Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-07 Transcription January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 1 January 7, 2002 Special Work Session 6:40 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Pfab, Kanner Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Davidson, Winkelhake, Boothroy, Grosvenor TAPES: 02-02 BOTH SIDES; 02-03 SIDE ONE Plannin~ & Zonin~ JeffDavidson/Thank you Mr. Mayor. Items A through E on your agenda, under Planning & Zoning Matters are setting public hearings so you'll get more information about these at a later meeting. A. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 22 ON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 95 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN COURT STREET AND LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, RS-5, AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY, RS-8, TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY. (REZ01-00023/SUB01-00025) B. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 22 ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE NORTHERN 184 FEET OF THE 20- FOOT WIDE ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET AND WEST OF DUBUQUE STREET. (VAC01- 00004) C. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 22 ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF NORTHGATE DRIVE. (VAC01-00006) D. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 22 ON A RESOLUTION ANNEXING 4.01 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD. (ANN01- oooos) E. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 22 ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 4.01 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD FROM COUNTRY LOCAL COMMERCIAL, C-1 TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CO-1. (REZ01-0002S) F. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE .63 ACRES FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, I-1, TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, CI-1, LOCATED ON This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 2 THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 WEST, WEST OF RUPPERT ROAD. (RE01-00021). (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Davidson/Item F actually F and G are both second considerations, Item F is the Carousel Motors area between there and the car wash. G. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE WEST BENTON COURT NORTH OF BENTON STREET. (VAC01-00003) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Davidson/Item G is vacating the street for Oaknoll, any questions about those? H. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY (RS-8/OHP) FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD TO ESTABLISH THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT. (REZ01-00019) (PASS AND ADOPT) I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-8/OCE) FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD TO ESTABLISH THE CLARK STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT. (REZ01- 00019) (PASS AND ADOPT) J. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLY (RS-8/OCD) FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD TO ESTABLISH THE DEARBORN STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT. (REZ01-00019) (PASS AND ADOPT) Davidson/Items H, I, and J then are the Longfellow Historic and Conservation Districts, those are all pass and adopt. K. 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) Davidson/Item K is pass and adopt on the Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way where Kirkwood Avenue turns into Lower Muscatine Road, Mr. Mayor. Lehman/I have a question on this one, isn't this the one where the offer to purchase that property was for $1.007 Davidson/My understanding or Eleanor do you? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 3 Dilkes/Which one? I'm sorry which one? Davidson/Item K. Lehman/Item K. Vanderhoef/The vacation. Lehman/The vacation of that. Dilkes/Yes and we were going to and that disposition isn't going forward and we're not, we're going to (can't hear) that vacation. Lehman/We'll defer it, we'll just defer this? Champion/We voted no on it. Dilkes/No, no, I think we're going to vote no on it. Davidson/We've decided to go ahead and, staff's recommendation was to go ahead and vacate it, it's never going to be needed for a road and it will just remain open space in conjunction. Dilkes/Oh so you are going to. Davidson/Yes. Dilkes/The last conversation I had with Karin is that was undecided but the decision is to go ahead and vacate, okay I'm sorry I missed that. Davidson/No we have, yea we discussed that at joint staff and determined it was never going to be needed for a road, it might as well be public property apparently there was some misunderstanding between the church and the staff that negotiated that. Lehman/Okay so we'll vote to vacate it but we will not vote to. Davidson/We will not have a disposition on it then. Lehman/Right. Davidson/Irvin. Pfab/Okay who's property is it? Davidson/It's public property. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 4 Lehman/City property. Pfab/Then why do we have to vacate it? Lehman/The street gets vacated. Davidson/You don't have to vacate it but you would be vacating it for the purposes of a street, it would remain public property, there's a little trail head there in conjunction with the tunnel we just put through. L. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANG1NG THE ZON1NG 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) Davidson/Item I is pass and adopt on the, well your very familiar with this item. M. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF OAKES SIXTH ADDITION, A 30.11 ACRE, 18-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERM1NUS OF BRISTOL AVENUE. (SUB01-00033) Davidson/Item M is new then, actually it's not really new you should be familiar with this, you approved the sensitive areas overlay and the preliminary plat for this already Oakes Sixth Addition. It's a 30 acre, 18 lot residential subdivision up around Bristol Drive, this is the final plat, I don't need to elaborate on this unless there are questions but there is a dedication of open space, utility and walkway easements and there will be a lift station, let's see, there will be a lift station down in this portion of the property which will serve the larger area as well, it shows a little bit better. It shows a little bit better the lift station will be somewhere in this area here and will also serve this area, this area would have to be served by septic systems if it were not for the installation of that lift station, it can not be gravity sewered, it will be a lift station constructed by the developer and then dedicated as part of our sewer system. Irvin. Pfab/What's the advantage to the City to have that, what do you mean by that? Davidson/Well the big advantage with this for us Irvin is that there is a trunk water line that runs through this area between the new water plant and the Rochester Avenue storage tank and we were able to negotiate a very satisfactory arrangement with the developer to have that water line extended. Pfab/So your saying this is a trade off?. The City would take the land that isn't developable. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 5 Davidson/Irvin I was not part of the acquisition so I can't tell you if it was just a trade off but there was a. Pfab/Is there a way we can find what the facts of that were? Davidson/Sure but it has been negotiated with the developer satisfactorily, like I say this is a final plat, you've approved the preliminary already. This area here will be dedicated as public open space then and Parks and Rec. has agreed to take that on. Dilkes/There is going to be a request for deferral on this one, there's some corrections that need to be made on the plat and construction (can't hear) that was late this afternoon that that happened. Davidson/ Oh, okay I was going to say I had a note that it had been approved so. Dilkes/No that was very late this afternoon that. Lehman/Defer until when? Dilkes/Two weeks. N. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING 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) Davidson/Item N is a preliminary plat for Stone Bridge Estates, it's an area north of, well that gives you an idea of where it's located, just north of Windsor Ridge. I hope you appreciate it's retro night, we're not using the power point presentation, we're using overheads. Here's the picture of the plat, there's a walkway easement being dedicated here, that's part of this project, any questions about this? Pfab/Where, is this in the? Davidson/Let me show you Irvin. Pfab/No just a second, that' s not the point I want to ask. Is this the first time this is up? Davidson/This is a preliminary plat so yes this is a resolution to approve. Pfab/So if we approve this, whatever we approve we're stuck with your telling me. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 6 Davidson/Pretty much the preliminary plat is the important part of the platting, once you get the final plat that is in basic agreement with this, this is your opportunity to comment and make any changes that you'd like to make. Kanner/Why do you see something you don't like Irvin. Pfab/No I'm trying to place this, where is this? Davidson/This is Arlington in Windsor Ridge right here the collector street that comes out, t here's some new development going on in this area right now and this is an extension of Camden Road to Ashford Place and then the subdivision is up here. Obviously you can see from the plat that there' s, this will eventually be part of a much larger area, there are stub streets here, here, here, here, so it will be a piece of a much larger residential area eventually. Any other questions? Thank you. O'Donnell/Very good, a new record. Lehman/The record was an awfully good average. Vanderhoef/You could say something to Karin about that. Davidson/Pardon me. Vanderhoef/You could say something to Karin about that. Davidson/I will challenge her the next time I see her. Review Agenda Items Lehman/Review Agenda items. Atkins/I don't have any for you. Lehman/Okay any agenda items from Council. Kanner/Jeff could you stay up there a minute? Davidson/I can. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 7 3f(21). JCCOG TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PLANNER: iNSTALLATION OF SIGNS iNDICATiNG AMBULANCE PARKING ONLY BETWEEN SIGNS AND TWO AWAY ZONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 400 BLOCK OF BLOOMINGTON STREET; DESIGNATION OF THREE CAB STATION LOCATED iN THE 400 BLOCK OF COLLEGE STREET; iNSTALLATION OF NO PARKING ANYTIME SIGNS ON IOWA HIGHWAY 1 TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF NORTHGATE DRIVE. Kanner/Thanks, let's see we've got two traffic signs I had some questions, we had three that Beth wrote us about. Davidson/I believe there's three actions on there yea. Kanner/And I was concerned about two of them or had some questions about number, this is number 3 f(21) and 22. Davidson/Okay I don't have them in order Steven can you just tell me which ones they are? Kanner/Yea just let me get to my other, so that's in our consent calendar. Two ambulance parking spaces for Mercy on Bloomington, that's quite a long time until 12-03 can you explain what the problem is there and what's this going to do in terms of some other parking for hospital visitors and neighborhood folks. Davidson/Yea the two spaces that would be displaced are on street non metered spaces and as far as I can tell they're used for commuter parking, somebody comes in the morning and parks there and leaves there in the afternoon. The request from Mercy is because of their project to construct a new building adjacent to their Emergency entrance, it has displaced the area where when an area comes in it's there for a duration of time, the ambulance people take the person in, they have some paperwork to fill out and the ambulance sits there. If in the meantime another ambulance comes in they have to move the first one in order to get the one that has a patient in it there and so they have to double park it on the street. And what they've requested is just for the duration of their construction project to have these two spaces they are on the north side of the street directly across from where they are building the new addition to have them designated for double parking of an ambulance that is there but is to leave, not to be parked there all day in other words but leaving a short time later. They have stated that when their project is completed they will have room back on their property for the ambulances to double park, that's why they've asked for it to be for the duration of the construction project. Pfab/So is there a sunset provision in or how does that? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 8 Davidson/Right December of 03, what we do is we put a note in the file and when it gets to be December of 03 we have our sign guys go out and take the signs down and they revert back to the on street. Pfab/And if they get finished before. Davidson/Then we do it before. Kanner/Did they already get their parking spots that the Council had approved before because of expansion? Davidson/They will be constructed as part of this project. Kanner/So it's not available yet. Davidson/It's not done yet, right, those spaces are still used for people that are going to the emergency room do park there currently. Kanner/Yea I'm not so crazy about giving them more and more spaces, they're making the decision to expand, that's their decision ! don't know if it's necessarily the best decision but they continue to want more and more parking spaces, it doesn't seem like it's the best thing. Champion/They just want these temporarily. Kanner/Yea but they're getting the other one where they're taking out a tree, I think they're taking out a tree on Bloomington because they're expanding and taking out their parking, and they tore down a neighborhood house there, ! just don't like the direction they're going with that expansion, ! don't think it's necessary, we already have three big hospitals, why do we have to keep expanding, giving more parking spaces like that? Champion/! don't know ! guess if I'm having a heart attack I'll be glad that ambulance isn't blocking my way. Kanner/! don't think that's the issue necessarily, ! think we have pretty good health care here. O'Donnell/And ! think this is a way and try to make it better. Kanner/Well we could have four hospitals, we could costs could go up tremendously. O'Donnell/As we grow we may. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 9 Kanner/It's not really necessary. The other question is on Item F the taxi, my item F 22, the taxi stand. What do we bring in for, we said we were going to get $480 for those spots for year, what do we bring in for the metered spots now? Davidson/ There's a lot of variation in that, those spaces there used to be quite heavily used when Wilson's Sporting Goods was in operation, they were short term meters which are the more lucrative higher rate meters, we've seen increased the term to either 2 hour or 5 hour because those weren't getting used at all with the shorter term. ! can't tell you the exact dollar amount, ! can try and find that out. Karr/If I could address that. Davidson/Sure. Karr/Parking, what we've done you have a resolution on your agenda tonight confirming that is they would be charged for the parking stands are based on the actual rate that the meters would incur for that amount. Davidson/Yea ! assumed that's the way the rates were set. Karr/So that is based on the annual income (can't hear) meter. Davidson/And that's also Steven why there's a lower rate outside the central business district, a higher rate. In two weeks in your council agenda you'll have another one of these for a taxi stand within the central business district and it is at a higher rate because those meters make more money. Kanner/So Marian your saying that the approximate average for those meters is $480 a year that it brings in. Karr/That's what I was told yes sir. Vanderhoef/And so that's what your going to charge (can't hear)? Karr/We're taking that space out of metered commission if you will and replacing it with a taxi cab space and they're paying the same amount to the city that would have been generated from the space revenue. Pfab/! think there's maybe a fine sense of difference here, Steven says it's an average ! don't want to use the word "take" from the meter or revenue producing production as a meter, or are you saying that is what the total yearly income would be if it was fully utilized? Davidson/I think what that is it's based on actual usage and it's an average for meters outside of the central business district. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 10 Pfab/But this isn't an average meter maybe. Champion/It's less than average. Davidson/Well that's how the rate is calculated that the taxi company's pay. Pfab/What is the total revenue that that meter could make in a year. Davidson/Well if it was used 100 % of the time, well you'd have to take, ! don't know Irvin ! would have to calculate that. Pfab/That's what I'm looking for. Davidson/The fee, let me be clear Irvin, the fee being charged is not what that meter makes in a year, it is an average for meters outside of the central business district. Pfab/That's not the question I'm asking you, what is the total possible revenue that meter would make if it was in full use 100% percent for a full year. Davidson/I'll have the information for you tomorrow night. Pfab/That's the information ! want. Davidson/I'll have it for you tomorrow night. Kanner/! think that's important to know, but the main direction I'm going with this, when we decided to buy that building from Wilson's Sporting Goods ! had asked that we make a commitment to see if we could rent that out so it could produce some income because we lost a property tax from that and Council at that time did not wish to do that but there was ! would sense some agreement that we would look into possibly renting that out or using that space in some way and so if we make, if we put these spaces for taxi cabs we take away parking for a possible tenant there but we can make even more money perhaps and do better for the city, ! think that's a good building to use, ! think there's a, I've talked to people who are interested in that space and ! think we ought to, before we give this space, all three spaces, for ! assume it's a year commitment at least that we look at the issue of what we want to do with that building. Are we just going to have it sit there empty and not produce any revenue? ! think there's some people that might be willing to fix it up. ! think ! talked to Steve or somebody involved with that building and said it needs some fixing up, we should look at if it's worth fixing up at all, some of the floor might need some support and if we can rent it out and ! think that might be a better route to go than to making it into a taxi cab stand space. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 11 Pfab/Well there's another side to that now it might reduce the desirability of the building to a potential renter if there's a taxi space there but if the city gets 100 % of what the meter would produce that changes, that makes the, tips the scales one way or the other so in other words that's what the meter will produce, that's what we get and it's not, it's relatively difficult to object to the taxi people being there because we've got, it's income from the meter as it's set up. Davidson/Yea just for your information, I mean what the cab companies do is just double park wherever they can unless they have a stand specifically for their use and ! think it's getting tight enough downtown that that's why this particular company has decided to get some specific stands for their use. Kanner/And it's possible they could rent next door from the Chamber building, or one of the garages, they can get a, they're right next door to the garage, why not get a space? Davidson/I think what's happened Steven is they used to have right to be on the Greyhound Bus property and the proprietor of that basically kicked them off and so they're looking for some space and this is what they've asked the city to do. Kanner/Well you say the proprietor, the manager of Greyhound is the person who owns Yellow Cab is my understanding. Davidson/No Greyhound I believe leases the space from the city and then Yellow Cab is a subtenant to Greyhound. Kanner/But the owner of Yellow Cab also manages, he's the manager of Greyhound contract. Davidson/! believe there is some relationship between him and Greyhound yes. Kanner/So your saying the national Greyhound probably didn't want him to do that? Davidson/Well ! think they want the space for their own use. Kanner/Where are they going to park with the new parking ramp on the Burlington? Davidson/We'll have cab stands along the street in front of the building. Kanner/In any case I think we ought to look into that building and see if we can make any use of it, it seems a shame to be having it sit there empty. Lehman/I don't have a problem, I don't know that. Atkins/Oh the building's not empty, the whole lower floor is storage. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 12 Kanner/Storage but the former retail space I assume is not being used much. Atkins/That's right. O'Donnell/I think there's some merit to that. Lehman/Well I wouldn't have any problem finding a use for the building but on the other hand when the parking ramp is sitting right adjacent to the building I can't imagine that a taxi stand in front would affect being able to lease the building with the ramp being right there. O'Donnell/I don't either. Vanderhoef/I agree with that piece. Lehman/Well if we want to take it off the consent calendar and deal with it separately tomorrow night we can certainly do that. Davidson/And I will give the Mayor a sheet of with the information Irvin's requested before the item tomorrow night. Lehman/Okay. O'Donnell/Okay. Kanner/Can we get a memo from the City Manager on the possibility of using that space in some way? Vanderhoef/Well lets at least talk about that, put it on an agenda or something. Atkins/I'm sorry I didn't hear you Dee. Vanderhoef/I said let's talk about possible future of that building to have it sitting empty or partially empty is not real good for the building or anything else so I'd go with that. Atkins/Do you want me to prepare something kind of summarizing the issues for you? Vanderhoef/Yes. Lehman/Well I suspect if we had some idea of what our plans are for that building and time frame wouldn't hurt anything. Atkins/Okay we'll prepare that for you. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 13 ITEM 3f(17). BRIAN HAMILTON: DELAYS DUE TO TRAINS Vanderhoef/Okay then I have a question for Jeff and you probably haven't seen the letter but we have a letter to Council in this packet talking about delays and the railroad crossing over on Melrose. Davidson/Yes I saw that, in fact a couple people called me as well. Vanderhoef/And I would like staff input on to how often this happens and what are chances are. Davidson/Yea this is a relatively long term issue, when Mr. Yocum was here with the railroad he really tried to make a concerted effort to not have that crossing blocked at least during times when elementary school kids were going to school and I think we were very successful in doing that. There's been a lot of changes in the railroad recently, we don't even really know who the people are to work with these days. You know the bottom line is the railroad has the right to be there legally, there's absolutely nothing we can do legally, it's just a matter of trying to work something out with them informally and going back to Mayor's that were here 20 years ago we've been trying to do that and sometimes you get cooperation and sometimes you don't. The bottom line is they were here first they have the right to be there, they can block the street, it's very difficult to enforce those things and you know I have to unfortunately tell the people who have called that there's just little that the city can do, I think there's something in the code of ordinance that you can't block it for more than 10 or 15 minutes or something like that, but even that is extreme, it takes like, it requires like 3 policeman to enforce that, one at each end of the train, and one to ticket the conductor, it's very very difficult and legally they have the right to be there. Vanderhoef/So the new siting and so forth out in the Amana's is not helping this particular issue or do we know why we're parked there? Davidson/This area is part of their main line and I believe, my understanding of why they stage the trains there is that they may be doing some type of switching down in their yard they need to leave the train there until they get everything set up down in the yard for the through train to come through and that's why the train sits there for a duration of time. I believe they're still using the new interchange I haven't noticed during the late afternoon early afternoon like there used to be interchange traffic in town. Vanderhoef/And so your saying at the repair yard down by Highway 6 that that's where they're having to rearrange things so this through train can come through. Davidson/Well at Dodge Street where their main yards are there at Dodge Street. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 14 Vanderhoef/Okay. Davidson/Dee it's very frustrating. Vanderhoef/It is and ! don't know whether a phone call or. Davidson/Like ! say Dee unfortunately we don't even know who to call right now. Vanderhoef/No ! mean to the person who wrote the letter. Davidson/Oh to the person sure, it may be very well be one of the person I've spoken with about this. Vanderhoef/And is trying to come to Council for some okay. Pfab/Is there a long range alternative to that? Is there a tunnel? Davidson/No you can't, well you can put the street over or under, you can't move the railroad because the grade has to remain the same for the trains and on a street of that relatively low traffic volume the school issue notwithstanding probably is not something we would consider. Pfab/Well I'm more concerned about pedestrian traffic because it's such a high pedestrian area traffic area, that's the person, cars you know they can get up and go around and that's not a big issue. But for people walking it is an almost attractive nuisance to try to figure out how to get from (can't hear) across. Davidson/We can sure try and contact them Irvin but there's been enough frustration during the years dealing with the railroad ! certainly wouldn't want to guarantee you we were going to accomplish something. Pfab/No ! mean is there other alternatives not moving the train? Is there a way for people to get back and forth? People, walking, pedestrians. Davidson/Sure and you know ! think there would probably need to be a little bit better assessment of how great the problem is, ! think we went from there being no problem to know there's a problem some of the time, well how much of a problem is there? You know you have a lot of issues with pedestrian safety and places that quite frankly are probably a higher volume and higher risk than this location so ! think if you seriously wanted to consider like an overpass for pedestrians or something like that you'd want to weigh that against other areas in town as well. Pfab/Is there a way to find out, how would you go about to find out how much of a problem it is? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 15 Davidson/Well I think a good thing to do would be anecdotally to ask the principal at the school there, Roosevelt School if you know kids are reporting issues and then maybe just try and, you know we could send some interns out to just ask people who are walking through there the various times of day hey is the train blocking this very often and just very anecdotally and find out that way. Pfab/I think we ought to at least get some kind of an idea, you know we got one letter, you know it's not a snow storm but, that letter is scary, that person had a point and so anyway. 3f(23) TWO PETITIONS RECEIVED FROM 16 iNDIVIDUALS REGARDING A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT GILBERT AND COURT. Kanner/Jeff and I was wondering if Council would be interested in getting a response in the next couple of weeks to the request from Uptown Bill's small MALL about a traffic light at Gilbert. Davidson/Yea we're investigating that right now Steven, I've talked with them. Kanner/Okay so we'll get a memo in a couple weeks then. Davidson/Yea maybe a little bit longer depending on how long it takes us to, but yea we're investigating that, yea. Wilburn/But you've communicated with them though. Davidson/Yea we have. Kanner/Okay thank you. Lehman/Other agenda items. ITEM NO. 8. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCOTT BOULEVARD EXTENSION PHASE IV PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. Karr/Mr. Mayor just noting for the record you received tonight a revised Item No. 8 and it's just changing the project name from Scott Boulevard Extension part 6, I'm sorry part 4 to the ACT to Rochester Avenue component, that's just a clarification, you received that tonight. Pfab/Where is this one? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 16 Lehman/Hand out tonight. ITEM NO. 19. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. Karr/It' s just a hand out, just noting it and also a revised Item 19, announcing a Planning & Zoning vacancy and extending the application deadlines for the Airport Commission, Historic Preservation and Telecommunications Commission. Kanner/I'm sorry I missed the last part you said there. Karr/And also a hand out labeled Item No. 19, which is announcement of vacancies which added a Planning & Zoning vacancy and changed the appointment date and application deadline for previously announced Airport, Historic Preservation and Telecommunication. Kanner/Okay thanks. Lehman/Okay. Council Appointments Lehman/Council Appointments. Airport Zoning Board I don't think there was an application. Vanderhoef/No. Lehman/Animal Care and Adoption Center Advisory Board there was one person as I recall. Vanderhoef/Mary Ann Dennis I think she would be a very fine person. Wilburn/I agree. O'Donnell/Fine. Champion/I do too. Kanner/We should interview the (can't hear). Lehman/There you go. Board of Adjustments. Champion/I would like to nominate Eric Gidal. O'Donnell/I'll second that. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 17 Lehman/Are we, is that acceptable? How do you spell the last name? Champion/Gidal, I don't think I pronounced it correctly. Wilburn/That's the correct spelling though. Lehman/Eric is that right? Kanner/I'm not too familiar with either one of them Connie I was wondering if you had a particular reason for Eric. Champion/Well both candidates were excellent, they both live in the same area of town, I think I chose Eric over the other candidate because he's kind of younger, been involved in a neighborhood and I think it's kind of nice to get some younger people involved in things. Kanner/Yea it's interesting, it's good I think the Northside Neighborhood wants to get involved and it appears they made an effort to get some people to apply for this. Champion/Yea they're both yea in that neighborhood. Lehman/Okay on the Board of Appeals Tom Werderitsch's term has expired and apparently he has reapplied is that? Champion/Good for him. O'Donnell/He's a great guy. Lehman/He's a great guy I don't know why but that's. Vanderhoef/Asking for five more years after he's already served 10. Lehman/Well that's what he's asking if we would like him to do, I mean do we have? Vanderhoef/This is the second time we have advertised I believe, am I correct on that? Wilburn/Yea. Vanderhoef/Then I say we go with it, we've certainly had a long time period out there for people to apply if they were interested. O'Donnell/I certainly support him. Vanderhoef/I do to. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 18 Lehman/Okey doke, we'll reappoint Tom. Parking on Downtown Private Property (IP3 of 1/3 info. packet) JeffDavidson/You have a memorandum from the Director of Planning. What we are interested in knowing just having a brief discussion tonight is whether or not you have any interest in reconsidering the city's policy with respect to private property in the Central Business District zone, CB-10 zone. The existing policy which has been in place at least until the 70's is we obviously in the downtown area want to encourage the intensive use of land, we don't want surface parking lots breaking up the continuity of the downtown streetscape, we also want to try and have pedestrian friendly environment as we can downtown with obviously very intensive use of property, buildings built from lot line to lot line without gaps in them. Because of that policy we have deemed it appropriate for the city to be the entity that provides parking in the Central Business District by virtue of the fact that through our bonding capacity we have the ability to build very large expensive structures that sort of get all the parking in one area and then allow that intensive use of the downtown for non parking uses. There are only two exceptions which are hotels and elderly housing where your even allowed to have private parking in the Central Business District Zone, and it requires a special exception through the Board of Adjustment for any private parking to be provided and we have had a request from an entity who desires to do a redevelopment project on Iowa Avenue and we have in preparing the staff report for the Board of Adjustment given this a lot of thought and it's occurred to us that what may be happening here is a defacto change in policy that you may or may not agree with and that's sort of what we're here tonight to see is if you would like us to prepare any changes. Our notion is that it may be appropriate to consider private parking facilities to be allowed under very, very strictly prescribed circumstances because we do not want to compromise those desires that we have for maintaining a very intensive successful downtown. However we also don't want to ignore that things have changed in the world and from 30 to 40 years ago to now the automobile clearly has a role that it did not have years and years ago and so we want to try and be sensitive to that as well. I can tell you from my own personal experience having just been involved in the management of the Tower Place project that we now have I believe 7 of the 9 spaces leased in that structure and if it were not for the parking that is part of that structure I don't think we, I said leased as you all know we've actually sold them. We would not have sold those properties I don't think any of them if it had not been for the parking component that's part of that project. People wanted to have space in that structure because there is parking right there. And this was a very, very important thing for employee parking, in fact I would say probably the employee parking aspect of it was probably the most important of the people who bought space from us. The entity that we are working with on the project on Iowa Avenue has requested that the parking be 22 spaces be established in a structure that would have 18 apartment units and about 8,000 square feet of retail space and This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 19 what we've indicated to this individual is that staff could probably support the notion of private park for the employees of the retail space and for the residences. Not for short term people coming to the retail use, we feel the city can provide that. But in fact if this individual asked us for parking permits in lieu of the spaces that he's willing to provide we couldn't grant that risk, we have a waiting list for permits and we're actually trying to kind of see how Tower Place is doing with short term parking before we put permits in it and so we really feel like there's a situation here where they're willing to provide underground subterranean parking which is very, very expensive to provide but is the kind of parking that you like to see in the downtown area because it gets out of the way and for someone willing to do that for long term type uses we think we can support it but that is a change in your current policy. And ! guess we would like some input from you as to whether or not you would like this sort of defacto policy to become the official policy and have us amend the zoning ordinance accordingly. Irvin. Pfab/At this point are you at liberty to describe? I have a couple questions, in other words are you at liberty to discuss what is going on? Davidson/We're not here to discuss that project Irvin, ! mean we're here to discuss the policy. Pfab/So I'm saying to you in this case is there other alternative uses for that underground space? Davidson/I'm sure there is, there are buildings all over downtown that have subterranean space. Pfab/So now we are going to put up another huge parking ramp and are any of them running full at this time? Davidson/We have just checked the usage of the parking facilities, in fact I've got the information right here. Capital Street is actually doing better than, it's actually doing about the same as a year ago and given the situation with the ramp we feel like that is pretty healthy given the situation with the mall we should say we feel like that's a pretty healthy situation because the mall obviously has a lot of vacant retail space that hopefully will be (can't hear). Pfab/So percentage wise are you, can you explain percentage wise utilization of those? Davidson/It varies considerably during the day, Capital Street during afternoon it looks like is running about almost 700 out of 875 spaces. Dubuque Street looks like once again during the afternoon peak although morning is also very good, there's a lot more permits in Dubuque so the morning number would be higher there. It looks like that's about 475 to 500 out of 625 spaces so you know roughly. And then Tower Place, Tower Place is still fairly flat because ! think people are getting This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 20 used to it, it looks like it's running about 40 or 50 percent right now but that's to be expected, we really haven't done much marketing on that facility. Pfab/That one gets full, as soon as you start raising one then it won't be long the other one will be on line. Davidson/Yea and ! want to emphasize to Council we could fill the parking ramps 100 percent at least over time with permits if you wanted to but we don't feel like that's really good for downtown to do that because then there aren't spaces available for retail uses, short term type uses. Lehman/It seems to me that the, with the restrictions that your proposing for changing the policy that we might be well advised to consider that now, the project your talking about is almost across the street from a parking facility. Pfab/That was my next question. Lehman/Well ! realize that, but once a building is built there is no possibility of adding that parking in the future and I'm sure the reason for that discussion is that in the design of that property they're going to be able to do the parking that needs to be determined at this point and ! would have to think that down the road it might be very nice to be able to have a little cushion for our own parking facilities. Davidson/(can't hear). Champion/! have a question before. Vanderhoef/Yea I've got a couple of questions too. Champion/My problem with it is I mean that's going to be off the alley I would assume. Davidson/Yes. Champion/! just ! think that' s very impractical because there' s always trucks parked in that alley, the other thing that concerns me is there's a tremendous amount of pedestrians on Dubuque Street and Clinton Street and to have cars constantly going in and out of there to park, boy I'd have to think about the safety of that. Davidson/And that's one of the reasons. Champion/Visibility is terrible off that sidewalk to that alley. Davidson/Well the visibility on any alley downtown because. Champion/Is terrible. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 21 Davidson/Because buildings are built right to the property line as restricted. Your point is exactly Connie why we advocate this only for long term type uses. Champion/How can you control that? Davidson/Well we don't want. Champion/You can't. Davidson/Well we would structure the Board of Adjustment action approval subject to it be only for long term uses. Champion/I don't think you can (can't hear). Davidson/It's an enforcement issue Connie, there's an enforcement issue but we at least would, the idea of someone coming in the morning and leaving in the afternoon, a total of two trips rather than a space which turns over constantly so that you end up with 30 trips. We feel like that's an important distinction. Wilburn/Which of the criteria exceptions that you said they would have to demonstrate (can't hear) would qualify the project? Davidson/Let's just run through them real quick, why don't we. We would want an applicant who desired to provide private parking would be required to submit a parking demand analysis and that's kind of a fancy term for something that wouldn't be all that complicated but basically showing why the city's parking system can not provide the parking that's needed for the development project would create. If the applicant is able to demonstrate that the city's parking system can not meet the demand for the project what we generally want to see, not without exception but generally is subterranean parking, we do not want at grade parking, we do not want above grade parking, we want those reserved for other uses that we feel are more important for the Central Business District but subterranean parking you know generally subterranean retail space rents for much, much, much lower, there's not that much of it downtown but what there is rents at a much lower rate and it is generally a space that's not that important for the vitality of the Central Business District compared to the above ground space. So we would, in most cases would expect to see subterranean parking, subterranean parking is very expensive, it is three to four times what it cost to provide above ground parking like we provide, it has to be ventilated and all kinds of other things so ! don't see a lot of this requested but we will see some. Vanderhoef/Has there been any discussion with staff in comparing t his to what the near south side is? ! know down there we restrict the on site parking, at least street level parking but we also have put in some (can't hear). This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 22 Davidson/We have an impact fee zone. Vanderhoef/For dollars. Davidson/Yea, we have an impact fee zone. Vanderhoef/To pay into the parking structure. Davidson/Right in the CB-5 and the PRM zone's in the near south side we have parking impact fee ! believe that for residential uses you provide half the parking on site and you pay a fee for half the parking ! think for commercial you can, it's 75/25 or you don't have to provide any for commercial uses. We also do allow at grade parking behind the facade of the building and that's something we're not advocating here, we've had some projects in the near south side where essentially it's almost a false front a very small marginal commercial space within most of that first floor used for parking, and we're not even suggesting allowing the possibility of that in the central business district. Vanderhoef/Well ! guess what ! was thinking in terms of when you said 18 units, obviously ! haven't seen the project so ! don't know whether they're one bedroom units or whether they're 5. Davidson/It's a mix, it's a mix. Vanderhoef/Mix so there are some of the 5 bedroom units. Davidson/I believe there are, and then some three's, I don't know if there are any below three Dee. Vanderhoef/None below three. Davidson/I don't believe so. Vanderhoef/So three, four and five, so that says to me that it's primarily going to be student parking so the number of spaces for the number of bedrooms is going to be minuscule. Davidson/Yea and what the applicant has said Dee is that he does not want the parking for the residential uses, and ! think we acknowledge that, he needs the parking for the commercial uses, what is left over he will then market for the residential uses. Vanderhoef/Well then ! would look at an impact fee for the number of bedrooms, it might not be at the same rate as the south side ! don't know but I'm not convinced. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 23 Davidson/Well and remember Dee by leaving it under the Board of Adjustment you have the ability to scrutinize each individual project, you don't have to try and end the ordinance account for all the nuances but rather you can just have it the Board of Adjustments scrutinize each individual project because they're all going to be different we know that. Vanderhoef/But wouldn't we have to have an ordinance if we were going to even have the possibility of doing an impact fee? Davidson/Oh an impact fee, I'm sorry ! thought you were talking just about the line of parking. Vanderhoef/No I'm talking about an impact fee. Davidson/Yea if Council is interested in an impact fee we would need to go back and research that and bring you a proposal, we're not actually bringing you a proposal for an impact fee now. Vanderhoef/No ! understand that but recognizing that we have it in the near south side where it's predominantly student housing with large occupancies and ! just don't believe that all residents in the apartment house will come to college without their car and so how do we address that? ! know you have suggested to us now that we consider over night parking for the ramps downtown, get them off the street and I'm thinking about that one and so there is a rental fee possibility there but if we're going to start putting more housing in the central business district, it really does impact our parking ramps. Davidson/Right and I think when staff discussed this, we do not believe that it is critical to have on site parking for student housing. But for the higher end housing, which at least there appears to be an interest in ! mean 64-1-A project perfect example, for those type uses it does really appear that the market is going to insist on on- site parking, the people that are paying $500,000 for a condominium are going to expect to have a space in the building and not in the Dubuque Street parking ramp and that's part of what would be addressed by what we're proposing. What we're saying with respect to parking above grade is that you've got to have a project that is very, very high intensity project, floor area ratio of 7 or above, which is a floor area ratio of 7 is a building that occupies the entire lot, 7 stories tall, or occupies half the lot, 14 stories tall so very, very high intensity project is the only one we would allow above grade parking, otherwise it's going to be subterranean and we feel very relatively benign with the respect of the impact on the central business district. Vanderhoef/Well that ! understand but the impact of putting more residential by number of bedrooms or however you want to figure it, that is going to make an impact on This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 24 our parking ramps and we're charging for it south of Burlington and the near south side so I'd like the numbers run. Davidson/Okay well we can. Vanderhoef/If anybody else (can't hear). Davidson/Well we can address that specifically, how does the rest of the Council feel about residential uses? Champion/I don't think there's enough building going on in the central business district, the only way there's going to be anymore building is a fire or something so I don't know it seems like a different set of circumstances on the other side of Burlington and we have three major projects going on there or a possibility of three, and it would be a little late to do a parking impact fee I think. Lehman/Well the other thing is I think we really, really have, at least it's been my, at least my opinion and I think we have indicated that we would like to see people living in apartments where they don't have to have cars and certainly if this project your talking about right now although we're not conceptually the idea but the project we're talking about it now certainly enables folks to locate downtown in apartments downtown where they don't have to have a car so I think a parking impact fee kind of defeats the idea of getting people to locate in an area where they don't need a car. Davidson/And remember a parking impact fee is typically based on where there's a parking requirement you don't. Lehman/And there is no, right. Davidson/And see there's no requirement in the CB-10, there is in the CB-5 and that's why there's an impact fee for part of that requirement, we would have to institute a parking requirement before we have an impact fee downtown. Champion/JeffI don't object to, I mean I can see where in the hotel where there's going to be luxury condominiums, I totally agree with that, but if we made an ordinance that would allow on site parking under certain circumstances I mean, our concerns like the one, particularly I have about cars coming out of that particular alley with all the pedestrians going by and kids running ahead of their parents and you know all the things you get at downtown. (END OF 02-02 SIDE ONE) Champion/How about those kinds of things be addressed? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 25 Davidson/We've discussed that Connie and you know one way of looking at the congestion that exists downtown between pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicles and trucks, is at least it really slows everything down which as a transportation planner ! like to see. The fact that somebody has to kind of slowly slalom down that alley and creep around the UPS truck, ! like the idea that they're going 5 or 10 mile an hour instead of roaring straight through a completely clear aisle. Now to the degree that we need to step up enforcement because there's very specific code language about what you can and can't do with respect to parking in an alley, if we have to step up the enforcement we may have to do that but the fact that there is the congestion that exists downtown and the vehicles in the middle of Dubuque Street at least it keeps everything slowed down. Irvin. Pfab/I approached on several occasions and stressed rather adamantly to put under ground parking in the new parking ramp and it didn't really fly very fast. So and ! guess ! would have great difficulty suggesting that we do this way, now if we have at this point still a surplus of parking downtown before we build the next ramp and if we build the next ramp we also have the ability to add a floor to that new one right? Davidson/You have that ability yes, we aren't designing that for five floors though. Pfab/Right, okay, but do we have the ability to add anymore parking spaces downtown on present ramp site? Davidson/No. Pfab/So that is, this is as high as it can go the other two are also so the only place is there and we basically ruled out the underground parking. ! would imagine the city could have put parking in there a whole lot less expensively than a builder can put in that kind of a cramped space. Davidson/Yea the difference between the two projects Irvin is that the City was building an above ground parking structure and it's very, very less expensive to build above ground parking, the developer is obviously only building subterranean parking because he's doing something else with the upper floors. Pfab/But my point is probably we can conceive the time that the parking ramps will be connected by sky walks. Champion/Really. Pfab/! mean that's down the road. Now the people that have parking permits that may be close to this structure eventually have parking permits in other parts of the ramp system. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 26 Davidson/They could yes. Pfab/So I guess I'm having great difficulty and primarily with Connie's idea the safety thing just scares the dickens out of me and also the congestion, not jut physical damage, if ! was a car repair station ! would say let's go for it, it looks to me like it's a guaranteed source of income so that's my point. Davidson/Yea I would just add for Council's consideration I don't think we're going to get a bunch of these, there's going to be a couple, a few, but not, your not going to get one of these every Council meeting. Pfab/I just really don't wish to go down that road. Davidson/! guess you know ultimately we've got Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 which if it is your desire we will pursue amendments to the CB-10 ordinance in accordance with those or if you'd like to make any variations with those or if you'd like us to forget about the whole thing. Champion/! don't think we can forget about it but the possibility of a hotel going up (can't hear) fall under some kind of an ordinance. Davidson/And remember hotels have a parking requirement Connie, they have to provide parking or else contract with us for it. Lehman/They're already covered, Steven. Kanner/First of all just to be clear, we're talking about the Clark, the example we're using is the Clark property for the church. Davidson/That's correct. Kanner/Where their going to tear that down and build something else up. It appears to me that your saying that things are sort of getting out of hand a bit with people going to the Board of Adjustment looking for exceptions to our current code which is their right and you want to put a limit on that. But then ! hear you say that you would allow, the staff is looking at allowing exceptions for some commercial use parking for employee. So my question is one what is the criteria the Board of Adjustment uses now to grant exceptions? And two it seems the meat of this proposed new ordinance amendment is the parking demand analysis and can you explain a little bit of what that entails and how they're going to prove that there's a lack of parking and how does that take into account such things as public transit and things like that? Davidson/Well the parking demand analyses will vary depending who we happen to be working with because it's something they're obligated to provide to us. But in a This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 27 nutshell Steven what that is is saying this is the project ! want to create, this is the parking that we feel that will be generated from the new thing that will be built okay so it's the parking demand that above and beyond what's there right now. And then the final element of that is how are we going to meet that parking demand? Is it going to be provided in city facilities? Is it going to be provided on street? If we're building a church then it's Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings then so depending on what the thing is that's being constructed the parking demand will have different characteristics. We will assess that parking demand with respect to if there's a desire to provide private parking within the facility we will evaluate that against the city having to be the provider of the parking, the new demand that's being created from that, ! mean that's the essence of the parking demand analysis. Kanner/And so it seems the amendment is still somewhat loose and arbitrary, it doesn't seem to get us where we want to get with what your talking about of giving more guidance to the Board of Adjustment, ! think we need to get under rules of what we mean by demand cannot be adequately meant in the public (can't hear). Davidson/Yea let me clarify something Steven ! don't think it's fair to say we feel that anything is out of hand with the Board of Adjustment. What's occurring is staff is being presented with a project that we have evaluated and determined that we do not feel there is a significant negative impact to the provision of parking and the manner that's being proposed but there is an ordinance on the books that you all established that says no private parking downtown and so we're uncomfortable giving a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment when it goes against the policy that you as a Council has set, so if you determine, ! mean ! can tell you right now if you determine that you do not want to change the ordinance to allow private parking under circumstances we will not recommend in favor of the project to the Board of Adjustment because that is the policy. Pfab/! would not recommend a change. Davidson/Okay. Lehman/How does the rest of the Council feel? Kanner/But, so Irvin that means that people that come in with a request for an exception to our CB-10 zoning ordinance staff will be likely to recommend that parking be allowed that's what your saying? Lehman/No. Pfab/No, no, no. Kanner/That's what your saying by not changing it am I correct in? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 28 Davidson/By not changing it chances are that staff will not recommend in favor of most projects. Kanner/Staff would not recommend. Davidson/Not recommend because policy is no private parking. Kanner/But you have been recommending in favor. Davidson/We have a project before us that we have evaluated and we don't feel that there is a great deal of negative impact to the parking system and so we feel it is reasonable to accommodate this project with the parking included, that is not consistent with the zoning ordinance for the CB- 10 that's why we're discussing this. Kanner/Didn't you say that in the past you've been recommending, staff has been recommending that these be allowed and the Board of Adjustment has tended to allow these parking exceptions? Davidson/We believe there will be at least another one of these coming down the road. Lehman/Wait a minute though there hasn't been any up to this point. Davidson/The one that I'm recalling is the project that came before you because it was an urban renewal parcel was the building on the corner, the AUR building on the corner of College and Gilbert that had subterranean parking which you approved in conjunction with the uses in that building, that's the only recent one ! can think of. Pfab/What's the location? Davidson/College and Gilbert, the new building that's across from the Rec. Center. Kanner/And so this says the requests combined with requests received in the past is somewhat of a misnomer there really hasn't been a request plural. Davidson/Well ! think there's been a couple if you factor in 64-1-A then, you know some of the projects there had, we can kind of see a few more of these coming down the line that's why we thought it would be good to clarify what you want the policy to be. Pfab/! think Connie's point is extremely well, needs to be taken extremely close attention to and that is the one over on College and Gilbert okay that is a lot different sense of intensity of pedestrian activity, commercial activity than there is in downtown, down in that other area. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 29 Davidson/That is CB-10 zone though Irvin. Pfab/All right but is the other one CB-10 also? Davidson/Yes. Kanner/Yea. Pfab/! think that one, we let that one get by, ! think I'll be on the look out for them, and also then smarting just a little bit that our ordinances do mean what they say. Davidson/Sure. Pfab/! find out according to Jud. Lehman/Well listen ! think Jeff needs some direction and obviously Irvin does not favor a change in the policy as it has been applied. ! happen to feel that the exceptions as they be numerated then be reasons to look at exceptions. How does the rest of the Council feel? Vanderhoef/! guess my only question then is if we take the suggestions on the private parking, once it goes to the Board of Appeals if they approve it we have nothing to say about it. Davidson/That is correct. Vanderhoef/So how do we get in this particular case that we're talking about now we're getting a heads up on it so we know in advance? Davidson/Yea and just to clarify ! mean that' s, what you just said is why we wanted to come to you and make you clarify the policy because otherwise you don't even see the project, it goes through the Board of Adjustment, it's consistent with the zoning, meets the requirements of all the city codes, the project is done. Lehman/But what your really saying is if we're interested and a project can meet the requirements you've set forth, the Board of Adjustment can determine whether or not (can't hear). Davidson/Right it goes through the Board of Adjustments. Lehman/It doesn't say that anyone can have underground parking, it doesn't say it can be any private parking, it says under certain very restrictive circumstances they can apply to the Board of Adjustment and get subterranean parking or in highly This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 30 unusual circumstances they might be able to get first level if they're building is 7 stories tall. Davidson/ Right, and the Board would consider the merits of each individual project as they would any other. Lehman/As they would any other, all right. Pfab/So, just to clarify what ! think I'm hearing Ernie say and you too is that if we don't change it that's the end. Davidson/Well if you don't change we'll keep doing what we're doing currently. Pfab/Which is? Davidson/Which is these goes through the Board of Adjustment and the board considers them, in the case of the project before us right now it will impact, the policy you guys set will impact the recommendation that staff makes on the project. ! mean we at the staff level we prepare a staff report for the board and this will impact what goes into that staff report. Pfab/So does the Board of Adjustment listen to what the staff recommendation is? Davidson/Sometimes. Just like all of you sometimes they do. Kanner/So but it looks like. Pfab/Comes back to bite you. Kanner/If we have the status quo ! hear you telling us that your staff would probably approve certain parking there. Davidson/Yea let me clarify that Steven, the status quo doesn't mean there will never be private parking provided downtown. ! mean we would proceed just like we do now and the board may decide to approve a project, you would not see it and the project would be established under the current zoning provisions with private parking. Kanner/See I'm a little confused because it seems either way the status quo or this new proposal get us to the same place. Davidson/It can yea. Kanner/Which is most like there's going to be parking, so ! don't see the difference. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 31 Davidson/I don't know about the most likely part. Lehman/! don't think most likely is right because having discussed this if we say that we believe the present policy of no parking, no private parking allowed in the central business district is a good policy and we should continue with that policy, you are not going to recommend to the Board of Adjustment that that policy be changed, the Board of Adjustment can easily have be informed of the discussion right now. Davidson/Yea the Board of Adjustment has no control over the policy, your the legislatures, you set the policies. Lehman/Yea but the chances of that underground parking occurring on the project your talking about are very, very slim after this discussion it would be saying. Davidson/They're certainly less. Lehman/Right, considerably less. Kanner/But not slim Ernie, ! think. Lehman/Oh ! think slim is probably a pretty good evaluation of it, they know how we feel if we say that we want this policy of no parking, they know that we have said no to the exceptions that staff just said on a project you do not feel would be particularly (can't hear). Davidson/And remember your control, your control is who you appoint to the Board of Adjustment. Pfab/Now you tell us. Vanderhoef/! guess I'm inclined to want to think twice about the number three which is the limited surface parking and above street level parking versus subterranean. Does anybody else have a problem with surface parking? It's the little bit, well they're working on the far ratio, it would be 7. Champion/Well it would be an unusual situation but you could have the same thing you have behind all of our stores, in that square downtown where you've got all that parking in the middle of all those buildings and ! could see if one of those buildings burned down, not so my building ! don't want any to burn down but some of those buildings like on Washington Street are long buildings and they go half a block, ! could see somebody not wanting to rebuild a building that long because first of all they're hard to use for retail space and they're not suitable for living quarters so ! could see them rebuilding the building half the length and then having their own little private parking behind it and so ! mean there are, that parking is already there but you know what ! mean it would change the configuration there. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 32 Lehman/Well it says it has to be behind, beside or screened (can't hear). Davidson/A good example that your all familiar with are the recent 64-1-A project that you all approved, that has a FAR of I think 10 and it has a small number of just like 10 or 12 surface parking places off of the alley for one of the commercial uses. Vanderhoef/And in that case the amount of traffic being generated from those parking spaces is a concern, it's probably more so than the alley and the alley hasn't really (can't hear). Lehman/Okay guys we need to give Jeff some indication if we're ready to. Vanderhoef/I'm not. Davidson/And remember if you direct us to proceed we will prepare an ordinance, I mean you'll have additional consideration of it but we will go to the trouble to prepare a draft ordinance for you otherwise we will not. Champion/(can't hear) you haven't said a word, cats got your tongue. O'Donnell/You know my concern Irvin and Connie is not with the safety downtown, I think that's fine, you know you go down Dubuque Street and we park trucks in the center of the street. Champion/Oh do we ever. Pfab/But they're easy to see. O'Donnell/But it's not easy to see somebody walking between the trucks and see there, we have a parking ramp a block down from this where people come out. Excuse me Irvin what did you say? Pfab/I had a very interesting discussion with a patrol officer, he suggested that we use the cross walk today and so maybe that's a suggestion that would work downtown too where the trucks are. O'Donnell/And so the question is are we interested in changing this? Lehman/Are we interested? Right that's the question. O'Donnell/And I'm not. Lehman/Okay we have two no' s. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 33 Champion/Well mine's a maybe. Lehman/Is that a maybe yes or a maybe no? Pfab/Maybe it's like an abstention. Champion/I haven't had an answer to my question is how is the Board of Adjustments or Appeals whatever Board it is, how are they going to address safety issues when it comes to this? This is my question. Davidson/Well that's part of the each individual project thing, as you've all pointed out there are some locations in the central business district that have more intensive pedestrian traffic, in fact there's quite a variation throughout the whole district. The Board would be able to scrutinize each individual location based on it's specific situation. Kanner/But that's not written in here though. Dilkes/If safety is a big issue for you it seems to me it could be one of the criteria. Couldn't it Jeff?. Davidson/That's one of the things that the Board of Adjustment does for every project Steven. Dilkes/It does but it certainly could be written into the ordinance as a particular criteria in this situation. Davidson/Yes. Pfab/Are we giving? Champion/Yea well like if the safety issues could be addressed I certainly don't object to somebody have 14 parking spaces under the ground but the safety is a major issue for me. Pfab/Are we, are we giving people false hope when we don't say no? Lehman/Oh yes your right, I think that's what Jeff' s here asking us, yes or no. Pfab/I say no. Lehman/We've got a no and we've got a no, we've got a maybe no or a maybe. O'Donnell/Connie was maybe no, I'm no. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 34 Lehman/ Your no. Kanner/I'm still maybe also to a certain extent because I want the one that limits will have a better affect of limiting the ability to put in parking. Pfab/That's a no. Davidson/That would be the current ordinance Steven. Lehman/You've got a no. Davidson/Okay, thank you. Lehman/Okay, thank you. O'Donnell/Ernie I didn't hear where you were on that. Lehman/Oh no you did to, I said I have no problem with this, I think that it's as long as it as Jeff said it wasn't harmful to the project and enhances and makes it a good project I don't have any problem with it and I trust the Board of Adjustment to make those decisions but in any event. Literary Walk Extension Lehman/The next item is the Literary Walk Extension and Karin Franklin is unable to be with us tonight and so we're going to skip that one. And do we want to take a quick break before we do the Section 8 Public Housing Administration? Vanderhoef/Yes please. Lehman/Well depends on how long your going to be, no, no, never mind we're going to take a break for about 5 or 6 minutes. BREAK Section 8/Public Housing Administration Plan (ITEM 6. THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY SECTION 8, ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN. and ITEM 7. THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY PUBLIC HOUSING ADMISSIONS AND CONTINUED OCCUPANCY PLAN (ACOP)). Lehman/Doug. Doug Boothroy/There's a memo in your packet explaining what's going on with regard to these two plans, we have two plans, one's a Section 8 Administrative Plan, the other is a Public Housing Administrative Plan, both of these documents are This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 35 required to be in place for Housing Authority, we have t hem on your agenda for tomorrow for approval. These documents are pretty much complete in terms of telling you how the Housing Authority operates in these two programs, one of your goals of course is to know more about what the Housing Authority does and so ! hope you've taken time to read through those documents and we're here to talk about them. One of the things ! wanted to do tonight before we get started talking about it is ! haven't had a chance ! don't think in introducing some of the people that work with the Housing Authority in two particular areas, one is Deb Briggs here to my left, Deb, she's our Public Housing Coordinator and she takes care of the process of finding our tenants, selecting them and then you know being our property manager for the Public Housing Program and the other person is Heidi Wolf coordinator and we brought the baby to make the meeting short. Lehman/Are you for hire? Boothroy/And she basically administers a lot of the Section 8 program which is a large part of what the Housing Authority does. But I'd like to get started on this, the memorandum we sent out to you highlighted what we believed to be some of the more significant changes over what we presently do and we put those there for you to talk about and if you have any other questions about the plan we're here to answer those and then I'd like to turn it over to, you've all met Maggie and I'd like to turn it over to Maggie and have her talk and answer some of these questions. ! have all the experts here so you can get all the answers ! think. Lehman/Well Maggie why don't you start just be reviewing the major changes and we can address any of those if we choose. Maggie Grosvenor/Well just briefly stated the major legislative changes in 1998 was Quality Housing and Responsibility Act, we've been working on it basically for the last three years, for instance there used to be two programs within the Section 8 program, you remember hearing about certificates and vouchers, they phased out certificates. So it took us two years to get through that process so that's an example of one of the changes in within the plan. What we said in this memo are some of the big things and what HUD has done is give us a little more definitive stance on when we can deny assistance and when we can terminate assistance, those are outlined in the plan, some are underneath when we must terminate assistance or when we may terminate assistance. It kind of jumps around so, the next issue what ! talk about is medical assistance, when we're calculating tenants rent they get deductions for certain things, one of the things they get deducted for is medical expenses, well unless we define medical expenses HUD does not do that so what we're doing is adopting the IRS's definition of medical expenses and so that puts in a plan. The information given to landlords, ! think this is a real interesting point, the REG's starting in 1998 and they said we must give any landlord the name and address of a previous landlord. In other words if there's a perspective Section 8 tenant going into a landlord's property and they can call the This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 36 Housing Authority and we must give them the name and the address of the previous landlord if they request it. What HUD has then said is that we can give them any factual information in that file but we must define it in the plan and we've done that. For instance if we know that a tenant's been evicted, if we know that a tenant owes another landlord money if we know those things we can release that information to a perspective landlord if they ask. And then the legal requirements that we have to let the tenant know we're going to release this information. And two big ones on the Public Housing side are the pet policy and the income exclusion. We're not happy about the pet policy but we have to do it so we had to outline the specifics. And income exclusion that' s to help, it' s a self sufficiency clause, and what we're trying to do is help people get off of assistance and put a little bit more money in their pocket. And so what HUD has said if anybody is unemployed, under employed, that means works only 10 hours a week for minimum wage, is on some sort of assistance, you know FIF?? or whatever or is in a training program of some kind. What they're saying at the entry level of the adoption of this plan we exclude 100 % of their increase in income with the calculation of rent for a full 12 months. The second 12 months, we exclude 50 %. Champion/That's good. Pfab/From the base where they start. Grosvenor/From the date of the regulation, does that make sense? And it doesn't go on forever, there's basically a four year cap on this program, but it's specific, it's 12 months of 100 % exclusion and 12 months of 50 % exclusion but they've got a 4 year window in which to use those. Pfab/Is it a stair step type of a (can't hear)? Grosvenor/It's real definitive, it's whatever increase, so let's say. Vanderhoef/This is increased from unemployment. Grosvenor/Let's say I'm paying $100 towards my rent right now, okay, my increase next month goes up and ! have to pay $200 towards my rent, that is excluded, ! don't have to pay that additional money for 12 months, it's excluded for 12 months. And if! stay in the same job and the rent calculation works out to be $200 a month, the next 12 months ! will only have to pay only another $50 so my rent would be $150, that's a real simplistic example. Pfab/So I was listening to quite a discussion of this, similar to this, not exactly, things on MPR this afternoon, they had a program about it. And so what your saying you believe it's a good idea because it gives a low income household a chance to accumulate funds because of the fact, or pay some bills because of the fact that any increase automatically isn't calculated into their rental assessment? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 37 Grosvenor/It's the purpose of the regulation, they call it a self sufficiency regulation so the purpose is to help people get on their feet and have more money exactly. Kanner/And so this is, what was it before this? Grosvenor/It wasn't there. Kanner/There was nothing at all, there were no percentage exclusions. Grosvenor/No it's brand new, brand new. Vanderhoef/Okay but help me out here, when you talk about unemployed, that's fairly plain. Grosvenor/Right. Vanderhoef/The under employed, how do we do? Grosvenor/And HUD is very specific there, they define under employed as working 10 hours a week or less, 50 weeks a year at minimum wage, and so anybody over that is considered employed. Vanderhoef/Okay and so that's a different definition of under employed than a lot of people (can't hear). Grosvenor/Right and that's HUD's definition so. Vanderhoef/Okay, that's fine. Kanner/Yea that's pretty tough. ! had a couple questions. Vanderhoef/! do too. Kanner/Go ahead Dee. Vanderhoef/It's page 164 on our computer which is page 22 of yours. Grosvenor/Which plan Dee? Vanderhoef/It must be Section 5.3, and it's about the waiting list and the 75 percent of newly (can't hear) families. Grosvenor/That's Section 8 right. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 38 Vanderhoef/And there's a statement in there about recruiting or marketing this whole idea. Grosvenor/Right. Vanderhoef/And ! take it that that's mandatory. Grosvenor/Correct. Vanderhoef/And how do you go about do this? Grosvenor/Well it's not an issue yet because we qualify without having to do that, honestly ! don't know, ! haven't thought through that, there's never been an issue where we've been servicing the higher income. ! mean we can service people up to 80 % of the income, we've long been well below that 50-40-30 percent, the majority, ! think we have 80 percent below the 30 percent right now. So ! mean to be honest ! haven't thought about it. Vanderhoef/(can't hear) issue is what your saying and that's where ! didn't know where we stood on the 75 percent. Grosvenor/If just off the top of my head you go to DHS, you go to all the service agencies, you go to DVIP, EHP, Crisis Center, you'd educate all of the homeless coordinating board that ! work with. You'd educate there and say we're under our limit and what HUD says if you've done everything you can to target that population base go ahead and use the vouchers for higher income but you have to prove that you've tried so. Vanderhoef/So ! guess extending it a little bit further knowing that this is true as a HUD requirement the only transient mobility of people looking for a house sooner rather than later would be in a area or city that has very little housing period so they would be looking to move to a city that had more housing available so there might be a house available. Grosvenor/I'm not sure that has anything to do with this requirement because the requirement is based on, HUD has X number of dollars out there, they want to serve the very poorest of the poor first and that's their objective and it's housing authority's have to be good managers of that dollar and that's why the regulation is built that way so we take care of that population first and HUD isn't saying you don't have to stay there. So ! understand what your saying but I'm not sure it's tied to that regulation. Champion/Yea they're not saying that you have to recruit people in a particular income bracket, they're saying they don't have to go to another town to recruit somebody This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 39 they're saying you need to make sure your serving the people who really need this the worst before you start moving up the ladder, that's all they're saying. Grosvenor/Well, and we don't do, I mean we service all of Johnson County, half of Iowa, half of Washington, there are a whole lot of little towns in there that we could go to their senior centers or community places and talk to people there too if that were an issue. Vanderhoef/Okay thanks. Kanner/Dee can I piggy back on that question there? Vanderhoef/I'm finished with it. Kanner/Okay. I helped a couple constituents last year someone needed Section 8 and helped them through the process and there was no waiting list. This year come back and now there's a 9-12 month waiting list to get a voucher for Section 8, I wonder if you could talk to that of what are some of the factors that cause that. Is it that the staff are doing a better job of organizing an outreach? Grosvenor/Yes. Kanner/And is it the economy, and/or the economy? Grosvenor/Wonderful you said it all, in 1998 we wrote some grants, we got 200 additional vouchers, that's a lot, 100 vouchers to be used for it's called the family unification, 100 vouchers to be used for disabled clients. It took us about two years to lease up that population base, so that means we were under, we kept trying to lease that up because we got additional vouchers. We finally as of by, was it July this year? We were at 100 percent, so we've had this money, I mean it was allotted to us in 1998 and we're just now you know having enough people on the program that we've used those funds. Did that answer your question? Kanner/And is the economy figuring into it also that it's filled up or would it have happened in any case? Grosvenor/I don't think I can answer that, I mean you can guess that that has something to do with it but I don't have any statistical analyzation or anything to give you any information there. We've never shut down applications, we've always taken applications and processed everybody, it's just a matter of whether you've used your dollars up, whether they pile up on a waiting list or whether you just keep running them through you know and service them as quickly as possible. Boothroy/I think HUD's goal is to be at 97 percent or more. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 40 Grosvenor/Right, HUD has a requirement of housing authorities right now, they changed their, this is a very good thing, all housing authorities must maintain a 97 percent occupancy to receive the highest ranking. If they drop below ! can't remember if it's 95 or 90, is it 95 percent, what their doing is they're going back across the United States and recapturing those funds so housing authorities that aren't using their funds and then they're going to have allocations out there that you can apply for them. Champion/Right, that's good. Grosvenor/That's a big, big change. Boothroy/So the point is we really need to be at 97 percent or 100 percent once we get to that level and we're going to have waiting lists. Kanner/And you mentioned about the IRS definition for medical expenses, how does that jive with ADA definitions of medical expenses? Is it essentially the same that if you are listed as ADA qualifying that then you have medical expenses, would that jive with IRS definitions? Grosvenor/! don't know the, we haven't made a comparison there. ! should add a little bit that the medical expenses are only for elderly and disabled so we have to verify that the family even qualifies to be eligible for medical expenses so this is just to the definition of the medical expenses once we receive verification that they are disabled or elderly. Kanner/Well that' s another question, how do they qualify as disabled? Does it just have to be a doctors notice? Grosvenor/There's a definition in the plan of what disabled is, in other words if they get SSI or Social Security, if there's a physician that can fill out and document according to that description then we'll take a physician's. Because some people are disabled but are still in the process of trying to secure social security benefits, if a physician will designate say yes to those qualifiers ! have to pull that sheet out to tell you then we will take that as a definition, a positive definition of a disability. Kanner/And ! noticed now you have a two step application process, so your, the first one, this person qualified that I'm working with, qualified as a having a disability but it doesn't seem like that's a final, and then they were told there's a 9-12 month waiting list. Grosvenor/Right. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 41 Kanner/But that doesn't seem to be a final definition or final determination and it seems there should be one, it seems a little difficult that two step process to say they're approved and perhaps they're not approved further down the road. Grosvenor/There's initial eligibility and that's that first step, and that's true that's not a change, maybe how it's stated in here it says it's stated differently but our process has not changed, I've been here five years and it has not changed. So you have eligibility issues on the front side. Do they qualify as a family? One of the issues is do they qualify as disabled or elderly? We do a criminal record check, that's another eligibility issue, that's the front level, if they basically pass those eligibility criteria then they go on the waiting list, so we may deny them right at the front because of one of those eligibility criteria. Then once their name comes up on the waiting list and then it goes into the next step the briefing and. Kanner/But conversely then if they are approved at the first step they're approved at the final step? Grosvenor/Unless something happens. Kanner/Unless something would change, make it pass that first. Heidi Wolf/(can't hear). The preliminary application we basically take it for face value what they're saying to us, so if they check off that they're disabled then we're taking that for face value, and then when they come up on the waiting list and we determine their eligibility we're verifying that information. Is that what your asking? Kanner/Yea, yea, so you verify. Boothroy/Someone gets their name in the hopper for getting consideration. Kanner/And so then you need that doctors statement or verification that they're getting SSI or some? Grosvenor/Right. Wolff When determining eligibility. Kanner/For the second step. Lehman/Other questions Council. Kanner/Thanks for the staff, ! appreciate the staff work when ! go in there. Grosvenor/Good, thank you. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 42 O'Donnell/Very good. Champion/It's a complicated process. Grosvenor/It's a very complicated process. Lehman/We feel very fortunate to have you. Grosvenor/Thank you. Lehman/You do a great job, really do. Grosvenor/Thank you. Lehman/ Okay guys. Wilburn/Thanks for coming down. Bottle Bill (1P4 of 1/3 info. packet) Lehman/Mr. Helling. Dale Helling/Yes you asked for something to look at as far as taking a position statement on the bottle bill. We gave you basically dug up what we had last year, we looked at the, what's being proposed or at least supported this year and it's pretty much the same thing so what we've given you is kind of a repeat of last year. A resolution, some communication to legislators and we'll see what happens when the legislature convenes and what kind of legislation is proposed. Vanderhoef/! will say that the ECICOG went ahead the Executive Committee went ahead in January and approved similar to what was last year, one addition was the "whereas about there has never been a documented health case" and since that is one of the things out there from the grocer side of the argument why they decided that was important to put in and ! would encourage us to have that piece in our resolution. Champion/I don't think I want it in our resolution Dee just because I don't have the proof in front of me. ! mean ! think it's fine that they used it in theirs because they had a committee who researched it, ! don't think it's, ! think it's good that it's in that but ! think just to support the bottle bill or to even increase it is all we really need to be doing. Vanderhoef/The same thing that we did last year that includes adding the additional nickel for deposit include the juice and other bottles. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 43 Lehman/Right. Champion/Right. Helling/I gave all this to Brad and he put it all together and he did include that so if you want it out specifically let us know and we'll pull it out. Champion/Well I don't care if it's in or out but it seems like it's so superfluous to me because we don't have the documentation. Pfab/I think that that might make the, that might be what the whole trust about is there's not enough money coming in for the overhead to do this and also if that's the case then if we got a chance to enlarge it I think we, I would support the addition. Champion/Yea we do. Lehman/We did last time. Vanderhoef/We did last time. I think probably having the "whereas about the health issue" is an education piece since it's been reported in the paper by the grocer's group that this is a health issue, I think we need to do our part of educating the public that who acknowledge that there has not ever been a documented case so that or at least putting it out this piece of information to the public but I like it in there. Kanner/Now this thing about confirmed report of food born illnesses, is this, in your letter Dale that comes out here it implies that this is from a study from the Iowa Environmental Health Association, is that a correct conclusion to draw? And if that is then why don't we just put in according to the Iowa Environmental Health Association. Champion/Yea, yea, that's a good. Vanderhoef/That's a good addition. Helling/Okay. Kanner/And so in the whereas where you have that. Champion/See my concern was we really don't have documented proof that that's true but to put it on somebody else's back is fine. Vanderhoef/I knew it but I wasn't getting it so that's, that clarifies it for everyone. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 44 Champion/Yep. Kanner/So that would be number 3 whereas. Helling/Right. Kanner/And I thought it was a good letter, the only thing I would ask that maybe add that we pass the similar resolution in 2001. So just say we remind people that we're, this is long standing, or we have some history with that. Pfab/Where would you change or add? Kanner/Just in the letter. Vanderhoef/We continue to support. Kanner/As in previous, as in the previous year we continue to support. Pfab/Yea not make a big issue about it but not overlook it either. Kanner/Right. Pfab/Okay that's good. Helling/We'll have it on your agenda for your next meeting. Champion/Good. Vanderhoef/Thank you. Lehman/Thank you. Smoking in Restaurants (ITEM NO. 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY" BY REPEALING CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES" 'AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS." (PASS AND ADOPT) O'Donnell/We're coming to our third reading and at 50/50, is there anybody interested in going back to where we originally started at 65/35? I think it makes a great deal of sense to do it at that level and find out how our businesses are going to be affected. Champion/Well I would support that. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 45 O'Donnell/I've got an article here that was in the Gazette this morning as well as we are, there is a lawsuit pending in Ames right now that is scheduled to be answered in a couple of weeks. Lehman/Is that on the docket in Ames now? O'Donnell/(can't hear). Dilkes/Oh yea there's a motion for some rejudgement pending waiting for a judge's decision in that case. Vanderhoef/That, it was heard though. Dilkes/No what was heard and decided was the plaintiff' s, the challengers request for a temporary injunction, which is an injunction preventing it from being enforced while the lawsuit is pending. What is happening now is that there's a, there's going to be a decision on the merits on the total lawsuit. O'Donnell/Fairly (can't hear). Dilkes/And then when that is final is subject to appeal. Lehman/Do we have any idea when that decision is coming? Dilkes/It sounds like that decision will be here in a number of weeks but again the judge, there will be a decision when the judge issues one. Pfab/Okay but also, okay there was an appeal, is that the right term or an appeal by the plaintiff to drop the, to not have the ordinance in affect while the appeal was going on which was denied by the judge. Dilkes/While the lawsuit was pending, there's been no appeal, right. Pfab/While the lawsuit. Dilkes/Right, while the lawsuit is pending and that was denied by the judge. Pfab/You mentioned that but you didn't say what the result was. Lehman/Well the reason this is on the agenda tonight is if we're going to have any changes to the ordinance as it has been passed twice Eleanor would like to know, ! suppose all of us would but if we're going to make amendments to this ordinance tomorrow night, it would be well for us to have thought those through and at least let Eleanor know because she would be the one that would have to draft any amendment and have it ready for tomorrow night. Now Mike is interested and This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 46 Connie in returning to a, or changing I would assume that would be an amendment to go to the 65/35 as opposed to the 50/50. Is there any other interest on the part of the Council? Pfab/I would not support it. O'Donnell/I think we owe it to our businesses in town to find out how this is going to affect them financially, businesses that have their names on the dotted line, that are paying bills, taxes, employees and we have restaurants here that are affected up to 50 percent. Pfab/It's still a health issue, it's not a business issue. O'Donnell/A health issue is also eating Irvin. Pfab/Right and I think that health issue overrides what may be which maybe some affects and there's no guarantee that it will affect them. (END OF 02-02, SIDE TWO) Champion/Well, I mean we could argue forever about that, I mean I do think you are, restaurants are and bars are entertainment, they are not essential to living Irvin, we don't need to go out to eat to be healthy. But my concern is and I don't know if we can do this in a form of amendment or just I mean I think we need to be really cautious that if we do see our businesses being hurt, I mean your talking about people's livelihood's Irvin, your not talking about a hobby, we're talking about people who are making mortgage payments and raising children. Some kind of an amendment that this will be evaluated at a certain time to see if maybe we made a mistake. I mean I hope I'm wrong that it's not going to affect businesses negatively, I hope your absolutely right that it's not going to affect negatively, I'll be glad to eat my words and very humbly but I'm really concerned about the affect on businesses in town as far as their livelihoods, secondly I'm concerned about restaurants turning into bars and increasing our problems that we have in the central part of Iowa City at least. So I do have these concerns and those of you that are in favor of this ordinance, what do you have in mind as a backup if people's businesses start to fail? Do you have anything in mind at all? Pfab/As soon as we pass this ordinance on the books I'm ready to entertain an amendment or a change or addition to that ordinance that says 100 percent if that's what it seems like the public wants but let's get this one passed and then. Champion/Well you haven't answered my question. Pfab/That's the backup. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 47 Champion/No that's not an answer to my question though. My question is what are you willing to do if there is a big decrease in these people's businesses because of this ordinance that we passed and we're not running their business? Pfab/If you can prove that because of this ordinance their businesses are having difficulty I would be happy to open that up and look at it and be as supportive as anybody imaginable. O'Donnell/In what way? Pfab/What are you suggesting? What possibilities are there? O'Donnell/Well that's what the question is. What are we proposing if we affect somebody's business 50 percent? Champion/Or 25 percent. O'Donnell/Yea, what are we proposing? Pfab/Okay what happens if we increase their business 25 percent? What are they going to do for the city? Champion/I will. O'Donnell/Continue to pay taxes. Kanner/So Mike and Connie I think this is in a sense a business decision I think a lot of our decisions impact people's income either as individuals or corporate entities and I take that into consideration and I think if we find that it's such a drastic effect we take a look at it in six months and we say hey maybe we need to appeal this or amend it. Champion/Thank you. Kanner/So we look at it, I don't think anyone would deny that we look at it but I think we have to move forward with it. Champion/Your the only one that has said that, thank you. Pfab/I thought I said that, made that statement. Champion/No. Pfab/You said what would I do if I look at it. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 48 O'Donnell/No you were talking about going to a 100 percent ban an even playing field. Pfab/Well I offered that. O'Donnell/Excuse me Irvin does that make Iowa City on an even playing with the rest of the cities in this county? Pfab/It may turn out to be a magnet to businesses for people that are smoking. Champion/! hope your right. O'Donnell/And you know what that's my wish but there is a what if. Pfab/I hate to bet against it. O'Donnell/There's a what if that ! think is fairly responsible. I'm not betting either way. Lehman/Well the question tonight is there interest on the part of the Council to making any changes to the ordinance as it has been previously been passed twice, now the last time we had an amendment that would have changed it to apply to all facilities to all prepared food, that amendment was not successful, is that amendment going to show up again? Vanderhoef/! would entertain it if there are councilors that are interested in it. Pfab/I'm not. Vanderhoef/Because ! think it is truly the way to address restaurants, ! think it is much easier to enforce, ! think it meets the goal of what the majority of Council is wanting and rather than doing it in two stages ! would rather do it in one and ! think it makes a more level playing field for all of the restaurants. The one piece that ! would put out there for the non restaurant places is the prepackaged pretzel chip kind of thing that could be sold in a bar. Champion/So Dee are you saying, are you saying, ! don't want to be flippant when ! say this because that's not how ! mean it. So your saying that you personally think this is going to affect business in a negative manner? Is that what your saying so to level it out you want to make it all 100 percent? Vanderhoef/! think 65/35 is an uneven playing field, ! think any number in there is unfair to someone and if the goal of this Council is to make restaurants where food is prepared and served and consumed the best place to go is (can't hear). O'Donnell/! was prepared to support a 65/35 and ! think it would have sent a clear message because ! think we would have gotten a 7-0 vote, the way this is going to This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 49 come down now it's going to be split probably 4-3 and that certainly isn't a good way to start this. Champion/And our original proposal would have made family restaurants (can't hear). Pfab/We'd invite your positive votes to make it. Lehman/Let me just suggest, and I will not support the 50/50, I did not support before I will not support again, ! think it's patently unfair, ! think it presents enforcement problems that are not something that we are equipped to deal with. ! think it will be a force that will, some restaurants will become bars which is one of the things that we have been concerned about for a long, long time. ! would support either leave it alone or do it every place that serves prepared food. ! believe that is fair, ! think that's defensible, ! don't think a 50/50 is defensible at all. It's going to be a balloon for some folks and it's going to be a real hardship for others and of course we'll be dealing with the, well not always, but under scenario that we're talking about now we're also dealing with a situation where other local situations are not doing the same thing and ! think, but that's something we're going to have to live with. Pfab/! think this might be a good chance to be a leader in a healthy shoe and so ! don't think this, ! don't look at this as a negative to go this way, even a 100 percent ! encourage this but until this bill is passed as it is presently ! have no interest in changing it. Lehman/All right we have no interest in a change that will apply to all places that serve prepared food? Pfab/After this is passed I'll go for every work place, every place that serves food, liquor or even if you get your car fixed there, you don't smoke, it's a work place for somebody. Kanner/Like last time I am interested in a place that a 100 percent ban for places that serve or prepare food. And the concern and this is been brought up by CAFE that this is a typical tactic, not specific to us perhaps of individuals but the strategy is used by the tobacco industry to delay and weaken an ordinance such as the case in Ames and so CAFE is urging us to pass this and then go onto something else. I would ask Ross for instance because we haven't heard from Ross if we went to 100 percent for tomorrow would you be willing to vote for that and stay with that for three readings? Wilburn/No I'm going to vote as I'm consistent with what I have in the past for the same reasons and I'm not willing tonight to rehash the, we've all eloquently stated how we disagree, I'm not willing to do it again tonight and do it again tomorrow and so I'd rather just do it again tomorrow. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 50 Kanner/And so your going to stick with the. Wilburn/I'm going to stick with what I've been consistent with. Kanner/The 50 percent. Wilburn/That's correct. Lehman/Okay folks. Dilkes/One more issue before we leave this. You've never specifically talked about an effective date, the way it's written if you pass and adopt tomorrow it will be effective upon publication which Marian anticipates will be about January 16. Do you want an effective date that's out a little ways to give some time to get the affidavits on file etc. and that kind of thing? Lehman/I would think that we're going to have to provide time for people to get affidavits into the City. Dilkes/You need to tell me what effective date you want to include then? Vanderhoef/What do you suspect it would? Lehman/Saturday's to early then. What would be wrong with the, is the first of March a reasonable time? Wilburn/Sounds reasonable. Pfab/First of February. Dilkes/Sounds reasonable. Lehman/Is that reasonable? Would that be all right with folks. All right. Kanner/Ernie I have something else to say about this. Lehman/Go ahead. Kanner/I talked with Natalie Battles of the American Cancer Society, she was involved with the Ames ordinance there from the American Cancer Society's point of view but ! asked her if there's any money that might be available to promote the efforts of Iowa City's smoking ban. So this addresses a bit of what you were saying Connie and there might be some, ! think we need to work with CAFE and see, and their group the Johnson County group that's receiving some of the community This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 51 partnership money in Johnson County and so I would suggest that we work with them to see if there is any money to work to promote businesses as being smoke flee. Also she said that she wasn't sure who it was but and maybe folks in the audience might know she said that either Blue Cross Blue Shield or the Center for Disease Control kicked in $5,000 to pay for the signs in Ames for the smoking ordinance that was required. Is anyone familiar with that? Audience/(can't hear) Kanner/So there's possible money out there to pay for some small things and maybe bigger things to help make it a little bit easier perhaps. Lehman/My suspension is CAFE which has worked really hard for this will probably continue their efforts and work with those folks who are smoke free and promote those restaurants. Champion/The only other amendment that we talked about very briefly once was the different rooms, different ventilation systems and I don't understand why that doesn't work. Vanderhoef/The information that was in our Council packets before Christmas was from the State lab that they had been working on ventilating systems with companies and the companies would not guarantee but the flow of air they wouldn't guarantee that they would clear the air over night and the commingling through open doors and so forth they wouldn't guarantee the clean air piece of it and ! know ! had originally said ! would talk about this and it seemed to me that if the goal and I'm still hearing that as a goal around the table to get zero that ! want to put out a false hope to some folks who have separate rooms right now that they might because there's already been some calls made to how do ! get this equipment and ! don't want businesses to start in on remodeling or changing ventilating systems to meet this ordinance false hope, ! think we'll go to zero in very near future. Kanner/You know I think it's something that once we get something in place and see how it's going Connie ! think we will get it in the future but yea ! think it does give false hope and there are some potential health problems with that. Lehman/Okay guys, there apparently will be no amendments tomorrow night and we will be. O'Donnell/Well ! had a second one. Lehman/I'm sorry. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 52 Dilkes/Just the one with the affective date that won't be, it will still be a final reading but we need to get the change made. O'Donnell/Is there anyone interested in red light green light? And a simple show of hands will do, we don't need to get into this. Evidently not. Lehman/Mike I don't think. All right let's do. Council Time Lehman/Council time first thing let' s, Steve you asked that we have our agenda's here tonight which we have and we also received from Marian a calendar of times that we have scheduled. Karr/I just want to remind you that we do have a resolution in place where you agreed to the first and third Tuesday of each month. Lehman/Right. Karr/So again. Lehman/And that's the way it's drawn up here. Karr/And that's the way it's drawn up with the exception of January because of the holiday schedule yes. Lehman/Right, okay did you have something in particular in mind? Kanner/No I just wanted to look and make sure we're all okay and we're still going with that first and third. Lehman/Right. Champion/I only have one problem for the whole year and that's my usual, my family vacation is always the first Sunday of August. O'Donnell/I want to go this year. Champion/You can. O'Donnell/Okay. Kanner/Where are we going? Champion/Camping. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 53 Lehman/Well summer schedule generally gets really well rearranged. Champion/Oh I thought we were doing the whole year. Lehman/Well I think it would be pretty tough but I'm going to have a problem I believe, just a minute, the first week of June I will not be here, that doesn't mean Council can't meet but I will not be here. Champion/We were hoping you wouldn't be here. Lehman/You were hoping well and I will not be here the first week of March either, now that is a little more of a problem because I believe that we do have, we have to certify our budget. Champion/I think you should be here for the March meeting, June. Lehman/I won't be here for the March meeting. Champion/No but then we need to change it because those meeting, June, summer's pretty light. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/And the March thing also I could well be leaving on Tuesday to start meetings on Wednesday at National League of Cities. Champion/I mean your talking about the 5th and 6th of March. Lehman/The 5th of March will not work. Champion/What about the next week? Lehman/The next week or the previous week, I don't know it depends on how we get along with budget meetings and hearings and whatever. Vanderhoef/We have to certify by the 15th so we could do it on the 1 lth and 12th. Karr/Your tentative schedule calls for you to set a public hearing on February 5th and hold it the 19th of February for the budget so if Council's so inclined you could number one vote the same night as the public hearing, number two you could look at a special meeting the next week the week of the 26th. Champion/Marian could we set the public hearing at the meeting before that? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 54 Karr/The problem with that and I think Steve could probably address that better than I is you have to have the budget firmed up so many days ahead and with your current budget schedule I don't know how realistic it is before that meeting. Champion/Okay we could have a special meeting to set the public hearing like we wouldn't need all of us here to set the public hearing. Lehman/No but I think that we would, I really on that budget thing I'm not sure that we wouldn't be wise to have a special meeting on the 26th. O'Donnell/Of what, February. Karr/February. O'Donnell/February. Champion/But we need to set the public hearing for the 19th. Karr/No you could set it the 5th and the 26th. Champion/I don't like voting the same night we have a public hearing. Lehman/No I don't think we probably should. Karr/No your setting the public hearing, your setting, on February 5th the hearing for the 26th. Lehman/For the 19th. Karr/Oh I see for the 19th, then you have back to back meetings so you would have your public hearing on the 19th and then you'd have your resolution the 26th okay. Lehman/Is there a danger in having the public hearing on the 19th and then have a special meeting on the 12th when it has to be certified by the 15th? Is that a? Atkins/12th is getting a little. Lehman/No that's what I'm thinking that. Karr/We need 10 days I think. Atkins/We need a couple, yea we need some time. Lehman/It would be smarter for us to have that meeting on the 26th, even if we did nothing more than act on the budget. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 55 Atkins/Given the schedule Ernie and the rest of the Council I mean the state law says it has to be in by the 15th, practically speaking you almost have to have it done two weeks before that by the time you get all the notices and everything. Lehman/So I guess my thinking is the 26th and have a little extra time. Vanderhoef/Have a meeting on the 26th and skip the 5th. Champion/Oh I'm in the wrong month I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. Karr/So in February you'd have meetings the 5th, the 19th and the 26th and then you'd go to March 19th. Pfab/I'm sorry. Champion/No we're not going to do. Pfab/I missed something you said, 5th, 19th, and the 26th in February. Champion/No. Karr/That's what I'm asking. Pfab/Okay, that's okay. Champion/No the 5th Ernie is not going to be here. Lehman/No we're February now, February 5th, 19th and 26th and we would skip the 5th of March meeting, well we wouldn't have to skip it but I mean I won't be here. Champion/Oh okay. Pfab/So what your proposing Ernie at this point is just having the meeting, scheduling a meeting for March 19th, that's it for March as of now. Vanderhoef/It's 19th and 26th. Champion/No it's 26th of February. Vanderhoef/Of February, those three dates Pfab/So we pick up an extra meeting in February and you skip one in March. Champion/Right. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 56 Pfab/That's what we're discussing right now right, it seems to be agreeable, we're all agreeing it. Lehman/Well can we, ! think we should schedule the 26th of February. Pfab/Right ! think so. Lehman/And then probably not the 5th of March, if something turns out that we need a meeting. Champion/Have a special meeting for. Kanner/The 26th ! think could work for me it's tough because I'm going to be away possibly up until Monday or Tuesday so maybe we can keep it a light agenda if there's a commitment to a lighter agenda. Lehman/Well we could meet on the 26th and deal with the budget only, we could do that just the budget only and then the 5th of March have a regular meeting ! won't be here. Karr/And then you'd have three meetings in a row and two people absent because ! think ! heard Dee would be gone. Champion/Right. Karr/Are you going to be gone? Vanderhoef/Depending on the flight schedules and stuff it's real possible that ! won't be here for the 5th of March that is. Karr/So we talked about the lighter schedule ! just want to say we're down to the potentially five Council people for a quote heavy schedule. Kanner/Well Dee my meeting of the League of Cities didn't they move it back a day, it starts really the 7th and 8th and it goes through the 12th. Vanderhoef/But the policy committee and steering committee meetings are prior to that, they schedule those. Kanner/! thought they were they sort of moved it back and it was like maybe the 8th, instead of, there's workshops scheduled on the 8th but ! thought also the policy meetings were then (can't hear). Atkins/I think that's spring break. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 57 Lehman/Well for purposes of the budget we will schedule a meeting on the 26th of February and we will address the budget if necessary it will be a regular meeting if not it will be a budget only. Champion/So what about? Kanner/So we're not going to meet Monday the 25th? Champion/Oh yea, oh no, have to. Dilkes/I think we have to. Kanner/Of February. Lehman/Probably will have to. Kanner/Can we do two on Tuesday? Champion/Sure. Kanner/That makes it easier then. Champion/Yea. Vanderhoef/You know you can have your packet sent out. Kanner/ Yea I'll do, I'll pick it up early but it's still pretty difficult, you've got something on Tuesday the 26th Ernie. Lehman/I'm suppose to be out of town on Monday and Tuesday both. Karr/Of which Monday and Tuesday. Lehman/25th and 26th of February. Pfab/I'm just making so hairy, just (can't hear) kidding. Kanner/We could pick another day of the week. Karr/Okay could I go back, if we're, what about late that week the 20th, 21st, 22nd if the budget, if the public hearing has to be the 19th and we've got people gone the 25th through 26th, Steven are you here late that week? Kanner/No I'm gone, well I'm gone Thursday the 21 st. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 58 Karr/The 21 st. Vanderhoef/What about the 28th? Kanner/Well that might work have it on a different day of the week, a Thursday. Lehman/! can do that. Champion/! can do that. Kanner/So we have a work session if necessary that same day in the afternoon. Karr/We'll double up on the 28th of February. Champion/Yea that would be fine, that would be fine with me. Vanderhoef/Well wait a minute, let me look at that. Champion/Poor Ross doesn't feel up to even commenting on our dates, you can go home now Ross we'll send you a copy of this. Pfab/Send you an e-mail. Vanderhoef/Okay that's real full with daytime meetings as ECICOG. Champion/Your going to have to get over it Dee. Vanderhoef/Just that we don't finish up until threeish. Karr/What about Friday March 1 st? Kanner/Or Wednesday the 27th. Karr/Either or. Lehman/Either or. Champion/Yea that would work for me too. Kanner/The 1 st is maybe a little better for me, either one, Wednesday. Vanderhoef/Well if we're having a night meeting I'd rather have it on a Wednesday night than Friday night. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 59 Kanner/Wednesday the 27th. Champion/Wednesday would be fine. Lehman/Wednesday the 27th does that work for folks? Champion/Yes. Pfab/Good to me at this time. Champion/So we'll do them both in the same day. Kanner/Yea, preferably 4:00 or so something like that. Champion/Any time's fine with me. Lehman/That's fine, we'll have the informal at 4:00 and formal at 7:00. Karr/May not need to start at 4:00 depending on schedule, we'll work that out. Lehman/27th. Kanner/But not earlier than 4:00. Karr/No, I understand no earlier than 4:00, I understand. Kanner/27th so meeting the 5th. Karr/Of March. Kanner/Of March. Karr/Well okay are we back to? Champion/One meeting in March the 19th. Karr/Okay. Lehman/Well we've got spring break coming up. Champion/Oh that's spring break. Atkins/That's spring break. Lehman/Why don't we move that to the 12th? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 60 Vanderhoef/Marian do you have the League thing? Kanner/It's the League of Cities. Karr/I have the National League of Cities and I've got Legislative date of February 20th. Lehman/Well what happens to the 1 lth of 12th of March if were going to have one meeting have it the middle of the month. Champion/Yea that's a good idea. Karr/Go with the 1 lth and 12th. Champion/And it's out of spring break. Kanner/Well the League. Karr/Well now my only concern is Dee I've got the League the 8th through the 12th so are you going to be back the 1 lth and 12th though? Lehman/Oh forget it, it won't work. Vanderhoef/If it says 8th through the 12th then my steering committee meetings are the 7th so I fly out on the 6th so I can be here on the 5th. Lehman/But we're asking if you'll be back on the 12th. Karr/No I'm asking the 1 lth and 12th. Champion/No, 1 lth and 12th. Lehman/18th, 19th, leave it there. Karr/Leave it at 18, 19. Champion/That's spring break. Lehman/Oh it is. Champion/Yea. Vanderhoef/Okay let's go 11-12. Wilburn/The week of the 11-12 I'm (can't hear). This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 61 Champion/! mean (can't hear) it doesn't make any difference to me but a lot of our public does. Wilburn/! will not be here the week of the 11-12th ! will be at the Attorney General's Crisis Response training that week. Karr/I'm sorry, you will not be here the 1 lth? Lehman/He will not be here the 1 lth and 12th. Kanner/And I'm thinking of going to the League of Cities which 11-12 is part of that. Vanderhoef/League of Cities part of, carries on over. Kanner/Yea that's what I'm saying ! might not be here. Vanderhoef/! will be here then for the 5th if we want to do that. Champion/But Ernie won't be here for that. Lehman/No but that's okay. Vanderhoef/But if we do budget while Ernie's here on the 27th and we can do a light meeting that night and do a light meeting on the 5th then we don't need anything until the 19th. Lehman/! would recommend, ! really think. Karr/So we're going to go back to the 4th and 5th and cancel the 18-19th of March is that what we're going to do? Kanner/Well are people here on Council going out of town during Spring break? Does staff typically go on vacation? Lehman/No. Kanner/! think we ought to keep it it's more in the middle of the month and we have a full. Champion/But a lot of our public' s not around and ! think kind of staff and everybody kind of lays back and takes it easy spring break. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 62 Lehman/Well can't we at this point figure on meeting on the 5th and we're going to know prior to that what we've got going on and if it's necessary that we meet the 18th- 19th fine if not necessary then we can always, can we do that? Karr/Well it's heading into spring and construction time and I've already got a couple projects and I think it would be helpful to know if there's an indication of a preference. Lehman/18th and 19th we're going to meet it sounds like. Karr/If there's a preference one way or the other I think it would be helpful. Vanderhoef/18th and 19th of February. Lehman/March. Karr/No we're March. Champion/It would be our regular meeting. Lehman/Yea. Karr/February we're done, we committed to 4, 5, 18, 19 and 27. March we've committed to 4-5 at the present time I believe, now are we doing 18 and 19. Lehman/Right, I think we are. Champion/No, I mean are we really going to have four, three meetings in a row? The 19th, the 26th and the 5th. Karr/The 27th the 4th and the 5th. Right. Kanner/Yea I would say we don't need the 5th perhaps and just go with the 18th 19th. Lehman/All right I don't have a problem with that, hey I won't be here anyway. Kanner/And in February if we find that we do need to meet the 5th we can. Champion/We can schedule one. Kanner/I like the 18th and 19th because it gives us a couple weeks. Vanderhoef/18-19th of which month? Kanner/March. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 63 Champion/March. Vanderhoef/Okay. Lehman/Scratch the 5th, 18th and 19th of March. Champion/I love you guys but you know three weeks in a row is. O'Donnell/Two is real depressing. Kanner/And June you said you had a. Lehman/I will be gone the first week of June, I don't know does every know their schedules that far ahead? Vanderhoef/I'm not quite ready for that. Lehman/We got through March, April I don't think I have any problems, I don't know if anybody else or not, I don't have anything, that's getting about as far ahead as I'm interested in going. O'Donnell/Fine. Kanner/Well just, I guess for Marian mostly, July 22-23rd we're not scheduled and I hope it stays that way because I've got plans then. Karr/I think again if you could let me know when you have plans drop me off a note, I'll record it and then as people start asking me about changing some dates I might be able to save some of this confusion by saying we already have a couple people out of town. Champion/Oh Marian if you could find a way to save the confusion. Karr/I try. Lehman/No but I do think it really helps if we know we're not going to be in town to let Marian know. Karr/Just let me know. Lehman/Then she can start putting the pins and the dolls I mean dates on the calendar. All right Council time. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 64 Kanner/I had submitted a memo here, I met with Steve Atkins about working with and welcoming Latino, Latina, a Hispanic community and was wondering if we could have a work session to talk about issues, was that you who submitted that Governing article? Atkins/Yes. Kanner/And Steve I don't know if you saw it (can't hear) there was a good article in our Governing magazine about this issue of what's happening, I think we can be proactive and I talked to Ernie about this and maybe Heather can put a memo together. Also I think it would be good Ernie to if we're going to have a work session have someone from the Latino community be part of that discussion, and I think John-Paul Chaisson might be a good person to have, he's on the State Latino Commission. Lehman/I don't have a problem with that, you asked me if we could put it on a work session I have no problem with that but I do think we need to get some feel from the Council as to the level of interest that we're going to have and I think that it's, if Heather could be here obviously she is familiar with this, your familiar with it and I would think that based on that conversation that if we have an interest of moving further with it then we could get more input on it. I don't anticipate spending a half hour at a work session on this. Now if Council is interested in moving forward with doing something wonderful but we need to determine the level of interest on the Council. Pfab/I definitely think we need to (can't hear), whatever, I'm not sure where you start on it but it looks like what works been done. Lehman/No I think Steve (can't hear). Pfab/Then I think that's a good foundation to work from and I think we ought to move on it, if (can't hear) can run down to Mexico and grab him illegal immigrants to keep their turkey and chicken factory going at least we ought to be able to support them after their here, to work with them, help them. Lehman/Well okay what's the Council's pleasure? I have no problem with putting this on the agenda. Vanderhoef/There was something in there about the amount that city supported this in a limited fashion Human Rights Commission. Atkins/That's correct $500. Kanner/No that's present. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 65 Vanderhoef/That was dollars, that's present not the previous one. Kanner/Right. Vanderhoef/All right so that much has already been done. Atkins/Yes. Vanderhoef/And that can be used I take for running the whole. Atkins/We agreed to make a $500 contribution in affect of somewhat of a sponsor, the City becomes in affect a sponsor of the program and you have the, as long as they use it for the conference then there's not a problem for us. Vanderhoef/I guess what I would be interested in then is like Ernie said to have Heather come, tell us a little bit about it, and so we know if there's something that we need to be actively in or whether we should approach it each one individually as a person that wanted to volunteer time for this or whatever. Atkins/I haven't (can't hear) inform you but the other day I did inform the and encouraged the Chamber of Commerce to participate also, thought it was important, I think important enough for them to be involved. Vanderhoef/Well I, when I put my economic development hat and work force development hat on and looking at the Vision 2000 for the State of Iowa certainly our immigrant folk are very important to our whole community so how we can support them beyond the $500 1 would take (can't hear) from you that have been there and also from Heather. You know a 10 or 15 minute conversation work meeting would be real appropriate in my mind. Wilburn/If John Paul were willing to come, he's on the State Commission so I think that would be, if they have any issues or something prepared that the State Commission has been discussing, if he's willing to come briefly to pass that out. Lehman/Is that okay with everybody? Champion/Yes absolutely. Lehman/All right, I think it's important to let them know we need to have obviously have as much time as we wish for questions but his presentation probably shouldn't go over 10 or 15 minutes. Kanner/Well I think the thing would be he'd be here mostly for questions and just a brief one or two minute thing. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 66 Lehman/He needs to give us an overview of what he would like. Wilburn/Well just to be fair to him he should have some guidance on what he' s coming to answer or look at so. Lehman/Okay. Wilburn/So giving him the expectation can you talk briefly 10, 15 minutes about what the Commission sees a role of cities you know, perhaps even based on the Governor's 20 ton report something like that. Pfab/And ! also think that if he comes to the city some to help him interact in the community at either a press conference or a community event of some, Chamber of Commerce, some other place where (can't hear). Kanner/So Steve you'll. Atkins/I'll contact them both, I'll take care of it. Pfab/(Can't hear). Atkins/It's very much up to him, I've met the man, he's ! think quite frankly, one of the most important issues is that he'd like to see you all involved. The conference ! think had some 700 participants last time around so it's not small potatoes and the other thing that he, he's really quite frankly networking, by meeting with you and appearing here that in itself almost assures him of being able to get the word out. Pfab/! think what he can tell us is help us explain to us how we can get it out, any support. Atkins/Yea I'll take care of that. Lehman/Okay. Vanderhoef/! just had a question and maybe it needs to come at budget time but ! was reading the Airport Commission minutes and they were talking about expanding to higher standards for their zoning protection and that the cost of updating everything is around $5000 and ! don't know what that might mean in the way of purchasing more land and so forth. And then there was also something about rents and raising rents and it sounded like there was a concern of paying off the bonding we have done for them. Atkins/Okay, on Thursday ! intend to, ! hopefully will have the report finished by then, but on Thursday ! intend to present to you the airport subsidy in this budget more than doubles and I've got to believe that's unacceptable to you. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 67 Champion/Yea it is. Atkins/And ! need to get you more specifics, the bottom line is that ! understood your policy to be that we would build these hangers and then the income would pay for them. Champion/Absolutely. Atkins/As long as that, that's apparently not happening, and so ! will be preparing some information for you. Vanderhoef/Thank you very much. Atkins/And the other thing and ! can tell you this now, it's a little uncomfortable for me, the Airport Commission is really yours, ! don't have, ! virtually have no over side authority, so it's a little more difficult when Ron's cooperated, we ask the leases and all the information and our Finance Department (can't hear). Champion/Appoint you our agent. Lehman/Well ! think there's more to it than that. Atkins/There's a lot more to it than that, and I'm going to want you to discuss with me in some detail the status of the Airport finances. O'Donnell/But this is a budget issue. Atkins/That's a budget issue. Vanderhoef/But it certainly sent up a red flag for me when ! read those Commission minutes. Lehman/There is a, the Expo over at the Carver Hawkeye and we're going to get, ! think we all got a memo on attending that for the elected officials booth so. Who's going to coordinate, are you going to coordinate that Marian? Karr/I've got the thing here or you can call Karin directly whichever you prefer, ! have the sign in sheet as well. Kanner/! thought ! saw that it was going to be Thursday and then ! saw they said Friday and Saturday. Vanderhoef/Friday and Saturday. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002. January 7, 2002 Special Work Session Page 68 Karr/Friday, Saturday, Friday 12, noon to 7. Kanner/(can't hear) Thursday. Lehman/Think so. Vanderhoef/! would do Saturday morning. Karr/Okay. Lehman/Well get together with Marian so we can make sure we have our things covered. Champion/I'm going to go have wine at 4:00. O'Donnell/Your having wine at 4. Lehman/Anything else for Council time? All right we're out of here. Adjourned 9:00 PM This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of January 7, 2002.