Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-08 Transcription#2 Page #1 ITEM NO. 2 MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS. 2a. Volunteer Blood Donor Month - January Karr: And here to accept is Mitch Overton. Mitch Overtou: Thank you. We appreciate the support of the Iowa City Council for declaring this volunteer blood donor month in Iowa City. It's been national volunteer blood donor month in the United States every January since 1970. So we appreciate the support and we appreciate the opportunity to raise awareness in our communities across the country. As everybody is probably aware there's a tremendous need for blood everywhere in this country. It was in the news quite a bit after the events of September 11. And the support of people at those events was tremendous. People came out and donated blood in tremendous amounts. But the further we've gotten away from September it seems like people have forgotten about us again. So we take this opportunity to educate people of the need that's there every day. Not just in times of emergencies or crisis as we saw in September but that need is there every day with people receiving transplants, receiving medical treatments that require blood donations. Approximately 34,000 blood transfusions are performed in the country every day. At University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics we transfuse about 90 total different blood products on a daily basis, which is a very large amount for a conununity this size. So again we appreciate the support. Mr. Lehman was in this morning bright and early at 7:00 and donated blood today, by coincidence. And he's going to show us his little badge of courage that he got this morning. Lehman: Yes. I didn't know that this was happening tonight when I made the appointment to give blood today. Overton: That's right. O'Donnell: Well it was on the agenda last night. Lehman: I know but I made the appointment last Friday. Overton: And he's been a blood donor and a supporter of ours for a long time and we appreciate that tremendously. Champion: I (can't hear) Overton: Mr. Lehman got his little refreshment this morning but he thought it would be a good idea in advance...we usually give refreshments the end of blood donations so I have a gift for every Council Member This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #2 Page #2 here. Emie got his V-8 this morning so I've got some V-8 for everybody else. Lehman: All right. Champion: Ooh, yuck. Overton: So hopefully now this means that you'll come in and donate blood since you've already gotten your refreshments. Champion: Oh, that's even good. Thank you. O'Donnell: Thank you. Vanderhoef: Thank you. Lehman: Mitch, I got to tell you. It is...the University makes this so easy. It provides the free parking, you get the V-8 and I believe...here's the...don't.., the proclamation. Don't forget. Overton: Thank you very much. Lehman: You also get snacks, cookies, rolls, whatever you want. And they're wonderful, wonderful people over there. So in addition to being a really worthwhile case you've made it about as easy as it can possibly be. Overton: Right. It is very simple. And it's really a quick...a safe and simple way to save somebody's life. It's as easy as that. Take about 45 minutes out of your day once every eight weeks and have a tremendous effect on somebody's life who's in need of blood. So again thank you very much. Champion: Thank you. Vanderhoef: Can I ask you a question? Have they advanced far enough into separating on blood that person's who have had hepatitis can donate? Overton: There are certain kinds. Depends on the hepatitis, B or C. Depending on the type and how long ago it was. At this point, no. There are certain things that we have to defer donors for and one of the hepatitis types is one of those. One of them I believe you can still donate if you've had. I'm not quite sure which one is which. I don't have the medical background unfortunately to tell you for sure which one that is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #2 Page #3 Vanderhoefi Okay. Overton: But there are...research going on all the time is to being able to under ultraviolet light and things like that kill whatever pathogens may be in a blood donor. So in theory, somewhere down the line we'll be able to take blood from just about anybody if these technologies keep going the way that they're advancing. So... Vanderhoef: Thank you. Overton: Okay. Lehman: Thank you. 2b. Women's Right to Choose Day - January 22 Karr: Here to accept is Karen Kubby, Executive Director Emma Goldman Clinic. Karen Kubby: Dee, Mayor, City Council and citizens of Iowa City, thank you for recognizing this important date in our history, recognizing the 29th anniversary of Roe V. Wade giving women some control over their fertility in a legal and safe manner. We'd really want to promote that this is really about trusting women to make good decisions for themselves and their families and in doing that we want to invite the community to join us in this celebration. The Emma Goldman Clinic annually hosts a choice dinner. This year it will be on January 22"a from 6 - 9 at the Iowa Memorial Union in the third floor, the Richey Ballroom. We'll have a dinner. Our keyuote speaker will be Simon Heller from the Reproductive Law and Policy Institute from New York City who was instrumental in helping to defeat an abortion ban at the U.S. Supreme Court, that the Emma Goldman Clinic was a companion case to the Carhart Case, People who are interested in sponsoring this or in joining us can call Harriett at the Emma Goldman Clinic at 337- 2112. Tickets are $40.00. And because we believe in accessibility not just for our services but also for our celebrations, if you're a student or living on lower income you can come for $20.00. So the community is welcome. And thank you for trusting women. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #3 Page #4 ITEM NO. 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CAENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Vanderhoef: Move adoption. O'Dormell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: I'd like to remove two items... Lehman: Okay. Kanner: ...from the consent calendar. Item 3.c(5) Class C liquor license for the Union Bar. I'd like to have a little discussion on that. Lehman: Okay. Kaimer: And then item 3.f(21), it's the second memo. Can we divide that up? It didn't have a number but we can call that (b) I assume. This was selling three parking spaces for Yellow Cab in from of the Wilson Building. Lehman: Okay. Any other discussion on the consent calendar? Kanner: 1 had a discussion on an item in the consent calendar. Lehman: Go ahead. Kanner: In the Council minutes of 12/1 I, it noted that staff was to follow up on protest procedure for rezoning if the public land is part of the surrounding area and I was wondering if...that's on page 25 of our...of our notebook. And I was wondering if anything had been done with that. This is specifically in regards to the Press Citizen sale and the potential rezoning that's going to be happening there. Atkins: I'm not aware of whether it's been done or not. Eleanor or Jeff(can't hear) Dilkes: I think there has been a discussion at joint staff about that and that it would be considered part of the surrounding land just like any other land would be for the.., for protest purposes. Kanner: So how does that figure in then? Council would have to vote to be part of a protest? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #3 Page #5 Dilkes: Council would have to vote to, to protest the rezoning. Correct. Karmer: Okay. Since this is something of big importance I think to the community, could we have a memo stating that? It's just easier for me to have a written memo type thing. Dilkes: If Council desires, certainly. Champion: Yeah. Lehman: Well yeah, this is going to be coming to us pretty soon. I'm sure we're going to need that for discussion, Kanner: But the protest aspect I think is important because that's something that people are looking at that now and to see what determines the 20%. I think it's important thing for a community to be very clear on what counts as part of that and not part of that. Lelunan: What's your pleasure Council? Champion: Yeah, I think it's fine. Pfab: Yes, go ahead. Lehman: All right. Other discussion? Kauner: And we had in the 3.b(2), the minutes of the Board of Adjustment. They're allowing.., if the project does go through they're allowing thc Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship to have three less parking spaces than what's required by zoning which is fine. The issue that I thought was interesting was the need for bus service out there and that figured into the discussion of whether cars would be needed for this place and when bus service is going to be happening if it would happen out there. And so perhaps I would just put this out there as something that at budget talk we can look at this and see what would be the threshold for when bus service might happen out there. Something to put on the discussion agenda. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call on the consent calendar with those two items removed that Mr. Kanner asked for removal. Motion carries (7/0). Do we like to deal with these other two issues separately, one of those being c.(3), the Class C liquor license for the downtown entertainment center know as the Union Bar, Steven? Dilkes: Could we get a motion on the floor? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #3 Page #6 Lehman: We need a motion to approve. Champion: Move approval. Lehman: Moved by... O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: ...Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Karmer: I just wanted to...I'm not sure which way I'll vote. I just wanted to hear what our legal council says is the status of this case. As we're aware, the Union violated some laws and there were agreements that were reached. And I want to hear from our Attorney where we're at with that or what's the status of that and see how Council feels about that as far as renewal of a liquor license for this institution. Dilkes: My understanding is that both the Police Chief and the County Attorney have approved or recommended approval of this license. The...I'11 refer to them as the indecent exposure events that Mr. Pool and another employee of the Union Bar were char...criminally charged. And it's my understanding that those criminal charges have been resolved by plea agreement with the County Attorney. The Union Bar as you recall also served a suspension handed down by the Alcoholic Beverages Division last summer for those same events. It is my understanding there have been intervening events since that time. Kanner: If we feel this is an egregious event that's not something that violate the public health and welfare of our City. Would that be grounds for denial of...possible grounds for denial of license renewal? Dilkes: It would be possible grounds for renewal. One could make an argument that, I mean, if you believe that that reflects badly on their moral character, which is the standard in the State Code. I thi~k the difficulty with that argument here is that they have served a suspension for those very acts. If those acts were so egregious that...to lead on to the conclusion that they should not have a liquor license then the appropriate penalty last summer it seems should have been revocation. But there was a suspension handed down. There has been no activity, criminal activity since that time. Certainly had there been you could point to perhaps a pattern of activity that would lead you to conclude that they shouldn't get a renewal. But I think it is problematic once they've served a suspension for those acts and there's been no other activity to then not renew the license. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #3 Page #7 Pfab: I have a question. What could happen that would trigger that and how soon? Dilkes: What could happen that would trigger what? Pfab: A revocation of that license. Dilkes: A rev... Pfab: Yes, in other words you said it was...if it was egregious, it was behind us and it was taken care of. Now is there...for them to be declared, what's the term? Moral... Dilkes: Well the whole...the issue when you're looking at a license is whether the applicant is of good moral character. Pfab: Right. At what point would it be decided that they weren't of good moral character? Dilkes: Well it would...it would depend on what acts you were looking at. Pfab: Suppose they were going to repeat...suppose it happened again in another month. What would happen then? Dilkes: Well, I think that that could be looked at for a possible sanctions. Pfab: As... Dilkes: At that time. Pfab: In other words as enough to trip the idea that they may...it may be time to revoke their license? Dilkes: I don't think it makes a lot of sense to start talking hypothetically about what acts in the future might trigger a revocation or a suspension or how long that suspension would be, etc. What I was saying to Mr. Kanner is that once a penalty has been served for a particular act and there have been no subsequent acts then in my view it's problematic to then not renew the license as a result. Pfab: But you made the statement that there was no subsequent acts but what if there was? Dilkes: Then I think that's something that you could look at... Pfab: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. //3 Page//8 Dilkes: ...in terms of granting a renewal or administering a penalty, an administrative sanction. O'Dormell: You'd have to deal with that at that time. Pfab: When it comes up. Dilkes: But what the penalty should be or what the act was ! don't know. Pfab: No, no I just...I was just following up on what you said. Kanner: Do., .I don't have the list before me. Do we know what their (PAULA?) rate is, for the Union? Atkins: (can't hear) tonight. I don't know. I didn't hear what you said. Karmer: The (PAULA?) rate for the Union Bar, the possession under the legal age and the arrest... Winkelhake: I don't know what that rate is. I can't tell you. I don't have that data in from of me. It's less than it was last year. I know that. That's about it. Kanner: It went down. Okay. I was just wondering if any other Council Members had any other thoughts or trepidations about a renewal of the license. Lehman: I really kind of concur with what Eleanor said. I mean, obviously there were some serious infractions, they were dealt with by the State, there were fines imposed, there was a suspension imposed. I guess.., and I don't want to make light of it but if you run a stop sign and get a ticket for running a stop sign and go to get your license renewed, you probably get another license, Now if you run that stop sign six times you probably can't. So my suspicion is they've paid their dues and if they continue to run a good operation with no further violations I don't see the reason why we would deny their license. Other discussion? All in favor of item 5 say aye. Opposed? Motion carries (7/0). The other item is item which I suppose we're going to call, is it 22? I don't know that I... Karr: 21. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #3 Page #9 Lehman: 21. Steven would you like to make a motion that we...or someone like to make a motion... Champion: I'll move that we approve it. Lehman: Okay we have a motion to approve. Pfab: I'd second it. Lehman: This is the...we have a second. Discussion? This is an item where we will be selling permits for parking for two stalls in front of the old Wilson's Sporting Goods Store, which is the building the City owns across from the Robert Lee Recreation Center. Discussion? Kanner: 1'11 tell you why I brought this up. We talked about this yesterday. There...I think it's three spaces, Ernie there. It's $480 per year that we would charge Yellow Cab for having those spaces. I don't think that's such a bad thing. The concern I had was we have a building there that we bought probably about a year and a half ago from Wilson and it's standing there empty. And I'm wondering if we can think about putting something in there, some sort of business that might lease from us and produce some revenue for the City. And if we do that it might be a good idea to hold those spaces open for that business right in front. We know that people even though there the parking ramp next door, people do like to park right in front and I think that would be a selling point if we do decide to lease it out. Champion: You know, Steve, I think there's...isn't there...there's parking on both sides of the street there. There's actually quite a bit of street parking on that part of the road and I've used it a lot. And I've never had problems parking there even when Wilson's was there. Vanderhoefi Well for me to go down there and wait for cabs to clear off of the lot so that the buses can get in, which has happened several times for me, having them pay for a space so they know have...they have a place to safely put their car off of the throughway of the (can't understand) I think is important. And if we need parking for the businesses...a business that might go into the building, I think we can talk about that in terms of space in the parking ramp. Champion: You could go to back to short term parking if somebody would move in there. Lehman: This is a one-year deal anyway now. Vanderhoef: Um-huh. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #3 Page #I0 Lehman: Any other discussion? Pfab: I...you were going to check on some (can't hear) for me. JeffDavidson: Yes, Mr. Pfab asked for some information last night at the work session. The meters in question are two-hour term meters. The permit or the cab stand fee is $480 annually. There's variation between the central business district and outside of the central business district. It is based on the monthly permit rate in those areas so $40 a month in this area, that's where you get the $480. Mr. Pfab asked if the meter was paid during the time that it is enforced what would the total annual revenue be and that amount is $1,123; however, I would point out that we would not expect the meter to be plugged 100% of the time. Pfab: You're just talking regular meter time not 24 hours a day? Davidson: That if...that if every two hours that meter was feed during the time it is enforced annually, $1,123. Pfab: So it's a pretty good deal. Davidson: Well we don't believe that that much revenue would be obtained from the meter. P fab: Okay. Lehman: Other discussion? Kanner: Whatever the vote...it looks like there'll probably a majority to vote for it. I hope that we'll have discussion in the near future on filling up that building with some sort of revenue producer. Wilbum: That discussion's fine. I just...I agree with Dee that when Wilson's was there ! never had...in fact I usually parked on the other side of the street when I was going to Wilson's there so. Lehman: Okay all in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed? Motion carries, 6/1, Kanner voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #4 Page #11 ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Lehman: This is a time reserved on the agenda for discussion on items that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council, please sign in, give your name and address and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Debra Schoenfelder: Good evening, I'm Deborah Schoenfelder. I'm a member of the Senior Center Commission and I'm here to report on behalf of the Commission our meeting of December 18, 2001. First of all Elder Services, Incorporated will assume responsibility on an interim basis for senior dining. We had a representative from Elder Services come to out meeting to introduce herself and express Elder Services wishes for a smooth transition period. The Senior Center Executive Committee will put together a proposal for a lease between the Senior Center and Elder Services. We had a sub-committee that worked on modifying and expanding part of the operational handbook that guide building use. That was approved at our meeting and will become part of the operational handbook. We've had ongoing work, a waterproofing project on the outside of the building. That's partially done and now will be on hold until spring. Also with the way weather is it seems to me they could keep working but I think that for now that will be on hold. And very good news we have. The Accreditation Board for the National Institute for Senior Centers has met and they've approved full accredidation ofmtr Senior Center. We were anticipating that but it...we go a very high score. We were very pleased with that. So that's wonderful news. Vanderhoef: Congratulations. Schoenfelder: Thank you. And we have reappointments to the Commission: Joarme Hora who's a county representative, Jay Honahan and Bill Kelly, City representatives; however, I believe you all know that Mr. Kelly has died recently so the Commission wanted to say we are truly saddened by losing Bill by his death. And, as usual, there are many programs and volunteer activities at the Senior Center. Typically you can find that in The Post, those are listed. Lots of good things going on over there. And we had our yearly election and we have the same Executive Committee for this year, which is Jay Honahan as Chair, Joanne Hora as Vice-Chair, and Charity Rowley as Secretary. And that's the end of my report. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #4 Page #12 O'Donnell: Thank you. John Loomis: My name is John Loomis and I'm an Iowa City citizen. I've been...maybe I could stay away from my credentials by saying I was shown the Black Angel in 1965 and I discovered Hickory Hill Park in 1971 and have been a user of that park all these years and enjoy it very much. And I'm here to restate the concerns of many people who are concerned about the plat that was submitted called Hickory Heart...Heights on the north end of the park. You may know about it now but it is a residential development that will appear on the north end. And appear is probably an understatement since we feel that the development and houses being put on top of that hill will compromise the visual integrity of the park...of huge areas of the park. In fact if you go anywhere near the north end these houses will dominate the vista entirely and change the entire experience of the park. And, as you know...whereas you know we feel that violates to some extent the Northeast District Plan which calls for protection of the vistas of the park. We have met. I could maybe make this a report that we have met. Many citizens came and met with the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting which was last Wednesday, I think, and we found out that there are quite a few reasons why we don't...why this probably...may occur because it's zoned residential. We do feel that it threatens the visual integrity of the park and it threatens the ecology of the park to some extent with water run off and people, intrusion from that end of the park. There are lawns and the street run off, it will condemn the City to managing those kinds of consequences downstream. So we've been concerned and we're...I've come here today to represent myself and several other people, many other people. We think it was 60 to 90 at that meeting by the way and not 30. People are concerned and would like to find some way to deal with this residential development in someway that makes everyone happy. We're looking for ways from the Council and from the Planning and Zoning Commission and from the developers. That maybe we could meet in someway and find a solution so that everyone profits or is...continues to enjoy the park. We feel it is the people's park. The hill is a major part of the park whether it's property of the park or not. And we hope also in the future that other vista may be protected. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: John, I...we don't have the minutes on that meeting yet but did they talk at all about the part of the District Plan that dealt with preserving vistas? Did the Planning and Zoning Commission deal with that at all? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #4 Page # 13 Loomis: Yes. Do you want me to explain what I think they said? Lehman: Connie, we'll get that when it comes (can't hear). And we will obviously...I'm sure you'll have another opportunity to speak to that issue as will the Council. · Loomis: Okay. Thank you. Lehman: Any other public discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #5b Page #14 ITEM NO. 5b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 22 ON AN ORDIANCE TO VACATE TIlE NORTIIERN 184 FEET OF THE 20-FOOT WIDE ALLEY RIGIIT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET AND WEST OF DUBUQUE STREET. (VAC01-00004) Champion: Set...move to set the public heating. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Kanner: I have a question. This is to eventually convey it to Hieronymus. Lehman: I have no idea. That's the public... Kanner: That's what I was reading in our minutes. 1 thought... Dilkes: That's right. Champion: That's right. Jeff Davidson: It's to provide the opportunity. It may not happen but it would provide the opportunity for it to be conveyed. Karmer: Well is that's what being negotiated? That we would convey... Davidson: That in exchange for them basically giving us another alley we would give Council the opportunity to vacate the alley. It's still up to you ultimately. Kanner: Which alley would we re... Davidson: It is the north half... Karmer: ...get in return? Davidson: It's the north half of the alley. We would be granted an alley that would run from the current alley to Clinton Street. So it would be an L rather than straight and would allow the Hieronymus Project to be built over the alley. But all this does is enable the opportunity for that to happen. It's still ultimately up to the City Council to approve that. Karmer: Thanks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #5b Page #15 Lehman: Move on? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries (all ayes). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #5g Page #16 ITEM NO. 5g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE WEST BENTON COURT NORTH OF BENTON STREET. (VAC01-000C) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Lehman: I must recluse myself from item g and Mayor Pro Tem, Dee Vanderhoef will handle that item. Dilkes: Due to a conflict of interest? Champion: No. Lehman: Due to a conflict of interest. Yes. O'Donnell: Move second. Wilbum: Second. Vanderhoef: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Pfab: I did bring up the idea about the City giving the obligation or the liability to the...that goes with it if we're going to do it. I think that's the way it should be but it doesn't look like there's four to do that. Eventually this is going to be deeded over to the Oaknoll Retirement Center as I understand it and they do not wish to accept the liability of the structures that are below the surface. And I believe that something that they should. Vanderhoefi Just for information to those in the audience, this is a dead end one block long street and Oaknoll owns all of the property on both sides of this street at this point in time. Any other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 5/1, with Pfab voting no. (Lehman absent) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #5k Page #17 ITEM NO. 5k. 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 KIRKWOOD AVENUE. (VAC01- 00005) (PASS AND ADOPT) Wilbum: Move adoption of the ordinance. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Pfab: Okay, what does that really mean now. There was talk about a dollar to transfer it... Lehman: This is a vacation only. It is not a transfer of property. This means that this presently is designated as a street, it will be vacated as a street and it will remain City property. And in all probability will be green space owned by the City of Iowa City. Davidson: That is correct. Karmer: It's not a street necessarily. I thought it was just designated... Lehman: Right-of-way. Dilkes: It currently is designated...it is right-of-way street. Lehman: Right. Dilkes: And this would get rid of that right, that designation? Pfab: Is it...is it anything broken? Do we need to fix it? Davidson: We don't believe it'll ever be a street. Pfab: Pardon. Davidson: We don't believe it'll ever be a street. Pfab: Okay. Karmer: But the intent was to...we're vacating it mainly to very convey it to the Church. Champion: No, we voted that down. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #5k Page #18 Kanner: Right. That...so that's why I think we don't need to vacate it. Why...as Irvin said if it's not broke why fix it? Why do this? Lehman: Well if I'm not mistaken...Look what is this have... Davidson: The vacation was initial proposed as Mr. Kanner's indicated because of a deal that was worked out with us getting some property from the Church for the trail tunnel that was built there recently. There was apparently a misunderstanding on the Church's end on what had been proposed. They opted to not have a conveyance of the property to them for market rate price and so we decided since we were this far along and we don't believe it will ever be a street let's vacate it as a street, have it remain public property. However, if Council does not wish to do that that's fine. Lehman: Jeff, if the Council at some date in the future decided that should be a public street they could turn right around and put it back into public street. Is that not correct? Davidson: Certainly could. Certainly could. Lehman: Thank you. Pfab: He made a comment and I wasn't sure ifI understood correctly what it was. You said that there was a misunderstanding between...with the Chumh. They swapped some property. Davidson: It was not a swap. Dilkes: No, it was not a swap. We were acquiring property from the Church for purposes of the Longfellow Tunnel. We paid them appraised value for that property. They wanted to purchase this...a portion of this vacated property, which is why we started this proceeding, but proposed to purchase it for a dollar which is not fair market value. And at that point the Council declined to sell it to them for that amount. Kanner: Jeff, do we have a policy...does staff have a policy that is in the best interest of the City to vacate unused right-of-ways? Davidson: We propably would not have initiated this and in fact you will find locations all over town where there are street right.., street rights-of- way that when they were platted 50 or 60 or how many ever years ago it was thought that they might be a street. Now it's apparent that they won't be and when something comes up we frequently clean those up This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #5k Page #19 and that's kind of what we're doing here. We probably wouldn't have taken it upon ourselves to do this otherwise, Steven, because we probably even have occurred to us. But since we had initiated the action we figured why not take it the rest of the way through. However, if it's Council's desire to not do that we're perfectly comfortable with that. Kanner: Why not just then get all the other streets and put them all together and we vote it in. Davidson: It would be an enormous job finding them all because, you know, they're all individual plats that go back.., some of them probably go back to the 19th century. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #51 Page #20 ITEM NO. 51. CONSIDER AN ORDIANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 4.01 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF HARLOCKE STREET FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY - 44 (OSA-44). (PASS AND ADOPT) Lehman: Item 1 is an item that I am going to have to recuse (sp?) myself for a conflict of interest and Ms. Vanderhoefwill handle that one. O'Donnell: Your getting your exercise tonight. Lehman: I'm getting my exercise. O'Donnell: Move adoption. Champion: Second. Vanderhoefi Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Kanner. Discussion? Or Champion, excuse me. Discussion? Pfab: As an elected official I'll continue to speak out for the support of the individual who wished to preserve and defend our neighborhoods especially in those situations where a lack of previous Council action made a bad situation worse. So I will be abstaining. Vanderhoef: Roll call. 4 affirmative, 2 abstention: Kanner and Pfab. By law the abstentions are recorded as affirmative votes so this is a 6/0 vote. (Lehman absent) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #5n Page #21 ITEM NO. 5N. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVIG THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF STONE BRIDGE ESTATES, PART 2, A 13.98 ACRE, 52-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF ASHFORD PLACE, SOUTH OF LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD (SUB01-00030) Vanderhoefi Move adoption. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, secondedby Wilbum. Discussion? Kanner: I'm sorry ifI missed this yesterday. What's the story on the open space with this item? Vanderhoefi It's that big L shaped... Karmer: Was that worked out? The open space? Lehman: Yeah. Kanner: Okay. Lehman: Other discussion? Davidson: Excuse me. Lehman: That's all right. Roll call? Motion carries (7/0). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #6 Page #22 ITEM NO. 6. THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY SECTION 8 ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN. Lehman: The public hearing is open. Maggie, could you come up for just a moment? I realize public housing and HUD...they're terribly, terribly complicated but also terribly important things and I really hate to have a public heating on something this important without anybody standing up because they don't understand it. Maggie Grosvenor: Okay. Lehman: If you could do, you know, just a couple minutes of why we're doing this so that the public will understand. That this just isn't something that the Council...have a public hearing, close it and then vote. Grosvenor: Okay. Lehman: So, just a few comments would be appreciated. Grosvenor: Okay. These are two plans that are already in place. The ACOP which stands for Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy, that's for our public housing program. The administrative plan is called the Section 8 Administrative Plan. And what each of these do...and that governs the Section 8 section. What these plans do are look policies, procedures, some regulations...we have to have them in place to operate business at the Housing Authority. There have been many legislative changes. There was a major act passed in 1998, the Quality Housing Work Responsibility Act, it changed many, many, many rules and regulations. So both of these plans needed to be updated. Pfab: Approximately how much money is given to people in Iowa City...federal money to make these plans work? Grosvenor: About six million. Pfab: About six million dollars of money comes in to help people pay rent. That goes to the landlords? Grosvenor: Yes. Pfab: Okay. Kanner: I had a... Lehman: Oh go ahead, Steven. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #6 Page #23 Kanner: I had a question for Maggie I didn't get to ask yesterday. On page 19 of the Section 8 plan, page 161 for us. This is part of your memo you noted about where you made prohibit assisted or required to prohibit assistance. And it says your...it increases the search back for criminal activity from three years back to five years. Grosvenor: Correct. Kanner: Is that something that's done because of Federal Law or because of the City Housing Authority pushing that back to five years? Grosvenor: That's a local policy, the five years. We can set the number of years that we look back. The reason we did that is because the Federal Regulations say we can now look at a pattern of activity and if we're going to look at a pattern of activity... For example we've been given permission to deny assistance to people that have a pattern of abuse of alcohol. We didn't think it was fair to look just three years we wanted to look back five years. So see a pattern. Not necessarily something that happened five years ago but to look at the pattern of events. Kanner: Well I have some concern where we talk about five years for drag related criminal activity. One of the things that I've become acutely aware of...my sister's now...she's been in Federal Prison for doing some protest of the School of Americas for six months. And one of the things she has pointed out is that a great majority of the women that are in there are in there for drug conspiracy charges which means often times that they were not selling drugs but that they were hooked up with a partner that was selling and perhaps they didn't report. So they are getting five orten year sentences. And so I'm worried...and this is a problem, I think, that's...that (can't hear) to the whole county and we're putting... (End of Side One, 02-04) Karmer: ...drug offenses. And if we're going to look back farther and farther for these drug offenses I'm worried this is something that's going to deny people needed public housing and assistance and Section 8 vouchers that will help them get established in the community. I don't think we need to make further burdens. I understand you're saying that you're looking for a pattern but I'm just wary of what's in here. This is the time, I think, for us to discuss these kind of things and see if we want to put it back to something like three years. Grosvenor: I'd like to say two things. Number one, everybody has due process. When they am denied or terminated assistance, whether they're denied This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #6 Page #24 on the front, whether they're terminated when they're on the program. And so when they go through that process there's lots of information that may come out along the way. In other words did they go through a drug rehab? Are they in treatment now? Was it a partner that's now in prison and it didn't have anything to do with that person? So we take those into effect and we go through the informal hearing process and we may allow them...the hearing officer may then allow them to stay on hous...or to stay on housing assistance or not be denied. So that's due process. There's also a part in the plan where it says we can look at mitigating circumstances. Too many pages here I can't tell you exact page number without going it, but it's written right into the plan that we can look at what's gone on in a client's background. And I will tell you before we deny or terminate it always goes through our Legal Council here at Iowa City before we ever go to that process to make sure we have enough evidence that we would deny or terminate. Pfab: Maggie, you say a legal process. That was the term? Grosvenor: It's an informal hearing process. Pfab: Okay. How costly is that to the applicant or the person that's applying? Grosvenor: It's not costly at all. There's no charge. Pfab: There is not charge. Grosvenor: It's a right given to the applicant or the client. Pfab: So in other words it's not...it's not make it more difficult for a person. Grosvenor: No. No. And for instance the clients that are already being served by the program, if they're terminated for an issue their assistance doesn't stop until their...the hearing process is complete. In other words you send a termination notice, you get a due process and lets say that takes two or three months, the assistance continues through that until the determination of that hearing. Pfab: But is that require them to get an attorney to defend themselves? Grosvenor: It's an informal hearing process so it's their choice whether they want to have for example Legal Services attorney or not...or private attorney. Pfab: Okay so there's...for people without a great deal of means there are legal assistance available to them? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #6 Page #25 Grosvenor: I believe Legal Services has a sliding fee. Dilkes: Sue Dulek from my office is here if you have questions for her about the legal issues. Sue Dulek: You don't get a right to court appointed council because no one is going to jail it's just an informal administrative hearing. The hearing officer is Mr. Helling. And as Maggie said the assistance continues pending the heating. To back up, just to clarify a couple things. First, Maggie did mention the City's or the Housing Authorities discretion and that's set out on page 20 of the plan which is that page after Mr. Kanner was pointing out some things earlier. And it states the five factors in determining whether to deny or terminate that the Housing Authority may continue. And then in answer to you...your question Mr. Karmer, conspiracy is not included in the definition of drug related criminal activity under the federal regulation. Drug related criminal activity means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution or use of a drug or the possession of a drug with the intent to manufacture, sell, distribute or use of a drug. So if the person just has a conspiracy charge that in and of itself would not meet the definition of drug related criminal activity. Karmer: Is that listed in this packet here? Dulek: The definition? I'm not sure if we defined it in the glossary or not but it's...it applies because it's Federal Law. Kanner: Well I would like it pointed out but even so I think the point is that it's good that you have discretion. And one, I think any time you're denied in these process for social services it's a hassle. All of us I think have probably worked with people in some respect and it's a hassle. Just to get in initially often times there's some sort of hassle and especially if you don't have resources then to fight something on appeal it's a hassle. So I think we need to consider that. But ! think this...the war on drugs is something that's coming down from the Feds and I think at the local level we have to think of ways to fight that in any way that we can. It's an insidious war that's harmful to our country and it puts us in a very vulnerable spot that's bad for us. And I think locally we have a responsibility to see what we can do to lessen that impact and this could be one way to do that. It's a small way but it could be one way to do that. Lehman: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue from the public? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #6 Page #26 Vanderhoefi I just want one minute and I don't care which of the two of you answer it. I thought it was interesting what you said last night, Maggie, about the rights of a property owner in getting information if it was requested. Could you comment on that please? Grosvenor: Sure. HUD guidelines say that if we write it into our policy we can provide landlords with information on clients that we currently serve or have served. What that means is we can give factually information about that client. So ifa prospective to Section 8 tenant goes to a landlord they can call the Housing Authority and say has this client ever been evicted before and if we have that information in the file, if we have knowledge of it we can provide that information to that landlord. And this policy is updated to allow that to occur. Pfab: I would like to take this opportunity to make a statement here concerning...a lot of times we look at people who are on rental assistance and we kind of look down our nose sometimes at them. And I...it's a general...it's a thing... Champion: Who are we? Pfab: ...it happens in the general public. And I think we need to be a little bit aware that these people while they may not look like us and be quite like us they do bring in six million dollars of federal money comes to this town. Am I correct? Grosvenor: I'm going to correct you on one statement. Pfab: Okay. That's fine. Grosvenor: They do look like us and they do act like us and they do talk like us. Pfab: I know they do but... Grosvenor: Okay. I want that clear. They look just like you and me. Champion: That's right. Pfab: No but that's not always the perception. Grosvenor: But they do. Okay, they do. Pfab: I know they do. Grosvenor: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #6 Page #27 Pfab: That's why I made the statement. Lehman: For the folks in the audience, this is Maggie Grosvenor who is... Grosvenor: I'm sorry. I didn't identify myself. Lehman: No, that's fine. And I apologize for calling you up but Maggie you and your group do a wonderful, wonderful job administrating a very, very complicated, difficult program. And I'm sure that the Council joins me in thanking you for the quality of work that you do. Grosvenor: Thank you. O'Donnell: You certainly do. Lehman: Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion from the resolution? Vanderhoef: Move to adopt. O'Dormell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Kanner: I would move an amendment that we reduce the five year...ability to go back five years to three years for the criminal activity. Lehman: Is there a second to the amendment? Pfab: I'll second it for discussion. Lehman: Motion is seconded to reduce the amount of time we are able to look back from five to three years. Discussion? Pfab: I can see a pro and a con on that. As we work with how to make neighborhoods safer for other tenants sometimes I think some of this information is valuable so I don't think I'd be able to support your amendment but I think it's worthy to bring it up. Lehman: Other discussion on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment say aye. Pfab: Not (can't understand)... Lehman: Opposed? P fab: No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #6 Page #28 Lehman: Hold it. Let's raise our hands. In favor of the amendment please raise a show of hands. Opposed same sign. The amendment is defeated, 6/1, Kanner voting in the affirmative. Discussion on the motion as tmamendend. Kanner: Just want to second what you said Ernie. Good staff there. Lehman: I do agree. Kanner: Also to...Sue, it is in the glossary in the back, your definition. Thank you. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #7 Page #29 ITEM NO. 7. THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINSSIONS AND CONTINUED OCCUPANCY PLAN (ACOP). Lehman: Public hearing is open. This basically is part or similar to the last public hearing and relates to our Public Housing programs. Anyone wish to speak to this? Public Hearing is closed. Do we have a motion? Vanderhoef: Move adoption. O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries (7/0). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #30 ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 2, "VEHICLES FOR HIRE," OF THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING DEFINITION OF VEHICLE FOR HIRE, ADDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED STATE OF IOWA CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY APPLICATION AND/OR DRIVING BADGE. (PASS AND ADOPT) Champion: Move adoption. O'Donnell: Move adoption. Champion: Second. O'Donnell: We all like this. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call. Kanner: Wait. Did someone want to speak? Ernie, is that all right? Donatti: It seems like you're all pretty well decided on adopting the issue. Lehman: Well it's third reading but go ahead. Donatti: Well I spoke on this the last time... Lehman: Yes, I recall. Donatti: ...also and I think...I hope that you all received the letter that I wrote. Karr: We haven't gotten a letter. Donatti: You didn't get the e-mail. Karr: No. Donatti: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that did go through. I didn't get... Karr: No. Donatti: ... a letter back that said that you did not. I had some other points regarding the...My name is Trisha Donatti and I live at 1825 Friendship Street. And I had a couple other issues regarding the passing of the certification that I'd like to bring up because I do believe this is going to be a detriment to our companies and cause a lot of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #31 problem with hiring people. We already have difficulty finding people in that.., that's sort of demographic of income bracket that are willing...that want to drive a cab. When you can go work at Handimart for $9 an hour there's not a lot of reason to wait the two weeks when you have concerns like rent and food. Why wait the two weeks for a certification letter to come back saying that you're authorized to drive a cab or to have that... I'm sorry that you didn't get the letter. I spent some time writing it. But I'd like to say that the only other position that the City Code requires this sort of certification for is the approval ora liquor license. Our Iowa City Transit bus drivers are not required to have criminal records yet we as cab drivers are. And I'd like to say that it's a lot closer...driving a cab is a lot closer to driving a bus then to selling liquor is to driving a cab. And it would be different if it was just the owners of the cab companies that were being asked to get this sort of certification process as happens with liquor establishments. When the owner of the liquor establishment or a place that wants to sell liquor is asked to get the certification. That makes a lot more sense to me. But when you require that every single driver does I don't...I think it's wonderful, you know, it's great that we have the Chief of Police and that he's able to...that he has been in the past able to look at these people's criminal histories. But I don't think there's a lot of other employers out there in Iowa City that have that privilege. And then to turn it around and make it a detriment to our companies by asking that we can't hire these people for two weeks it's attacking.., directly attacking one of our most vital aspects which is our drivers. You know. Pfab: I would like to comment...make a comment on what you said. I disagree...respectfully disagree with you because of the fact when...I am not a very heavy user of cabs, never have. But at the same time when somebody gets in that cab that cab driver has that person life in their hands. Donatti: Absolutely, but when you get on a City bus you have that person's life in your hands too. Pfab: But this is more...this is a lot private situation. I think that that's...I would object to your objection to doing that. And another thing, I'm told that there are...this...I'm not criticizing you but I'm told that there are ways to get those certified criminal records in a lot less time and not very much money to do it. Donatti: Okay well the way that we have been...that this has been told to us is that it would take...that the process is going to take a week to two weeks and it's going to be $13. We are not given any options. I called the Iowa City Transit System and asked them. I also called the Iowa This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #32 City Community School District bus barn and asked them what their licensing procedures were. And the bus barn by the City Transit System I was told that they are not required to have criminal checks but that the school system is required to have criminal checks and that they do that there on site. Well offering us the flexibility to be able to give somebody a permit or to have them go down and have their driving record checked and get their CDL and then give them a permit and then giving us as conscientious business owners the option of either one, running our own criminal reports as the...I don't know that the bus...like I said that the Iowa City Community School District does or... It seems to me that there are a lot of privileged positions and in this community and that there are other companies where people are put into private situations with people that are potentially dangerous situations. And I have gone onto a bus where you're the only person on the bus. And that's not to say that I'm concerned about my bus drivers because I expect that the person that's doing the hiring of those people to do thorough checks into whether or not that person is a safe person to be in...behind the wheel of that vehicle. Does that make sense? Pfab: I... Donatti: I'm not sure...I guess I'm not sure one, why all of...why all of the cab drivers need to have criminal checks. I mean is it something about cab driving that necessarily makes us more questionable. Why they need to have criminal checks two, and if that is the case that we need to do that as the Iowa City School District does. Is there any way we can be more flexible about this so that it doesn't cause such problems to the cab companies? Because I firmly believe that it's going to cause difficulty with the hiring procedure and that we're not going to have enough drivers. And when you don't have enough drivers you can't keep your customers happy. And if you can't keep your customers happy you can't keep your company open. Pfab: The Police Chief was here earlier. Is he... Donatti: And I think that...that it might be worth involving him in this before this portion of the policy is passed. And like I said I wasn't prepared last week to discuss the issue but I have made some phone calls at this point and the only other place that the code requires that this check is done is for the liquor licensing. And it just...it seems to me that maybe... I'm not exactly sure why that's happening. Pfab: I would be a lot more supportive of your position if it takes two weeks for you to get a criminal check back. I think that's... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #33 Donatti: That's what we've been told. Pfab: I think that's mmecessary. And if that's the case... Donatti: Is that it's a two week delay. Pfab: ...then at that point I would move that we defer this and try to work this out and see if there are other ways to get these in a lot less time than that. Donatti: I would like to discuss this particular point a little bit more if we can because I do see concerns. I have concerns for it in the future for the cab companies. I mean I think we have difficulty hiring now the way that it is and that you can get an overnight job at Handimart for $9/$10 an hour. Why come and drive the slowest shifts of cab driving because you know that's what we have to offer to the new drivers are not... You don't get onto the weekend/nights, you know, you don't get onto the big money shifts. And so you have not a lot to offer them and if it's going to take them two weeks to get a job why would they work for you? Pfab: I... Lehman: I think we got your point. Donatti: Okay. Sorry. Pfab: And at the same time... Lehman: No, that's all right. Pfab: At the same time I will not agree with you that a criminal check shouldn't be done for a cab driver. Donatti: I'm not necessarily saying that a criminal check should not be done. I mean I think that that's a wonderful thing. I would love to have access to it, you know, to be able to make my own judgement on my own criteria for what's safe... Karr: You can. Donatti: ... and what is not safe as a...but to have that determined by the Chief of Police and to take two weeks delay is the questions. It's not about the safety issue. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #34 P fab: I...I think... Lehman: We've heard you. Does someone else want to speak to this? Pfab: Wait one second. Wait. Emie, I think.., Karr: There is a provision in the forms that we became aware of. A company can make application and open an account to do employee checks which is what many of our larger corporations do for our liquor right now. They make the application in the company name for the individuals who sign the waiver, the company pays the fees, the reports go back to the company, the company then submits them after they review them as part of their liquor package. So that is a possibility if the company wishes to set it up that way. Pfab: Now does that change the length of time it takes to get that? Karr: Well it's possible. Again it's possible if the company chooses to open an account and put down a deposit. That can quicken the process rather than the individual account coming in, fees based at that time. But it does require money up front. Pfab: But you would say that it does...it would shorten that time up considerably from two weeks? Kan': Right now we are telling them...what we are experiencing is a seven to ten day average. It is less, it is more. Again it depends on whether it is done in the individual name or the company. P fab: Okay. Lelunan: Okay. Tony Donatti: Okay. I think that pretty much...I was just wondering if there could be some kind of amendment not so much to take out the criminal history check as to maybe different avenues to go that would be a shorter time frame. You know, because I think one or two days, three days, you know something like that would be more reasonable. Because you know there is a process involved of getting your CDL and other licenses assigned and what not. So I guess that answered my question. Karr: Could I have your name for the record, sir? Lehman: Well... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #35 T. Donatti: My name's Tony Donatti, I'm... Karr: Thank you, Tony. Donatti: ... an associate. Champion: So, I mean, this is a new thing. I'm sorry, Ernie. Lehman: No, but what we're talking about is the requirement that there be a criminal history check. It does not have anything to do with the amount of time it takes. Those details... O'Dormell: That's right. Lehman: We can work those out differently. I do think that when the City licenses a cab company or anything else I think there is a presumption on the part of the public that the City has done their homework and that that taxi cab or whatever is a safe vehicle. We require inspections of the vehicle but the driver is qualified. Obviously he has to have a driver's license. That the passenger is in some respect protected by the fact that that vehicle is licensed by the City of Iowa City. I have no problem what so ever in requiring a background check. And certainly we compare it to buses I think that's an entirely different situation where we have one personnel department managing a very, very large group of folks. How many cab companies do we have Marian? Karr: Currently, nine. Lehman: We have nine different employers. Large, large numbers of turnover and whatever. And so I have to think it's in the best interest of the public to... for the City to require a background check if in fact we're going to license those cabs. Further discussion? Pfab: Let me ask you this. I'm really concerned with the fact that it would take two weeks. Is this something... Lehman: Irvin, that part of it we can deal with administratively. All this issue is says they have to have a criminal background check. P fab: Okay. Lehman: If that can be done administratively we can figure that out. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: And obviously Marian did have a thought on it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #36 Dilkes: We're...but it needs to be clear that we are not in control of that time period. That...the response time from the DCI is theirs not ours. So there's only so much we can do administratively. Pfab: But I would like to have a better understanding of how long it does take to get this. In this electronic age it looks...two weeks looks like an inordinate amount of time. Vanderhoef: And Marian said... Dilkes: I think Marian's experience has been 7 to 10 days. Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? Champion: Well have we had problems with cab drivers in the past that this became part of the ordinance? Karr: This was at the recommendation of the Police Chief. Dilkes: The information about criminal history and traffic history has always been required but it's been based on self disclosure. The Police Chief, for this pupose, can not access criminal histories... Champion: Oh. Dilkes: ... so the applicant himself or herself has to request the criminal history from the DCI and provide it with the application. O'Dormell: That's fine. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Oh. Knight: (can't hear) one point. Lehman: Yes. Knight: Delbert Knight, Old Capitol Cab. And I just want to reiterate what's been saying. That if this...we want the criminal background check, we like the idea but if is going to take one to two weeks or whatever you are legislating us pretty much out of business. It's just not a career move for someone to come drive a cab. And they're not going to wait two weeks where they could go tomorrow and work somewhere for $9 an hour. Pfab: Could I propose... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #37 Knight: We need...I just want that clear. I would like to see that clarified, something done there. Pfab: I would propose that we defer this to our next meeting so we can get more information on how these things can be shortened up. Lehman: Is that a motion to defer? Pfab: Yes, that's right. Lehman: Do we have a second to that motion? Champion: I'll second it. Lehman: Seconded by Champion to defer this until the 22nd would be (can't hear). Pfab: That's fine. Lehman: Discussion on the motion to defer? All in favor? Karr: Mr. Mayor? Lehman: I'm sorry. Karr: Whoop, I'm sorry. I just want to state for the record all of these come due March 1st. Pfab: Okay. Kart: We come to you in ample time. We certainly can defer it but what it will mean is that there will be more...less notice given to the companies once this is adopted. Pfab: But it's...if it's adopted by the 22nd is it? Is that our next meeting? Lehman: Next meetings the 22nd. Pfab: Does that not allow enough time to do that? Karr: I just want you to know typically we send out renewal notices January 15th. Pfab: Oh. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #10 Page #38 Kart: So it would just delay it another week beyond that. Lehman: All right. All in favor of the motion to defer say aye. Opposed same sign. Let's do it by hands. All in favor to defer raise your hand please. All opposed raise your hand please. The motion is defeated, 3/4, with Lehman, O'Donnell, Wilburn and Vanderhoef voting in the negative. All right, discussion on the original motion? Roll call. Motion carries (7/0). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #11 Page #39 ITEM NO. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RESCINDING PRIOR RESOLUTION NO. 97-60 AND IN LIEU THEREOF SETTING FEES AND CHARGES WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF REGULATIONS OF VEHICLES FOR HIRE, BY REPLACING "TAXICAB" REFERENCES WITH "VEHICLE FOR HIRE" AND AMENDING THE PARKING STAND FEE WITH GENERAL LANGUAGE TO REFLECT ANY CHANGES THAT MAY BE MADE IN PARKING FEE ORDINANCE. Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: I have just one comment. Lehman: Yes. Pfab: I can't understand why we can't change the ordinance so that at 2" is at least 4" on the side. Other than that...and apparently if everyone else can get...live with it I guess I will accept that fact. Dilkes: That's the last... O'Donnell: Did we not put a minimum of 4...of doing this? Dilkes: This has nothing... Karr: That's the last item. This isn't the same item. Lehman: This isn't the same. Karr: This is a different item. Pfab: I just needed (can't hear) O'Donnell: Okay. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries (7/0). We're going to take about a ten-minute recess before we do twelve. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #40 ITEM NO. 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "PUBLIC HEALLTH AND SAFETY" BY REPEALING CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES" AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS." (PASS AND ADOPT) Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Wilbum: It's part of our home rule authority to take measures necessary and desirable to promote the general health, safety and welfare of residence. This is an issue of second hand smoke not just what some consider a nuisance but cardiovascular and other respiratory type illnesses. This ordinance creates more options for people who dine out to not have concerns about some of these health issues. Taking measures that are desirable from the home rule charter implies that incremental change can and does occur. And that's based on what is supported by majority of public wishes at any given moment in time. I'm supporting this ordinance as written based on the input from both sides that I've received and looking forward to having us move on. Lehman: Other discussion? Well let me just say personally I do support a ban on smoking and I can not support a ban that says that it's okay to smoke in half the places and not the other halfi And I would support a total ban. I will not support a ban that is restricted only to those places that derive 50% or more of their revenue from the sale of food. Nick Herbold: Hello, my name is Nick Herbold and I'm a student senator for the University of Iowa. I'm a non-smoker and I do attend the bars as much as I can. Champion: Not a smart move. Herbold: I...the... I really do appreciate what you're trying to do for the children that have parents that don't feel that they need to avoid taking them places where there's smoke. I really do think that's a problem for kids that don't have a choice. However, after 9:00 at night bars are full of people that are 18...you know, they're over 18. They're all adults and I believe they all can make adult decisions which is they can go there, you know, if they want to be exposed to smoke or they can go This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #41 somewhere else if they don't. And that's why this 50/50 proposal kind of makes me a little nervous and a little worried because we're talking about 18...over 18 year old people not being allowed to do something, you know, not being able to...allowed to make their own choices. And that's why I'm in favor of this red light green light proposal and I've...and I think it's a very good compromise. And I'm confused to why it hasn't been supported by everyone. And I was wondering if everyone who does not support it could give me an explaination why they do not support it? Vanderhoefi The red light green light? Herbold: Yeah. Vanderhoef: Okay. I'd be happy to answer that from my perspective. When you have red light green light, even though someone does not light up during the non-smoking hours, the smell and the carcinogens in the air are still there even though there are no lite cigarettes. So ifI am doing the ordinance to support the public health then I don't see that this has any effect on non-smoking in restaurants. Kanner: Yeah, I'd like to state I'm voting for this. I believe it's moving us in the right direction mainly because of concern for workers whether it's the minority of one or a majority of close to 100%. I think that concerns of the worker are perimont and we make regulations for their health in number of different areas in regards to... especially in regards to food service industry. We do not allow restuarants to have meat cutting instruments without the proper guards even though it might be cheaper and they might be able to produce more food. And in the same sense we need to protect the rights of the workers to a safe work environment. Emie, I just had a question for you. Lehman: Yes. Kanner: Did you change your mind in regard to supporting a full ban for close to 100% of the restaurants because I had offered something before we started to vote on this ordinance and at that time you weren't in support o f that. Lehman: No, I...I've said for the last probably month, I will support an ordiance that prohibits smoking in any place where prepared food is sold. We talked about it two weeks ago tonight, had an amendment come up, you seconded the amendment but when we discussed whether or not somebody was able to eat pretzels or potato chips in a bar you felt that was consuming food and you wouldn't support the amendment. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. # 12 Page #42 Kanner: No, I'm talking about...well I don't know three, six months ago when I proposed that we have something similar to what you're saying know. How come at that time you didn't support it? Lehman: You...Do you know any more about this today then you knew then? I do. Karmer: But so okay you changed your position. Lehman: Yeah. Kanner: All right. Fine (can't hear) Lehman: I filed...this is patently unfair which is why I do not support it. The concept I agree with the ordinance I do not. Other discussion? Herbold: Could I respond to the comments that were made? Lehman: You can respond but we're going to take about...we've listened to this now for about six months and hours and hours. And I appreciate your coming down believe me but we have worn this one out. Herbold: I understand. I've read the transcripts from the meetings and I'm still...the two areguments I just wanted to respond to against this because I think this is such a good compromise. ! think that, that it helps the people out during the day and, you know, it lets the students relax in a non sterile environment where they can, you know, really let go at night. And so in response to the idea that the particles and the carcinogens are left overnight. I don't know scientific information about that and I don't know if any studies have been done. In response to the workers, I did spend a lot of my day calling up all the bar employees that I know and asking them about this risk that they're taking when they were hired for the bar because they obviously when they went to apply for the...to work at the bar they propably took that into account. The ones that...some of them were smokers and said, you know, it doesn't bother me at all and so that doesn't really make a diffemece I guess. The ones that weren't smokers overwhelmingly said I, you know, it's I'm either...I either don't find it annoying, that's why some people don't like to be around it, or I don't...or when I went to go apply for this job I understood that and that's a risk I'm taking. And I think that it's true that people that work with meat cutters shouldn't have risks and stuff like that but I think every job has a little bit o£a risk. I worked road construction a couple summers ago and I took a lot of risks with that. And I think that was part of the job. And so that's...that's I guess my response to that. And I appreciate the time This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #43 that you guys have put into this and I hope you'll consider red light green light further. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. O'Dormell: I supported red light green light and brought it up last night and didn't have the support for it. I also supported the 65/35. I will not be supporting this 50/50. What we will be doing in my mind is making more restaurants into bars. The number one problem nationally is alcohol. We bypass number one to address number two to make number one more prolific. I just think this 50/50 is unfair. We as a Council are here to support business, grow the tax base and look resposibly at economic development and I don't think this addresses any of that. Lehman: Okay before we start...and I'm going take...at quarter to nine there will be no more public discussion so that means if you want a minute or so go right ahead. Ruth Baker: I'll be as quick as I can. And I want to say first of all I haven't spoken to this issue... Lehman: Your name first please. Baker: I'm sorry, Ruth Baker, 515 West Benton. I have no vested interest in the restaruamts or bars. I want you to know that right up front. I'm a reformed smoker. I give friends a miserable time when they light up. My son is a bartender and he has health problems as a direct result of second hand smoke. I have a daughter who has asthma and most likely this is as a result, now that the studies show, is when I smoked as she was growing up. Now you'd think that I'd be asking that you pass this ordinance and that's not why I'm here. I'm asking that you reject this ordinance because I think it's extremely unfair and my reasons are first of all my daughter had no choice. Research now indicates these are problems. This wasn't know when she was growing up. I was stupid and I smoked but my son does have a choice as where he can work. He doesn't have to smoke...work in a smoking environment. You and I have choices of where we can eat and drink at non-smoking establishments. Sluggers is doing a great business since they banned smoking. More people are discovering and frequenting these places. We have too many bars already. This ordinance will only encourage the restaruants to reduce their food service to move towards more liquor sales. And I understand that and I would think that everybody on the Council would understand that too. We can not damage these businesses and then say well if it doen't work then we'll back off. That's actually the wrong attitude I think. What's the rash This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #44 hem. Why not wait to see what happens in Ames number one, In time more and more people will be smoke...will be frequenting non- smoking establishments and there's just going to be that wave come in. If we're not going to do a complete ban...if it's a health issue there should be no smoking in public places. It's legal. 1 don't think the Council has...this is a bad thing. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. O'Donnell: Thank you. Kevin Perez: Hi, my name is Kevin Perez. I live at 161 Columbia Drive. So we only have four minutes before we end this discussion? Lehman: I think there's about three. Perez: Throe then it's done. Just...I mean, I mean I know we've beat... Lehman: I don't want to (can't hear) Perez: We've beat it...we've beat it over a horse but I mean I also feel that a lot of you guys are not listening to any of the business owners. You have all made your decisions and I don't feel like you're listening to us. And I just want...I want to bring up some stuff. I've been thinking about it obviously for a long time. First of all I want to apologize for my behavior last week. I'll probably have to do it next time but this time...First of all my wife...A little background about myself. My wife and brother own 126. I recently opened the Monkey House in the Sycamore Mall. We own the Peaceful Fool for...from 1992 until last June. I have three children and seventy employees. Of these 70 employees, 30 are the primary money earners for their families. The number of people that live in the households of those families are.., is over 190. I don't know how many of you can understand the pressure of having that many employees and being responsible for that many people, which I feel that I am. Many of these people are my friends and many have become my friends as well as my employees. Their children play with my children. We have dinner at one another's homes and many are use their jobs to further their careers as artists, making glass, children's illustrator, acting or many other pursuits. If you pass this ordinance and business goes down 10% I fire five of them. If business goes down 20% I fire ten of them, If it goes down 25% everyone loses their job. A small amount of second hand smoke or lose your house and your children's home. How many people does this take before you say you made a mistake. You know, I'd like to speak of the pressure of being responsible for the jobs that make peoples living. It is hard. You worry about your employees and their This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #45 families. How many of you have worked eighteen-hour days many weeks in a row to get something open? Provide a job for your mother so she can live. Lay awake at night worrying about your business and what you can do to improve it. Get lied to by the building department that makes you so angry your heads about to explode. Not take a paycheck for six weeks so everybody else can get paid because you're always the last one to get paid. Run up $50,000 in credit cards to make ends meet after the Coral Ridge Mall opens. I have had many opportunities to move my businesses to Coralville but I stayed true to Iowa City with... I started the Peaceful Fool in the Hall Mall in the 10 by 10 space and moved it all the way up to 8500 square feet at Land's End. Open 126 and the Monkey House and I stayed true to Iowa City the whole time and now I feel like you're screwing us. I've looked at...I'd like to look at some of your business decisions. Lot 64a of Urban Renewal, you sold a 2.5 million dollar property to Marc Moen for $250,000, effectively stealing 2.25 million dollars... Lehman: Will you keep your comments to the issue? Perez: Well you're making a business decision. I want to go over some of the business decisions that you've made. Lehman: We're talking about the smoking ordinance. Ifyou care to address that please do. If you don't... Perez: Okay well under your guidance you've...under your guidance you're...many retail stores have closed in Iowa City. Many have opened in Coralville. How many restaurants will close? Coralville stayed out of it. How many members of CAFE will still eat in Coralville? All of them. But they have a choice just like everyone has a choice to come in or not come to a particular restaurant, bowling alley, bar whatever. I've heard and read many comments from Ilene Fisher, for example, that this is about big tobacco. This is not about big tobacco. This is about small local businessmen and women who are risking their homes to provide a business for people to work in. Not a single owner here has been talked to by big tobacco. We feel we are fighting for our livelihood, our employees' livelihood and our family's livelihood. I don't smoke. I never have and I never will. I get no subsidies on my card, which throws more propaganda around then I've ever seen. We played by your rules when we set up our businesses and you changed the rules in the middle of our leases. Are you going to buy my air cleaning system that I put in? I say make an amendment that says all new restaurants have to be smoke free and the people will know what they're getting into. And all places that are currently open run by the rules that were in place when we set them up. I think that's called the grandfather clause but I'm not sure. I took This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #46 great pains to make my rest...my customers comfortable. Over a year ago I had a self imposed red light green light system in place so smokers and non-smokers never had to sit on the same level. I didn't need you to tell me this, my customers did. Free trade, customer choice, personal freedoms. It's kind ora novel thing. You speak of protection of the employers.., employees and the employees. I've only...I've seen...I've only seen employees speak are the ones that are against the ordinance. I'll wrap this up as soon as I can. I want to make a couple points that the people that work in restaurants are low and moderate-income people. People that lose their jobs are going to be low and moderate-income people. You, Steve Kanner, are probably the biggest supporter of low-income people. Those are the first ones that are going to lose their jobs. And you line up...guarantee none of these guys have to worry about it. You line up all these people, you know, they can get jobs. You know the drive thrus are really popular now. You know that's why fast food doesn't stay in downtown. Lehman: You've got to wind this up. Perez: But anyway I'm saying...I mean I do have more but I want you to consider that the people that are losing their jobs are going to be low and small income people. Because we are going to lose jobs there's no question about it. Thanks. O'Donnell: Thank you, Kevin. Lehman: Is there... Female Audience: Please let the people speak. This is very important. Lehman: All right. Just a minute. Now... Wilburn: Let's hear them. Lehman: This is important. We have listened to the public for I don't know how...How much time do you expect the Council...And my understanding from discussions on the Council is that most of the discussion have been made, that the Council has pretty much decided what they're going to do. Now... Male Audience: You still haven't (can't hear) trying to do if you're wrong. Lehman: ...we have listened...I beg your pardon. Male Audience: You still haven't heard what you're going to do is wrong. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #47 Lehman: I happen to think what we're doing is wrong. I also think that we can visit about this until 3:00 tomorrow morning... Male Audience: I think you're wrong about the way it effects businesses. What your plan is to do if the studies that rely on about (can't understand) Female Audience: (can't hear) Lehman: Now I really can't get into that discussion. What's the pleasure of the Council? We have sat here and... O'Donnell: You know, I would like to hear more people but you know Emie's right. The decision is made. i think it was made two readings ago. I disagreed with it then and I do now. I think we are borderline folks. They were handling business in this community. We need to replace those signs as we enter Iowa City that say we're a nuclear free zone and say welcome to Iowa City we're closed. Because I think that's the direction we're moving. (applause) Kanner: This is obviously something that's touched a nerve in the community. We've had the most letters we've had ever. Lehman: Right. Kmmer: I would say...I would recommend that we limit people to two minutes. Lehman: For how long? Karmer: Hear them out. How many people want to speak to this? Can you raise your hand? Champion: How about people who've never spoken to us before? Karmer: Cormie I'd say...we don't have that many. We have like five or so. I'd say two minutes each. O'Donnell: Let's go two minutes until 9:00. Lehman: All right, two minutes each. There's ten minutes until 9:00. At 9:00 we are done with the public discussion? Male Audience: Now Steve does it make a difference? That's what Emie's point is. Does it make a difference? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #48 O'Donnell: No. Lehman: No, but we're going to do the ten minutes. All right. Brett Castillo: I'll keep it very brief. Brett Castillo, 613 E. Court St. #6. This actually concerning...I was considering the fact that this is being pushed through specifically targeting this meeting including some of the statements that have been made and it's an important procedural issue. If this passes tonight there's a course of period where petitions can filed to force it to a vote, which is ten days. Ten days from today is January 18, four days before school comes back in session. A very significant portion of the smokers in Iowa City, a very significant portion of people who work in these bars and restaurants are students. Not advising anything the ordnance but I think that this should, if possible, be pushed back one meeting so that the petition period will take place after students have returned. There are already efforts underway to create a petition. I've heard this from several people that there is work in the way. It will make a significant difference in whether or not they are able to petition for a vote if this votes tonight or if this vote's next meeting. Lehman: Good point. Thank you. Kanner: I'm not familiar with the ten days. Lehman: Let's not take public time discussion, Steven. Champion: Yeah. Lehman: Let's wait until the 10:00...9:00. Kanner: All right. Ron Megan: CAFE doesn't have to pretend that they care about the local (musics ?) and the local business but you guys do. Lehman: You have to give your name if you... Megan: My name is Ron Megan. I live at 1310 (can't understand). And it's your responsibility to explain to these business owners that support the whole town and some of them are historical landmarks of the town that you guys might not appreciate or maybe you do. You need to at least like cater to them and explain to them if you don't have any solutions to if their businesses are adversely effected. Because the business studies that you guys have done are based basically on flat retail figures and not detail what so ever to say if it's actually going to effect This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #49 alcohol establishments or smoking establishments. I mean if you can't even take the time to do studies to figure out if it's going to effect them at least look them in the eye and say you can possibly be a sacrificial lamb for this. And you have to at least give these people some type of ease that their.., ease of mind that they're going to be taken care of if your decisions on this...because people can't choose for themselves where to go eat. If their businesses are going to be effected. And it's your job to take care of them and make sure they're taken care of. And at least try to come up with some decision of what you're going to do to help them out if this does adversely effect them. And I'd like you guys to at least try to come up with some type of plan. Lehman: Thank you. O'Donnell: Thank you. Richard Lutz: Hello, Richard Lutz, 302 Richards Street, Iowa City. I'm Jewish and when my people left Egypt a few thousand years ago I'm sure it was a significant blow to the Egyptian property holders and business owners because a lot of their work left. When the slaves were freed in the south I'm sure it was a significant blow to property holders and business owners there too cause a lot of their work left, you know. But there's certain decisions here which...things that's more important maybe than business. Maybe like life is more important than profit. You know, I don't know, that's just something that has occurred to a few people I think. I'd like to address what you said specifically about the 50% thing not being satisfactory. I think it might be a good idea to pass anything possible that will protect human lives as soon as possible and then if we feel this is insufficient pass another thing latter. I mean that's what's going on right now is people are saying well the current ordinance that's in place is insufficient let's do something else, you know. And if businesses are going to be hurt by doing something that hurts other people and by being forced to stop doing something that hurts other people that's their problem. Because you know, I mean they're poisoning people. And if you go out of business because you're forced to stop poising people, that's a small loss. Thank you. Female Audience: Oh my gosh. Lehman: Thank you. Kathi Rundell: Hi, my name is Kathi Rundell and I'm...we have a couple businesses in Iowa City. And I guess I'm here more as I've seen our taxes increase, I'm concerned that's going to continue that way. I don't know how long other businesses can keep footing the bill as more and more businesses leave. If the majority of the people in Iowa City do want a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #50 smoke free environment, which is fine, they are free to invest and buy a business and to build it like the rest of these business owners have done with their hard work and their money and putting that risk there. I don't think that it's right for a decision like this to be mandated. Maybe offer incentives such as a discount off your food license. But just to mandate it and say this is the way is I feel is wrong and unfair. Lehman: Thank you. Kirsten Drexler: My name is Kirsten Drexler and I work at one ofKathi Rundell's businesses and I've worked there for six years and managed the restaurant bar for three years. And exactly the same...if it effects us all we're going to do is cut back our food sales which makes us more of a bar and all you're going to do is counteract all the laws you just passed in July. So I'nh just questioning any reasoning for this that you think it's going to do any businesses any good. Until you make it a good law and pass a good law where it includes everyone. Lehman: Thank you. Patty Williams: Hi, my name is Patty Williams and I'd just like to say certainly to this gentleman here we have to understand that we're talking about private business. Nobody has to go into nor work at private business. That is your own choice, your own health. You do not have to go there. That's America. It's freedom. I just want to say...I wrote a little bit, I'm not going to read it all but government should not override the rights of the America's greatest strength which is private enterprise. I mean, it's wrong. Lehman: Thank you. Martha Lutz: Well if it's not quite 9:00 I'll be very, very quick. Martha Lutz also 302 Richards Street. Just to remind you that the OSHA permitted exposure limit for nicotine is one-half milligram of skin of exposure. No permitted exposure limit for inhalation. No permitted exposure limit for ingestion. In other words OSHA which protects workers does not permit exposure to nicotine. Nicotine does not clear the air for minimum of 12 hours after it is used for fumigation, 24 hours is preferable. Nicotine is a powerful neurotoxin and every single time...I just finished reading these articles primarily done by a laboratory in Switzerland. Every single time a pregnant mother is exposed to nicotine, each individual exposure has the potential to do damage to the developing brain of a fetus. In other words a child will be bom with no visible defect if the mother was exposed even one to nicotine while pregnant. However, by the time that child is five or six they can be developing symptoms of neurological disorders that will not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #51 necessarily be obviously because she was exposed to nicotine. She won't know that it's because she ate in a smoking restaurant or worked as a waitress in a smoking waitress but that child will live the rest of its life with neurological disorders. OSHA regulations do not permit that exposure. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Jori Meester: My name is Jon Meester, I'm 924 Friendly, Iowa City. I work for a company called US Food Service. I supply food service equipment, food, raw materials for independent restaurant owners. My job is to only work with independent restaurant owners in Iowa City. 80% of my business is here. I've been doing it for about 7 years and I have a pretty intimate knowledge of these peoples business, of the margins they work with. They don't all drive sports cars believe me. And it's going to effect my business a little bit but I'll going to be able to fight through it but I don't have to go out to advertise to bring in new customers because my other customers left cause they can't smoke in my restaurant anymore. You know I can get through it. Some of these people might not be able to. The only question I really have is why does this decision have to be made now? I haven't quite understood that. Given the economic situation right now, the uncertainty. You know if this town was on the East Coast I don't think you'd be having this discussion after September 11th. Because we're in the Midwest we're a little more...a little more insulated from that. And you know, who knows, maybe some of the economic waves that have hit there are going to roll this way. A lot of things work that way in the Midwest. I think if you put this thing off for another year, maybe 12 months...people have been smoking where they eat in Iowa City since the first brick was laid in the first street, I'd bet anything on it. Why does it have to be done right now? Also the court case. Why can't you wait? I've been told, maybe I'm wrong, that within about a year that decision should be made. If that's true why not wait just twelve months? That's all it is, 12 more months. I had contacted the National Restaurant Association, pretty powerful lobbying group, to see why they hadn't shown up in this argument a while back this fall. They referred my to the Iowa Hospitality Association which is the Iowa branch of that group. Their official position along with the Phillip Morris people and all those people that are going to come in and lobby you if you decide to try and pass this, you know, after the courts say that it's okay to go ahead and do that. Their official position is they're staying away because they want to wait and see what the courts say and then they are going to move in. This isn't a decision this is an indecision. And this 50% thing I think you're showing a weakness and I think those people are going to come in and the pressure that the Caf6 people put on you that you're so sick of I don't think is going to look This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #52 like anything, you know. Maybe I'm wrong there but I think there's a lot of things to take in effect here...to take into consideration. Thanks for your time. O'Donnell: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Okay Council any last discussion before we vote? Champion: Well you know I had asked at one time...I'm going to bring forth this motion again that the Chamber of Commerce did offer to do an impact study of this ordinance for us and nobody was willing to do it but me I guess. I don't remember exactly how the vote but I would like to move that we defer the third reading of this ordinance and ask the Chamber of Commeme to do an impact study of this ordinance, on businesses downtown and surrounding...in the town. I guess it just doesn't effect downtown. O'Donnell: I would, of course, second that. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to defer. Discussion on the motion to defer? Kanner: Are you including the study in this deferment? Champion: Yes, ! mean I made this motion before, Steven. The Chamber of Commeme offered to do an impact study for us. Karmer: So, that's part of the motion, the amendment? Lehman: It would actually be a deferral. It would actually be an indefinite deferral. Champion: Well... Kanner: So the study is not part of this motion we're voting on? Lehman: The motion is to defer until the Chamber of Commerce has an opportunity to make a recommendation based on whatever study they would do. Is that correct? Champion: Correct. Wilburn: Last...and last time Connie made that same motion I pointed out and it was also pointed out by someone else that we've been discussing this for over a year now. And at the time a reason...I don't know if was from or for the Chamber was because of the election... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #53 Champion: I think there were many reasons. Wilburn: Well, bottom line is we've been discussing this for a year and they've made no effort towards that. That's why some of us are looking at moving forward. Lehman: All in favor or the deferral signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign. The motion is defeated 5/2, Champion and O'Donnell in the affirmative. Okay. O'Donnell: I do have... I think the problem is folks is people come to Iowa City and they start a business with certain roles and regulations and we have many. They sign on the dotted line and when they sign that's their livelihood, it's their income, it's their food for their children, it's their clothes, it's the education, it's taxes. And know we change the rules in the middle of the game and it's inherently unfair. Now I just think this is a very unfair ordinance and I will not be supporting it. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Vanderhoefi I have... Lehman: I'm sorry. Vanderhoefi Excuse me. I've wrestled with this a lot. I know it's a health issue. I'm committed to improving the health in Iowa City and if non- smoking is one of those ways I think it's one of the things that I should do as a Councilor in representing the people of Iowa City. I have supported going to the zero smoking in restaurants. I still support that. I have tried...as two weeks ago I put an amendment on the table to do that. It was suggested to me today to not support the 50/50 and announce it up front so that the others who are supporting 50/50 would be asked to make up their mind right then. What has happened as I see it from this Council is that there has been some fear in the Council that amendments would come around that would change the ordinance as the young gentleman mentioned tonight, the red light green light. We've talked about that several different times. We've talked about ventilation several times. No one seems to know for sure how everyone is going to come down. So knowing that I have supported the 50/50 from the beginning I will support 50/50. If that passes tonight as soon as it's done I will offer another amendment. Lehman: Other discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #54 Dilkes: In accordance with your work session last night the ordinance in front of you has an effective date of March 1st but we need an amendment to get that in place. Lehman: Do we have an amendment...a motion to amend that the effective date be March 1st.9 Vanderhoefi So moved. Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Pfab. All in favor? Opposed. Motion carries, 6/1, Champion voting in the negative. Okay roll call on the motion as amended. Motion carries, 4/3, Lehman, Champion, and O'Donnell voting in the negative. Now I would at this point entertain a motion from a Councilperson, whoever that might be, to propose an amendment that we could now have first consi...an ordinance which would amend the ordinance we just passed and make this applicable to any establishment that prepares or serves food and not the 50%. It doesn't change it. The ordinance we passed is passed. It would only change it so that it would be inclusive of all, of all establishments that serve prepared food. Pfab: Emie? Lehman: Yes. Pfab: I would be happy to suggest that we...that smoking be prohibited in all public places and all places of employment within the City. Lehman: That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about restaurants. Pfab: Well that's...I would propose that. Vanderhoef: I understand your idea and at a later time I would discuss that but not at this time. Lehman: Okay. Dilkes: Okay is that...that wasn't a motion? Lehman: Was that a motion? Pfab: No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #55 Lehman: All right there wasn't a motion so we didn't recognize it and it didn't need a second. Kanner: Well I don't know if we can put that on at this time without proper notice. Lehman: Yes we can. Dilkes: Well I think...I think you've given notice of the subject matter so I think you probably could do that. My only question is whether there are certain technical requirements with respect to reference of the section your amended, etc. that wouldn't be met. I think you've met the notice requirement. The worst thing that would happen is you'd have to go...you'd have to do first reading next time. Vanderhoef: Instead of this evening. Lehman: But that motion would then constitute first reading, if we have this motion. I'm not going to belabor this. If there's not interest in it... Kanner: Well no I... Pfab: (can't hear) Vanderhoef: I... I am going to make that motion. That is the motion that I was planning on making, to amend the ordinance that we just adopted to include all restaurants that prepare and serve food on premise. Lehman: Is there a second to that amendment? Pfab: I'll second. Dilkes: If...let me just... Vanderhoefi (can't hear) establishments. Dilkes: All establishments that prepare and serve food on premises. Pfab: I will second that. Lehman: Okay prepared.., where food is prepared, served or consumed. Vanderhoefi Okay. Dilkes: Prepare and serve. And is the operative word. Preparation and serve. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #56 Lehman: Or consume. Pfab: Oh I think not and. Or. Dilkes: Well I need to clarify what Dee's motion is. Are you wanting it to cover prepared food, i.e. excluding things like prepackaged food, chips, peanuts, that kind of thing. I'm just trying to clarify what your motion is. Vanderhoefi So what is the wording if we do that? Dilkes: Well, if it's prepare or serve it's going to cover prepackaged food. If it's prepare and serve you have...there has to be some preparation of the food. Vanderhoefi Prepare and serve. Dilkes: Okay. For on premises consumption. Vanderhoefi Yes. Dilkes: So the motion is, you're proposing an ordinance amending the ordinance just adopted to provide that all establishments that prepare and serve food for on premises consumption are prohibited from having smoking. Vanderhoef: Right. Dilkes: Okay. O'Donnell: Are you're talking a total ban? Is that what this is? Do you not think that that's not radical enough that we should have some discussion on this and allow people to talk about it. Lehman: Well lets get a second. Champion: We have a second. (can't understand) O'Donnell: You have a second, Emie. Lehman: I'm sorry we have a motion and a second. Dilkes: You seconded? You seconded? Pfab: No I didn't. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #57 Dilkes: No I... Kart: You didn't second it? Pfab: I didn't second that one. Lehman: You did not second it. O'Donnell: Would you like to? Pfab: No. O'Donnell: Oh. Lehman: Do we have a second to the amendment? Pfab: Okay, if there's no one else will. I thought that's what other people wanted. I'll second it. Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Pfab: Yes... Lehman: Is there interest? Pfab: Yes. I would like to clarify...ask for a clarification on a couple of points. One is I believe where food is served it would be better if that's agreeable...any food is served there should be no smoking. And the other point is, what is the definition...are we going to go back to 50 or less... 50 or more seating places? Champion: That's part of the State Code that govems public places. Pfab: No. Dilkes: I did not take the motion as changing the provision of the ordinance that adopts the public place definition, which excludes those under 50. Vanderhoef: And I did not mean to include them. Kanner: I'm willing to consider this but I don't think we should vote on this tonight. I'm...if we do vote on it tonight I would vote no. I think it's worthwhile talking about it at our next work session and voting possibly at the next formal meeting. I won't offer formally to defer it now but I will after further discussion. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #58 Vanderhoef: The discussion could happen before second reading and to not support it might possibly kill it. I don't know what votes we have but I would be willing to have that discussion with you at a second reading. Kanner: Well I think you hear possibilities of four people having some interest so I don't think it's going to die if we don't discuss it next week. Vanderhoef: Well why... Kanner: Or our next meeting. Vanderhoefi Why I would like to go forward with a reading right now is that this is a notification to both our staff, who has to go through certification on the 50/50 kinds of things. It is work that they restaurant establishments will have to go through to start working towards certification and it may mean changes in their business plan if we go to the zero. So anything that we could do to expedite this even if it gets killed on the second or third reading that could happen but I think it behooves us to put them on notice that we are interested in going directly to the zero. Pfab: I would like to ask Dee if you would be willing to entertain the idea of removing the definition... State definition of restaurants from this. If you are then I could support it because otherwise you still have an uneven playing field. Vanderhoef: Okay I think we addressed that earlier, Irvin, and we had the whole Council had agreed to that until it was pointed out that that's the piece that has not been (can't hear) at the State Law. And we wanted to get our ordinance going and then that is another amendment that I think will come at some point in time. But that group of people have not had the notice, am I correct Eleanor that the folks that are in the 50 seat and under group have not been at our heatings to even talk about that because they knew by our definition we were excluding them on this particular amendment? Pfab: I wouldn't be able to support it unless we say as you stated all places where food is served, period. Dilkes: It has been and continues to be my legal advice, which I believe the Attorney General concurs with, that not referencing the public place definition in the State Code is a mistake. Vanderhoefi And that's where this comes in, Irvin, is that...the whole thing could be struck down if we try to add this at this point. At a later time we can explore that with the Attorney General and the State Legislature or This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #59 where ever we need to go with it but it would jeopardize what we have already accomplished. Pfab: I would like to address the City Attorney and that is if we are looking for a level playing field how does what you are proposing...how does that get to that intent? Dilkes: My job is not one of policy. My job is to give you legal advice. So you're going to have to address the level playing field issues within the context of the legal advice that I'm giving you. Pfab: So, okay so maybe what we should be working on is smoking is prohibited in all public places and all places of employment within the City and that would take care of that. Lehman: That's not what the motion is Irvin. And that's not what you seconded. Vanderhoef: And that's what we have not... Champion: The State Code doesn't identify a public place with less...of less than 50 people and what Eleanor said to you is that it would be...it could easily be fought in court if you include places of under 50 people. It's simple. It's legal advice. You know you're used to taking that. Pfab: Thank you (can't hear) Wilburn: There are two reasons why I will not support this tonight. One because of the discussion that just occurred about if you go to that total ban what does that mean and what will it look like? The second reason...again I pointed out that this type of discussion about just the concept of a smoking ban has been occurring for a year, more intensely in the last couple three months. But that in conversations not just from folks here present with CAFE and not with CAFE, people for and against and people just in daily walk of life have talked to me about the concept of...and there'll be disagreement here (can't understand) about whether you serve more food than alcohol then that would be a place where people wouldn't want to have that. So at this point tonight I would not entertain that until...you know there's been no movement for a total ban. And I'm not just talking about from the organized groups but from just the general public that has addressed me about this. And that's why I would not consider that until I see greater movement about a total ban. Vanderhoef: Well I have to say that the calls that I have received have all. And they have said support the ordinance I have asked even whether they would support the 100% ban and I have uniformly got yes's. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #60 Wilburn: And I didn't start heating that until some of the restaurateurs, some present here started putting that forth when they realized that we were going to move forward with this. So... Lehman: What's your pleasure folks? Kanner: Dee, I prefer that we ban it from any place that has a food license, which would be stricter than yours. And then my second level would be to drop down to the or instead of and, serve or prepare. I might be willing to support your proposal with the and in there, serve and prepare. But as we've heard from a number of people we have some different opinions. I think it's still possible to pass and at this point I'm going to move that we defer it...this ordinance or amendment to our next formal meeting which will allow us to put it on a work session. And I hope that we will pass that so that we can have further discussion on that at our next meeting. Lehman: We have a motion to defer. Is there a second? Pfab: Not at this time. Not from me. Lehman: We do not have a second. Pfab: Okay, I would suggest that...to Dee that the change in your proposal follow what Steven had said. Anybody with a food license and remove the and/or so that...or put that in food is prepared or served. Then I would support it. Dilkes: Just a minute. On food license...and I can't put my hand on the particular part of the code but you're talking State facilities that serve food and that is a very... Kanner: About 225 that it was noted in my list. Dilkes: No, but those are just...those are restaurants. There are a lot of places that have...require...food establishments under the Code that have to be licensed that are not restaurants. Kanner: No, these include places like food stands at University. So yes they include more than just restaurants. They include gas stations... Dilkes: Correctional facilities. Pfab: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #61 Dilkes: Okay. Champion: Correctional facilities? Pfab: Yes. Yes. Champion: Oh come on you people are (can't hear) Kaimer: They don't allow smoking...there's not smoking allowed anyhow in the... Dilkes: Well those are jurisdictional issues. I'm just telling you that is a very broad group. Kanner: But it's about 225. That's correct. Lehman: There are obviously lots of issues here that we aren't going to resolve here tonight and I guess would you be willing to withdrawal your motion? Vanderhoef: Okay then I'll withdrawal this and request that it be put on the work session in two weeks. Pfab: And I would make that the second support in... Lehman: You're withdrawing your second. Pfab: No, no. No, I'm just saying... Lehman: You're not going to withdrawal your second? Pfab: To get three people to put this on the work session I am...will be the second person. Lehman: Will you withdrawal you second? O'Donnell: To be first. Lehman: For the motion. Pfab: Okay I guess I will withdrawal my... Lehman: Thank you. Are there four people who would like this on the work session for the...in two weeks? Kanner: Dee, I don't... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #12 Page #62 (End of Side One, 02-05) Karmer: ...deferral which was the same thing. Vanderhoef: Because I want to make sure that it's on the work session. [,ehman: All right, do we have four to...for the work session? Are there folks that want to talk about this further? Kanner: Yeah. Pfab: Yes. Lehman: One, two, fine. Thank you very much. Item 13. Dilkes: Can...Before we leave that item I just need to correct something that was said by one of the member of the public about a referendum petition and that having to be filed within 10 days. The procedure for referendum is under the City Charter and it is a 60 day requirement not a ten day requirement. Lehman: Okay. Castillo: It is 60 days for City cause State is ten. Lehman: Thank you. Dilkes: There is not initiative in referendum procedure under that State Code. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #13 Page #63 ITEM NO. 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE IOWA CITY SANITARY LANDFILL. Champion: Move the resolution. Vanderhoef: Second. Pfab: Second. O'Donnell: I can't hear. Lehman: Wait. We have a motion by Champion and a second by Vanderhoef. Karmer: Are we on thirteen here? Lehman: We're on thirteen. The estimated cost of that consulting service is $178,600. Karmer: I had a question about that. Lehman: Yes. Kanner: There's a group here that grouping with, I believe, poplar trees in landfills. Atkins: Yes. Kanner: And they're having quite a bit of success apparently throughout the country in their projects in using poplar trees in soaking up some of the pollutants, I guess. Vanderhoef: The leachate. Kanner: The leachate. Atkins: We've done that. (cant' hear) Kanner: Is this incorporated into this design at all? Atkins: That's a...that's a cut...it's a different issue but we do...we have been involved in that. I'm...I couldn't tell you the status of it. I knew that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. # 13 Page #64 we had put some in. We had to take some out. There was a number of...they were puncturing the liner in the landfill. But this is just...this is the design in accordance with DNR regulation of our next cell. I could find out more about that for you if (can't hear). Lehman: Steve, I think the cell is the portion of the landfill where they put in the liner in the cell where you put in the (can't hear) Atkins: Yes. Lehman: The poplars are on top. We have done that. Karmer: But...well I think they're also looking at using poplars on the outside of it to capture... Lehman: Here we go. Dan Scott: I can try to address that I think. What we are talking about tonight is a design contract for the next landfill cell, which is basically the base of a cell which would be the floor. And I think what you're talking about it a system that uses the popular trees for a cap on top of the solid waste. And that's something that we have looked into... Atkins: We have done that. Scott: ...and we have experimented with. And quite frankly and the results are questionable so... Pfab: I... Vanderhoef: For the ones that are on top or the ones that might be around it? Scott: The ones that.., go ahead. Kanner: Is...yeah, is there some design possibility for incorporating into building the cell from the beginning to use the poplar trees and things like that? Atkins: You really can't exercise the use of the poplar tree, ifI recall. And, not to put words in your mouth was that we needed to use it for the purposes of cover because the poplar tree.., it was the root system of the poplar tree that had a cleansing process... Lehman: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #13 Page #65 Atkins: ...that saved us some money. Now as far as building a perimeter with them, I suspect we could do that but I suspect we also have DNR regulations that we have to... Scott: Well that's true and we already have a perimeter. Atkins: ...be able to catch the blowing paper and things such as that. Scott: Right, we... Vanderhoefi And we have to be sure that we can still get our trucks and equipment in there while we're working the landfill. So... Scott: Right. Vanderhoef: ...trees around it prior to the total fill might not be as useful as we might wish it to be. Lehman: But we're talking about here in the cell itself. The floor... Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: ... the part of the landfill where we put... Scott: Yes. That's what...this is tonight. And we do have some trees for a barrier. And we have looked at the trees as a system for a cap, which as Steve was saying is a method of reducing the amount of rainfall that gets into the solid waste. We have looked at that. This does not include that. Vanderhoef: I have a different question if you're finished with this. Okay? Scott: Okay. Vanderhoef: Are we using the ground tires again for the bottom of the cell? Scott: This...we will try to for this, yes. Vanderhoef: Do we have any kind of report now...I can't remember how many years ago we did the ground tires. Scott: Yeah. Atkins: A few years ago (can't hear) Scott: (can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accorate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #13 Page #66 Atkins: That's really recent. Scott: Yeah. Yeah a report as far as how they worked or what? Vanderhoef: Yeah. Scott: Oh, they worked very well. The...from an operations point of view, from a public relations pint of view, and from a environmental point of view they performed very well. And it's something that we'll try to use again. Lehman: Good. Vanderhoef: Super. Lehman: Thank you. Scott: Sure. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries (7/0). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #14 Page #67 ITEM NO. 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE AND FACADE TO CHINA STAR IN THE OLD CAPITAL TOWN CENTER ON CLINTON STREET. O'Donnell: So moved. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'DonneI1, seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Karmer: Have we gotten a picture of this site? I haven't seen this. I... Atkins: I don't know. Kanner: I...they'd probably be all right but I would move to defer this until we... Vanderhoef: Rick, were you on that committee? Kanner: ...see what it looks like. Vanderhoef: That's what I thought. Kanner: We usually do get a picture. Atkins: Yeah, I know. Rick Fosse: We've got one upstairs if you want me to mn up and get it. Kanner: Could we move this to the end of...a few spaces down or until Rick gets back and... Fosse: I need to be here for the next item. Lehman: He needs to be here for the next one too. Fosse: But I'll run up and get it after next item. O'Donnell: We have a Design Review Committee who's voted 5/0 to approve this. Is that right? Fosse: Yes. Yep. O'Dormell: I'm comfortable with the Design Review Committee. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #14 Page #68 Kaimer: I'd like to take a look at it and just wait...see if we can get a couple minutes to look at it. Lehman: Well I have no problem with Rick...if you want to go up and get it. Can we move... Pfab: After this next one. Vanderhoefi I move we amend the agenda... Lehman: Agenda by... Pfab: Until he returns. Vanderhoef: He can go get it while we're doing public announcements. Lehman: On number 16. Vanderhoef: Um-huh. Fosse: Okay. I'll do that. Pfab: Somebody... Lehman: All right, we'll do 16 and when you get back we'll immediately start up with 14. Fosse: Okay. Lehman: Thank you. (Returned to item number 14 after item no. 16) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #16 Page #69 ITEM NO. 16 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 770 AND RESOLUTION NO. 71-253 TO DISBAND THE PROJECT GREEN "FUND" AS A CITY FUND. Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilbum. Kanner: What did we do last year in regards to this? I thought we had already passed something. Helling: No. Kanner: What did we pass last year in regards to this? Helling: We didn't really pass anything that I can recall last year. This started about a year ago. The Project Green was looking into becoming a 5013 C or whatever it is...anyway, a private non-profit on its own so that they could handle their own fund and make decisions about it rather than having the City do it, which we've done for about 20 years. And this is the culmination of that process. They have now achieved that status and so they would now be in control of the Green Fund and we would just provide accounting services for them. Champion: That's terrific. Kanner: We voted on something in regards to this. Atkins: Boy, I sure don't recall...I do remember we had some... Helling: This is the first that I remember this. Oh, I think, maybe it would have been to renew the...or to appoint one or two people to the Green Fund Board because they needed to get the 5013C status or 5031 or whatever...before they could actually dissolve the Board. And the Council does make those appointments so we may have made an appointment to that Board, But this will dissolve it. Lebanan: Further discussion? Roll call. Pfab: Do you want me to pass it out? I'll pass it around. Lehman: Motion carries (7/0). We're back to number 14... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #14 Page #70 (CONTINUED) ITEM NO. 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE AND FACADE TO CHINA STAR IN THE OLD CAPITAL TOWN CENTER ON CLINTON STREET. Lehman: We're back to number 14 which we already have a motion and second for. O'Donnell: It looks absolutely fantastic. Lehman: This is a... Pfab: I don't Champion: It looks like a sign for a restaurant. O'Donnell: A Chinese restaurant. O'Dormell: The Design Review Committee did an outstanding job. Lehman: That's reviewed by O'Donnell, Incorporated. O'Donnell: Absolutely. Totally color blind. Lehman: Right. Kanner: You like the shocking pink colors? O'Donnell: I love it. Kanner: All right. Lehman: Those colors may not be tree. All right, now that we've seen the sign is there any other discussion of the China Star sign? Kanner: I just want to say I'm glad to see China Star coming back. They were in the Ped. Mall and with some worry on part ora number of people I think of whether they would come back and it's good to see them in the Old Capitol Mall. Lehman: Absolutely. Karmer: I look forward to that lo-mein. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries (7/0). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #15 Page #71 ITEM NO. 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURT HILL TRUNK SEWER IMPROYMENTS PROJECT. Lehman: Engineers estimate was 1 million dollars. The Public Works Engineer recommend the award of the contract to Van Howen and Associates of Clive, Iowa. And that bid was $1,071,000. Champion: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: I happily second this. Lehman: We have a motion by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: Could I inquire as to why we didn't take the low bid? What the...I'm not aware of what all went on there and I'd appreciate it... Fosse: Okay. Our specifications required that to be a successful bidder you need to submit three favorable references and the references that we contacted from the low bidder did not respond. They chose not to respond. We gave the low bidder an opportunity to produce additional references. He could not and so they did not meet the requirements of the bid. They did not have three favorable references. Pfab: So the low bidder realizes what happened and that's...he knows that he didn't do it and everything's cool with him? Fosse: I believe so. Pfab: Okay. I just...it was looking...I looked at that thing and I said why and you told me. Thank you. Lehman: Yeah, you're right. It's very unusual. We were fortunate enough to get ten bids and there was quite a variation. Roll call. Motion carries (7/0). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #20 Page #72 ITEM NO. 20. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Lehman: Irvin? Pfab: Nothing now. Lehman: Connie? Champion: Nothing. Lehman: Mike? O'Donnell: Nothing today. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: Just to say that I did go to Des Moines this week for this new State League of Cities Voices of Iowa, which is a lobbying group put together of elected officials throughout the state. I have a summary of that and I will put it in the next packet. And I want you all to be aware that you are welcome to go on-line and get the printouts that are coming out from our lobbyists in Des Moines sometimes daily, sometimes every other day, depends on what would be happening that day in the legislature. They also gave us some tips on how to lobby legislatures. And we had a couple of speakers from the Des Moines area, one senator and one representative, and they were very clear that we as elected officials are welcome to come to Des Moines at any time and sit in on their committee meetings. And that their agendas are on the web so if we want to look ahead and see what's there we can see if there's an issue that we'd like to come down and listen to. Lehman: Okay. Ross? Wilbum: We've got the library extension ground breaking Saturday? Lehman: Saturday morning. Big, big event. Wilbum: Yeah so look forward to being there. Lehman: Certainly be great if we could all be there. O'Donnell: I have to work. Wilbum: My only other thing is congratulations to the Iowa Hawkeye Women's Team who took down nationally ranked Purdue. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #20 Page #73 Vanderhoef: Go Hawks. Lehman: Great, great game. A lot of fun. Steven? Kanner: A few things. First, in regards to the First Avenue and the side walks...Emie, has there been any discussion with the property owner there? Lehman: I don't know where we've left that off. Atkins: You were going to talk to Mr. Thomas. Lehman: I know. Atkins: We've talked to the property owner. In fact you're going to see it in your capital plan. We think we've reached agreement by Montclair Apartments. So really Thomas family is the only one that's left. Lehman: I realize that but I've talked to staff folks and I don't know where we are as far as (can't understand) with Mr. Thomas. Atkins: Something I'11... Kanner: Could someone set up an appmntment or... Lehman: Yeah. Kanner: ...to do that? Atkins: Let me check back on that for you. Lehman: All right. Atkins: I'll get back with you. Pfab: I'll tell you what, we'll stash them. Kanner: And... Champion: It's no good. Karmer: ...I had some concern about the Senior Dining and the Senior Center and the take over by Elderly Services. It looks like we're going to be having some negotiations that are taking place. Could we get a memo... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #20 Page #74 Atkins: Yeah, that's probably a good idea. I think... Kanner: ... from Linda on what's happening with that? Atkins: We'll get something. Okay, Jill's already said we've already done it. Helling: Yeah, it's been requested. Kanner: Okay. Atkins: Yep, so we'll be getting something. Karmer: Thank you. And then also vault covers, downtown vault covers. Have we... in our packet, actually this week, we got a letter from John Gross in concern with that. Has anything happened with the letters of releasing liability to the City? Dilkes: I've actually kind of been...I mean that's my deal. And I'm kind of struggling with the best way to handle that given that those vaults have been there for so long. I'm thinking at this point that probably the best thing to do put an ordinance in place specifying what the requirements are and then proceeding with the letter. So I've got the first few paragraphs of that ordinance drafted anyway. Kanner: Okay, thank you. And then also another thing from the past, what's the status of the art from ...looking into acquiring some art from the UI Master's Thesis Program for the building? Atkins: I know it had gone to the Public Art Advisory and I would have asked Karin tonight but I'm sorry she's not and I'll find out. Kanner: I know Bud Stockman's looking for a few Van Gogh's and other upcoming artists... Lehman: Don't we all. Kanner: ...out at his place. So maybe we could... Atkins: If you say so. Kanner: That's the word on the street that I heard. And... Atkins: Bud Stockman Street. Kanner: We also got a report from our City Attorney on the PCRB sustained complaint and maybe we ought to talk about that at a work session. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #20 Page #75 Lehman: Did that letter indicate.., if I'm not mistaken the letter indicated... Champion: There was a change in procedure? Atkins: Yeah. Lehman: Yeah, that the Chief had addressed the issue of... Atkins: They had a respectful difference of opinion. Dilkes: I think it said...I think it said basically two things. Number one there was a fact...there was a fact issue that came to light in the second interview of the complainant that the PCRB did on its own that did not come out in the Police Chief's interview of the complainant. Lehman: Right. That's right. Dilkes: And that was a pretty significant fact and I think that accounted for the difference in results. And then secondly, there has been...the issue of juvenile consent... Lehman: Right. Dilkes: ...has been addressed more thoroughly in the police rule. Pfab: I would...I think that would be a great thing because I don't think we've had any really discussions on that for quite some time. Champion: It was in the packet. Pfab: I know but I mean to just maybe visit with...work...do some work on that. Lehman: I don't see any... I'm satisfied with the report that we got. Pfab: Well what...okay so there were changes. In what way were the changes made. I read through it and I couldn't tell where the changes were. It said there would be changes but I don't know what they were. Kanner: Yeah, I'm not sure what the changes are as far as consent from a juvenile. Pfab: Right. Kanner: If that's been spelled out. And... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #20 Page #76 Atkins: It has been. Dilkes: It has been. It actually goes into some depth. We can certainly get you a copy of that, that order. It's not my understanding from at least from Sarah's discussions with PCRB's Attorney that there are issues outstanding for them. Pfab: No, I would just like to kind of get a summary from a live person that was involved with it. Whoever. That's what I would like to...so we can talk and... Karmer: Or a summary of what the new policies on juvenile consent. Dilkes: We can get you a copy of that. Atkins: That's... Lehman: All right. Vanderhoef: That would be sufficient. Pfab: It's a start. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: And one final announcement. My sister Rebecca has been in prison for doing non-violent civil disobedience protest against the School of Americas, which is a training ground for actual terrorists action in Central and South America. And it's a place that needs to be shut down. The House of Representatives in the past has voted to cut funding for putting $20 million a year into that. And hopefully we'll pass a bill in the near future that will shut down the School of Americas. She's been in prison for six months in Pekin, Illinois and she's getting out Monday and I'm...I invite Council and the community to come to a reception in her honor, Monday at 7 P.M. the 14th over at 320 East Washington. Come on by. And she's a real peace hero and I admire her greatly for what she's done. Pfab: What's at 321 E... Kanner: 320 East Washington. Pfab: And what it that? O'Donnell: Free food. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #20 Page #77 Karmer: Come on by and you'll see. 7 P.M. Pfab: Okay, I just thought you would say where it is. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: Just come to that address. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002. #21 Page #78 ITEM NO. 21. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Lehman: Okay, Steve? Atkins: Nothing, sir. Lehman: Nothing. Eleanor? Dilkes: Just a gentle reminder that if you can raise issues at the work session that staff needs to investigate and respond to it would be much appreciated. Lehman: Yeah, I think that's... O'Donnell: Very good. Dilkes: I just...you need to just remember that. I think it furthers the provision of good information from staff to the Council as well as efficient and effective government. 0'Donnell: You're exactly right. Lehman: Yeah, good point. Marian? Do we have a motion to adjourn? O'Donnell: I move. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. P fab: Lehman: Seconded by Pfab. All in favor? Vanderhoefi We're out of here. Lehman: Opposed? Meeting adjourned. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of January 8, 2002.