to come from the applicant himself or herself. Lehman: And that takes two ~veeks? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #32 Karr: This is the same procedure we are asking of all our liquor establishments. It's ten to fourteen days. And this was requested specifically by the Police Chief for the vehicle for hire. P lab: What... Kanner: Is it a $5 fee that...? Stoddard: Thirteen. Karr: There's a thirteen fee. Kanner: Thirteen dollar fee that the person requesting it... Karr: That's correct. Kanner: ...has to pay for that? Pfab: We had a problem... Donatti: Which they already have. The other start up costs that are required. Pfab: I think that we...because we have some in the not very distant past we had some records that were a little bit foggy and I think that would not be a bad idea to do that, to have that process. Donatti: I would like... Pfab: I mean I can see it's a little bit more money and it may take a little bit longer but as a matter of safety I would encourage that. Donatti: Absolutely and I didn't realize that the Chief of Police wasn't actually already checking the records. I would like to say...I would like to ask if...have there been problems with this or...I know between Mr. Stoddard and myself we do what we can for hiring policies and... Karr: There has been situations the Police Chief felt he would have handled differently had he had the opportunity to review the criminal record. Donatti: Okay. And is that something maybe we could have a delay. Like we could do the hiring and say have a two week delay for the official record or something like that to come through and to get to the City Clerk's Office? Dilkes: That's something that the Council could certainly provide for. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #33 Stoddard: Something like a temporary... Temporary permit. Champion: It might be too late. Dilkes: I mean the issue is... Pfab: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Karr: That would be my only concern is that ifit's a safety issue of... Champion: Right. Karr: ...people driving cabs, that it sort of defeats the purpose of putting them...giving them a temporary for two weeks and then having them come back. Vanderhoef: I'm more concerned with an unsafe person in that cab and when I jump in I want to be sure I'm with someone that' s safe. Donatti: Absolutely and I totally agree. You know, certainly when we do hiring we do the best that we can. Obviously you can't be 100% perfect but then I think that, you know, we can talk about that in any profession, daycare. I mean I have my little girl picked up in the cab and you can bet I'm going to make sure that all of my drivers are okay to pick her up. Pfab: If we leave this until our next meeting, whenever it is, two or three weeks, is that going to cause...is that causing an immediate problem right now? Stoddard: It's currently no. The Police Chief is still checking them I believe until this ordinance passes. Pfab: So in other words...At this point it's not broken. Donatti: No it's not. As far as we know there have been... Pfab: So then I think what I would do is I would move that we defer this and try to work these things out. Karr: I certainly... if I could just clarify two things. You certainly can defer. I want to just note that number one the applications for cab companies, all nine of them come due March 1. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #34 Pfab: Okay. Karr: And that certainly is...again we have plenty of time to do that. And secondly, all the cab driver applications are not due March 1, they are ongoing all the time. Lehman: Right. Karr: So whatever that happens to be it's a year from the effective date. Pfab: So there might be some might come up as it is but the new ones after... Karr: There will always be some come up. Pfab: Right. Okay. I'm puzzled why we wouldn't want to delay this or postpone this for, postpone... delay this until the next meeting and try to work out any differences we have? Vanderhoef: What is it you want to work out? Champion: Right. Vanderhoef: Fm not clear. Pfab: Well do we want to do the colors, do we want the bubbles, do we want the signs, do we want this? It's not in the ordinance now, is it? Karr: It is in the ordinance now, yes. Pfab: Okay so what... Karr: The ordinance before you is purposing two inch painted lettering on each side of the vehicle and a DCI... Pfab: Well see that...I think a decal should be possible also. Champion: Well (can't hear) Karr: You can amend that. Lehman: We can amend that. Pfab: All right, we can amend it so we put in a decal. What else? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #35 Karr: Well, what else do you want? Pfab: What else is...what else are the changes? Karr: The...what else are the changes? The DCI report for the drivers and the applicant is new. Pfab: But that's part of the ordinance. Karr: That's correct. It's in there. Pfab: Okay. I think the two inch letters is just too small. I won't support it with the two inch letters and removable letters. Champion: I will move to amend the ordinance to allow...the change the wording to non-removable lettering. Lehman: It's already there. O'Donnell: What a wonderful idea. I would second that. Kanner: And you have to take out the painted part. Champion: To remove the... change the wording to non-removable... O'Donnell: Non-removable. Champion: ... lettering. Wilburn: Let me ask you a question... Pfab: Could you take friendly motion to add that they be at least four inches tall? Champion: No. Lehman: Just a minute. Pfab: Well then I'll make my own motion. Lehman: Ross. Wilbum: I'm sorry but there was a motion going there. Dilkes: Was there a second to that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #36 Vanderhoef.' I second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to allow decals to be used. Is that correct? Champion: The letters just have to be... Kanner: Non removable lettering. Dilkes: Non-removable as I understand the motion, it's non-removable lettering. The lettering can be of whatever kind as long as you can't take it off and on. Lehman: Decal, paint, whatever. Right. Okay. Stoddard: Would current cab be grand-fathered in if they have two inch or would they have to go out and... Dilkes: That's not the motion in front of them right now. Lehman: We haven't changed the size of the lettering. All in...This is an easy one. Champion: It is. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment... O'Donnell: Obviously it's not. Lehman: ...say aye. Opposed. Fine the amendment is passed. Now. Champion: I'd like to make another amendment. Lehman: Okay. Champion: I'd like to move to amend the ordinance to keep the taxi cab color schemes. I think it is a...I think it is a safety feature that we have especially in a town where we have a lot of young people congregating downtown that are using a lot of taxi cabs on weekends. And I think it's too easy for somebody in any car to put taxi on the side and who know what somebody is getting into. So that's why I'm making that amendment. Lehman: We have an amendment to...a motion to amend a motion by retaining the color schemes as presently know. Is there a second to that amendment? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #37 O'Donnell: I'll second that. Lehman: We have a second to the amendment. Discussion? Pfab: That's to nullify the request to change it? Karr: To have it remain the same as it is now requiring a color scheme. Lehman: Right. Pfab: That's okay. Whatever it takes I'll vote for that. Donatti: Did you have a question or? Wilbum: Yeah... if you can comment or just Council in general that's willing to keep the color scheme, I don't know... safety is a concem and something that I would want to see us do what we can to make sure it's present. But we're getting away from...I mean, it seems to me there's still a problem about the color scheme though. Now I've only personally used a couple of these companies but I'm looking at the sheet, there's three listed that have various combinations of white. Does there need to be more than just top, bottom and lettering to help people identify or... I mean from a distance it seems to me all you would see would be white when it came up. Karr: One of those is only a limousine if that helps so... Stoddard: Yeah, that's Lindsay's. Karr: But your point is well taken. Pfab: Would you support... Wilbum: I'm looking at two that have a white scheme and I don't know which is which if its coming or if I'm waiting and...so where...so how is keeping the color scheme going to get us away from the problem of what might...what could continue to become more difficult or confusing? Pfab: Would... Lehman: I think the issue here is a color scheme even though they might be somewhat confusing still identifies it as a taxicab. You know you might have two white ones, one with navy blue and one with black trim and you might not immediately notice the difference but you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #38 would identify it as a cab. But a bubble on top would do the same thing. Donatti: Not all of those vehicles are actually running as cabs either, as taxicabs, you know. They're all vehicles for hire and they're all passenger carrying vehicles but as Ms. Karr pointed out there are only... that's a limousine in one of them. And really the cab companies that we have out on the road running as your normal cab companies are red, yellow, and sort of a yellow green with different letters. Most of those aren't actually taxicab companies. So maybe there could be some sort of division made there. I don't know. Wilbum: What recommendation might you have should more companies come along and (can't hear) Donatti: I would recommend one, offering...there is the flexibility with lettering. I think that one of the cab companies is really very close to a yellow color already. The other cab company, Hippee Cab, is a yellow green so there are different shades of colors. I would recommend possibly if you do need to separate out the taxicab companies versus the limousine services. Those are slightly different kinds of services and on the road at different times and doing different sort of things and that that might not be a bad idea. Champion: And I don't think anybody is going to mistake a limousine for a taxi. Donatti: For a cab, exactly. So there's not that issue on the road of reputation and safety. Kanner: Eruie? Lehman: Yes. Kanner: Connie, I think I disagree slightly with you with your amendment. I think in the name of competition we certainly want to look at safety and we have those provisions in there. I don't think color speaks to the safety issue in a strong germane matter. And I think ifthere's new com...new cab companies coming in there I think we have other things covered. I would be willing to go to the four inch to be more distinctive and I think it would be up to the companies if they want to try to be more distinctive in their own manner. I don't want to have a race to have bigger and bigger bubbles on top, ten foot bubbles. Champion: Right, right, right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #39 Kanner: But I think that they can if they want put bubbles that distinguish themselves and perhaps they can look at a logo trademark. I'm sure if they have a distinctive circle, a big thing like this, they can trademark Yellow Cab. The can draw a picture of a cab and register it with the state and other cab companies probably couldn't use it. That...I don't know for sure how that works but I think... Champion: That's a very clever idea. Kanner: ...that's the way to distinguish. Donatti: Actually... Kanner: I think there's other ways to distinguish... Donatti: ...we have a trademark that is on the vehicles already so it's... Kanner: Right, so I think that...and that could distinguish your company from other companies. Donatti: I don't think though that this is about competition. And I mean... Champion: (can't hear) Donatti: ...I have no problem with competition coming in. I do think though that you need to be concerned if they are having a problem painting their vehicles do they have enough money to run a cab company. And I'm happy to have them come in, do that, but I do think the aesthetics of it are important too. Champion: There's another point to the color too that you brought up that I thought was a good one too is that you do as a business person, and those of us who are business people know, that you do build up your customer base on your customer service. And I think it's a very important point that you have some identifying thing. It'd be like somebody buying the Deadwood and putting a groc...a dress store in there that said Catherine's. I guess I wouldn't like that at all. You know I think there is identity to business. Businesses have identities and it's probably brings them a lot of business if their identity remains good. Donatti: And even though our name is Old Capitol Cab most people call it red cab. I mean it's...it definitely is part of our business, that color. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #40 Stoddard: IFthey get rid ofthe color scheme For competition anybody with a yellow car can get license, throw a name on the side and be confused with my company and I don't want that. Lehman: It would then be a yellow cab. Stoddard: Pretty much even though the name said something different. Lehman: No, no. Stoddard: Everybody in this town would call it a yellow cab and think it was me. So anytime there was a complaint I have to sort our was it my car, was it John Smith out there with the one car thing yellow. Champion: But we're not out of colors yet folks. Lehman: We have an amendment on the floor... Donatti: I think that between the top bottom and... Lehman: ...to retain the color scheme that we've been presently using. Is there other discussion on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment to keep the color scheme say aye? Opposed? Motion carries, 6/1, Kanner voting in the negative. Pfab: I would... Lehman: We now have amended it to retain the color schemes, to allow the use ofdecals, are we ready to talk...to vote on the rest of this? Pfab: No, I move that the lettering be at least four inches high for any new cabs, any new vehicles coming in. Lehman: Is there a reason why...that we have the two inch regulation, Marian? Karr: It's been two inches for some time. Lehman: Is that kind of all over too? Karr: I don't know. Pfab: Two inches is not (can't hear) Donatti: I don't think that, yeah...I mean, people don't really have that problem either. Like none of the cabs use two inch letter. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #41 Lehman: They're all larger. Donatti: They're all larger. Lehman: Much larger. Pfab: So, but I mean, the ordinance should say...state that then. Champion: No. Pfab: I move that we move to four inch lettering on the vehicle. O'Donnell: How about if we say larger than two inch? Pfab: No I'm not willing to...that is (can't understand) Lehman: Does the ordinance say a minimum of two? Champion: Yes. Lehman: The ordinance says a minimum of two which means they can use whatever size they'd like as long as it's a minimum of two. Champion: Right. O'Donnell: Absolutely. Six would be wonderful. Pfab: I withdraw my... Lehman: All right folks are we like to vote on this? Kanner: Wait are you going to propose the four? Pfab: Well I don't get a second. I made a motion to make it four. Kanner: But you didn't make the motion? Pfab: I made...I moved that the lettering be at least four inches. Lehman: We have a motion that... Kanner: Second. Lehman: ...the lettering be at least four. We have a second. Discussion on four inch letters? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #42 Kanner: This is...since we have most of the cab companies that are at four inches apparently this is approximately two inches, this is four inches. Four inches seems reasonable. It is hard to see two inches. I think... O'Donnell: That's why we said larger than two. Kanner: What? O' Donnell: A minimum of two. Lehman: A minimum of two. Vanderhoef: A minimum of two. O'Donnell: Then they can go for the sky. Karmer: Right, right. We're saying a minimum of four inches that companies that come in so that it's distinguishable, Mike. I think that makes sense. Lehman: Other discussion? All in favor of the amendment of a minimum of four inches say aye. Opposed? Let's do a hand vote. Minimum of four say aye, or raise their hands. We've got two. Opposed? The amendment is defeated, 5/2, Karmer and Pfab in the positive. Can we vote on this folks? Champion: Yes. Donatti: I wonder though... O' Donnell: P lease. Lehman: I'm sorry... Donatti: I'm sorry. What has been decided on the certification issues, the certified state? Lehman: I think the certification is going to say the same. Champion: I think that's important. O'Donnell: I'm very comfortable with the Chief of Police okaying these cab drivers. Donatti: Okay so we need to remove the certified state report, right? It's going to stay the same as it way? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #9 Page #43 Champion: No. Pfab: No. Karmer: You...like your (can't hear) the DCI? Karr: It's going to stay it's proposed. O'Donnell: I want (can't hear) Champion: Right. Karr: You want what is proposed? Lehman: Yes. Donatti: The DCI certified report? The two week report? Lehman: Right. O'Donnell: Yes. Donatti: Okay, thank you. Lehman: Okay roll call. O'Donnell: On what? Vanderhoef: As amended. Champion: As amended. Lehman: The motion as amended and amended and then not amended. O'Donnell: Okay. Champion: Did I vote? Yes. I'm sorry, my ears are plugged... Lehman: Folks it's perfectly obvious that this passed and we're going to take a break for ten minutes. (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #44 ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE 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." (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: (can't hear) Pfab: I move the resolution. Lehman: We have a motion by Vanderhoef, seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Champion: I have some amendments I'd like to propose. I don't know if this is a proper time to do this but the Chamber of Commerce would like some time, they haven't had time they were busy with the election, to look into this ordinance and how it might effect business and they would like us if at all possible to delay the third consideration until February so they can spend January looking into this. I'd like to move that we... Lehman: Well, Cormie, that would be appropriate when we come to the third consideration. This is second now. Champion: Oh, okay. That's what I'm asking. Lehman: We can always do...well I'm...we can always do that. Champion: I think they'd like to know though so they...they're not going to spend time looking into it if they don't think there was a possibility that we might defer it until February. Kanner: We can move to defer now. Lehman: No. You can ask ifthere's any inclination to...the next council meeting is going to be on January... Vanerhoef: 8. Wilburn: 8. Lehman: ...8 which would be...if this is passed in the manner in which it was passed the first time the third consideration could be as early as January 8. But I guess what you're asking is would there be folks on the Council who would be willing to delay the third consideration. And that would only be an indication because I don't think we can... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page ~45 Champion: Right. Lehman: ... bind anybody to that. Karmer: Well can't... you could defer second consideration if you'd like. Lehman: That's correct, you could. Karmer: If you're so inclined you could ask for a second on deferring second consideration. O' Dormel I: Until February. Champion: Okay then maybe I'll move to defer a second consideration until February for the reasons I stated before. Lehman: We have a motion to... Karr: February 5th on second consideration? Champion: Yes. Lehman: Okay we have a motion to defer until February 5th iS there a second? O'Donnell: I'll second that. Lehman: Made by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Wilbum: I wouldn't support this. While they may have been... the Chamber has been working on election stuff there's some people up here who've been working on some election stuff and other issues and have been able to move forward. So I would hope we would continue to move forward on this. Kanner: Yeah, I'm not going to support it either, Connie. I think this has been up here for a year, this issue, and plenty of time to look at this. Pfab: I will not be supporting this amendment either. I think the time to get the show on the road is now. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed? Motion is defeated, 5/2, Connie Champion and O'Donnell being in the affirmative. Kanner: Did I a division of the vote on that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11,2001. #10 Page #46 Pfab: Yes. Lehman: You and...Connie and Mike I said voted in favor of it everybody else voted opposed to it. Kanner: Okay, I'm sorry. Lehman: Okay, discussion on the motion? Champion: I'd like to make another amendment that I'm really concerned about the particular business climate now and I think there are restaurant out there who feel very strongly that they are going to be effected very negatively about this at a time...with this ordinance at a time when businesses are already negatively effected by the economy. I don't think it's time for the City Council to step in and make ordinances that could or might or would make...effect business negatively. So I'd like to suggest that we postpone this ordinance indefinitely. O'Donnell: I'll second that. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to postpone indefinitely. Discussion? Pfab: I will not be able to support that amendment... Lehman: All in favor of postponing indefinitely say aye. Opposed? The motion is defeated, 5/2, Champion and O'Donnell voting in the affirmative. Champion: My third and last amendment... Lehman: Okay. Champion: ...is that I hope if the ordinance passes as it is stated that we can do an exception, and maybe other people have ideas for an exception but the one I would propose is that if you have separate rooms with separate ventilations that you would be exempt from this ordinance. O'Donnell: I would second that. Lehman: We have a motion and a second that, and I suspect this is going to take a little bit of wording but if there is a separate confined space with a separate ventilating system they would exempt from the ordinance. Is that what you're saying? Champion: Correct. That's what I'm saying. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #47 Pfab: I will not be able to support that because I don't think there's anyway that you can separate that in the same establishment. I've been in different ones and it just doesn't happen that way. And I think the scientific evidence would also support. The people that put those systems in say it's...it can't be done adequately. Vanderhoef: I' 11 also respond to that. I had thought perhaps there was a possibility along this line and I had stated that I would listen and talk about that. I have since listened to a lot of folks and I'm not convinced that this is the way to go. And if we truly are headed towards a zero, then anyone who might think well ifI make that change over in my business now will have installed a lot of money in a system that we may in the near future change. So I think that would give a false impression to someone who was out there trying to make a business decision about remodeling and putting in separate ventilation systems. So I will not support this. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed? The motion is defeated 5/2, Champion and O'Donnell voting in the affirmative. Let...I would like to make just a couple comments and then I would like to entertain the prospect of an amendment. The ordinance as it was passed the first time provides for any establishment that...who's receipts from food are 50% or more would be designated as a restaurant and as such would be prohibited from having smoking within that restaurant. I see enormous problems with picking percentages whether it be 50% or 60% or 40% or 30%, there is no rational that I believe that is logical. If in fact this is a public health and a public safety issue then smoke is bad whether it's in 10% of the restaurants or 90% of the restaurants. I see enforcement problems with that not with asking folks not to smoke because I believe that part of it will be easy. I see enormous problems with restaurants deciding to become bars. The number one problem in this community probably is over indulgence and the number of bars that we have. I see that as a encouragement for restaurants to become bars. I think that is counterproductive, it's not what this community's all about. I also see this as a situation where restaurant owners are going to become less than honest in the way they report to the City. And I think they'll do that because they'll have to. If their receipts from food are 52 or 3% they're going to say they're 49. Because I...it is an absolutely unfair playing field for those folks who compete with each other every day of the week. And because of that...and I think that the press indicated that I didn't support a ban on smoking in restaurants. I think I made it very, very clear when we voted the first that I don't support a 50% ban but I would encourage, I would accept and I would vote for an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #48 amendment that would ban smoking in any establishment that serves, consumes, or prepares food. Pfab: Are you open for a comment? Lehman: Yes. Pfab: I think that that's a great idea but I think until we get this one passed as it is I don't think we wish to amend it. If this is passed I will support you the next...at that meeting after it's passed. Vanderhoef: I don't think this is...would be substantive change. We changed numbers once before and went ahead and voted on it. And I think this is the way we are going to end up going anyway. I've had a lot of discussions. I had the opportunity to be at National League of Cities last week in Atlanta. Everyone I met from a different local I was inquiring about what they did have, what they didn't have in the way of smoking ordinances. I've become convinced that the only fair way to go is to a zero on restaurants. I am also convinced that if we truly are interested in the public health of the citizens of Iowa City and in curbing the use of tobacco when we know that we have 28,000 students, young people, that are the people who are most prone to start the habit and carry it on for a long period of time. I was fortunate enough to have a roommate from Eugene, Oregon while I was out east about a little over a year ago. That city went even a lot further and all in one step they moved to smoke free in the workplace. They were protecting all of the people who were working in any kind of a business, not just restaurants, not just bars. So tonight I would like to offer the amendment that we go totally smoke free in any establishment that prepares, serves or where food is consumed. Dilkes: How about prepares or serves for on premises consumption? Vanderhoef: Yes. Dilkes: And can...and, Dee, are we still going to be using the public place definition of state code so that restaurants under 50 are exempted? Vanderhoef: Well I don't want to but yes. And I will be looking towards and ordinance to put an addition onto this in the near future. Dilkes: But that's what the motion is? Vanderhoef: That's what the motion is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #49 Lehman: Is there a second to the amendment? Kanner: I'll second it... Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Kanner: Point of information. Would this accent be equivocal to those possessing a license for serving food? Anyone who has a license, a food license? Dilkes: I don't think it would. I think there's...if you look at that definition in the state code there's a lot more things that are covered. So I don't think we could just say if you have a license for food from the Department of Public Health. Kanner: Wait you're saying we couldn't or it's different? Dilkes: I think...we had explored the possibility of using that definition in the state code and it did not work. Kanner: I'm not following why it wouldn't work if we say whoever has a food license from the county... Dilkes: Why don't...you want to...I'd have to look that up...I'11 have to look at the definition. Kanner: That's what I would go with. It would cover basically everyone. And I'm not sure exactly what your amendment covers. That's a key component of whether I would support it or not Dee. I'm not sure. Vanderhoef: The license piece, if it works with our state law, that's...that would be fine in the way of defining. But what I'm hearing Eleanor say is that it Won't. Dilkes: Dee's amendment essentially eliminates the exception that you now have in the proposed ordinance for those entities with alcohol sales of more than 50%. That's all it does. Vanderhoef: All we're doing is taking it... Dilkes: You're taking out that exception. O'Dormell: Does that not encourage more bars? Vanderhoef: Well in...I do have a second don't I. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #50 Lehman: Uh, huh. Vanderhoef: Okay. I would like to move forward with this and then I would like Council to consider asking the City Attorney to also write up an ordinance for us that covers bars and to address that after the first of the year. So that what I am aiming at is at a later time do this ordinance that would be anyone who serves alcohol, who has a liquor license. Dilkes: I think that raises a number of issues. I think...I would suggest you talk about that ... Lehman: Where...we're not... Vanderhoef: That's what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that I would like to look at that at the start of the year. Dilkes: Your amendment is effectively going to pull in a number of what we consider to be bars. Vanderhoef: Right. Dilkes: But you're talking about those out...people...those entities with liquor licenses that don't prepare of serve food for on premises consumption. Vanderhoef: That's what I would like to look at at a later time. Lehman: But your amendment for the time being covers any establishment that prepares food, serves food, or where food in consumed on premises. Vanderhoef: Yes. Kanner: So would this include avendingmachine? Ifyouhave avending machine? Pfab: It's not prepared food. Lehman: Probably not. Vanderhoef: But for consumption on premise. Kanner: Yeah. Pfab: Not prepared though. A vending machine does not prepare it it just dispenses food. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #51 Kanner: Isn't the amendment serve or prepare? Pfab: No, it says serves and prepare. Dilkes: No, it says served or prepared for on premises consumption. That...I mean there would...that's a component of the definition so you'd have to...there'd have to be a place...it would have to be a place set up for on premises consumption. Remember also if you're using the definition of public place under the state code you are exempting those establishments ~vith seating under 50. So that... Lehman: Right. I think that... Kanner: So essentially it covers almost everybody. I can't see any...unless they... almost everybody serves chips or something. Champion: No that' s... Lehman: We wouldn't cover chips but it would cover someone who ordered... Kanner: Why wouldn't it cover chips? Dilkes: Prepares or serves food for on premises consumption. Again you wouldn't include those entities under 50 because of the state code definition of public place but that is a broad definition, prepares or serves food, because it's an or. So they don't have to prepare it. It would be different if you said prepares and serves or you exempt our for instance prepackaged food, that kind of thing. But prepared or served is a broad definition. Vanderhoef: And the packaged food would be something that we could look at when we look that bars. Pfab: Well we are looking at it as it is. Dilkes: You're looking at it right now with your definition. Karr: Chips would count. Dilkes: Prepares or serves food. Serving food would include the service of prepackaged food for on premises consumption. Pfab: I...Dee, I would...I think we are working as a Council towards a 100% ban in the work places as you put it. I think that's where we're heading. I think that what's on the table we should support, get that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #52 and then immediately work our way through whatever else afterwards. We have...we're in the second reading now otherwise we start over. Vanderhoef: No, we don't start over. If we just change the number. Pfab: If we change the number... Dilkes: Well, when...we wili start over. When you changed the number before you had not yet done first consideration. Vanderhoef: I thought we did it at the same time. Dilkes: No. I think this is a substantial change. You'd have to start over. Pfab: And because...and because of that I would not be able to support it because I don't want to go back to ground zero again. Lehman: But that...the ordinance as proposed now is patently unfair. I just really have a problem with (can't hear) Pfab: If this passes I'll be happy to support 100% anyway. Kanner: I'd like to hear from a couple folks out there. One we've heard...I've heard from Caf6 people saying that this proposal we should wait, hold off and do what Irvin says. I'd like to hear some more rationale from someone at Car6. I'd also like to hear from one or two of the restaurant owners how they feel about this. If this...if they feel this levels the playing field. If that would be okay with the Council to... Lehman: We'll take some public... Champion: I think that's an important question. Wilbum: That' s fine. Beth Ballinger: Hi, I'm Beth Ballinger, I live at 48 Pentera Circle and I'm one of the spokespeople for Caf6. I apologize for my voice it's been this way for several days so if you don't understand me let me know. I'd like to speak to some of the concerns that several of you have mentioned. We appreciate the homework and the effort that all of you have been putting into investigating this issue. It's clear from the dialog that's going on up here that you're all quite sophisticated now about this issue and so we probably don't really need to tell you very much about what happened in Ames. This is becoming extraordinarily similar to what happened in Ames. Toward the end of their readings also it was of some concern, huge concern to many local restaurateurs that this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #53 was not going to apply to their competitors, the bar owners or the people who primarily focus their businesses on the sale of alcohol to customers. And so they immediately said to level the playing field and make this more fair why can't we have this apply to everyone and then immediately there was an extraordinary number of people who felt well... (End of Side 1, 01-110) Beth Ballinger: ...would like to see how this gets phased in. We'd like to see what happens with regards to the response of the conununity. These people are immediately brought into a discussion that they hadn't been participating in. One of the things that's happened here over the last year and a half actually, not just a year we've been talking about this for a year and half publicly, is that because this never talked about applying to bars many of those people sat on the side lines and deservedly so because we never talked about this applying to them. And in tailoring what it was that we were hoping to achieve we went to the public and we asked them a year and a half ago in July. We, through a private marketing group that' s fairly well known should you care to know about the information. We commissioned a survey of 400 people. It was done here in Iowa City and Coralville and it included republicans, democrats, demographic characteristics across the entire spectrum, men, women, young, old, white collar, blue collar, rich, poor, smokers, not smokers and asked them what they wanted. And they said we think that we would prefer to do our business in smoke free businesses. We would prefer to eat in smoke free restaurants. 68.5% of them said that and about 35% said we would like to have smoke free bars. Now that was a year and a half ago and there has not been an extraordinary uprising from the bar owners or people who are primarily frequenters of bars coming forward to ask us for that. So in response to Mr. Kanner's request for comments from Caf6 what we would urge you to do is remember what happened to municipality of... municipalities over and over, again and again across the country towards the end of their ordinance efforts. There is uniformly a drive to have this apply across the board everywhere and then everyone says yeah that's great. Why don't we do that? And then to appease the people who have not had their concerns addressed, exception after exception, hardship clause, we'll phase this in, we'll try to make allowances for people, let's accommodate everybody, let's have one big umbrella and bring everybody in underneath it. Let's try to get along and they end up having an ordinance that looks like Ames, one which is being contested right now on the basis of having so many exceptions and the lack of fairness that is perceived to the people that it applies to. I would also remind you that from a financial standpoint the judge hearing that case right now rejected the request for a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #54 moratorium on the application of that ordinance when it was requested for hardship clauses, economic hardship clauses. It's hard to believe that he would have watched the businesses in Ames go down the toilet while he waited for the final opinion on that case if you really thought that was what was going to happen. And he indeed certainly turned that down. So to finish up here, you've heard from me many times before and I appreciate your patience and your tolerance and the opportunity to speak. Please do something tonight. Keep moving forward in the positive way that we know you all would like to go and that you've indicated to us so many time in the past that you would. Move forward. We too want smoke free environments across the board in Iowa City however, our common sense tells us that not only can we want it, everybody else has to want it too. And right now we have information that states that people want it in restaurants. We do not have information that states, and I don't think anybody else has been able to show it to us that they have that, that this would apply and be successful and people would ask for it today in bars. Thank you. Kanner: Beth, if I may. Put aside the poll aren't we doing the opposite of Ames with all the exceptions with this proposal? We're making it tougher where Ames was putting all...making it looser actually. So it seems it's a different case than Ames. Ballinger: Actually... Kanner: And I don't quite understand that comparison. Ballinger: In Ames it doesn't apply in bowling alleys, it doesn't apply in truck stops. They have a red light green light exception. It doesn't apply, help me out here folks. There are innumerable exceptions. Kanner: Right. Dilkes: Remember though, Ames starts with a ban in all public places and then makes those exceptions. It makes those... Ballinger: And then adds on all of these other things. Dilkes: ... exceptions so it is a different... I mean it starts off quite differently then what you all. Kanner: Well that's my point. Ballinger: However, however...you're absolutely right Ms. Dilkes. It started out as what looks like a wonderful ordinance and then to appease everyone concerns, all the different special interest groups and different This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #55 businesses, all of these additional exemptions were added on to it. And when it was finally finished they had an ordinance that really does look pretty unfair and doesn't apply to any particular group. And does not accomplish smoke free environments. Red light green light doesn't protect people twenty-four hours a day. Kanner: But Beth... Dilkes: I'm not arguing with you about that. I just wanted to be clear about how...where they start off is different from where you are starting off. Ballinger: Oh, yes. Kanner: Right but... Ballinger: However... Kanner: Beth you're not answering my question. Ballinger: I can appreciate your point. Karmer: They're making it easier with exemptions, we're making it tougher. Wilburn: I think the point that she brought up...right now it isn't. We have...let me finish please. We have history fight here where we make a move, several exemptions get introduced. And just here tonight, just introducing it there were... Pfab: Three or four delays. Wilburn: ...three other potential amendments. And I suppose it's a matter of trust as to what's going to happen between the... a second reading and a third reading. And that's the point that I think is being brought up here. Kanner: Right, that's an issue but to compare it to Ames I think is unfair because we are...each time we changed it we've made it tougher to bring more and more people in as opposed to Ames. They are doing the opposite of putting more and more people outside of it. I think that's clearly a difference between us and Ames. Wilburn: And I will again add the point that when we get to a third reading, what other combinations of exemptions are going to be brought back in to make it resemble the Ames ordinance with a lot exemptions. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #56 Kanner: Well lets ask if people here...is that what people intend Dee is do you intend to add more exemptions? Vanderhoef: No. Kanner: Emie? Lehman: No, but there's one...I think the way this amendment is stated, and I don't disagree with it but I do...I personally do not have a problem with somebody having a bag of potato chips in a bar. But, I mean, if the amendment were worded in such a fashion that any place that prepares, serves, or consames prepared food which would exempt stuff that came out of a sack or a vending machine. I don't have a problem. I don~t think that you want to necessarily cover a bar that wants to...somebody wants to eat peanuts. But I do think if you want...if you're going to cover restaurants then cover all of them. Kanner: Well see if you're going to change it, I have problems with it because the level playing field includes the bars and the restaurants. And we've heard from people like The Mill and The Sanctuary saying that they're a bar at night and they're going to be competing against these bars that would still be exempt under your revision of these amendments. Lehman: Well, I... Kanner: That's an unlevel playing field, Ernie. Lehman: I don~t...well I'm not sure that it is. My...do you have a problem with somebody having a bag of peanuts at a bar and having a cigarette with them? Kanner: I think we need to make it in all bars and restaurants, smoke free. Lehman: We've never discussed bars. And I think we need to stick with the restaurants, sort of, until...unless we want to go into bars. Even the Cafd folks have not been interested in pursuing that. We have talked about restaurants from day one and I think we need to conclude that and then work with bars. But I guess I don't feel that serving a bag of potato chips or a bag of peanuts in a bar is akin to preparing food or serving a pizza or eating a hamburger or having a meal in a restaurant. Kanner: Well...yeah, I disagree with you. I think that's the heart of it. We've been taking about restaurant bars. That's the whole percentage thing. Lehman: Okay, other discussion or comment? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11~ 2001. #10 Page #57 Dan Ramsey: Hi, my name is Dan Ramsey, I live at 2806 Hwy 6 East in Iowa City. A couple of things I want to point out real quick. Number one is that virtually every place that you're talking about that prepares food is just about every place in town. I can't think of a single place, bars included, that don't serve food there. Every bar has a microwave that they can throw a sandwich in. Every bar has a pizza oven. They can pop a pizza in. So in essence when you say you're going to bar smoking any place that prepares food, you are talking about every place in Iowa City including the bars as well. And that's a definition of prepared food. I support Irvin's idea of pass the 50% now and then look at 100% right after that. I mean, if you pass it with the January...the first meeting in January, then you can start looking 100% immediately after that. But I think it's important to get this thing through right now and then move on to other things later. I mean you can do whatever you want after that but I think to get this, what we already have our second reading, through now. I think it's very important that we do that. Thanks. Lauren Hanna: Good evening, my name is Lauren Hanna. I'd like to address the council tonight. I guess that, you know, the issue on the table of tobacco use in public places specifically restaurants is the superficial issue that seems to be going on here tonight in the discussion. And as a physician I've dealt with the impact of second hand smoke and first hand smoke on a professional level, on a personal level, on a personal level, on a professional level working in restaurants here in Iowa City. And it seems real simple on the surface to me but I believe it has a lot of complex ramifications that I'd like all of you to really carefully consider. I came to Iowa City in 1983. I was looking for an education and what I found here instead was a life. I worked for Keith Dumpster for seven years from 1983 all they way through my undergrad and halfway though medical school. The support and tolerance that I experienced in that establishment became my public home away from home. And to see him now after forty years of adapting to the number of stresses, economic, political, cultural, that are existing in our lives as it continues to go on and change. And to see him feel threatened and to hear would he feel threatened and to know that these small business owners are feeling the adverse effects of the City Council. And what I'd like you each to ask yourselves whether you are a liberabel or a conservative, whether you are a smoker or a non-smoker or a non smoker. If you're a conservative person, you're whole tenant emplors you to not inflict and incinuate yourself into the integrity of a small business owner. You must, by your own philisophy, allow yourselves to back away from that and to allow the market to mn things as they will. And if you're a liberal and you're concerned about public safety you have to ask yourself where does second hand really This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #58 reside within all the different issues that occur on a daily basis? What about immunizations, what about care for illegal immigrants that are everywhere in Johnson and Muscatine County. There are a number of hugely pressing issues, way more so, then whether or not people chose to go to an establishment where the proprietor has decided that he wants people to be able to smoke. I understand that there's an agenda to go to completely smoke free environment. I recently came back from Rochester, Minnesota Mayo-Clinic. The neighbor to the north the, you know, paragon ofmodem medical achievement. There downtown is spotless. There are a number of stores available for people to cruise through, beautiful places to sit, all of it non-smoking. I found it to be sterile. I found it to be a different sort of feeling like the hospital had encroached upon the entire place. This is a college town and people in their youth are going to have youthful indiscretions. And I'm not condoning... no one would argue the cost of second hand smoke, of alcohol, of motor vehicles, of guns, of any number of issues to public health. And if you really think that safety is the issue let us all sit back and contemplate, how safe are we? Haven't we just been reminded of that? You could be on the wrong airplane, you could be in the wrong building, you could be in the wrong remote village in some distant land. None of us are safe. And it's an illusion to legislate safety. My suggestion would be to look at some creative solutions. When I worked at The Mill I saw math professors, Schizophrenics, fraternity boys whooping it up together or at least co- existing in a space that they felt comfortable in. And in these times when people are hurting are we going to start to take away their options of how they should behave in public, using legal substances? Do we really think that's a good idea? And do you really think, whether you are a liberal or a conservative, that you can look at yourself in your own heart and ask yourselves am I being true to my ideals? Am I doing what's right for Iowa City to keep it a place of tolerance, a place of diversity, a place where young people come looking for educations and they end up staying... Lehman: You need to wrap this up if you would. Hanna: Or they go away...I'm...They go away for a few days, for a few years and then they come back. The gift of the people is what's kept me in this town. And I think that allowing people to choose where and when they want play and how they want to use the substances that are legal. I think to a certain degree that is the proprietor' s right to decide. Lehman: Thank you. I see several folks who want to speak. Now normally we allow five minutes, that was about seven. Ifit's okay with the audience and the Council I'd like to have folks try to keep their comments to two minutes. Is that okay with folks up here? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #59 Pfab: That's fine with me. Lehman: Okay, so try to limit your comments to a couple minutes so everybody gets an opportunity to speak. Kevin Perez: Hi, my name is Kevin Perez. I'm with my three children, Elias, Alexandra and Isaac. And I wish you could feel how angry I am at all of you. I wish you could feel how mad I am. You don't own a business, you don't own business, you don't own a business and I want you to know that I've got a mortgage on my house for my business. You guys feel that you can come up here and decide how to mn my business. And if it fails because of something you've done guess what, my kids don't have a place to live. Is that funny? No, it's not funny. This is where they live. They're all three here, they're all three support me. I'm just so angry at each of you to think you come here and decide how I run my business after the fact. I've set it up according to the laws and then halfway through the game you change them. That's not right. You want to change the law, make it five years after my lease is up so I can get the hell out of Iowa City. You know, and I've started up another business. It's not easy to do business in a town and you need to know that everything you do...you know, Ames doesn't count. Ames doesn't have Coralville. Coralville does not have a non-smoking law. You think people...they've already said 68% of the people are for non-smoking restaurants. Well you go to Coralville you lose...nobody in their right mind would automatically cut out 31% of their business. So people have a choice to go to Coralville and I want you to know that I feel very strongly that you guys are messing with my life, with my children's life. You don't find this a health issue, go across the board make it all non-smoking but do it with Coralville cause otherwise they're just going to go to Coralville. Cause you already... you always know that money has already gone there. So that's my...that's it. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Patty William: Hi, my name is Patty Williams, 1357 Goldenrod Drive in Iowa City. And basically my concern is that I just...private business is private business and I don't believe government should be making that decision. I'm not with Caf6, I'm not a restaurant owner. I'm just a citizen. But I think it's very scary when we start telling people how they can run their private business. And I guess that's the bottom line. I don't...it really need to be considered what we're doing. It's...I guess that's it. O'Donnell: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 10 Page #60 Lehman: Thank you. Brett Castillo: Hello, my name's Brett Castillo, 613 E Court Street. Also not a restaurant owner, not a member of Caf6, just a resident of the city. I do happen to come here from...as a student now. Originally University of Chicago, background in Envirorkmental Politics and Law. And took a good look at some of the issues being presented here. One thing for the Councilors I want to press forward. A bad law will cause problems. It will be more difficult to repair with a better law. That's something to be careful of. Even having this law exist for one month will do...could do damage to a business that could down the road lead to that business failing. Something to keep in mind. You don't want to pass an imperfect law right off the bat. You want to try to get the best law possible. Now I do have something that I thought ofjust as a consideration you may want to consider. If you look at the way the basically environment is regulated, what we're really talking about here is either a public health issue or an issue of improved air quality. If it's a public health issue there are better ways to go about it if we just want to attack smoking. If we're looking at restaurants as a issue of improved air quality, if you really want to do such a law there should be monitoring regulation. Rather than setting percentages or anything such as that look at the air quality. Just say if a restaurant is non-smoking, they have it posted, fine they don't have to monitor their air quality. For (can't understand) that wants to have smoking we require monitoring. From that point you can set standards based on what you'd like. You could say to the bar, this 21 and up only, has a less stringent standard. Family restaurant that's open til 10:00 and serves no alcohol, have a more stringent standard. But then you have a standard based on an actually health measure particularly air quality. Just how much the smokes effecting...Like if you want into Tobacco Bowl downto~vn it's going to have a stronger effect based on second hand smoke then if you walk into say the Field House at noon. There's different levels of smoke, there's different air qualities. I feel that's what really should be regulated if we're really talking about our air quality, if we're talking about the health effects of the second hand smoke on our citizens in this City. As a...One last comment also, kind of emphasized by the person who spoke to before me. Second hand does effect your health. Being poor, being unemployed, being uninsured has an even stronger effect on your health. Something to keep in mind when considering a law such as this. Thanks. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: I had a point of inform... or a question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #61 Lehman: I don't mind but can we...go ahead. Kanner: For Eleanor. What he brought up. The place like the Tobacco Bowl I think they serve food and coffee. They would no longer be able to have smoking in there under this, either ordinance, either version. Is that correct? Do we have anything, any kind of exemption for a place like Tobacco Bowl who serves or sells cigarettes? Vanderhoef: 50 seats... Dilkes: The public... Audience: I believe they're under 50 seats. Lehman: They're under 50 seats. Dilkes: Yeah. Are they? Then that... Kanner: So they would be exempt. Champion: Right. Lar Fortis: Hi, my name is Lar Fortis. I live at 1119 E. Court Street. There are...this is a complicated issue. I come to this from a number of backgrounds. One family member of most of the adults in my family either having emphysema or having died of tobacco related cancer so I've a person interest in this. We've talked about person freedoms and tolerance in this community and I...we're a country that' s based on these tenants but typically personal freedoms have boundaries and those boundaries are where those freedoms to act might injure others. And this is a situation where typically in restaurants and public places we don't limit who can go to those public places. I bring my children to bars in Iowa City and have to music venues that other people might consider adult venues. I think that this is one thing that we have to consider that children do not have the personal freedoms or choices to dictate whether or not they are going to be exposed to second hand smoke. So I think that although this is a complicated issue you are on the fight track in saying that you want to protect those people who do not want to breathe smoke from unwanted smoke. And individuals who want to make that discussion for themselves don't have the right to expose others to the major preventable killer in this country. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #62 AI Ackner: Good evening, my name's A1 Ackner and I'm at 1413 Franklin Street. And I'd like to remind us of a couple of things. One, we have a document called the Constitution that governs how we run things in this country at least to some extent. One of the rights that we have in the Constitution is the freedom of assembly and of association. That means that if Mike wants to start a restaurant and have cigarette smoking and if Connie wants to work there as a waitress and if I want to go there and spend my money, the three of us should have the right to associate amongst ourselves in that matter no matter how unpopular it is with anybody else. Another thing I'd like to remind us of some lessons from history. Whether you look at things like the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts, the McCarthy hearings, when politicians pursue perfection without any tolerance at all innocent people get hurt. I agree with the mayor from what he said two weeks ago that there' s something going to happen here in town. We're going to have some kind of an ordinance. People want some restriction in the restaurant area but you're going too far. We need to do something that allows for people's freedom to associate and their choice to do as they decide to do with other adults who are deciding in a similar way. Ithinkifyouleftthe50%revenuedistinctionbetween a bar and a restaurant I think there is a certain logic to the idea that if you serve more food you're a restaurant, if you serve more alcohol you're a bar. I think if you left that as well as instituting an 8pm red light green light, both exemptions then I think you have something that we might be able to have consensus on and live with. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Daryl Woodson: New page. Daryl Woodson, Sanctuary Restaurant. I won't go back over all the old things. Just as a point that Eleanor could clarify I believe because I did talk to her about this. The Ames ordinance there was some discussion on the suit against the Ames ordinance and that it was being brought because of the unfairness or not a level playing field or the exemptions. I believe the basis of the suit on the Ames ordinance is on the municipal authority and whether or not that authority was granted by the state. Is that correct? Dilkes: My understanding...that's correct. My understanding is that in the Ames lawsuit the primary challenge to the ordinance is the preemption challenge that it's preemptifies state code. Woodson: And if that is successful, which will likely be the Iowa Supreme Court deciding that, that would invalidate any ordinance that Iowa City would pass. Is that correct? Dilkes: Any of the ones we've (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #63 Woodson: Yeah, any of the ones we've discussed so far, yeah. Yeah, so mypoint being there's a test case already up there in the court system. The next hearing I believe is a week from today on the petition for declaratory judgement. Dilkes: There's a motion for summary judgement pending which is a...just a request to the court to decide the legal issues and there would be a decision by the court on that motion and that would be appealable to the Supreme Court. Woodson: Right. So...you know we've got a test case up there that could potential invalidate any of the ordinances or any of the restrictions w(ve been talking about. Cedar Rapids, I believe, has decided not to go forward with any restrictions at this point and time because they might be ruled illegal later by the Iowa Supreme Court. And as we've seen, the more and more we talk about this ordinance or any kind of ordnance and who it might apply to, what businesses, what restrictions, what exemptions you get more people coming forward who may not have been involved for the last year and a half because they may not have heard about it, they may not have been a member of Caf~, they may not have owned a restaurant. I would propose that the thing maybe to do would be to sit on this like Cedar Rapids is and wait until (a) we know and the courts have ruled that the city has the authority to do this. And it will have been decided and we could pass an ordinance January gth that could be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in a year or two or whenever it comes up to the court. And in the meantime how much damage would that have done and how much divisiveness and etceteras? So maybe we...maybe we just take a step back. We know that we have a political expression from the Council to do something. Maybe now is the time to sit, wait for the legal authority to be determined. And in the meantime see if we can come to some kind of community consensus on how to implement this. Thanks. Lehman: Thank you, Woody. Marcus Cook: Good evening. My name is Marcus Cook, I'm the owner of two businesses in downtown Iowa City one of which is the Alley Cat. The other is Iowa City Wireless which is now The Wireless Answers, a cell phone company that works for three services. I come to you tonight because I am concerned that this particular ordinance that deals with restaurants is a prelude to bars which is what I've heard several inclinations tonight that that's the next step in this particular measure. As a person in my 20' s, a former college student in this town and as a business owner, I find this to be somewhat ridiculous because it's hard for me, and I know it's hard for other business people in this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11,2001. #10 Page #64 community, to make it already without having hurtles. For example, my cell phone business was cited by the City because we put a banner out in front that promoted sale of an Iowa Wireless product. If you do continue to do these small but hurtful problems to our businesses, it's going to make it difficult. For example, if a customer of mine goes to 126 for dinner and decides they want to walk down on Lirm Street to my cell phone store at 7:30 at night when we're open til 9:00, that can happen. But if you take the crowd away that does consider to use tobacco which people have mentioned is a legal substance, I don't understand. I'm confused. We have so many rules and laws in this City most of which are good and most of which are for the common good of the citizen of the City. But is difficult for me to understand some of the rules we try and pass that are going to hurt businesses. I have a little boy, he's 15 months old. I choose where to take him out to eat. I choose to take him where we go because I'm a parent. And as parent I'm able to make the decision of where I want to bring my child. Ifthere's smoking in an establishment and I don't want him to have that around him I don't bring him there. That's my choice as a parent. And I believe that's a major factor. We have choices. If you don't like something that a particular business does you don't go to it. That's something that I've taken with me my entire life. There are a lot of things I don't like in this world. There's a lot of things I do like. I do like being able to have the freedom to choose what I can do with a substance such as a cigarette and I think that's an important fact that we're not mentioning. In addition, if this does go further and we do decide to make restaurant, bars and things of that nature a non- smoking environment, it will be...it will cause a real hardship that I don't think people have mentioned yet and that' s the fact that there are people still going to smoke. And they are going to smoke outside and congregate in the large parties outside establishments, one of which is mine, the Alley Cat which has a six-foot easement into an alley. And we comply with all building codes but there will be people outside smoking cigarettes because they can't smoke inside. Not only is that a detriment to my business but that's not the issue at hand. It is a detriment to the safety of patrons when cars are driving through an alley or cars are driving through Dubuque Street or a number of places where people are going to smoke cigarettes. And that's something that I've never heard discussed yet. I would like some kind of address to that. And I think that's. ..there's so many things that are...that could occur with this motion being passed. The problems with people and their businesses, there're problems in their restaurants and I think that's something that we haven't addressed and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Marcus. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11,2001. #10 Page #65 Linda Kuncl: My name is Linda Kuncl and I live at 528 Reno Street. I've also owned and operated the Hill Top Tavern for 21 years. Before I came here tonight I looked in the dictionary up the word private. It says not controlled by the public. And all these places that you are trying to control are private enterprises. Why not let the market dictate what we choose to do. I for one am willing to take that risk, whether on not I want my patrons to be able to smoke or not. If people don't like it, don't come in. Those are the freedoms that we have in this country. Freedom is also not... it says ability to move or act freely, not controlled by others. I just would like you to remember that. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. EiIeen Fisher: My name is Eileen Fisher, I live at 3722 Hummingbird Lane and I'm a member of Caf6. If I were Phillip Morris I would want to delay this ordinance also because when ordinances like this are passed I would be selling fewer cigarettes, fewer teens would become addicted to tobacco, and that' s the reason that Phillip Morris would like to change. They would like you to think that they've changed the way they do business but they haven't. They apply tremendous amounts of pressure when cities try to do the right thing for the health of their community and I know that all of you are struggling with what is the right thing to do. I would ask that you do not delay the vote on this ordinance and move forward. Cafd wants all public places to be smoke free because that will...because it saves lives. Other cities have shown that the way to do that is incrementally, to take a first step. And we would ask that you do that tonight. Vote on the ordinance that you have on the table with no amendments. If you want to immediately after you vote on that introduce another amend...ordinance that would cover all public places or all places the serve, prepare, and...food on the premises, you can do that immediately after your vote and we will support you. But please do not delay your vote on this ordinance. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Don Stalkfleet: Don Stalkfleet from the Sports Column. I want one question...or ask one question. With proliferation of outdoor service areas what type of impact would it have for people to have outdoor service areas on private property but yet it's not enclosed... Dilkes: It doesn't apply to outdoor areas. Smoking prohibition as currently proposed does not occur to outdoor areas. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #66 Stalkfleet: So you don't then...talking about a level playing field. Now we're not having a level playing field there because of the proliferation of outdoor service areas in Iowa City that people have tended to do. If you' re a Brother's or if you're a Martini's or some of the outdoor places the City has allowed to put those outside then you've got some unfair advantages to the people that can either afford it or have the ability to do it with their butting land then an enclosed area. Wouldn't that...I mean that's not a level playing field there. That...which is nothing you can address for sure. I just wanted to bring that up. But there are certain things...I find it kind of ironic the people that are wearing these little badges around here have nothing that has anything to say about non smoking in bars because I think it's probably a pretty much forgone conclusion that when...even when I go out to eat I don't really think about smoking but I can guarantee that a lot of you people are like I am that when you go out and have a few soda pops you want to have a cigarette along with it. I chose to be in the bar business and a restaurant smaller percentage, ratio. There's other people in town who have chosen to be a restaurant and have a bar as a lesser part of their revenue and that's the choice that they've made. To include us all into one big basket I think is unfair also. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Don. We're going to take a couple more and then we're going to wind this up. Jim Mondanaro: Jim Mondanaro, Micky's, Giavanni's, Bread Garden, Mondo's downtown. You know I've listened to everybody and I am as frustrated as I'm sure the Council is because of the different scenarios that unfold. To tell you the truth I'm disappointed in the people from Caf6. I'm disappointed that what they really want is for everybody to be non-smoking yet they're so concerned that this will be diluted and that this law, or this ordinance by being diluted won't get them what they want and that' s for a partial ban of non-smoking in a select group of restaurant/bars. What Steve Kanner has proposed is a level playing field. Everybody on this council that I've talked to in private discussions, the majority of you people are for non-smoking yet the politics that we play keep people from taking a stand as to what it is that they really want to do. I've heard everything from people saying to me that well if we do that we probably can't get this thing through and so Caf6 doesn't want to go this direction. What Steve has proposed, what Dee has proposed is a level playing field. There is no way that we're going to be fair unless we're fair across the board to anybody that sells food or liquor. Now if someone decides that they're...if someone sells 25% food, this ordinance when it only is pointing toward restaurants is going to push that person to say to hell with it. I don't need to be in the restaurant business. I make more money selling liquor. I'm going to be a liquor establishment. So This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #67 we're actually fueling what we do not want to have happen in downtown Iowa City, the proliferation of bars. I said it the last time I was here and I'm going to say it again. There's only two ways to go about this ordinance. You either don't do anything or you go all the way because by going all the way that is the real truth because now all of a sudden you haven't picked on any people to be a sacrificial lamb. And there should be time taken to make this decision. To...for Caf~ to come forward and say to not vote on this today is a mistake...they don't have an input financially in a business in this community that is effected by this ordinance. And they should be, if anything, listening to the pulse of the people that have their invested dollars to support their families in these businesses. I urge you to take the time and really look and to listen to what the Chamber of Commerce has requested from Connie. Let's look at the alternatives. A month from now, two months from now, it goes by so fast. It won't make a difference as long as we make a good ordinance and that's what I plead for you to do. To make one that's fair to all. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, James. Champion: Jim. Lehman: Keith, you're the last guy up. Keith Dempster: Okay, well you know me. You've seen me here before. I'm hoping that you will wait a while to give most of the small business owners in this town at least a chance to escape because it's fine and dandy to be able to sit up there, two Iowa City businesses and one quasi-University business and other people who haven't done businesses and decide what these businesses under our Iowa City Constitution are allowed to due to maintain a livelihood and to maintain a tenor of Iowa City. If you take out the ability to meet over a coffee, a beer, a cigarette, or sandwich and turn us into a sterile factory town with a University Convention Center and a city plaza and some beadwork shops and a couple of basket work shops you certainly will not be bothered by maintaining the highest degree of educated people in any town in the country. You will not have the labor pool of folks who loved it so much here while they went to college that they stayed or couldn't wait to get back. There are plenty of sterile fields already. I see us going to that. It's not just wiping out my business in one fell swoop or configuring it to be 49% food, and I've spent a month trying to figure out how to do that and I think I can do that. And it's not wiping out a bunch of places so somewhere with a thirty-five year lease has a better chance of surviving. It is turning about the entire, as Doctor Lauren said, naughty occasional atmosphere and turning it into another damn This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 10 Page #68 East Berlin. And I've...whether you've been there or not before the wall fell, I have. I know what I've seen. Good night all. Lehman: Thank you, Keith. Okay Council, discussion? We're actually discussing your amendment. Vanderhoef: Right. Lehman: Is there further discussion on the amendment? O'Donnell: I forgot what it was. Lehman: The amendment was that the ban on smoking would be applied to any establishment that prepares, serves, or...well, Eleanor's got... Dilkes: Prepares...I believe the amendment is, it would apply to a place that is a public place as defined by the state code,... Lehman: Right. Dilkes: Which again eliminates those with seating capacity under 50, which prepares or serves food for on premises consumption. O'Donneil: Is that a total ban or 50% ban? Lehman: That's total. Any place that prepares...serves prepared food. O'Donnell: I think that is a major change to this. Lehman: It is. And if passed it would be a first consideration. O'Donnell: Yeah but I...being a major change I think we need to defer this for discussion until the next meeting. Lehman: Actually if that amendment were successful then it would certainly be appropriate to make, if you chose, to make a motion that we defer the first consideration for it. That's what we did two weeks ago when changed from 65 to 50. We deferred first consideration for two weeks. O'Donnell: I think it's inappropriate to vote on it first consideration. With community thinking... Lehman: If there's no interest in the... O'Dormell: ...we're voting at 50%. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #69 Vanderhoef: No we have to vote (can't hear) Lehman: No, there's no...there's no point in deferring...ifthere's no interest in the amendment we vote the amendment down. Vanderhoef: And then we can vote to continue... Lehman: And then we continue. If we pass the amendment and there's interest in having first consideration later that's another issue. But the amendment is what we're talking about now. Pfab: I believe, Dee, the amendment as you made it maybe was different than what you thought it was going to be. Is that correct? Champion: I don't think so. Vanderhoef: No. Pfab: In other words, if you can't eat peanuts out of a bag or anything that is included in the amendment you made. Vanderhoef: Um-hu.h. Pfab: Okay I wouldn't be able to support that. Kanner: Why not Irvin? You were for a total... Pfab: I'm for a total but I'm also for moving forward here. What this is a step backward. Kanner: Why? Pfab: It'sjust like the frog jumping out of the well. One step up and two steps back, two feet back. Lehman: (can't hear) Pfab: But that's what the tobacco industry wants. Go for it. Kanner: But, Emie, let me ask you if you voted for this amendment now would you work to offer an amendment to change that or to an and? Lehman: Or to an and? I'm sorry. Explain to me... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #70 Kanner: In terms of serve or prepare, change that to serve and prepare. Is that your intent to change that eventually? Lehman: My intent was to prohibit smoking in any place that served prepared food or where prepared food was consumed. And I consider prepared food that which is cooked, delivered by the pizza delivery person, whatever. I don't consider stuff coming out of a vending machine or a popcorn machine prepared food and I would not have included that. Pfab: I... Vanderhoef: And if someone wants to make that amendment to it we can consider that. Pfab: I... Lehman: If you considered that to be a friendly amendment you could have made that...is that the way you made that in the first place? It should be a lot simpler than trying to make an amendment to an amendment. Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: That's what she said. Kanner: Well I think we should make it an official friendly amendment to the amendment. Pfab: I believe, Dee, that this takes you farther from getting to where you want to go. Vanderhoef: In what way? Pfab: It's...you start over again. Vanderhoef: Well we're going to...we would have something in place but we would not take first reading on it. Lehman: We could. Pfab: Say that again. You'd have to...if your amendment passes you start over because that's not what we're voting on now. Ifthat's what you want to do, I mean, that' s your right. Vanderhoef: By amending the present ordinance that we have before us, and Eleanor suggested that since this was a substinctive change that if we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #71 support this amendment then we will not have first reading at this point. Dilkes: No, you could have first reading... Lehman: But we could have first (can't hear) Dilkes: ...it wouldn't be second reading. Pfab: You would start over again. Lehman: It would not (can't hear). Dilkes: You could have first reading tonight... Vanderhoef: First reading. Okay, that's fine. Dilkes: Right. Pfab: Ifthat's what you want I guess... Dilkes: Is there a friendly amendment to exclude prepackaged food? Is that what your... Lehman: That is in accordance with Dee. Vanderhoef: Yes that's fine. Kanner: Who... was I the second? Karr: You were the second. Kanner: I wouldn't approve that Dee. I would not approve that so I...you would... Vanderhoef: A bag ofpretzels? Kanner: I like your amendment where it says or and that included both bars and restaurants and makes it a level playing field. Be...and I think that's the way to do it. I think we've heard from a number of people that otherwise it's unlevel. Vanderhoef: I don't think that makes it unlevel to be able to have a bag ofpretzels or a bag of peanuts. I don't find that unlevel at all. I find that a very easy amendment. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 10 Page #72 Lehman: Is there other discussion on the amendment? I find the amendment make the ordinance far more fair in part than the way it's presently written and I think its something... Karr: I'm sorry, so it is not a friendly amendment so we're back to the original... Lehman: Do we have a second to your friend...you made...do we have a second. Kanner: I had second the amendment. I'm not going to accept... (End of side 01-110) Karr: If she'd like... if you'd like to do... if you don 't... if you can't get a friendly amendment through then you withdraw your first one... Lehman: You have to get it. Karr: ...restate it and see if you can get a second on your other one. Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: Well, if there isn't someone who supports the amendment as it would...as you would restate it there's no point in restating it. The amendment would... Champion: Irvin supported it. Pfab: No, I won't support it if it takes us back...if it means that we go back to a first reading. No. Lehman: That does mean that we go back to first reading. Pfab: Then I can't support that. Lehman: All fight. Let's vote on the amendments. Pfab: Well before we vote on it would somebody read the amendment so we know what ~ve're voting on. Lehman: Well you're...okay. Dilkes: The amendment is that the smoking prohibition will apply to those places that are public places as defined by state code and prepare or serve food for on premises consumption. In other words simply This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 10 Page #73 eliminating the current exception for those places that have alcohol sales of over 50%. Pfab: Okay. Let...can I ask some advice here? That would...if that passes this would be a first reading? Lehman: First consideration. Pfab: First consideration. Dilkes: You could then... if this amendment passes and you moved on to a consideration of the ordinance it would be first consideration. Pfab: We'd have to start over. Basically we're stating over and I'm not willing to do that at this point. I'm not willing to support somebody that does that. Lehman: All right. Kanner: Even if we...even if we get where you want it before... Pfab: We aren't going to get there because we backing up all the time. I'd like to see some forward...some movement forward rather then just keep backing up. Lehman: This would be a huge step forward in that fact... Pfab: No it wouldn't. Lehman: ...that it would at least be fair. I know that doesn't concern you, Irvin... Pfab: No, no, no. But... Lehman: ...(can't hear) issue. Pfab: But do we have the votes? And it starts over again. We're always...about the time we get up close then somebody wants to change it. Lehman: All right. Pfab: It's what the tobacco industry always does. Lehman: Are there further... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 10 Page #74 Vanderhoef: Wait a minute. I want to ask Irvin something. Lehman: Go ahead. Vanderhoef: Irvin, is your goal... Pfab: Yes. Vanderhoef: ...to get to zero. P fab: Absolutely. Vanderhoef: All right we can do that by passing this amendment and going first reading fight now. Pfab: And you can guarantee that this will go all the way through no at third readings... Vanderhoef: I'm one vote. I can't guarantee... Pfab: All right and that's the problem. We don't...we can't guarantee it. Vanderhoef: And can you guarantee that it's going to go forward on 50/50? Pfab: Well if people vote for it yes, if not no. Lehman: It happens both ways. All right. Vanderhoef: It happens both ways is exactly right. Lehman: Is there any other discussion on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed to the amendment say aye. Pfab: Aye or it's no. Lehman: I'd like to count the ayes. Vanderhoef: For, for. Lehman: For the amendment and I'd like to count the no's. I see...you're a no. Wilburn: Yes. Lehman: The amendment is defeated, 3 in the affirmative, 4 in the negative, Karmer, Vanderhoef, and Lehman in the affirmative. Now we have the original motion. Is there discussion on the original motion? Roll This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #10 Page #75 call. This is second consideration. The motion carries, 4/3, Lehman, O'Donnell and Champion voting in the negative. And I want to make it very clear... Karr: Can I have a motion to accept correspondence? Lehman: ...that I support a much stronger version which we just...and a much fairer version then the one we just had second consideration so I really don't like reading in the papers that the mayor voted against an ordinance that would have...that would have...and I don't think the other two council people...they're of the same opinion. But in any event, it has passed and we have a motion to accept correspondence? Karr: We don't yet but I would like one. Vanderhoef: Yes. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second all in favor? Opposed? Motion carries (all ayes). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #13 Page #76 ITEM NO. 13. CONSIDER AN ORDIANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 8, ENTITLED "BICYCLES," SECTION 6, ENTITLED "PARIONG VIOLATIONS," SUBSECTION A, ENTITLED "IMPOUNDMENT OF BICYCLES" TO ALLOW THE CITY TO IMPOUND ABANDONED BICYCLES. (PASS AND ADOPT) Champion: Move adoption. O'Dormell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. I'm sorry. Brett Castillo: Actually I stayed because I noticed this one. One comment I was going to make on this is just looking at there... although it's provision for the law and people are supposed to realize the law. Could also possibly be a provision allowing for signage relating this perhaps for certain problem at large public bike rakes? That way people are aware that they leave their bike like over a break that it will be impounded. O~Donnell: I think most of these bicycles that we're talking about are there for considerably longer than a break. Castillo: For the most part they're going to be the ones that are bent and left and damaged. O'Donnell: And I think most of them are in pieces. Champion: And the police aren't going to go around looking for bikes that are parked for a week. It's the...a business owner can call and say look there' s been this bike parked on my parking meter for three weeks and the tires are gone. Lehman: Yeah, I don't think that bike racks are storage racks. They're parking racks and so I really...I really don't... Castillo: Okay so you're not going to worry...so pretty much that's it (can't understand) ordnance? Okay cause I was wondering cause I thought reading it that's how it would be phrased. Like if it was specifically damaged or something such as that. But as it reads any bicycle left for seven days is tagged, can be impounded. (can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 13 Page #77 Lehman: It's tagged but then seven days later but I do think the average person who is going to use a bicycle is probably not going be sitting there that long. Champion: It'd be fourteen days it would have to sit there. Atkins: Also keep in mind that if we do take the bike and the owner reports it missing you can come back and recover it. There's no fine. Castillo: Oh, okay. Champion: Yeah. Lehman: Really we checked that out. Roll call. Motion carries (7/0). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #14 Page #78 ITEM NO. 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONVEY A 140- FOOT BY 17.5-FOOT AREA OF THE VACATED KIRKWOOD AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED EAST OF THE KIRKWOOD AVENUE/LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD INTERSECTION (HILL CREST PRICE'S ADDITION) TO THE KIRKWOOD AVENUE CHURCH OF CHRIST, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CONVEYANCE FOR JANUARY 8, 2002. Lehman: Do we have a motion. Champion: Moved. Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Champion: What does this... Lehman: This is an...a item where the Church has offered the City one dollar and I don't... Pfab: I 'm... yes but... Lehman: I'm sorry. Irvin, what? Pfab: Please I don't think that we as City Council people can accept that offer. Lehman: Well that's what I'm trying to say. We've been offered a dollar. The City staff has indicated that the value of that property is somewhere, and I don't have the numbers in front of me, but somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 to $10,000. I do not see anyone here to speak to the issue. Pfab: I... Atkins: You're only setting a hearing, Emie. As I understand it... Vanderhoef: Yes. Lehman: The hearing is in motion for the intent to convey with the knowledge that we are being offered one dollar. Atkins: I'm sorry. You're right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 14 Page #79 Lehman: And I personally have no interest... Atkins: You're correct. I'm sorry. You're correct. Champion: I don't either. Dilkes: And the church was notified that... Lehman: Right. Dilkes: ...that there would be an opportunity to speak tonight. Lehman: So I certainly can not support this with the...I have no intention of conveying that property for a dollar and having... not having that intention I can't support this. Is there other discussion? Roll call. The motion is defeated unanimously. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 15 Page #80 ITEM NO. 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED AND UPDATED CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. Vanderhoef: Move adoption. O' Donnel I: Second. Lehman: By Vanderhoef~ seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: What...I'm drawing a blank here. Talk to me. What's... Dilkes: I'm sorry... Pfab: I'm drawing a blank what is it...what are we doing here? Kanner: Item number 157 Dilkes: The contract compliance program is a program that as the material explains has been in effect since about 1983 which includes... deals with non-discrimination in our...by our contractors. And this is making certain amendment to that program. Pfab: Which makes it stronger or weaker? Or does it make...does it protect more classes or does it... Dilkes: Well it does. It brings it up to date with our human right ordinance... Pfab: All right. Dilkes: ... which includes the additional... or the sexual orientation and gender identity. It does a number of things. It... Pfab: Does it weaken the contract in any way or does it strengthen it for the public? Is the public... Lehman: It just updates it doesn't it? Dilkes: It...you know... Pfab: Yeah, okay. Dilkes: ...those are some policy decisions I don't know if I can answer for you. Pfab: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #15 Page #81 Dilkes: I can tell you it changes it to make it compliant with the human rights ordinance. It...let me get it in front of me. There have been...there's been a lot of law since this was originally enacted dealing with the standards applicable to affirmative action programs and those kind of things. There was previously a sheet that had to be completed where the contractor had to identify the demographics of its workforce. We have eliminated that sheet. There were a number of problems with that. Number one we didn't have any standards by which to judge it and number two we hadn't done the statistical analysis required in order to support such a program. We have made it...it is broader in the respect that it now applies to our consultant and our vendors as well as our contractors, which in practice I think we had been doing anyway. Frankly, in a lot of respects it simply brings the program into compliance with what we're actually doing. Pfab: Fine. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. # 16 Page #82 ITEM NO. 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE LONGFELLOW MANOR SUBDIVISION OWNERS ASSOCIATION. Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I just have one question and I don't know ifthere's anybody here. I should have asked it last night. I'm sorry. Is this private drive built to our regular street standards so that it will withstand the weight of our trucks? Arkins: No it is not. And my understanding of the agreement it's the responsibilityof the Homeowners Association. We have an agreement with them. They want the service and they understand the... Dilkes: We take no responsibility for the maintenance at all. Atkins: We take no responsibility for the re... Dilkes: I'm sure it's one of the issues. Vanderhoef: So, that's my issue. That if they come back... Atkins: Yes. Vanderhoef: ... and say we broke it up because our trucks were too heavy... Atkins: No. Champion: Good question. Very good questions. Atkins: Yeah, it's at their risk. Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: They'll haul away the pieces of the road. Dilkes: That's mainly what the agreement is directed to is assuring that that is not our responsibility. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #16 Page #83 Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: Okay? Roll call. Motion carries. (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #21 Page #84 ITEM NO. 21. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. Lehman: And I certainly would encourage anyone who has interest in becoming involved in city government to stop by the Clerks office, get an application and become involved. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #22 Page t485 ITEM NO. 22. COUNCIL INFORMATION Lehman: Irvin? Pfab: Fine. Lehman: Connie? Pfab: Oh. Lehman: I'm sorry. Pfab: I'm going to be driving to Califomia tomorrow morning. I'll be back after that. Lehman: Have a safe trip. O'Donnell: Make sure you head west. Kanner: Although (can't traderstand) go east he'll get there eventually. Champion: (can't hear) west too to work. Lehman: Conni e? Okay. Mike? O'Donnell: Connie? A number of us attended the ribbon cutting at Sycamore Mall and if you want to see something that' s a positive thing happening in Iowa City go down and take a look at that. That's absolutely outstanding. It's a...it's one thing that's really working in Iowa City. Very positive. Lehman: Yeah and that's one that the City has been a major partner in so... O'Donnell: That's right. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: Just one thing and I am going to request that probably that we should put it on a work session. As you probably noted in the paper there is a push again by a group of grocers to change the bottle bill and last year this Council went on record and sent letters to the state legislature to let them know that we had supported the expansion of bottle bill. And I'd like to bring that back up for discussion to put into the political process again. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #22 Page #86 Lehman: Would it be appropriate for us to have a letter prepared for us for a work session including our strong support for that so that we can discuss it at a work session? Vanderhoef: That would be wonderful if we could. Pfab: I would support that. Lehman: Right. Atkins: Draft a letter put it in the packet for you and let it be your working document? Lehman: Yeah, give us something to talk about. Okay. Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: Steven? Kanner: A few things. One, yesterday Ernie and the majority in the Council referred the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to Planning and Zoning. I'd like to ask the Council to repre...make sure that the review of the...(can't understand) Who's the person who's doing the review of the regulations? Atkins: Duncan. Kanner: Duncan. That that review by Duncan be referenced. That they should look at that and specifically include the last paragraph in the recommendation, initial recommendation, which says that the City consider moving many of the residential design guidelines from the environmental regulations article in relocating them to another section of the ordinance where they would have broader applicability. So that more part of...more zoning would be included in potential zoning, in Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Lehman: I would suspect that would be part of... Atkins: I would hope they would pick up on that. Lehman: ... Planning and Zonings consideration. Atkins: Make it a point of referring it. Kanner: Well I'd like, Steve, Council would be a little more specific in saying that they look at that. They look at the whole thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #22 Page #87 Lehman: Well I don't think there's any problem, Steve, in asking that staff include that in their recommendations to P & Z. Is that... Arkins: That's fine. I'll make sure that they get it. Lehman: Okay. Karmer: Thank you. And there was a note from the Senior Center minutes about no political activity sign potential being posted there and to me that's a little disturbing. We do have a policy in city buildings I believe now that probably covered pretty well. And this is a public place in all the terms of a public place and if we start putting signs about no political activity I have some problems with that. Champion: I'm sorry. Steven, no political activity or no political signs7 What's the concern7 Kanner: Political activity I believe is what the Senior Center Commission is looking at. Champion: What do they mean by that7 O'Donnell: Does that include like a forum? Dilkes: The...there are a number of policies at the Senior Center that relate to building use. It is not a public forum in the way that for instance the ped mall is or other places that are...that we...there are no controls on what can go on there. So...and...so there are a number of restrictions on building use and what can be done in that building that the Senior Center imposes and that' s one of them. Pfab: Is that a proper use...is that a proper restriction? I think that's what you're asking. Dilkes: Yes, I think it is. I think they have the fight to limit that activity within the building. Lehman: (can't hear) Kanner: Well I think that's questionable and I think that could be brought to lawsuit possibly but there is the policy question if we want to do that. I think...I don't really think it's been abused. I worked there for a year and a half and we have people like Karen (can't hear) that has listening post which is political activity. We have other people that go in there during election time and talk at senior dining. We have a... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #22 Page #88 Pfab: Forum. Karmer: ... people... Dilkes: This is an issue that I know that the Senior Center Commission has dealt with. And we have dealt with the Senior Center staff. If the Council is interested in discussing it you probably should put it on a work session. Pfab: Would...I... Kanner: That's what I'm asking that we look at that because I think there's a lot of different sides to this issue. Lehman: Well is there interest in placing this, the Senior Center Commission...this is a commission rule? Dilkes: I believe so. Kanner: This is a proposal. Lehman: A proposal. Is there interest in the Council discussing that, those Senior Center rules? Pfab: I'd be interested in it. Lehman: Is there interest in putting it on a work session? How many are interested in doing that? Wilburn: That's fine. Vanderhoef: It's okay? I don't care and if it were put on then I would like it to look like we do with P & Z, the commission is there to talk to us about their collcerns. O'Donnell: That's a good idea. Kanner: I think that's good to bring them in. Champion: Yeah that's a good way to do it, Steve. Lehman: What did we just say? Are we going to ask... O'Donnell: Yes we're going to do it and we're going to ask the Senior Center Commission to be present when we do it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #22 Page #89 Lehman: Whoa. I didn't hear that at all. O'Donnall: I thought. ? Dee stated it better. Vanderhoef: That I would like to hear their concerns. Lehman: I didn't hear that there was interest in putting it on a work session. Vanderhoef: Well where else do we sit down and talk to them? Lehman: Well I think perhaps if we don't feel it's worth going on a work session we probably don't have no problem with the rules their making. Kanner: No, there's three of us that said yes. The Dee said yes with a qualification. Lehman: All right. Let's go. Who wants to see it on a work session? Just hold your hands up. Five. We're going to put it on a work session. Kanner: And I think Dee your idea at the very least of having some representatives from their commission. Atkins: I'll see that the commissioners are invited. Lehman: Okay. Champion: (can't understand) attack the position find out why they want to make them. O' Donnel 1: Exactly. Atkins: Sure. Lehman: Any other? Anything else. Vanderhoef: That's obvious. Kanner: Yeah I took a trip to a conference, to Perry Iowa 2001 Academy for Transportation Policy. Was sponsored by a number of organizations and I thought it was worth while. It was a one-day conference. One of the things I found interesting, we heard from the planner from Sioux City, they're planning... Sioux City, Iowa...they're planning to do a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #22 Page #90 trolley there which is interesting. And as most of us know we had a trolley at one time here in Iowa City. I think that was here til the 1930. It's something to think about bringing back as a transportation mode and also as a tourist attraction. Something to look at. A lot of other things that were interesting. I appreciate it. And I just wanted to say that l am celebrating the holiday of Channkah this week and the festival of lights. It's a joyous holiday and the good time...wish everyone well that is celebrating Hanukkah. (Hebrew phrase) on that. Lehman: Just a couple things. Our next meeting will be on the 4th of January. That's our organizational meeting at 9:00 in the morning. Karr: 9:30. Arkins: 9:30. Lehman: 9:30. Oh, I wrote 9. 9:30, okay. And on behalfofI guess myself and my granddaughters I would like to wish everybody in Iowa City a truly Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and a joyous and peaceful new year. You know we get a little bit carried away sometimes at council meetings and a lot of things get important and we sometimes forget we're all here trying to do what we feel is best for Iowa City and I'd like to think that we're very sincere in our deliberations. And sometimes after those deliberates we get a little bit... Champion: Wom out? Lehman: ...frazzled. But we need to remember that we're here to do what we feel is best for the community and I want to wish all of you folks a truly happy holiday. Champion: Thank you. O~Donnell: Same to you. Champion: Same to everybody. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001. #23 Page #91 ITEM NO. 23. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF Lehman: Steven7 Atkins: Nothing, sir. Lehman: Eleanor? Madan? Do we have a motion to adjourn7 O'Donnell: I move it. Lehman: Second? Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: All in favor? We are adjourned. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 11, 2001.