Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-27 Transcription#2 Page #1 ITEM NO. 2. MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS. 2a. American Red Cross Month - March 2002 Karr: Here to accept is Kim Johnson, Grant Wood Board Member. Champion: Thank you. Kim Johnson: Next month, March, is Red Cross month. A time when we like to recognize everyone in the community who works with us to help save lives. Thanks to support from you and others in the community and with the essential help of more than 1200 residents who generously volunteer their time through the Red Cross, the Grant Wood Area Chapter has been able to accomplish a great deal this past year. For example, we have provided immediate help to more than 400 individuals after disaster struck, made our community a safer place by training nearly 23,000 people in essential life saving skills such as CPR, first aid and water safety, passed 258 emergency communications between military personnel and their families while they were separated by military service, collected 4,267 units of blood, helping save countless lives. We have done this together, Red Cross staff and volunteers, local agencies, business, donors and community leaders. Thank you for helping the Red Cross celebrate Red Cross month. It's true; together we can save a life. Champion: Thank you. Vanderhoefi Thank you. 2b. International Women's Month - March 2002 Karr: Here to accept is Leslie Winter, Americorp member. Leslie Winter: The American Red Cross is well represented tonight. I'm actually an Americorp National Rapid Response Corp. Member with the Grant Wood Area Chapter here in Iowa City so... I would like to thank you for recognizing March 8th as International Women's Day and March as International Women's Month. In 1977, the United Nations general assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming a United Nations Day for Women's Rights and International Peace. According to the UN proclamation, this day is celebrated in order to recognize the fact that securing peace and social progress in the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms requires the active participation, equality and development of women and to acknowledge the contribution of women to the strengthening of international peace and security. In recent decades the world's women have made tremendous This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #2 Page #2 progress towards achieving equality with men; however, nowhere in the world can women claim to have the same fights and opportunities as men. International Women's Day is an occasion to review how far women have come in their struggle for equality, peace and development and celebrate the achievements and successes of women the world over. And this year we will be having a celebration to reflect on what the women have done here in Iowa. And it's going to be on March 8th in the third floor Richey Ballroom of the UI Memorial Union. It's from 7 to 10 P.M. and will be sponsored by a number of organizations including the Iowa United Nations Association, the Grant Wood Area Chapter of the Red Cross, the UI Center for Human Rights, the Emma Goldman Clinic, Women's Recourse and Action Center. So if you're interested in tickets you can go to any of those places and purchase one and it will include international food and dancing and a wonderful celebration. We'll also be having a panel on Women, War, Peace, and Human Rights at the Iowa City Public Library on March 12th from 7 to 9 P.M. and that'll be in room A. Thank you. O'Donnell: Thank you. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5a Page #3 Lehman: Next is planning and zoning matters. The first item is relative to Oaknoll and I'm president of their board so I will...am unable to participate in this. Dee. ITEM NO. Sa. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2,800 SQUARE FEET FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-12, TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY, RM-44, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF WEST BENTON COURT. (REZ01-00027) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Champion: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Vanderhoef: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Motion pass, 6/0. Champion: No. They asked that this be expedited. How do we do that? Vanderhoef: That will be next time. Champion: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #4 ITEM NO. 5b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 14-6E OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW GROCERY STORES IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ZONE, CI-1, AS PROVISIONAL USE OR AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) O'Dormell: I have a question, Emie. Before we move first consideration is it appropriate to state either provisional or special exception? Lehman: We have to state one or the other so we can discuss it. O'Dormelt: I would move at this time that we do this as provisional use. Pfab: And I would second that. Lehman: We have a motion to make grocery stores a provisional use in the CI-1 zone by Mike O'Donnell, seconded by Irvin Pfab. Discussion? Wilburn: My preference would be to go by a special exception. I think by doing either one of these we're going against recommendation of both our Planning and Zoning Commission and staff. They expressed their concerns. I think many of us want to see the grocery store go into this place. I try and be somewhat flexible but I think that it's also important to provide some protections. Either one of these options can allow you to put certain conditions on but I think by putting it with the special exception that, you know, the Board of Adjustments...is that correct?...will have some jurisdiction. They will also have some flexibility and so I think this is a way that we can both say that we're trying to support what's going to happen over there but also provide some protections that we want to make sure they're for land use. Vanderhoef: Well I'll agree with you on that and extend further in that the fact that this is not for just this particular store. I'm very sorry that this came up. We have a name on it rather than looking at it in the total picture of zoning throughout the City. Anything that we do at this point in time does effect all the CI-1 zones, which is the intensive commercial. There has been a lot of discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission in that they see some things that probably they will change as we're doing this review of the zoning ordinances. IfI had a choice I would like to defer it until such time as the total zoning could be reviewed and I know I don't have support for that so I won't put it on the table but that would be my choice. And I think that would be the best choice in that we would have a comprehensive plan on this. This is changing zoning for a specific and I don't see that as good comprehensive planning. I am very concerned about this particular location and the traffic that will be generated there and how it will be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #5 interacted with the pedestrian, the bicycle. There would be other locations even that would be better in the CI zone, even the one just slightly north of where they're requesting this. And there are other zones that are already available. But obviously the cost of land increases as you move into locations where it's properly zoned for a grocery store at this point in time. A real concern that I have with this particular location as I've been struggling with my budget and trying to put my capital improvement projects on the next five year plan, I see way in the out years, and we haven't even discussed it, the upgrading of 420th Street which I think will be requested as soon as this store is put into this location. I think people are going to want that upgraded. I think they're going to want a traffic light because they're going to have trouble either getting out onto Scott Boulevard or out onto Highway 6 and we don't have the money to do this. And I want the people to be very aware that ifa store goes in to this location that there are no promises or any money available to continue on with this project at this point in time. We do have a TIF district in the industrial area, not in this area. And the TI~ district, the project that we have there at this point in time is for a tax rebate so there still are not dollars being generated that would help us with that particular road and upgrade. So for all those reasons, I don't approve of putting a store here at all. But if we're going to put one here I will support the special exception. O'Donnell: And I suggested provisional use because of a time period. Fareway was named for this and I think that they're a very responsible company and would develop this in a responsible manner. We've been working on this for six months now. It's time. We've heard from, I believe, 1600 people on the east side that would like to have a grocery store in this area, that would like to have competition for other grocery stores in this area. If you count the rooftops, count the future annexations up on the north end of Scott, there is a need for this. In CI-1 zoning you can have a McDonalds or a Burger King or for that matter I could buy that lot and store broken down construction equipment on it. And we've spent a lot of money trying to beautify the entrance to our City. This is something that should happen. It's been delayed too long and it should happen as a provisional use. Champion: Well I agree with Mike. I'm sorry it's not...probably not going to have the votes for provisional use. I just hope they don't get too discouraged and.just decide not to build it because I think it's a real need for this grocery store out there. Pfab: I would support Mike and Connie here in the fact that we have made changes to other kinds of zoning. And the one that comes to mind...or a situation that's not identical but not that far was on Rochester This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #6 Avenue. Didn't take us long to decide that that was...we could make some exceptions there. We're too...as a City we sometimes get the reputation that we're difficult to deal...we are difficult to deal with as far as businesses are concerned. I think that this may be one of those times that maybe it fits. The other thing is that this land is sitting there for a long time and we keep saying we've got to build our industrial and commemial base. And the other point is there is just overwhelming public support for this so without any doubt I'm going to support a provisional. Lehman: Well I...obviously there's been a great deal of disagreement as to whether or not this is good use for this particular property. Probably was not intended for a grocery store use. I guess I have some difficulty in my own mind in determining that this is absolutely not the appropriate use for that property. On the other hand there are enough questions about this particular piece of property that I think it's extremely important that ifa grocery store is to be allowed in this zone that it be done so in a very carefully planned fashion that protects the area and the store, as far as that goes. So I will...I would support a special exception. Now I think our choices...and I think Council needs to understand, we have three choices tonight. Actually two I suppose. We can pass the provisional use and we're done with it. If we defeat the provisional use, we can pass the special exception and we're done with it. Or we can defeat both which then would be concurring with the staff and the Plarming and Zoning Commission. So further discussion? Wilburn: I move to... Lehman: Don't...we have a motion on the floor for a provisional use that we have a second. Wilbum: Can't amend...move to amend? Lehman: Well we could. On the other hand if we... O'Donnell: I'm not going to go for that. Wilburn: Okay. All right. Lehman: Is there other.., any further discussion upon the motion to allow grocery stores as a provisional use in the CI-1 zone, which includes all CI-1 zones? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #7 O'Donnell: I think that Irvin said something that is fairly prudent. One thing is how Iowa City is perceived in doing business. I just think that was...that was a very good comment, Irvin. Wilbum: I guess the other thing I would add was that if I'm not mistaken, the attorney, Bob Downer, had said that either would work, that preference would be for the provisional use. So I'll just through that out there too. Lehman: I agree. The other thing...and I...Mike in all fairness, I believe that by passing either of these we are indicating that we are a community where business can occur because we have...this has been recommended against by both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council at this point is at least considering whether or not to allow it. So... O'Donnell: I have a concern though, Ernie, that if we do sent this...this will go to...if we do special exception, it goes to the Board of Adjustment. That's a 30-day waiting period. It then returns to us...no it doesn't... Lehman: It doesn't come here. O'Donnell: ...but it can end right there and your recourse recourse after that is legal. And that's a concern of mine so I disagree with you. Lehman: Is there further discussion? Champion: We have some public discussion. Lehman: Roll call. Champion: We have public discussion. Vanderhoefi This is provisional. Lehman: This is for the provisional use. Pfab: I believe there's... Kanner: (can't hear) other people that want to speak. Dilkes: I think somebody wants to speak, I think. Lehman: Oh. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #8 Tim Krumm: My name's Tim Krumm, I'm an attorney with the Meardon Law Firm, Bob Downer's partner who not able to be here tonight. I will keep my comments short because I know that you've considered this both in your informal session and prior meetings extensively. But I just...in response to Councilman Wilburn's comment about the owner of the property's position on this, we would strongly favor the provisional use as opposed to the special exception. And I guess the point I would make relative to that.., and Karin Franklin did an excellent j ob, I think, of describing the implications of these two different routes. If this is incorporated as a special exception clearly that's better than the Mayor's third alternative that he outlined which is nothing. But it's a long ways from the provisional use as far as we're concerned. And the truth of the matter is we don't know whether we'll be able to build a grocery store at that spot or whether a grocery store will be allowed if we go through the Board of Adjustment process. And our recourse, if those requirements can not be met at that stage, is not to come back to the Council. The Council's not going to get another swing at this at that point. Our recourse is to go to district court. So yeah, I would much rather leave here tonight with the special exception than with nothing but I don't think that creates much certainty if the will of the Council is that there be a grocery store in this location. It doesn't create a great deal of certainty that that's going to happen. I guess I just wanted to make that point. I obviously agree with those comments that various Council people have made in support of the provisional use aspect of this. I don't see this frankly as being some sort of spot zoning. And perhaps it is unfortunate that we know the specific project as we consider this and the specific grocery store by name. But if you look at those uses that are permitted within this zone, things like restaurants, you don't have the ability to control issues related to traffic if it's a restaurant or all the other listed allowable uses within this zone. Don't think this is much different than those. This is not...on the other hand if you look at the types of uses that the ordinance does not allow within this zone, it's more intensely commercial or industrial type of uses, canneries and things of that nature. So I don't think we fall within that category. I think, you know, it's a public policy decision as to whether this is where a grocery store should go. If this Council thinks that's the...that's a good move, which we obviously would support, the provisional use is the preferred route as far as we're concerned. And I would be happy to attempt to try to respond to any questions the Council might have for me. Vanderhoef: I guess I would just like to respond in that the history of the CI-1 zone was such that it was started on South Gilbert Street years ago and there were already restaurants there but there was commercial, heavy, intense commercial there. And rather then make those restaurants at This represents only a reasonably accnrate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #9 that time grandfathered in, they allowed restaurants in that area. As I read through our P&Z minutes, the discussion is going on that this something they are going to take a look at because they too are questioning whether restaurants should be in the CI-1 zone. Unfortunately, our updating of the zoning has been delayed and delayed to the point that now we have a political issue from a special request to bring in a store in this location. I'll be the first one to say I want a grocery store, another grocery store on the East Side of Iowa City. And, I guess, I would be more receptive to this particular request if there weren't already other areas on the east side of Iowa City that has all the infrastructure in place that is for sale and could accommodate a grocery store. So, it isn't that I'm being difficult to do business with. In my eyes, I'm looking at good city planning and know that we have planned and had areas available for this to happen. Krumm: And I, of course, can't speak to why they're aren't grocery stores being developed on those other properties. There is an opportunity to have a grocery store on this property, which I think would be for the good of the East Side, the southeast side of town. Lehman: We obviously share your thoughts. Perhaps not exactly the same method for doing it but we obviously agree. Krumm: Thank you. Lehman: Roll call. Motion fails, 4/3, Pfab, Champion and O'Donnell voting in the affirmative. Is there a motion that we make grocery stores a permitted use by special exception? Vanderhoef: I will make that motion. Wilbum: I'll second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion? Ijustwant to say, I think Council...and I guess I feel that by doing this we are showing that we do have...we are responding to public opinion. We are responding to something that we believe is good but we're not saying that just any grocery store stuck on that property is appropriate. That if it's done appropriately and properly and the same exception applies to all other CI-1 zones, that it's probably a more appropriate way of doing it. Pfab: I have a question. Now I understood that in a provisional option was that there were some restrictions. Now... Lehman: The restriction is a 30,000 square foot store... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #10 Pfab: Does that follow over on the... Lehman: That is part of the motion that has been made. It would restrict it to 30,000 square feet or less plus restrictions that would be placed on it by the Planning Department relative to traffic...or could be. Not necessarily but it could be traffic, could be lights, could be parking lot, could be access issues and whatever. Those would be placed on it. I suspect by agreement with...I'm sure this will be a matter of discussion with the developer. Pfab: So what you're saying... Dilkes: I'm sorry, just a minute. With the Board of Adjustment and not necessarily by agreement with the developer. Lehman: No, but I'm sure that much of that would be discussed with the developer in the process of coming up with the proposal. O'Donnell: Well what we're saying tonight by sending this to the Board of Adjustment that this very well may not happen. Lehman: And also saying that if it's done it will be done in a manner that we feel is appropriate for the area. Vanderhoef: And all future areas, CI-1, where the...a request may come in which we have several of those zones throughout the City. O'Donnell: Well you know, Dee, I don't think we're going to have a stampede of grocery stores coming in to build in CI-1 zones. We haven't lately and I don't believe that's going to happen. And I think this is...you know, you brought up good planning two or three times now. I think the provisional use is very good planning because I think it's putting something in an area that's needed and wanted. Lehman: Al? A1 Streb: I didn't come here to talk that's why... Lehman: State your name first, Al. Streb: A1 Streb. Lehman: For the record. Yes, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #11 Streb: I don't...I think. This has been six months, you know. They pay over $5,000 a month taxes. We've lost $30,000 already just talking about it. I know we voted on it already. You guys are out of it now that the Board of Adjustments got it. You don't have a thing to say about it. It's all done and we spent night after night after night screening trees, air conditioners, garbage disposals. Now if you guys want lumber yards and junk up Scott Boulevard that's what you're going to get. I can't control it either. I got to go to the bank every once in a while and I can't fight City Hall doing it. I just...sidewalks, already we got to put em in, in the commercial. Ifa factory lets out there at 4:00, Dee, there's going to be 200 people coming out. There's going to be traffic, just bound to be, 200 people at a time. So what? Youjust...We've got to have masonry buildings along Scott Boulevard. We fought that all the way when we subdivided this place. I've gave the land for 420th, the developers agreement says you people are supposed to pave it. Now that's all I can say. I...we've got to get some commercial in this town. I don't know...something's wrong. We got to do something to get...we got to get the taxes coming in. Lehman: Thank you, Al. Other discussion? Roll call. Pfab: Maybe I should ask if this vote is legal but I won't. I will vote yes but I'll kind of hold my nose a little bit. Lehman: The vote...the motion passes, 7/2, O'Donnell and Champion voting in the negative. And Tim, Mr. Krumm... Vanderhoefi 5/2. Lehman: Or 5/2. I would suggest to you and I suspect that it would be...I don't know this because I haven't spoken to the Council but if you would like to ask for expedited consideration at the next meeting we can speed the process up at least a little bit. That will be the 19th. Krumm: Okay. Lehman: And I would have no problem with expediting this. Pfab: I... Vanderhoef: You can make the request now. Krumm: I'd make that request for expedited consideration. Lehman: At the next meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5b Page #12 Pfab: And when is the next meeting? Lehman: 19th or March. And we'll make a note of that. Mahan's (can't hear) appears in the packet like that. All right. Thank you. Pfab: Is it possible due...before you go. Is it possible to do a neighborly thing like our neighbors did? Lehman: What are you talking about? Pfab: Can we... O'Donnell: Referendum? Is that what you're talking about? Pfab: No, run it through right now? Do our next two votes right now? Lehman: I don't think that's appropriate, personally, unless the rest of the Council does. O'Donnell: No, lets... Champion: No. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Okay, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #5e Page #13 ITEM NO. 5e. CONSIDER 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) (PASS AND ADOPT) Vanderhoef: Move adoption. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: I believe this is the one where there's a very limited amount of recreation facilities in a very large housing area. Is that correct? And so I will be voting no. Lehman: Actually, Irvin, I believe the amount of recreation and green space is...the ratio is probably the same ratio as we get in any other subdivision. Pfab: Right but it's all on one side. It's a very deep housing development. I think that's a travesty. Lehman: But this...but I think it's important to point out the Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed this and has approved it. So, further discussion? Vanderhoef: I agree with you, Irvin. I would like to see that park moved more centrally but Parks and Rec. did approve it. Lehman: Roll call. The motion carries, 5/2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #6a Page #14 ITEM NO. 6. THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $27,055,000 SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. 6a. Public hearing Lehman: Public heating is open. O'Malley: Good evening, Mayor Lehman, esteemed Council. Tonight I'd like to share some history on this resolution and also have our financial advisors speak to this. (can't hear) Champion: Thank you. O'Malley: What you see there is a document that submitted to you last January giving an analysis of what the market was doing at that time. At that time you decided to have Steve and I sell those bonds at an appropriate time. So at that point in time we looked at savings...a total savings of $1,224,000, if you look over to the forth column, and a percent savings of 5%. Well today we had a real good day. A little more history, at the time that you did this Alan Greenspan had cut the interest rate four times. And since he hadn't stopped, the City Manager and I sat down and said well now's not the fight time. So we waited and waited and waited til he stopped cutting the interest rate. So that paid off. Today we had great bids. I think on page 2 of your report, you see that our savings actually became $2.9 million, that's the far right column,... Lehman: Right. Wilbum: Score. O'Malley: ...with a net present value of 9.6%. So patience does pay off. And David Dierks, our financial advisor, would like to say a few comments on (can't hear) bids. Lehman: Before...just a comment. I would like to be...in the work session tonight, Mr. Kanner asked staff if this reduction in costs would have a downward influence on sewer and water rates? O'Malley: Well, that's a political decision. You can...what we look at is we'd like to wait at least a year to see...to build up the cash balances in our sewer funds. We have a ratio of 1.25% that we have to meet for...with our creditors. And we'd like to make sure...because of this time frame of issuing bonds and our CIP program, we're not sure what it's going to look like after tonight. Lehman: Yeah, I don't think we're talking about an immediate down pressure... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #6a Page #15 O'Malley: Oh, yes. Lehman: ...but this will reflect the down pressure on rates. O'Malley: This elevates some of the pressure to increase rates for sure. Champion: I hope so. O'Malley: And...cause there's always engineers wanting us to do projects, which is appropriate for them. Lehman: Okay. Atkins: Kevin, before you get yourself too far in a whole there, I promised that you'd do an analysis to determine... O'Malley: Right. It's going to take six months cause of the other interest rates coming through to see how this is going to play out. But we took the savings over twelve years. We didn't take an immediate savings so there's no quick reduction in rates. Lehman: Right. Right. Pfab: Kevin? O'Malley: Yes. Pfab: You made a comment that waiting does pay. A little luck doesn't hurt either, right? O'Malley: That's true. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Okay. O'Malley: Now I'd like to have David Dirks... Pfab: We'll take it when we get it. O'Malley: ...report on the bids. David Dirks: Mayor and Members of the Council. I think Kevin and I are the only two in the room who were here for the original sale of these bonds in 1986. The graph that you have in there, I would like to just give you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #6a Page #16 an update on that which is in your report which shows the savings from the interest cost from the life of the issue at 5,543,000 million. That was based on what we had originally anticipated the result of today's savings...or sale savings to be. That should be updated to 5,966,000 based on what today's savings were. That's on this chart right here. I should...Kevin was absolutely correct. It was an excellent sale. Preparatory to giving the total results I should say that you get...retain you're A-2 rating, which is a good rating. The bonds were qualified for insurance and the successful bidder did pumhase insurance and factored that into their bid so we were able between the sale and this evening to chart how the bonds did sell. And they sold like a Aaa piece of Iowa paper in today's market so...And I would get one point in for your question of what to do with the savings for Kevin's analysis. You need to build your reserves up so...a little bit more so that that A-2 rating can go up in case you do have a little more need to access the market in the future. Lehman: My suspicion would be that Kevin will see to it that we do. Dirks: So the...to say we had seven bids, the low bid was that and the one we would recommend that your action include approving the award of with that of William R. Huff from St. Petersburg, Florida. Their bid had a net interest cost of $6,128,194.98 with a tree interest rate of 3.8464%. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Champion: Good grief. Good job. Lehman: I don't have to question this one at all. Vanderhoef: So what I'm heating in all of this then that probably doing an analysis before maybe six or seven months would be rushing us. Atkins: We can do something fairly quickly to give you some sort of an estimate. I mean, you have to remember these are paid out over a long period of time. Lehman: Right. Atkins: And let's say you take 5 million and divide it by twelve. Well that's 400 and some odd thousand dollars a year. Simple arithmetic...our sewer operation is in the neighborhood ofa 5 or 6 million dollar a year operation. So this may have an influence of, you know, 8 to 10% on what our operating cost might be. I'm just doing very, you know, very simple arithmetic here. So we will give you some kind of an idea but Kevin's right and David has, I think, advised us properly that we pump This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #6a Page #17 up the reserves just a tad bit. And they're in good shape now, make them even better. That helps secure these sort of bids well into the future for us. But we will get you a little summary just to kind of give you some idea. Champion: It sounds like a lot of money. Atkins: It is a lot of money. Champion: It is a lot of money. Atkins: It is a lot of money. Champion: It's really good. Maybe I can mortgage my house at that rate. Atkins: Well, you know, it's one of things and I don't want this to sound hokey that, you know, you're about to go through a budget discussion and debate. And you go through all the throws and the machinations of making those kind of decisions and this is one that has profound and long lasting influence. Not on today by almost generationally because the capital improvement project that it's paying for is going to serve our needs for the next 50 years. Kanner: David, I had a question for you. Dirks: Sure. Karmer: I don't understand where we see a savings of 2.9 million on page 2 and then the graph shows, as you said, 5.9 million. What's the difference? Dirks: The 2.9 is this issue that we've sold today. We've saved 2.9 million in interest avoided. The 5.9 includes in 1992 or 93 we did an advance refunding on the original issue and we saved a couple million there. Atkins: Yeah, we've done it twice. Dirks: Right. Lehman: Right. Dirks: So what that is showing you... Atkins: The cumulative. Dirks: ...is the gross aggregate of the savings from the original issue in 86 to what you've accomplished here. What you saved here is 2.9 million. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #6a Page #18 Kanner: That's the new savings is 2.9 million. Lehman: That's the total. Dirks: Correct. And additional savings on top of the 2... Kanner: Or 3 million essentially. Dirks: ...or the 3 million even that we got in 93. Karmer: In 93. Champion: Great. Dirks: So it's an aggregate...The original expose to interest on this was $48 million in 1986 when the original bonds were sold to point of interest where the market is they sold close to 8%. Champion: Wow. Dirks: And through diligent monitoring by your staff, which I think is the other part of this story is your staff has been good stewards on your behalf of how you've approached the handling of the principal or the interest payments but the P&I, the total debt service on this and every opportunity you've had you've refinanced in an effort that...under the terms of the law. You can only do one of these refundings like we did in 93 one time through the life of the issue. Now the issue we're doing today was called a current refunding. We're at the call date on these bonds and so we can call them. Also just as another aside, there's roughly...what do we got? $2 1/2 million of these bonds are callable in 2011 or 2012. So you might have one more chance to save even more so... Lehman: Very good. Pfab: Thank you. Dirks: Thank you. Champion: Now let me just ask a question. If we have a chance later to call the bonds, did you say? What if interest rates are high at that time? Do you have to call em? Dirks: No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #6a Page #19 Champion: Oh perfect. Okay. O'Malley: I just want to make one minor correction to David's remarks. There is more than just Dave and I was here in 1986. The City Clerk was here, City Manager and the Assistant City Manager. Atkins: It was one of my first issues that I dealt with shortly after... (End of side two, 02-25) Lehman: Okay. Public heating is closed. Do we have a resolution instituting proceeding to take additional action? Pfab: I move... Champion: Second. Pfab: ...move. Lehman: All right, Pfab, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #8 Page #20 ITEM NO. 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED "WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS INDIRECT DISCHARGE," SECTION 4, ENTITLED "PRETREATMENT STANDARDS," OF THE CITY CODE TO AMEND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT STANDARDS. (PASS AND ADOPT) Vanderhoef: Move to adopt. Pfab: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Pfab. Discussion? Pfab: Yes, I think if there is ever a thing we take on faith, I think this is probably one of them. Lehman: I think you've got that right, absolutely. Roll call. Motion carries. (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #9 Page #21 ITEM NO. 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE PRE-APPLICATION APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR PARTIAL INDUSTIRAL PROPETY TAX EXEMPTION IN TItE SCOTT-SIX TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) DISTRICT. Champion: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Do we all tmderstand this? I think it was fairly clear in the... Champion: Last work session? Lehman: ...in the packet but David is here if we have questions. O'Donnell: No, I think it's very clear. Lehman: Okay, roll call. Motion carries, 5/2, Kanner and Pfab in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #22 ITEM NO. 10. AMENDING RESOLUTION 97-326, ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM, AND SETTING A NEW ANNUAL ALLOCATION OF $50,000 FOR PUBLIC ART. Lehman: The public hearing...public hearing is open. This is not relative to the budget. This is... Atkins: Well, yes it is, Ernie. Champion: Yeah. Lehman: Well but it's independent of the budget. Atkins: You had a separate resolution governing public art and that's why you have to call this hearing. To do this you have to...to make a reduction in the public art program you have to have this hearing. Lehman: But even if we approve the budget at 100,000 and pass this resolution it would still be 50. Pfab: No. Atkins: No. You have...you have got to make a deliberate decision to reduce it from 100 to 50. That was your policy. Lehman: I'm aware of that but I think...never mind. Atkins: Okay. Lehman: Public heating is open. Sandra Hudson: My name is Sandra Hudson. I'm the Chair of you Public Art Advisory Committee and I'm here to give you some sentiments. After hearing about all these millions and millions of dollars you need a moment to decompress when I'm talking about 35,000? But, you know, give it a little try. Last time I appeared before you I tried to share with you my vision of the opportunity for Iowa City to become Iowa's arts city. I talked about building on strengths and I shared a graph showing how Iowa City compared very favorably with North Hampton, Massachusetts, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Eureka, California, which rank as the top three best small arts towns in America. I emphasized that we were less than 300 miles from Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Omaha. This was the perfect travel distance for weekenders getting away from the big cities. My big picture did not persuade so tonight let me narrow the focus. I'll begin at the state level. Less than a week ago Governor Tom Vilsack stated This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #23 "Cultural organizations generate millions of dollars in economic activity in Iowa, attract people to live and work in Iowa's communities, contribute to revitalization of these communities, are magnets for tourists, train minds for the creative economy jobs of the future and build social capital". In naming February 21st Cultural Advocacy Day, clearly the governor recognized the value of arts in Iowa. On the 21st, the House Standing Committee on Education, which includes representatives Vicky Lessing and Mary Masher, unanimously passed a bill out of committee with will over the next ten years create a $10 million cultural endowment. The interest from that endowment will be used to match local funds to assist Iowa's cultural organizations defray operating costs. Clearly our state representatives understand the value of arts in Iowa. Now let me narrow the focus still more, to the Iowa City Public Arts Advisory Committee. The committee that works on your public arts agenda includes five volunteer members. Their value to this Council over the past year represents a conservative in kind contribution to the City Council of over $3,000. PAAC has five projects on your public art agenda for fiscal 03. The first item is the near south side transportation center. The City has committed $8,170 as their percentage to this project. The key word is percentage. Iowa City pays only 20% of the cost of this public art project; the federal government pays 80%. For your 20% your Public Arts Advisory Committee brought you the talents of David Delquist (sp?) of Des Moines. David, his career is featured in the current Public Arts Journal Magazine. The second item is the extension of the literary walk. That is a $24,000 allocation. The key word here is appropriate. It would seem appropriate for the literary walk to lead to the library. It would seem appropriate to imbed the plaques in the sidewalk when it is poured following the construction of the library; thus, the bronzes must be designed and minted during fiscal 03. Incidentally, thought the New York City Public Library Literary Walk was scheduled to be the first in the county. As things turned out, Iowa City was completed first. New York's plaques are still in storage waiting installation. The third item is in conjunction with the Iowa Arts Festival. The key word here is honorarium although it's questionable just who is being awarded the honors. A $500 honorarium is awarded an artist who exhibits sculpture on the ped mall for an eleven-month period. It's important that the Council understand that the artist is responsible to deliver, install, responsible for all travel expenses, insurance in excess of $10,000, and any repairs or any other necessary work, all for $500. Thus the artist in his effect gifting the City the use of their sculpture for an entire year and in some cases actually paying something for the honor of doing so. Last year the epicenter group used a federal grant to subsidize the structure Dorothy by Justine Zimmer. This year it took two mailings and several private phone calls to encourage local sculptures to make the civic gesture ora submission. Well fortunately This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #24 artists are more susceptible to pleading phone calls than City Councilors. We actually got some. And a sculpture has been selected for next year. Gene Anderson has graciously agreed to put one of his family sculptures on the pad. Gene Anderson has massive what river front art along the Mississippi River in other communities. Lehman: You need to wrap this up Mrs. Hudson. Hudson: I will. I'm just about there. Lehman: Okay. Thank you. Hudson: The forth item is the sculpture of Irving Weber. The key words here are pubic private parmership. We have asked to partner with a group of private citizens to ensure a statue of Irving Weber will be placed in downtown Iowa City. Irving Weber has great meaning for our community, Irving Weber School, Irving Weber Festival. Hopefully the Council will participate in this public private partnership. The fifth item is a sense of place neighborhood art project. The key word here is community, community building, community history, community education, community participation. You approved the concept of this $38,000 project last October when funds were being sought as an American Spirit Grant. Iowa City did not receive the grant but your neighborhoods are eager. Leadership from three neighborhoods continue to hold planning meetings. They wish to go forward. So there you have it. $85,670 worth of programs and $50,000 budgeted. Permit me to quote the governor one last time. "Art trains the mind for the creative economy jobs of the future." The Council needs to do some creative economy work with this budget. If they do, I'll match them with some creative grantsmanship but matches only count for allocations above $50,000. Lehman: Thank you. Pfab: I would like to... Lehman: Well, this is a public hearing. Jerry. Jerry Hansen: My name's Jerry Hansen and this one kind of flew below the radar screen on me. And I'm not really prepared...I wasn't prepared to talk about this tonight but for years neighborhood representatives that talk among neighborhood council and people I know from neighborhoods has been that so much of the art money has been spent downtown. We have literary walks, we have sculptures, we have fountains, we have huge landscaping projects, all these things, and it just seems strange to me that now that the neighborhoods can get involved in these art This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #25 projects suddenly the funding's being cut. And I really think you ought to consider this. I mean if we want neighborhoods to thrive and survive, we would like to have focal points in our neighborhoods where people would want to come too, not just focus on going downtown to see their artwork. And so I just hope you really think about this one carefully before you cut these funds. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Sandra, what was the figure that you came up with? 89,000? Lehman: 85. Hudson: 87... 85,670. Karmer: Thank you. Hudson: That's for the programs that are currently having things done in committee. Pfab: Emie? Lehman: Does anyone else wish to speak at the public hearing? We'll close the hearing and then... Pfab: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Lehman: ...we'll have a discussion. Okay. Public hearing is closed. We need a resolution and then we'll take discussion from Council. Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum. O'Donnell: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Go ahead, Irvin. Pfab: I'd like to speak against this resolution and I kind of like to follow up on Sandra's idea of focus. I think when we sit here and consider, and I'm included, we look at who is sitting here and where the public art is. In fact where we...most of us...the majority of this Council sit and work in this area of the City. I think that there's a sense of fairness here. I think that Jerry, without my knowing what he was going to say, I think we have to say that if we do this it's very difficult to say we are doing a fair allocation of art money to the City and to the neighborhoods. So I would oppose it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #26 Champion: I, you know...Irvin, I have to agree with you. It's painful but I do. Because I've been thinking about this that we're talking about $50,000 and we're spending millions, millions. And now that I've discovered that we can possibly put a concrete thing in that river by that damn and save a million dollars, over a million dollars, I'm willing to talk about other cuts. I think Dee had proposed postponing remodeling the Civic Center. I think we can save money other places, even bigger money than saving this $50,000. My greatest fear that would be eliminated and I was happy that we were come to consensus for 50,000 but I really have rethought this and I think its peanuts. And we should not cut this budget. We should keep it going throughout the community. I know we spend a lot of other money on arts. I mean, I think.., support the Jazz Fest and our project with the Englert and Shakespearean Theater and we do a lot of things to support the arts and I'm proud of those. But I think this $50,000 budget cut is a drop in the bucket and we can cut that from somewhere else. Pfab: Can I respond to what she just said? Lehman: Does anyone else wish to speak to this? Vanderhoef: I'll just make a comment. We'd looked at various park projects and so forth and said these are nice things to have and yes they bring people to our community and upgrade the livability of our City. But the minute we go out for bonding, as we heard earlier this evening on our sewer bonds, you take the $50,000 in bonding right now and say we get a 4% interest rate on that bond and we carry it out for 15 years. Then we're talking about an additional $30,000 of interest that we're paying on those dollars that we don't have to do. I love the art things and yes I think we do continue to support art in lots of our projects. But I think this is a down time in our economy and sometimes we have to say no when we really want to say add on to the amount that we're spending. Pfab: We talk about a 50% cut. I think it's not a 50% cut. I think it's 100% cut for the neighborhood that don't get it or where this art does not go and... Lehman: Well that 50,000 could be spent in the neighborhoods as well. Nothing says where it's going to be spent. Pfab: But I mean, we've put together this long term approach so the next time people wonder are we going to follow it up or is this...are we making sunshine promised and when it starts to rain we change our mind. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #27 Wilbum: IfI could add. I think there were also a few of us that said that we hoped that some of these projects could shift out to some of the neighborhoods now. And perhaps, and we will see that...since it will be in neighborhoods, that some of the scale of some of the projects may not be as much, as extensive. It was pointed out, the commitment or the interest so far by the neighborhood was 38,000, I believe it was. I think the neighborhoods also have some other resource in terms of improving the neighborhoods. The PIN grants, Program to Improve Neighborhoods, that's another resource. Emie, I think you pointed out, or someone else pointed out that a lot of the engineering that's done now is...art is a consideration. The aesthetics and just the craft that goes into some of the projects is something that can be reflected and is reflected in the community. And while it's not directly related to a match them are in kind match type things. And even the brochures that we were given about the public art, the comparison to some of the other communities. A lot of the projects that we do fund currently were some o£those, the Arts Fest, the Jazz Fest, those other types of things that can be touted and drawn to try and bring some other resources to the community. But also to just highlight what goes on and how the community does support the arts. So I just add that on to what comment Steve was saying. Kanner: I'd like to move an amendment that $36,000 be added back onto the 50,000 for allocation on an annual bases. Lehman: We have a motion to amend the motion from 50,000 to 86,000. Is there a second? Pfab: I'd offer an amendment to the amendment. Lehman: You haven't got an amendment until we got a second. Champion: I'll second it because I want to know why you're just doing that amount. Lehman: My assumption is because that is what was asked for but... Champion: Oh, I see. Lehman: ...we have a second now to the amendment which would change the amount from 50 to $86,000. Discussion on the amendment? Pfab: I...my discussion is that that's not adequate and that was the mason I was going to make...suggest an amendment to raise it to 50 instead of the 36. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #28 WiIbum: He's suggesting to add it on to... Pfab: I think that the reduction of 50 is totally wrong. It should be...it should not have even come up for discussion. Dilkes: Well then I think you can vote no on the basic resolution. Right now we need to deal with the amendment. Lehman: Yeah, the amendment...all those in favor of changing this from an annual allocation of 50,000 to an annual allocation of 86,000, which is the amendment... Pfab: Wait. I thought we were going from 100,000. O'Dormell: We're going from 50,000... Lehman: The resolution is for 50,000. Pfab: Okay. Okay. Lehman: The amendment is to raise it to 86,000. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment signify by raising their right hand. Champion: Aye. Lehman: I see two. The amendment fails. We are back to discussing the resolution as it has been proposed. O'Donnell: You know, nobody... I don't think anybody here really likes cutting this particular item but we're in a situation and the budget is extremely tight. This is my forth or fifth budget that I've worked on and this is a very, very difficult budget. We aren't hiring...we aren't going to build a fire station on the East Side. We're going to try and obtain the land but this present budget will not allow us to pay a fireman's salary or build the building and that's extremely important to me. So this $50,000 to me is a lot of money and I'll be supporting this resolution as it is. Lehman: Well...and my comment is if we were not particularly supporting of the arts this would have been...in fact during our budget discussion there was some discussion of eliminating it because of the budget situation. This Council, I think, has felt the arts are very important part of this community, very important part of the culture. And This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #29 because of that we're willing to borrow money to the level of $50,000 to keep our program going, which I think is a very positive statement on the part of the Council rather than certainly the possibility that we could have eliminated the program. Pfab: I go back...we go back to the show why this may not be as drastic as it appears. Now if we were going out and expecting to pay 8% for the bonds that might be something to think about but we're not expected to pay 8% for general obligation bonds. Lehman: Further discussion? Roll call. Dilkes: Pfab? Pfab: Will you state the motion? Champion: It's the original... Dilkes: If you don't want to reduce the public art allocation, vote no. Pfab: No. Dilkes: Vanderhoef? Vanderhoefi No. Wilburn: You were speaking in favor of this. Lehman: You don't want to reduce the allocation? Dilkes: If you don't want to reduce... Champion: She wanted to get rid of it. Vanderhoef: I don't want any. I would like to go to zero... Dilkes: Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, I wanted to make sure... Vanderhoef: ...but I don't... (continuation of roll call) Champion: That would have been no money for public art. Lehman: Motion carries, 4/3. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 10 Page #30 Pfab: No. I... Lehman: Vanderhoef, Pfab and Kanner voting in the negative. Pfab: Just before we have...I think...Okay, if we voted...if we did not vote...let's see. The motion was to reduce it to 50 from 100,000. Lehman: That's correct. Pfab: Now Connie misunderstood what she was voting for, I think. She thought that if we were voting this it was going to go to zero. That's...isn't...and that was why I asked you to restate it. Champion: No, it's fine. Kanner: So it stays at 100,000 if you... Lehman: Does everyone on the Council understand what we just passed? What we just passed was a resolution reducing the amount of money set aside for the public art program from $100,000 per year to $50,000 per year. That's the resolution we just passed. Do we all understand that? O'Donnell: Ernie, I'm not sure what night it is. Champion: I did not understand that. I mean, I should have but... Lehman: No, no...well, if that's the case does the Council wish to vote over on this? Pfab: That'd be fine. Lehman: I suspect that anyone who voted in the affirmative can not ask for a reconsideration. Pfab: I would ask...reconsideration. Champion: I would vote for a re...I would move for reconsideration. Pfab: All right. Okay. I was thinking that, okay. Lehman: This I suppose is a point of order. Do we need a resolution to reconsider? Dilkes: I think with Council concurrence you can vote again. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #31 Lehman: All fight, do we have concurrence that we may vote again on this. Okay now to make things very, very clear. The resolution as it was presented to Council reduces from 100,000 to $50,000 the amount that will be budgeted for public art, which is the discussion that we had in budget meetings some time ago. O'Donnell: And it's written fight here. Lehman: So and affirmative vote concurs with what Council decided in our budget discussions. A negative vote does not change the allocation to public art. It leaves it at $100,000. Okay? Roll call. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: The motion carries, 4/3. Champion: I missed that opportunity. Wilbum: (can't hear) point of information. Lehman: Yes. Wilbum: There are a couple items...there are a couple line items in the next item number 11, the budget. I should have done this before and I apologize, that I have a conflict of interest. Would it be...at what point would it be appropriate for me to request Council to consider it all or is it too late for that. Dilkes: It has been my understanding in the past that when we make those specific allocations you abstain at that point but not on the budget itself. Wilbum: But not on the entire budget? Okay. Right. Lehman: But so that you can... Dilkes: When we make actual specific allocations to the agencies, which I believe we do by separate resolution... Atkins: This budget that you would be voting on incorporates your decisions on those allocations at which you abstained from that decision. Wilbum: Okay. Atkins: So it's my understanding, you are in a position to vote for or against the budget as you see fit. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #10 Page #32 Wilburn: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Lehman: And you can contemplate that while we take a break. And we'll return... Dilkes: Wait. Lehman: I'm sorry. Dilkes: As I understand it it's a lump sum allocation... Atkins: Yes. Dilkes: ...made in the budget. In order to divvy that up we need another resolution, which we do at a later point in time. Am I correct about that? Atkins: The contracts will come back to you... Dilkes: Okay. Atkins: ...by agency. Dilkes: Right. And at that point... Atkins: And then you can do it again, in fact. Dilkes: Ross can abstain. Wilbum: Okay. Ail right. Lehman: Okay, we're going to take a break tmtil 8:30. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #33 ITEM NO. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. Lehman: This is the item that we had our public hearing on a week ago last night, I guess. Is there a motion to approve the budget? Champion: Move to approve the budget. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Now I think we all in our packet got some at least comments from other cotmcil folks. Are there...I guess it's time to discuss the budget and what we expect to do with it. Pfab: I'm going to...I'm just looking here for the item where we're talking money out for the development for the north side. I'm not...I can not support that reduction. Lehman: We have not decided to take the item for the north side out. Kanner: Are you proposing that, Irvin? Pfab: Yeah. No. Champion: No. Pfab: I'm supporting that. I'm just open this up...I was just looking for the... Atkins: You mean the north side streetscape. Lehman: Streetscape. Market Street streetscape. Pfab: But I think that that is something that is very definitely necessary. I see we...there was quite a bit of support here. Lehman: Well before we start, I think that all of us first budget session that we had, if I'm not mistaken and you correct me, Mr. Atkins, if I'm wrong. Atkins: Yes. Lehman: I think you pointed out to us at the first budget session that the capital improvements program as projected over the period...over the next four years would result in the amount of our property taxes necessary to retire the debt exceeding the 25% limits that we have placed upon ourselves. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #34 Atkins: Yes. Lehman: At the same meeting you told us, and I think you gave us the information, that barfing any change in general fund expenditures, the projection for the general fund would reduce the contingency or the balance to 9% and our... Atkins: In the third year. Lehman: Yeah, in the third year where our policy has been that we do not want that balance to go down less than 15%. So our job, if we choose to accept it, is to make whatever changes are necessary to see to it that we do not see our reserves get below 15%. And we do not see the amount on our tax bills for bond reduction exceeding 25%. Now there's only one way we can do that. That is reducing the amount of money that we have in capital projects somewhere in some fashion, in some formula over the next four years. Pfab: Or there's something that the market can help us with. Atkins: The market will help us. I mean... Pfab: I mean I think...and I think as we...we carry reserves for difficult times and this may or may not be a difficult time. We won't know until we look back about five years from now. Atkins: The budget was balanced using a portion of our reserves. That was a deliberate decision going in; we knew that. Pfab: And I... Atkins: (can't hear) some of the other decisions that we had made. Please keep in mind that reserves are also working capital. That is, as you know, we pay our bills monthly but we as a City are only paid twice a year. We carry all of our capital projects on our own cash. That is, we begin our capital projects, spend from our reserve account, sell the debt, reimburse ourselves. Those are good business practices on our part. The concern that I had about the debt was the magnitude of it. Although the magnitude, the size of the debt, that if you will recall in the capital plan, I'm talking just the capital plan. About four years ago you adopted a policy of $40 million spread over four years, approximately 10 million a year. This plan is also very close to that...continuing that policy. What happened was the fact that we had an $18 million referendum approved that was layered on top of these This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #35 capital projects. That's where you are in general...with respect to general obligation debt. Karmer: Steve, we have figures here from when we started the discussion process that show...(can't understand) 9% by 2005. Now we cut out some... Atkins: Yes. Kanner: ...capital debt. What does that bring us up to? I'm sure that raises it. Atkins: It does bring it up slightly but not a whole lot. Lehman: But isn't that general fund money that's generally not changed by changes in capital... Atkins: But you do make some cap...yeah, it generally is not but there were some capital projects that had some general fund monies associated with it. It was not anything, I think, of any major consequence. Lehman: Yeah, it wouldn't have been. Kanner: What did we do...Camp Cardinal, didn't we... Atkins: That's general obligation debt that is proposed in, I think, 04. Kanner: Didn't we cut that? Atkins: No you did not. Pfab: I think that's something that we ought to... Atkins: Now remember folks this is a capital plan and if I were believe... I drag the numbers out of my memory banks. I think Camp Cardinal was a million nine. That was put on the capital plan at the request of a development proposal that's pending. That proposal is due to come back to you for your consideration some time either in March or more likely the first meeting in April. Whereas the developer, the City of Coralville, Iowa City, you know, will all be involved in showing you the ramifications of that project. At that point you can say yeah or nay. Remember it's a budget, the particulars out years. We have not borrowed that money but we are...we use our capital plan so when developers come in to talk to us or there's other community interest groups that are involved, we can identify, somewhat like north side. That project has been identified for funding, I believe, in this coming This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #36 fiscal year and then in the following fiscal year I think it was two phases on the North Market Place. Lehman: Well and... Vanderhoef: (can't hear) Atkins: It's a planning document as much as it is...you by law can only appropriate a year at a time. Vanderhoef: Camp Cardinal is 05. Atkins: 05, it's even further out. Excuse me. Thank you. Lehman: But I think it's important that we realize, and the public needs to understand that a budget although required by state law does not necessarily mean that we will expend the monies that we have put in the budget. It says that we can not exceed those amounts but they are in...this is basically enabling legislation that enables us to spend up to the amount that we have budgeted for any particular line item. Atkins: You by law have to adopt a budget. Lehman: Right. Atkins: You have not choice. Pfab: For one year. Atkins: For...that's all you're allowed to is one year. You can only appropriate a year at a time. But you also as a legislative body have full authority to adopt the budget and virtually in the same breath say hold it we don't want to spend that just yet because we want to do... Champion: Right. Atkins: Give it some other consideration. You certainly have that flexibility. So again...such as when you do a plan. Also in the plan is South Gilbert Street, which is associated with that proposed housing project that's going through P&Z and ultimately apparently is going to come back to you. That has a bearing on. But you're going to see that in a lot of capital...in particular the capital projects. From an operational standpoint, the decisions that we've made were the use of some reserves, no layoffof full time positions. We had the ability financially to fulfill all of our contractual obligations. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #37 Champion: ! don't know if this is the proper time to bring this up but I am really concerned about our cash reserves and the fact that they're being depleted over the past couple of years. What can we do as a policy to ensure that those get built back up and remain there? Atkins: if you took a policy position that reinforcing that it must be at 15%, that allows us time and we would go back into the budget make some reduction, make whatever adjustments...and that's both on the expense and the revenue side. Bring that back to you and project those things out. Now that number is a projection as is 04 a projection. And so please keep in mind you're adopting a budget now that doesn't even begin...doesn't even take effect until July. Champion: Right. Atkins: We have to...being very candid about it, we don't know what the state legislature might do. Champion: I know. Atkins: I mean we've heard another 2 1/2% reduction. And as I pointed out to you, I think during my budget review with you, single most important item was the roll back. We had growth. We had all the things that would have contributed to a positive budget but the actions of the state are what brought us to this particular position. Because they regulate the amount of monies, the tax rates that we have available to us. Yes sir? Pfab: But while the state can take it away they can also replenish it. Atkins: Irvin, what we did... Lehman: They don't... Champion: That never happens. Atkins: We budgeted...we balance this budget for three years under the assumption that we were not going to recover for two years. Pfab: Well I think the state is probably coming to it's senses and going to realize that you can only cut and cut and cut... Atkins: But they also...you can't spend what aifft them. Pfab: No, no, I agree but... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #38 Atkins: And I think that's part of their problem. Pfab: Well what I'm saying is I think we, in general terms, we want to look at as an aggressive a budget as we, maybe that's the wrong term, as large a budget as we can justify. We can always cut as we go along. Lehman: Let me suggest...I believe that the projections that we've been given by Steve with the assistance of the Finance Director and the department heads and whatever, have indicated their best guesses show that our cash reserves will be depleted down to 9%. P fab: And... Lehman: Now I think prudence at this point in time...we are in a position where we can take action that will prevent us from being in the same situation that the state is, that the county is, and having to make drastic cuts that are very uncomfortable, that may effect the delivery of service to the folks who live here, may involve having to lay our own folks off. If we would ask the staff to reduce the amount of expenditures in the general fund by 1%, which is a pretty small number, I believe that would keep us above the 15%. Atkins: 1% is a small number. It's $400,000 in your operating budget so it's not a small number. Lehman: But that number...that number, 1%, will keep us from going below the 15%. Champion: I would like to move... Atkins: (can't hear) very close to that, that's correct. Lehman: Right. And I think that is something...I have every confidence in the ability of our staff and particularly Steve, to accomplish that without really harming the services that we provide. And certainly it's not comfortable and it's not something we really want to do but I would really hate to be sitting here next year with a really, really worse situation when we have been given fair warning and told right up front what the situation is. Champion: And I would like to make an amendment. I'd like to move an amendment to the budget that we direct the City Manager to make a 1% decrease in our general fund spending. Lehman: Can that be a footnote to the budget? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 11 Page #39 Atkins: Certainly. You can go down remember you just can't... Lehman: But I mean can that be done as a footnote to the budget? I don't know how you would incorporate...I support that... Atkins: Oh, in our budget? Lehman: I support the idea of reducing the expenditures by 1%. I don't know how you do that legally. Atkins: I think you do it by policy. I don't think it's a matter of law, it's a matter of policy as to what (can't hear) Lehman: But it can be a part of the budget discussion and the resolution on the budget? Atkins: You can adopt...Eleanor, Marian, help me out of this. You can adopt a series of independent motions making changes in the budget and then in aggregate I would incorporate those into the budget. Because you still have got...you must have that one vote adopting this budget. You may have a whole series of changes. One of the changes is Connie has just put forth. Lehman: So we have a motion by Connie. O'Donnell: I will second that. Lehman: We have a second by Mike O'Donnell. Dilkes: It's... Atkins: Can I discuss that with you for a moment? Lehman: Yeah, please do. Atkins: I understand what you want done. Karmer: I don't... Atkins: Okay. Kanner: ... so please explain it to me. Atkins: They...the motion is to return... Champion: Should I make the motion... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #40 Atkins: Okay. Champion: ...to what I really want accomplished? Can I withdraw my motion? We withdraw your second? O'Donnell: Of course I will. Champion: Then I make my amendment to the budget would be that the City Manager maintain a 15% cash reserve. Is it 15%? Atkins: Yes. That is your current policy and that would be in the general fund. O'Donnell: I would second that. Atkins: Now that you have a motion and second may I (can't hear). Lehman: Yes. Atkin~: That is an easier target for us because it provides both expense side and revenue side flexibility. But I... Champion: And it gets down what we want done. Atkins: Connie, we can not be naive. We made serious reductions in the budget before we ever presented it to you. You've made changes in the budget. To do this there may be things that we'll have to do that would require adjustments downward in some of the quality of our public services. We will certainly identify all of those so you...we all go in with our eyes wide open. But this is just not going to fall out of the sky. It's going to be difficult to accomplish that particularly when we're projecting three years out. Wilbum: And because of that the part that's makes me uncomfortable about this is that, you know, staff comes to us with a recommendation. We, you know, choke each other while we go through all those budget sessions and now to say well okay you go ahead and do it, you make the painful decision. And I feel like we're setting staffup to get beaten up as opposed to us. Lehman: I...you know, Ross, I agree with you except that I feel... I don't feel qualified to tell the City Manager where I believe those cuts should be made. I believe we hold him responsible for the operation of the City, we evaluate him every year. He knows our policy is 15%. If we make that a part of this budget he knows the parameters within which he has to operate. And certainly I think there are going to be tough decisions This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 11 Page #41 but I think they'll be good decisions and probably the tight decisions. And I don't feel that I'm capable of coming up with those decisions as to where we make the cuts. Champion: I wouldn't want to do that either. Wilburn: If we do that then I would suggest that we... Champion: Oh, I'd be the City Manager. Wilburn: If we do that then I would suggest that we should stand by the decision of staff (can't hear)... Lehman: Oh I absolutely agree. Wilbum: ...and not set... Atkins: That'll be important to us. I'll tell you one of the first things we will do for staff as we pursue this we will develop some sort of a safety net. I mean there's got to be somewhere...I mean for example, we have low income policies. We don't intent to go after those. I mean there'll be certain things that we will call sacred but inevitable the more of those you pile up the less flexibility you have in the budget. You know I'm not about to sit here and create political problems for you by proposing to cut some extremely popular program. Could it ultimately get down to that? Possibly. Hopefully you'll have more than enough notice to be able to deal with that. I mean as we saw during the budget hearing, I think other than one person, everybody that came to the microphone wanted more money. And so you know the dilemma you find your self in. Kanner: I have a point of clarification. From what I see we're meeting 15% except for 05... Atkins: Yeah. Kanner: ...at 9%. So I don't see where that 1% increase that you're talking about... Atkins: What you would do... Kanner: ...is to get us to 15. Atkins: We would cut...if we were to reduce this current...the budget, 03, by 1% that's approximately $400,000 or revenue. You take that number in the first and you add $400,000 to the reserve immediately because it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 11 Page #42 improves your position by that much. You then...excuse me, take it over into the next year and if we continue the program of service at that level, that accumulates. So you can add... Kanner: (can't hear) Atkins: You understand? Then by the third year you're in a far better financial position but you've also drawn down the quality of your public services somewhat and projected them out. Champion: It's better than having to cut out a whole public service. Lehman: Right. Atkins: Yes it is. Lehman: Absolutely. Vanderhoef: Well the other piece that crosses my mind and that's why I was looking at the 500,000 verses the 1% at 400,000 is that we still do not kno~v what's going to happen this year. So our reserves at the end of this year, on July 1, could be lower than what we have projected right now if we do have to take a 2 1/2% cut. Atkins: Some of the state aid programs that we'd anticipated receiving have already been reduced so that will reduce that number. But knowing what your policy position is, that you feel very strongly about the 15%, we'll also go into this budget. We will begin making some modifications. We only have a few more months to go in the fiscal year. Lehman: Well I think... Atkins: Can do that and improve that cash position. Lehman: If we agree I think it's important that we communicate that to you. Atkins: I need to know what you want. Lehman: Because your projections have told us. And if we accept your projections we are saying that 9%'s okay and I don't think 9%'s okay. Vanderhoefi It isn't. Atkins: 9% is okay for budget balancing in the short term. I would not go much further than what we have right there. You're either going to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #43 find another source of revenue or by that third year you're going to make rather severe reductions... Lehman: But by... Atkins: ...cause you simply won't have a choice then. Lehman: But if we do what we're talking about we shouldn't find ourselves in a position were we have to make severe (can't hear). Atkins: Hopefully that's what we would...yeah. And that...again, all things being equal, the state doesfft ding us severely any more, we continue our reasonable growth. Remember one item alone, that rollback, cost us... I mean if everything had remained... (End of side one, 02-28) Atkins: ...virtually no change. The general fund budget would be probably a million two, a million five plus and we wouldn't be going through this. We would be planning the fire station; we'd be doing those kind of things. Champion: Well I think it's really important that we give this direction because we don't know what the state's going to do next year. It could be even more ora rollback. It could be even more cuts to any road use taxes and those kind of things we get. So I think it's just important that we... We many not like some of the things that have to be done but I think it's important that we maintain good economic stability in the community. And that's what you've always been good at, Steven. That's your forte. Atkins: We will communicate to you anything we...changes, I mean anything dramatic...I mean because you know full well that once we begin making adjustments the potential for someone to come to the microphone is pretty high so we got to make sure you know what's going on. But I like the simple policy of get it back to 15%. That creates a nice target for us and I know what that means. Champion: Yes, I'm not telling you in any way, shape or form how to do it. Just do it. Kanner: Well I... Lehman: Eleanor, I think, has a comment. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #44 Dilkes: Well a technicality perhaps. But I think what you're talking about is a direction to the City Manager or a reaffirmation of your policy to maintain your cash reserves not an amendment to the budget. Champion: Oh, okay. Lehman: No but the policy that we're reiterating changes the projections that have been given to us. Atkins: Which means I have to change some of the spending proposed...I likely would have to change. So... Dilkes: These numbers are going to change? Atkins: They will change. Dilkes: Okay. Atkins: And I prefer you reaffirming that policy for me. Champion: Okay. Lehman: So is there any other discussion in the reaffirmation of the 15% policy? Kanner: Yeah I would disagree with the way we're going about that. I think that, Connie, we are elected to make these decisions. I agree with what Ross said that we have to make the hard decisions, that we have to take the heat for that right or wrong. And so I'll be voting against this amendment. I agree with the policy of 15% reserves. That makes sense to have that but I don't think that we should lay it on the staff. We should be making those decisions tonight and we should lay it out to the public here. Champion: I know what you're saying Steven but I disagree with you first of all, I'm not a City Manager, I wouldn't even know where to begin to make a cut that I thought would not effect severely another program. That...I don't consider my roll as being the City Manager. Now if Steve came to me with four options and asked me to choose one I could probably do that but I'm not going to come up with those options. I just...I don't... Kanner: We...I have some proposals in the...from...certainly we have the three written proposals from Emie and Dee and myself and we've talked about a lot of others. I think there's room to cut out things. I think that we have a lot of things on the table and there's going to be some negative consequences of it but we can do that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #45 Wilbum: Yeah but I just want to add...the caveat that I would add to my comments earlier. My purpose was what's the expectation and I would be okay with reaffirming our policy as long as we are.., as soon as someone appears at the stand as a result of a decision that was made by staff we don't duck and cover. We say yes we supported this and we support that decision. In terms of...and the other part that makes me okay with reaffirming that 15% policy for that third year out is that...and I understand that you all did some work making some decisions with those other recommendations. But we went through I forget how many hours of budget talks and I'm not really interested in sitting here...I mean if that's what we end up doing that's fine. Having another work session on stuff that we had already battered around. So... Champion: Right. Wilburn: ...that's why I'm okay with going... Lehman: Steven, I really don't think that a vote to reaffirm a 15% policy precludes anything you're talking about. Kanner: Well we're... Lehman: No, no. I know you have recommendations. Kanner: No but Connie's is saying... Lehman: Connie's...no...Connie you're motion was that we maintain 15% policy. Champion: We maintain. Lehman: Now obviously we as a Council... Champion: Let the City Manager do what he has to do to get that done. Lehman: But if the Council chooses to make cuts it certainly makes your job a lot easier because... Atkins: As long as you don't add back. Lehman: Right. No, no, I understand that. But anything Council wants to take out makes it easier for him to keep his 15% policy. I mean all it says is that we will maintain that 15% policy. If we do not do it ourselves, the City Manager will. So I don't think supporting a 15% policy... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #46 Wilburn: It doesn't preclude us... Lehman: ...precludes us from making any decreases to the budget. Champion: Right. Kanner: Your thoughts are that if this passes, this amendment, that we'll continue tonight to look at other possible cuts? Lehman: We can do that tonight. We can do it any time during the year. But the point is...and I think that this really puts Steve in probably a tough position but when...but you're exactly right, Ross. Someone shows up at a Council meeting and says we really, really want to do this and Steve says folks now remember if you do that you're holding me to a 15% policy, you're just...you're making it impossible. I can't do that and stay within the 15%. Or we can...somebody comes up six months from now and wants to do something or one of us comes up and decides we really don't think this program is worth while anymore we want to drop it. Bottom line is we have to maintain the 15%. How we do it is really...we can choose to intervene, as I'm sure you're going to make some suggestion tonight. If we choose not to intervene it falls on his shoulders. Pfab: Well it...when it falls on him...his proposals are proposals I do believe. Lehman: That's correct. Pfab: They would be proposals. You'd bring us what you see as the best way to make this work but we still have to do...make the boat... Lehman: The bottom line. Atkins: But there are things that I can do... Pfab: Right. Atkins: ...that (can't hear)... Pfab: Move some things... Atkins: ...managing our money and moving...not unlike we did on the refinancing of the sewer. And you're right there's a little luck involved in it but we also were able to do some... Pfab: Oh yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 11 Page #47 Atkins: There's got to be some things that we can do. Pfab: Like I mentioned to Kevin at the beginning... Atkins: But I want to do my best to try to reassure you and also reassure myself that if there are projects or programs that making a reduction is going to have some kind of consequence that's going to cause you some political difficulties. I'm going to bring it back to you and lay it there in front you. Now you also can't continue to keep telling me well no that's not a good one, that's not a good one. Before long I won't get to the 15% that way. That sooner or later we have to accept that there are going to have to be some adjustments. We also need to do a little hope and we assumed that for two years we were going to have some trouble with the state. We carried that out for the third year. Now maybe the rollback will turn around but those are all maybes. Lehman: Well... Champion: But then we'll be sitting really well. Lehman: Are we prepared to indicate our support for the 15%? Vanderhoefi Yes. O'Donnell: Yes. Lehman: All those in favor let's... P fab: Aye. Lehman: ...just vote, lets put up our right hands. Pfab: Whoops, right hand. Lehman: You're not in favor. The vote is 6 Council folks to maintain a 15% cash reserve and Mr. Kanner is not in approval of that. Okay. Further discussion on the budget? Pfab: I just going to go back to ask my question. Where...how does our Northside... Champion: It's in the budget. Atkins: It's in the budget. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #48 Pfab: As it is? Atkins: We had...the Northside project ifI recall was a million dollars divided over two years and it was equal parts, 500,000 each. Lehman: I think we reduced that. Didn't we reduce that? Atkins: You discussed it. Champion: I don't... Pfab: No. Champion: We did not reduce it. Pfab: I would be very much opposed...especially... Champion: We're not reducing it. It's fine. It hasn't even been brought up. It's in the budget. Kanner: I had some questions, Steve, on the budget. What did we decide with Foster Road? To keep that in from Dubuque to Prairie du Chien? Atkins: Yes, that was not taken out. Kanner: And how was the Senior Center shortfall covered? Atkins: The Senior Shener... Wilbum: Say the three times. Atkins: The Senior Center shortfall is still a shortfall. In effect the budget you have in front of you is $50,000 out of balance. Now there's several things that I think you're going to have to do. And one of the very first things is that the Council or a committee of the Council or somebody is going to have to have a sit down with the County Board because our reading of the agreement is they can not unilaterally pick and choose a number and then expect the same level of public service for county seniors. Secondly, I don't know what the position is of the County Board with respect to the respect to the kind of services they even want for seniors. And thirdly, I've spoken with the chair of the commission, I've had Linda prepare some summary information about what a $50,000 reduction will be, they are preparing that information. Now whether we bring it back to Mike and Connie who are the 28E Committee or bring it back to all of you that's very much up to you. But that work is being done. I think them is an expectation over the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #49 next month or so that the folks from the Senior Center Commission are going to be talking with members of the Board of Supervisors. Champion: Exactly. Atkins: But it is a whole in the budget and exactly how it's going to shake out...I will bring something back to you. If that's the way it's going to be... Champion: I think there are... Atkins: ...then we need to make those decision. Champion: I'm hoping that Mike and I and people from the Senior Center Commission and Steve will meet with the Board of Supervisors. There are those of us that feel that cutting the money eliminates the contract. And that's something that we need to discuss and... Atkins: I happen to agree you that it was...a unilateral reduction is clearly not in what the contract calls for. But if that's the case then we're talking about something far more dramatic at the Senior Center. You're talking $150,000, which is approaching about 20% of their operating budget. Which is what the county had been contributing. O'Donnell: Well it's... Atkins: It's a huge number. Vanderhoef: Eleanor? Dilkes: Yes. Vanderhoefi What do you see in the legality of that contract? Do you see that it's binding, the entire contract? Dilkes: Well my reading of the contract is that the deduction in the allocation is not...is a violation of the agreement. Lehman: But let me suggest that that's a perhaps a discussion for another time. Champion: Right. Dilkes: And I think...you need to have a discussion about that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #50 Lehman: And because I think that that is not reality yet. It may be but I think we have plenty of other budget issue that we probably need to deal with. Atkins: Emie, just...excuse me for correcting you. They did adopt the resolution. Champion: It is a reality. O'Donnell: It's done. Champion: It's done. Atkins: They did adopt a separate resolution. Lehman: But we don't know what we're going to do with it yet. Atkins: Oh no, I know that. I understand that, yeah. O'Donnell: But we have to find out and what I'd like to find out is exactly how this does effect Senior Center service. Champion: And they're working on that. Atkins: We're preparing that, right. O'Donnell: Because it is going to get into...it's just going to...it's going to reduce them to some degree. Kanner: I think though we have to lower that line...that budget item by the amount that the county is lowering their support. O'Donnell: I'm not ready to do that yet. I want to find out exactly what the cut's going to mean, Steven. Atkins: Well in effect...in effect...in effect... Kanner: Where's the money going to come from then. O'Donnell: Well that's what we're... Kanner: I think we have to...we're putting out a budget now. I think we're obligated to say where the money's come from. Lehman: It could be a result in lower serves. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #51 Atkins: Well remember the reduction is a revenue...is on the revenue side. So it's $45,000. In our projections from our contracts with the county we would assume if everything remains the way it is that it's $45,000 less. Now how do we accommodate that? We have to find $45,000 on the expense side. I've made the assumption it was directly related to senior services and that you'll have to think about how we're going to do that; otherwise you're going to be providing services to county residence that they're not paying. Champion: And that's... Vanderhoef: One of the things that I want to be real clear about is that this is just one of the services that we have throughout our whole City and just because there's a problem with this contract, we can't assume that the Senior Center will take that cut, that whole hit themselves. I think we have to look at all of our other services and they may have to help support the Senior Center. And they're all going to take a little bit of a cut so that we can maintain some services all the way across. But, you know, whether it be the airport or the library or where it is, there's going to have to be some hits on other services. Kanner: Well that's exactly right and that's why I think we have to show in the budget that we're receiving $45,000 less. Lehman: But...in other words your suggesting that we reduce the income side of the Senior Center thing by $45,000 prior to us discussing the legality or whatever with the county. Kanner: I think it's...yeah. We got a resolution. I think they're either going to go down to zero and say forget it all together or stay at 100,000. I think they're going to stay at their 100,000. I don't think they're going to go below that. Lehman: But we're assuming first .... Atkins: Here's my... Lehman: ...(can't hear) discussion that what they did was legal. Atkins: My concern about the $100,000 is more so what are you going to do the next year and then the next year? Let's assume we are able to make some minor reductions that we can live with in the short term. Is the county saying we'll get back to the 20% a year from now or two years from now? Well that effects the services that you reduce. We can...you can peck away at it for a year or so but if the county is going This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #52 to make is 80,000 next year we just keep digging a bigger whole for ourselves. O'Donnell: Exactly. Champion: I think that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't think that we can count on them for... Atkins: We can postpone some capital outlay, we can do a number of things to get you over the hump the first year. But then when you get into the next year...and since we have no idea what number they may choose to provide and we've gone and made some severe reductions do we add them back? I mean, there's just...it's not a good set of circumstances. Lehman: Well but Steven's point is do we want to reduce the amount that we show in our budget from the county for the Senior Center by $45,000? Vanderhoef: No. O'Donnell: No. Pfab: I don't think so. Atkins: If you're... Pfab: I'm not ready to do that. Atkins: ...not ready to give up yet. Pfab: No. Vanderhoefi Well I'm not. Lehman: Okay. Champion: I am. Lehman: Next. All right, next issue. We'll have to deal with that one when it does come up for some question about it. By the way, Steve, from my...unless I'm missing something the Market Street streetscape project is a half a million dollars. Atkins: Yes, it's two years though. Vanderhoef: It is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #53 Champion: For two years. Vanderhoefi And it's all G.O. money. Atkins: It's all G.O. Lehman: Well it...yeah but it's...from the budget projection it's shown as $500,000 in 20, in 02. Wilburn: 05. Atkins: In one year. Lehman: Right. Champion: And then $500,000 the next year. Atkins: It should be...it should show up for two years. Lehman: Well it's only a $500,000 job. We reduced it from a million to halfa million when we did it. O'Donnell: I don't remember that. Karmer: What are you looking at, Ernie? Vanderhoef: Well there was an earlier... Atkins: Okay. Lehman: No, we reduced that... Atkins: Then I misunderstood. Lehman: No, we did. That was a much, much more comprehensive project and we reduced it from a million to a half million. And...there is a half million projected for 02... Atkins: Kevin's corrected it. Lehman: ...which is the year we're in right now. Atkins: No, Kevin's corrected...Kevin says you're correct. That's right. Champion: You're right. I remember that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #54 Pfab: So what does... Atkins: So there is 500,000 in the budget now. Champion: Right. Lehman: And I think I...am I hearing the Council say that we're going to go ahead and borrow a halfa million dollars to improve the streetscape on Market Street this year? Pfab: Is that what was projected... Lehman: That's right. That's what's projected. Atkins: That's what's in the budget right now. If you just left it alone... Lehman: We're going to borrow...we're going to borrow the half a million dollars in the face of what we're looking at in paying off capital expenditures? Pfab: I think that the support is there. Lehman: I don't think there's any question the support is there. It's our job to decide whether that's appropriate and prudent. Pfab: Well it's also a chance to increase revenues for the City. And it's... Lehman: How? Pfab: How? There's business generation there. Lehman: Okay. Pfab: We just... Lehman: Is everybody comfortable with leaving that half a million dollars in the budget because I don't want to belabor it? Vanderhoef: No. I think it... O'Donnell: Pm not. Pfab: I'm in favor of keep... Vanderhoef: I think it needs to be moved out at least three years. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #55 Lehman: I don't think it should be cancelled but I think it should be moved. Vanderhoefi I would be willing to put it in 05. Lehman: But we've talked about this before and I understand Ross and I appreciate you're right. We spent a lot of time on this. Is there...if there are not four people who are interested in moving that I don't want to waste everybody's time. I just think it's extremely difficult to justify borrowing $500,000 for a streetscape when we're faced with the kind of capital debt for G.O. bonds that we are. Vanderhoef: That... I agree and I really think this is one of those things we can't afford. If we're going to take that 2 1/2% hit still before the beginning of the year, this will go a long ways towards balancing that for us. Wilburn: I'll just reiterate that I had wanted to keep that in there. Lehman: I don't hear a fourth for wanting... Kanner: Well, Ernie, if we're...if we're willing to add some other things, I think, like South Gilbert and move that further out... Pfab: Sure. Kanner: ...in cape...and Camp Cardinal, move that out. I'd be willing to include Northside Market. Pfab: I would go along with... Vanderhoef: Include where? What are you saying, Steven? Pfab: ...that. Kanner: What's that? Vanderhoef: You said move those others out. So then you're saying you would move North Market Street out a couple of years, or three years? Pfab: No. No. Kanner: I'd be willing to...yeah, to move it out further. And I...if we can move some of these other ones further out... Vanderhoef: Well I think Camp Cardinal is one that I'd be willing to put in the unfunded years. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 ]?age #56 Atkins: My only point, if! may address Camp Cardinal. You can make that decision but they have not presented their project yet. Now if you decide that I would inform the developer that forget it, we're not going to go any further with this thing. O'Donnell: Do we have that now in 2004 or 5? Vanderhoef: Camp Cardinal? Atkins: 05. Camp Cardinal's 5. Pfab: I would was...I would suggest that we take it out in the unfunded...just off...push it all the way oft: Champion: That's not possible. Atkins: You always have the ability to take it out and put it in the unfunded and bring it back again if you like the project. Pfab: I think... Atkins: Certainly sending a message to the developer that you're not thrilled with this one. Pfab: I think we very definitely need to send them. Wilburn: At the worst I thought that... Lehman: You know it's pretty difficult to decide we don't like something we don't know anything about. O'Donnell: Exactly. P fab: Well it's...another place...another place here and one place here. Lehman: No, no. But what do you know about it? Kanner: Well, Emie, you could say conversely if you don't know anything about it why put it in here? Pfab: Yes. Kanner: You could use the same argument. I don't... Champion: But it's not this year. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #57 Lehman: (can't hear) one says that you won't consider it the other one says you will. Kanner: At this time I'd say we need more information. Perhaps a year or two down the road... Pfab: Okay. Okay. All right. Kanner: But these are somewhat dire times and we want to get our capital (can't understand) down. Pfab: I think what we...we need to do is there's been a lot of work done, there's been a lot of promise on it and I think there's a sense of fairness here that the north side not be put on the cutting block and keep pushing those other things out that just came out of the blue sky. Champion: Do you know since we have the right to reject any of these things as we come in and our bids have come in incredible well below our estimates for a couple months now that maybe we ought to just approve the budget that we all worked on for how many hours did you say? Atkins: Twenty three and a half scheduled hours. Champion: Twenty-three and a half scheduled hours. Approve the budget as we put it together and deal with these issues as they come to us one at a time. We may just luck out and be able to do everything and... Atkins: Can I make a suggestion to you? Maybe it'll help. Hold operating just for the moment. I'm looking at the 03 budget...03 capital budgets. Just 03, those things we'd have to do where you appropriate and the issues that you have raised are North Market Place at 500,000... Vanderhoef: North Market actually is in 02. Lehman: It's in 02. Kanner: Well it's in 03 in our books. Atkins: It's in 03 in the book. That's where we had it. Lehman: Oh, it was in this handout in 02. Atkins: I must have made a mistake on that. Okay, it's 03. The upcoming...that project is virtually designed and ready to go. We were planning to bid it this summer, which would have put us in 03. I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #58 apologize...it could go in 02 if you were to give it a go ahead. Try to deal with just 03. That allows you to do your 03 capital, make whatever adjustments you want to make in your 03 operating, vote that up or down, then move on to the plan. And that's when you start moving things, pushing them out, doing whatever. Pfab: I have... Atkins: Does that make any sense? Pfab: I have a question. Since the North Market Street is ready to go we're looking at a very favorable modem bond market, is this something that we should move on now and will it work? Atkins: Well first of all I can tell you yes it's a favorable bond market. The other question is a political question for the rest of you to decide. I can't decide that. Pfab: Is...but will the numbers come out if we... Atkins: Don't know. You just don't know until you bid them. Pfab: No, no. That's not my point. Do we have it in the 02 budget to make it work? Atkins: We...no we do not have it in the 02; however... Pfab: Okay. All right. Okay. Atkins: However, remember we will carry the project in the short term, we'll get it done. The people that enjoy the benefits of the particular capital project that you approve don't worry so much how they're financed, we will. But we would likely carry the project because it's small enough and our current cash pay for it. Reimburse ourselves later... Champion: So you could do it? Atkins: ...on when we sell the debt. And we may want to choose...we may sell the debt six months from now. I just don't when the market is... Pfab: So what I'm...still my question...I'm not asking my question right and I apologize for that. Champion: We could do this far. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #59 Pfab: Okay, there's a lot of favorable things to go ahead and do that. I mean...I'm not saying...I'm not making a value judgement but I'm saying is...what you're telling me that if the political will is here... Atkins: Yes. Pfab: ...we can go ahead and do it and it would work fine. Atkins: Yes. If the political will is there yes you can. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: But it really couldn't go in 02 if we wanted it to. We couldn't...we wouldn't be paying for that anyway til 03 someplace. Atkins: We wouldn't sell the bonds until the next fiscal year anyway. Champion: Yeah, we would finance it. Atkins: Yeah, we'd finance it intemally. Reimburse ourselves when we... Lehman: Okay well we're not... Steve, you suggested that we... Atkins: I'm suggesting you deal with your 03 projects, deal with any operating budget changes you might want...like the one you've already made on the 15%. Put that behind you. Then you can decide if you want to push capital projects...unless there's something in the out year you want to bring back in to 03. Wilburn: That'd be out of 12th then. Atkins: That'd be out of 12, that's right. Item...by law you do not have to do item 12. We have chosen to do that as a City, as a planning document because of the political implications where we can go to developers and other folks of in...that are interested in comminuting interest groups and say to them that project is planned for this year or the next year or whatever it is. And then they can begin doing their own planning. That's why we do this. That's why we do a multi-year plan. Lehman: All right, so the changes that we have made thus far in our discussions for 03 would be the reduction in public art from 100 to 50,000,... Atkins: Yes. Lehman: ...the funding of traffic calming at a level of 10,000 per year instead of the projected amounts. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #60 Atkins: That's road use tax, Emie. Lehman: Okay but what I mean... Atkins: Yeah, you've made those reductions, yeah. Lehman: What other changes have we made in 03? Atkins: Oh gees. Vanderhoef: Well I have a...I don't think we have made anything else. Atkins: Really not a whole lot (can't hear). Vanderhoef: I see one that I think we can do. We're planning to remodel the planning department, which needs to be done, and there's a line item for that one at 25,000. And then there's still the Civic Center quotes other projects at 50,000. And I would say lets cut the Civic Center other projects to 25 and keep that 25 in there for the planning department. Atkins: That number changes dramatically. Champion: Is arbitrary. Atkins: We have traditionally put...I mean there is tradition in the budget. We traditionally put $50,000...this is a 40 year old building and it needs work on it on occasion. The planning department as we moved them over into what used to be cable, they do need to have some minor remodeling. I would find it acceptable if you wish to reduce our Civic Center appropriation to 25 and leave the planning in. So in other words that is $75,000, it would be 50. We can live with that. Pfab: That's fine. Champion: Okay. That's good. Atkins: Well postpone some projects. Lehman: All right. Champion: Does it have to be a motion? Karr: (can't hear). Do you wish to amend it as presented we'd need a motion. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #61 Lehman: We have a motion by Ms. Vanderhoef, seconded by... Champion: Second. Lehman: ...Ms. Champion to lower the amount of, what do we call it? City Center maintenance or whatever? From... Vanderhoef: Civic Center other projects. Atkins: Other projects, yeah. Pfab: Is that a line item? Atkins: I apologize for saying I find it acceptable. It's financially acceptable. I'll do what you want me to do. Champion: No, we know what you meant. Pfah: We understood what... Lehman: All right are there...how many of us would like to see that be a part of the budget? Okay you've got approval Steve. So you can come back to us in about the forth month of the year and say we spent the 25,000 because of this huge problem now we're going to go ahead and spend the 50 cause this is a 45 year old building. Atkins: I'll do my best not to have that happen. Pfab: And we would remind him of his 15%. Lehman: All right. Atkins: Thank you. Lehman: Steve, the other thing...and we spent some time earlier this evening and I know this appears in 02 but the Iowa River Power Damn and associated bridge and whatever does appear in 02. Are we going to be discussion that tonight? Atkins: It's up to you all. I mean that project is on the edge...I think Coralville needs to get some easements and a few other things and this project's getting real close, ready to go. We postponed it for two years remember. We had an original plan... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #62 Lehman: I know that but if we're going to make changes to that is now the time to talk about it or are we going to wait until... Atkins: I think if you wish to make financial changes I think you need to give us the heads up that we're not...we don't want to do something on it. I'll put the project on hold cause we need to talk to Coralville, talk to others and bring back a modified project for you. Lehman: All right, cause I think there's probably a significant chance... Atkins: I mean, if that's...if there's a majority of you that want that done, that fashioned, you need to tell us that. Pfab: I think there are some perils by doing it. I mean it's...as far as I'm concerned I'm neutral on it but it looks to me when you look at it if...unless there's an awful big number advantage, which it doesn't appear to be, that it doesn't pay to move that out. Champion: I don't like the project at all but I'm forced to support it because I don't want to be penny wise and ponnd foolish. Lehman: Well I don't think it's a matter of moving it out, Irvin. It is the level at which we do it. Champion: Because... Lehman: Whether we do it fully the way it's planned or whether we do some modifications. Champion: If we do the $200,000 brick in the water type thing for the boats to anchor to we loose the $250,000 cash outlay from Coralville and the grant. So that means that that piece of concrete in the water is going to cost us $450,000. Lehman: Mathematics is perfect. Champion: And the other...and it's still...and then eventually, I think that bridge is going to have to be done for the whole trail system. So then do I spend $450,000 on a brick in the water or do I spend another 700,000 and do it right in the first place? And then I think about eliminating the part that goes along the spillway part and I think well it probably is going to cost at least $150,000 to bring equipment in to set up to finish it eventually. So I'm very reluctantly going to support that project as planned even though ! don't like it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #63 Lehman: Okay Steve, when it comes back to us...when it comes time to bid it we may want to bid alternates on that project would be my guess. Atkins: Okay. Excuse me, Irvin. Pfab: Okay there's one other thing. There's still some repair work that needs to be done on that. Atkins: Yes. That'll be done. I (can't hear). Pfab: So that's part of... Champion: That's different. Pfab: It's not different. It's still...it's a more efficient way of doing the repair work on it. Atkins: I just want to make a case for the project. Champion: I just made one like that. Atkins: I know you made a case, yeah the other way. I think you're going to find in the long mn that that trail and that route over that river, that damn, leading to the peninsula is going to be one of the more attractive features our community's really ever experienced. Champion: I agree. I mean, I do agree with that. It'sjust painful, painful. Atkins: I mean it's really going to be neat. Lehman: Okay back to 03. Vanderhoef: Okay. The owner occupied building renovation program... Karmer: Are we doing operating funds or... Atkins: No, that's still capital. That's capital. Vanderhoefi This is capital. Kanner: but I thought you suggesting we do operating funds first. Champion: We don't do things in order sometimes. Atkins: They didn't pay any attention to me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #64 Vanderhoef: Well we'd been going down the line on... Atkins: Yeah. Vanderhoefi ...a couple or three of these and the bridge becomes more doable if cut a few of these other things. And I'm well aware that this owner occupied building renovation program is a very popular program and it has it's pluses in that it keeps our housing stock repaired better than it would without. However, here again, this is one of those cases where $100,000 a year plus 4% interest and 15 years we're talking, we get $100,000 worth of repairs and we pay an extra $60,000 over the life of the bond. And I think we'd need to suspend this program for a couple of year and bring it back when out bonding looks better. Pfab: Dee... Champion: I don't support that. Pfab: ...could I suggest possibly as a compromise maybe cutting it in half?. Vanderhoef: That's...that's possible. Pfab: I mean, I'm not...I mean I know you're not making this recommendation because you like to do it. Vanderhoef: No, that's right. Pfab: And I would say that that would keep the program in tack and still you'd be able.., well you'd have to be more selective of the projects you took on. It'd still be there. Lehman: Is that a motion, Irvin? Pfab: Yeah, I would make that one. Lehman: Is that a second, Dee? Vanderhoef: That'd be fine. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to reduce the owner occupied building renovation from 100,000 to $50,000 per year. Kanner: Is this means tested at all, this program? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #65 Atkins: We have about, oh maybe halfa dozen property owners. I mean each project, ifI recall, can vary from 15 to $25,000, you know, for a rehab. And we can do 4 or 5 out of the 100. It just means less...really less... Pfab: And tighter screening. Karmer: But is it means tested for the applicants? Atkins: Yeah there is and I don't recall... Kanner: Is it 80% of median, up to 80% of median? Vanderhoef: Yeah, I believe it is. O'Malley: I think they're trying to increase that median. Atkins: Yeah, we're trying to bump that up a little bit to get more folks because we do have our traditional housing rehab program funded by CDBG and some of our other (can't hear). Champion: I was just going to ask for clarification on that. Atkins: This is in addition to. Vanderhoefi Yeah, this is... Champion: Because it is in addition to it that I might be willing to cut it. I would not be willing to cut it otherwise because I think it's a valuable service that we provide people. Vanderhoef: It is. Pfab: Does anybody got any feel of where it's coming out in CDBG at this point? Atkins: Traditionally our Housing and Community Development Commission has been very supportive of the housing rehab. Pfab: Oh, you don't...we are not seeing a big cut in that? Champion: No. Atkins: I don't...I would be very surprised, Irvin, if they would reduce it. Pfab: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #66 Vanderhoefi Yeah. Kanner: I think this is the...we need to have more programs like this for our middle income people here in Iowa City. We want to keep these people and we want to keep our housing stock in good shape. And I think if anything we should be increasing this. So I would be totally against reducing this. Pfab: Well I'm not doing it...I'm doing it rather than reducing it by 100,000. I would go 50 but no way would I go 100. Kanner: I wouldn't go for any. Pfab: Okay. I mean I can understand that. Lehman: I can understand that. I just have a problem doing that with borrowed money. Other discussion on... O'Donnell: I'm okay with the 50. I think that's a good compromise. Lehman: Are there four or more who would reduce that to 50,000? I see Mr. Pfab, Champion, O'Dormell, Lehman & Vanderhoef who vote in the affirmative. Ross and Steve Kanner do not. Okay. Going on with 03. Vanderhoefi Runway extension. This is one of those that yes we get paid back but... Pfab: Dee, can I interrupt? What are you talking... Champion: The runway for the airport. Pfab: Okay. Vanderhoef: The runway extension. And it's one of those cases where we have to front the money and then wait for the FAA to pay back their percent of it. And I think maybe with various things that are going on at the airport fight now that this is one that I'd be happy to move out. Lehman: How far? Pfab: And I would be happy to support you on that. Lehman: How far out do you want move it? Vanderhoef: Probably two years. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #67 Lehman: You're moving that we move the runway extension from 03 to 05? Vanderhoef: Um-huh. Lehman: And Irvin you're seconding that? Pfab: I (didn't?) second that. Lehman: Do we have some sort of discussion or do we have consensus or... Champion: Does...have you asked what effect this would have on the airport? Does anybody know? Lehman: My understanding is that probably it's part of a master plan that's going to take some time and that is probably something they can get along with all right. Champion: Then I would support it because, you know what, the airports in trouble. Wilbum: That's fine. Atkins: What I'd like... Pfab: (can't understand) Atkins: I'm okay with you putting it out further. I just would like at least one bit of understanding. The Mormon Trek extended project around the airport may have some impact on where this runway is located and we may be able to use some of the airport's money to help support the Mormon Trek Extended. Pfab: Didn't you say you can always put it back in? Atkins: Well, yeah that's what I'm saying to you. IfI happen to bring it back to you don't leap on us because I think we found a way we might be able to use the airports funding for the land acquisition to help support... You understand? Lehman: Well I also think... Vanderhoef: Well wait. We could move it out one year because obviously they can't extend it until that road is completed and moved. Atkins: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #68 Lehman: No but I... Vanderhoef: So if that makes more sense to say one year verses two years... Atkins: Two doesn't bother me it's just... Lehman: Well. Atkins: ...that we have understanding... Pfab: Right. Atkins: ...that sometimes these projects all of a sudden take on a completely new life and I feel obligated to bring them... I mean, to bring them (can't hear). Pfab: We would expect you to. Atkins: Okay. Lehman: But the airport master plan does provide monies for building a temporary road. Those monies, if we were coordinating these projects, could be applied to a project that we're doing as long as we're... Atkins: The idea, Ernie... Lehman: ...doing them in the same time. Atkins: The idea is to avoid the construction of the temporary road. Lehman: Right. Atkins: Use the money to put in a permanent project. Lehman: We understand that. Atkins: Okay. Champion: Then I would leave it in there if it... Lehman: But we don't know when it will come. Vanderhoef: But we won't have...they can't extend it until the road has been moved. Champion: But we won't... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #69 Vanderhoef: So we're for sure... Champion: So we won't be putting it in? Vanderhoef: ...okay for at least one more year. Champion: Well then it won't be in this years bonding anyway. Vanderhoef: Well we're putting it in in 03 and we could put it in 04 and keep the signal to the FAA that we're still planning to do this. And then we'll see where we are a year from now, whether we can handle the bonding and whether the FAA is ready to...they never give you up front the word that they'll pay you back the next year. Champion: I know. Vanderhoef: But... O'Dormell: Is there a percent? How much do we receive back? Atkins: It's 90/10. Vanderhoef: So it's 10. Atkins: It's $75,000, our share. O'Dormell: Would there be any danger of loosing that? Vanderhoef: No. Atkins: I very much doubt it. I... Vanderhoef: When I... Pfab: Just... Vanderhoef: I've been down there twice to the FAA and they're very supportive of our plan and so forth. The whole point is how many dollars are they going to get. And when you look at 9.4 billion dollars taken out of the transportation fund and most of it going to airport security, the payback for those dollars may well be a problem... O'dormell: I don't see any problem. Pfab: I think what we do is just mark it as homeland security and... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #70 Lehman: Right. We have a motion and a second to move this from 03 to 05. Do we have four people who would agree to this? Pfab: Yes. Champion: Yes. Wilburn: That's fine. O'Donnell: Fine. Lehman: I think everyone agrees to that. Okay, what else can we talk about in 03? I think we've probably done capital projects. Vanderhoef: Well how about the Benton Street Waterworks Park? That one still bothers me because if we spend the $200,000 that was allocated in the budget for Benton Street Park and if we spend it at Waterworks then we have a problem refunding for the Benton Street in a year or two years. Pfab: When you say refunding...I'm sorry, what...can you explain...help me understand what that is, what you mean. Vanderhoef: Well remember when Terry came and we talked about moving the... Benton Street Park had like $250,000 budgeted... Pfab: Oh, I was thinking you said Waterworks. I was trying to think of the Waterworks down here but it wasn't working. So okay, I understand. Lehman: They're moving that from the Benton Street project to the Waterworks Park project and I think putting it back into 04 or 05. Champion: Right. Atkins: Miller Orchard was going back in 04. Lehman: 04? Atkins: Yeah. Pfab: And that was pretty much a consensus that that was the right... Champion: Sure. Vanderhoef: And I've rethought it. And I'm thinking put the $50,000 in that we need to match the historical preservation grant that we have for the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #71 Butler House and do the two little trail pieces and the parking lot and that gets coupled with some dollars from the water plant for parking only and they are also doing the erosion control piece. And I think we can drop the 200,000 out for this year. Champion: The problem I have with that, Dee, is when we discussed this at our work session...our budget work sessions we had Terry Trueblood here. We discussed this with him. He discussed it with the Parks & Rec. Commission. We agreed to their kind of...that we cut their budget in half basically is what we did. And this is how much money we're going to give you, you guys...by guys I mean boys and girls. You decide what you want to do with it and with some perimeters. And I'm not willing to go back to that commission now and say we're not giving you that money. I think that decision should have been made then. I think we're always second-guessing the Parks & Rec. Commission. I don't know why but it seems like we're always second- guessing them. So maybe if we want to run that Parks & Recs. Division maybe we should get rid of the commission and we can make all those decisions. Lehman: Well long term and short term it's Councils decision how much money we're going to put into the Parks Department... Cahmpion: Right, I agree. Lehman: ...for new parks. Now obviously they requested and wanted to spend $550,000 in Waterworks Park. It's our job to say that's a good idea or that's not a good idea. Now we did discuss it at some length and the decision at that point was to let them do, I think, 300 and some thousand dollars... Champion: Right. Atkin: (can't hear) Lehman: ... for work in that park which includes the amphitheater and trails that we're going to borrow money to build. And are we comfortable with the decision that we made at that point? Champion: I am. Karmer: We... O'Donnell: I'm not comfortable borrowing money to do that, Ernie. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #72 Lehman: Well I'm not either but I think that the decision that was made was that we... O'Donnell: We did make a commitment. Vanderhoef: Well the prerogative is to change our mind sometimes. O'Donnell: What's that? Vanderhoef: I said the prerogative is to change our minds once in a while. And you know how... O'Donnell: I understand that...I understand that wholly. Sometimes it's more difficult than others, Dee. Vanderhoef: And as you recall early in the budget planning time I was very vehement and I still think this is true that Waterworks Park should not be started until we have completed some east side kinds of trail projects. And the more we open up that park now the more demand there's going to be for it. And we've got people waiting for connecting trails to get our east side transportation trails put in place. And for my money I will go with the Highway 6 project and that trial before I would put any money up into the Waterworks Park. And I also know we're moving it forward in getting the neighborhood trail to cormect from Scott Boulevard on into downtown and I think that's a real important piece. We've got those connections all made on the west side of the river. And yes that's a newer area and so we're...we've had more opportunity to do that but east side really needs to be looked at so that they have a transportation system for trails. Lehman: Dee, we've had that discussion. Unless there's going to be four folks that want to have it again I guess our...I mean...are there four people who want to change the investment part... Karmer: Well is there an amendment on the floor? Lehman: No. Are we interested... Kanner: I think there should be a motion and if there's not a second then we should move on. Lehman: Does anyone...do you wish to make a motion to rethink the Waterworks Park? Vanderhoefi I would make a motion to remove the $200,000 transfer of park money from the Benton Street project... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #73 O'Donnell: Dee would you put that on somewhere. That thing is just driving me... Lehman: So you don't bark at us. O'Dormell: That's driving me crazy with that cracking. Vanderhoef: I'm not hearing it. My ears are plugged tonight. Lehman: We have a motion from Ms. Vanderhoef to transfer the...or not to transfer the $200,000 from Miller Orchard to the Waterworks Park. Is there a second? Dies for lack of second. Okay, we're through with Waterworks Park. Actually we haven't even started but it looks like we're going to. Okay, other items? Kanner: Well we had talked before so I'll make a motion that we move the Market...Northside market Place from 03 to 05 and that we move back Camp Cardinal to... (End of side two, 02-28) Lehman: We have a motion to move Market Street project from 03 to 05 and Camp Cardinal from 05, I think, to the unfunded years. Do we have a second? Vanderhoef: (can't hear) I support half of it but not all of it. Lehman: Well the motion is both halves. Is there a second? Kanner: Well maybe second and then you can pose an amendment. Vanderhoef: Just let it die and then we can do one at a time. Lehman: Motion dies for lack of second. Other discussion? Kanner: Move...I move that the South Gilbert/Napoleon be moved from 05 to unfunded. Lehman: Do we have a second for that? Vanderhoef: South Gilbert. Pfab: What was it? Can you... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #74 Lehman: South Gilbert to Napoleon Street, east/west arterial, be moved from 05 to unfunded is an $800,000 item that appears in... Pfab: I would second that. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to move the South Gilbert Street/Napoleon arterial from 05 to unfunded. Discussion on that amendment? Champion: Was that the one that was in there because of that possible development? Atkins: Yes. Champion: So it might be mute. Lehman: Actually, I think this was in here long before that development was conceived. This is an east/west arterial. It would have nothing to do with whether or not that apartment was built. Champion: That wasn't why it was moved up? Lehman: No. Vanderhoefi It's the one that will connect with the Mormon Trek Extension... Lehman: When the bridge is built. Vanderhoef: ...when the bridge is built. Champion: When the bridge is built. Lehman: You go on east all the way eventually to Highway 6. Champion: Right. Vanderhoef: And it's to get in an arterial put into place before the housing goes in which is good planning in my eyes rather than trying to put it in after someone keeps coming in with projects and wanting to develop in there. Lehman: Although I think in all fairness the route of that street will protected whether building occurs or not. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #75 Pfab: A point of clarification. Now what actually...I think when you say South Gilbert I'm thinking of South Gilbert going this a way. Now the word is talking about... Kanner: South Gilbert/Napoleon east/west arterial. Champion: It is South Gilbert. Lehman: Turns into Sand Road. Pfab: Okay. Okay. That's fine. Lehman: You know and it... Pfab: I just wanted to be sure that... Lehman: It actually goes from the Napoleon Park area east. Pfab: I know. I just needed the clarification. Lehman: The motion is to move that from 05 to unfunded, or the amendment. We have a second. Pfab: I kind of...no. Lehman: All in favor of moving that from 05 to unfunded raise your right hand please. Kanner: Aye. Pfab: I don't think there was a second. I didn't second it. Champion: Well Dee (can't hear)... Pfab: Oh, Dee did. Okay. Kanner: No. I'm sorry. Champion: No? Lehman: No, you seconded it, Irvin. Karr: I've got Kanner and Pfab. Lehman: You seconded. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #76 Pfab: No I didn't second. Champion: Yes you did. Lehman: Well you did second it. Karr: Yes, you did. Champion: You did. Karr: If you'd like to withdraw your second... Pfab: I'll withdraw it because I (can't hear)... Lehman: Actually there was not amendment because the second... Pfab: Yeah, I was thinking it was the other South Gilbert. Lehman: All right. Pfab: I was thinking when you said South Gilbert... Lehman: Any other amendments to the budget? Pfab: Okay, I guess that's...in the sense I...yes I was wrong but because I was wrong I'm going to try to retract myselfi Get back on...so I'm not in. Karr: You withdrew it. Lehman: He withdrew his second. We never had the amendment. We never voted and it wasn't 1 to 6. Atkins: It never happened. Kart: Are we on 11 or 12, just out of clarification? O'Donnell: No idea. We don't know. Kart: Because we glossed over from 03 to 05. Lehman: We're really talking... O'Donnell: Let's take a break. Vanderhoef: North Market went... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #77 Karr: From 03... Lehman: North Market didn't do anything. Dilkes: North Market did nothing. Karr: No. But that was from 03. I'm just saying this one is from 05 to unfunded so we've crossed over from the budget discussion of 03 is what I'm trying to clarify. Kanner: You're right. You're right. I'm sorry. Dilkes: That's right. Vanderhoefi Well I still would be interested in moving North Market out. Champion: I'm not. Lehman: Well...but we tried that and nobody wants to do that. Now... O'Donnell: No, Ernie. That's because it was joint. Nobody's done that individually yet. Lehman: I think we had...we did it individually earlier in the evening. O'Donnell: Did we? Lehman: Yeah we did. Champion: Yeah, we had consensus to leave it. Lehman: That's right after we got back. An hour and ten... Pfab: It's a go. Kanner: Well. we never had an official an~endment... Pfab: Could I propose that we take a break and somebody get some fuzzies... Vanderhoef: Well put one out. Lehman: We're going to take a break until ten minutes until ten. Ten minutes til ten. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #78 Lehman: All right, Connie, ask a question please. Champion: When...this is to Steve. Atkins: Yes. Champion: When you figure out the percentage of capital gains on the property...I mean, capital improvements on the property tax, what do you figure for growth in those years? I mean do you just take an average of the past ten years? Atkins: No. Growth in the tax base, the tax rate or the projects? Champion: Right. The tax base. Atkins: The tax...we have tax rates that are set by state law. Champion: Right. Atkins: Okay. We have a tax base, which is the value of property. And for all practical purposes it also is set by state law because it requires the assessment process, it requires rollbacks. So we take that number, apply all of those factors and then I know what the taxable value is. There's the value of property and then there's the taxable value. We then, for example on capital projects, total up the capital projects, assesses what kind of bond sale we're going to have. We know how much money it costs to pay back the bonds which means that...we have to generate that kind of income from that tax base and so forth and so forth and so forth. You draw a line. That's the tax rate. That's how we get...it's all just a bunch of arithmetic. I mean I can show you how to do it but it's...that's how it works out. Lehman: Understand that? Atkins: Now when we sell bonds... Champion: No. Atkins: ...we make...we make a best guess on the interest rate and we make a best guess on when we're going to go to market to sell those bonds. Champion: But how do you guess...how do you guess tax base growth? Atkins: Several things. One is we have history that we will back it up six, eight, ten years, see how it's grown. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #79 Champion: Okay, that's... Atkins: Secondly, we have building permits. When the building permits go on line we can calculate that. And then thirdly, you go through, I hate to use the word assess.., appraising the values of all of those properties. And then you have to apply what went off the tax base. You know, the University buys something. Champion: Oh right. Atkins: Yeah. Champion: We buy something. Atkins: Yep. We buy something. Champion: Okay. Atkins: Again it's just...it's arithmetic, Connie. It's not as hard as it seems. You know, once...we've got a good database and so it allows us to do that. You know and Kevin can do some projections. You know well what if this, well what if that. For example our building permit activity over the last three years has been excellent. We've had 100 million dollar years the last three years. Champion: But we've already built that into the equation. Atkins: Yes. Champion: That's too bad. Lehman: You're right. Atkins: Sorry. Lehman: May I suggest as we start again that lets finish item number 11 on the agenda which is the budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003. Now I think we've gone through the capital projects that are included in that year. If there are...we've also indicated that we want to stick to a 15% cash reserve. Are there other items in that 03 budget that we would like to change, look at, whatever? Kanner: Iowa Avenue streetscape. Champion: (can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 11 Page #80 Atkins: It should be done. Vanderhoefi In 03? Kanner: 03. We have... Vanderhoef: Iowa Avenue? Atkins: Iowa Ave? Lehman: I don't see it in 03. Kanner: 400,000. I thought I saw that. Champion: Iowa Avenue's not (can't hear). Atkins: Oh I know... Steven, that's the payment from the University to us. They're paying us. Kanner: Oh that's local government? Atkins: Yeah. They're behind a year. Lehman: All right. Atkins: They're not behind year, the schedule is. They contributed over a million and they...I think we agreed to like three or four payments. Lehman: Years. Right. Atkins: So that's a revenue item for us. Kanner: Okay. Lehman: Okay? Other things on 03? Vanderhoef: Just a comment that I heard during the break was that it appears that some of the PIN grants are not being spent down in a timely fashion. And I guess the request might be to check with Miller Orchard to see whether their PIN grant money could be spent down for the cleanup and so forth that we're planning to do this summer. And certainly they are eligible to come back and bid on PIN grants in the future. But this would at least help clean up a backlog of dollars that have been awarded them in previous years. Atkins: We'll get a status report for you on that. That's easy to do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 11 Page #81 Lehman: Okay, other 03 items. O'Donnell: Before we leave is there any interest in moving out the North Street Market Place? Lehman: Are you moving to move Market Street from 02 to 05? O'Donnell: I am. Lehman: We have a motion. Vanderhoefi I'll second. Lehman: We have a second. Are...discussion? Champion: I think we've discussed it to death. O'Donnell: Well we've really done nothing in the year 03 yet. Vanderhoef: What I see... O'Donnell: I mean as far as trying to... Vanderhoefi What we've done is $142,565 and on top of that we have moved out the airport. Lehman: Okay, we'll take a couple minutes. We have someone from the public who wants to address this. We had the public hearing but we will take a little input. Champion: Because we're not getting anywhere. Atkins: Before Ms. Williams addresses you I just want to make sure...you know you did reduce art. You did reduce owner occupied and you moved the runway out. So it's...you've done some things. Vanderhoef: In this... Lehman: But we've also did (can't hear) Vanderhoef: We've done 142,565 at this point. Traffic calming, art, Civic Center... Lehman: That was already done. Vanderhoef: ...and owner occupied. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #82 Atkins: Yeah. (can't hear) Civic Center. Pfab: Could...let me... Lehman: Okay. Go ahead. Karr: Wait, wait. Traffic calming, you didn't do anything tonight. Lehman: That was already done. Karr: Okay. Champion: Before. Vanderhoef: But I'm looking at... Pfab: Would...could we slice another piece off of that? Lehman: Not until the person from the public... Champion: No. Lehman: ...has an opporttmity to speak. Jan Williams: Okay, well I'm sure you have heard most of the arguments... Lehman: Please give your name before you start. Williams: Oh, I'm sorry. Jan Williams, and... Lehman: Thank you. Williams: ... I live on Jefferson Street and I'm the owner of Northside Book Market. I'm...I know that you probably know all the reason that we would give for why we think that the north side is deserving of this kind of attention. But one thing we have found is that customers, at least in our store and in a lot of the other neighboring stores, are often people from out of town who don't know that neighborhood exists until they get directions. And people find the neighborhood fascinating. And you've got this beautiful development of opening the spaces up in downtown and it is just one little jump to including that neighborhood and making that neighborhood part of what the attraction to Iowa City is. We've got Market Street as one of the gateways coming into Iowa City and we've got Dubuque Street coming from 1-80. And it really is a unique little neighborhood This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. # 11 Page #83 because if you think of where the dorms are and where the families and the student housing, the apartment buildings are and the downtown, you just have a wonderful little tying in of all those resources to extending that neighborhood. And I think with those improvements you would really do it. So I really urge you to keep that improvement plan going for 03. Lehman: Okay, thank you. Other discussion? Kanner: Even though this isn't part of the amendment but would you folks be willing to push back any other roads? Lehman: Well lets do the amendment first and lets.., in fact, let's vote on the amendment and then we'll take whatever else comes up. But we're going to finish 03 and then we're going to go to item number 12. Are there four people...how many would choose to move Market Street project two years in the capital improvements project? It is defeated. Okay, other items that effect the 03 budget. Kanner: Yeah, I'd like to propose we move back the Mormon Trek, Highway 1, Highway 921 to unfunded. Lehman: Okay that's a motion to amend? Kanner: Yes. Lehman: Is there a second? Pfab: I'll second it. Lehman: We have a motion and a second. As I understand it a million nine of that is being funded by...what is that Steve? Road... Kanner: T21 funds? Atkins: That sounds right. Lehman: T21. So that project is... Atkins: Something like that. Kanner: They were going somewhere else and they could also ultimately go somewhere else to. Lehman: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #84 Kanner: We requested that they go into this from another project and we can put them into...couldn't these be used for bike paths? Atkins: I think it goes through JCCOG, to my knowledge. Lehman: It has to be... Kanner: It could go for bike lanes? Lehman: It has to go back to JCCOG. Kanner: Yeah, so it could go for something like that. Lehman: Well given the choice of bike lanes or building a road that has some significance chance of spurring economic development that generates taxes I would certainly have to go for generating some taxes. Kanner: Actually people in Chicago are riding their bikes to work. It's great economic development. Lehman: I know. I realize that. Are there other...discussion on moving the Mormon Trek project out? All those in favor of moving it out into the unfunded years raise their right hand. Opposed their right hand. We have a 6 to 1 vote. Mr. Kanner... Kanner: You know, Ernie, if you would vote for the lefties once in a while I think we'd get more votes. Lehman: I don't think it would make a lot of difference. Champion: (can't hear) not going to support either. Lehman: Okay, other comments on 03? Kanner: Got to stick up for the lefties. Lehman: Are we ready to vote on item 11 ? Champion: Yes. Pfab: Yes. Kanner: Wait, wait. So now we're doing operating. Lehman: We're doing anything that has to do with 03? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #85 Kanner: Yeah, operating funds. I would propose that we cut the airport general levy by $100,000 in 03. Lehman: We have a motion to cut the airport levy by $100,000 in 03, is there... Pfab: I will support that. Lehman: We have a second. Is there discussion? Kaimer: Yeah, I think that the economic impact is very little. We've had figures quoted about how big that economic impact is. In fact I called and wrote to the author of this study that was quoted in the paper about 17 million dollars. And in fact he says that the vast majority of that is probably made up of ticket pumhases for airlines in Cedar Rapids and other places. I'm going to pass these out. This is from David Swenson so feel free to take a look at this. I think the impact of the airport is minimal and that we need to move them along to raising fuel fees and hanger fees and any other fees, landing fees if necessary to become self sufficient. And we need to do it now. Champion: I agree with you, Steven, but I'm not willing to make that cut until we've had a meeting with the airport where hopefully those kind of things will be discussed. Vanderhoef: I agree. We need to get them on a better fiscal footing but I don't know how that's going to look until we've had those conversations so I'm not willing to just make a blind cut on that. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment raise their left hand. Kanner: Thank you. Lehman: Opposed the same sign. O'Donnell: I'm raising my right hand. Lehman: We have...actually it's 2 to 2 unless we have some more votes. Champion: Oh. Lehman: The motion...the amendment is defeated 5 to 2, Kanner and Pfab in the affirmative. Kanner: See going to the left doubled the vote total. Lehman: Actually double it...we had almost no votes. Okay... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #86 Vanderhoef: Half the people sitting here didn't know which was their left. Lehman: Let's keep going. Kanner: All right I propose...we need to get some of that money back, I think, for the Senior Center and ICAD has come to us more in the last year or two than in previous years and I commend them for that. That's Iowa City Area Development. But in tough times I think we have to cut back on some areas and I would propose that ICAD budget be cut from approximately 50,000 to 25,000 for 03 with re-evaluation in further years about bringing it back up. Lehman: Is there a second to that amendment? Pfab: I'll second that. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to amend it by reducing the funding for ICAD from 50 to $25,000 during a time when we need them most. Is there any discussion? Kanner: Yeah, Emie, I think we have...even though they're sitting...they're working with the Chamber, I think the Chamber can pick up some of the slack. I think we have UI Business School, we have Iowa City that gets phone calls, we had the Visitors Bureau that gets phone calls. I think this is a time to look for funding where we can and I think this is an area that we need to cut back. There's other ways that we're doing that kind of development. O'Donnell: This is a time when you should encourage economic development and ICAD does a wonderful job of trying to recruit people in here with good wages, good benefits. And I think this is exactly the wrong time to be cutting something like that. So I'm going to support the...I won't support your amendment. Lehman: All in favor of the amendment raise their fight hand. Opposed same sign. The motion is defeated 5 to 2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Next? Kanner: Now the water customer service position, that was postponed? Atkins: Yes as you instructed us to do. Kanner: And what are we doing with the broadband telecommunication money that's not being paid? Didn't we also postpone that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #87 Atkins: I think so. Okay, we're going to... Helling: If I recall right you indicated that you were going to have a meeting at some point in time after you were finished with the budget to talk about that because it's an enterprise fund and those funds would be there. Lehman: Right. Atkins: And that's tantamount to postponing it cause you wouldn't hire them without (can't hear). Vanderhoefi And we specifically sent direction that they not hire until after we had had that meeting. Atkins: Okay. Lehman: Okay. Atkins: If I understood that, clearly it's postponed then. Lehman: Any other amendments? Kanner: Yeah, I would propose that we not apply for Edward Byme Police grant and we would lose about 50,000 a year. Lehman: Do we have a second to that amendment? Fails for lack of second. Kanner: And for economic development we have service and charges of $45,0007 Atkins: Look it up. Kanner: I saw in the budget. And I would propose...or we cut it in half to $45,000. Atkins: Look it up. Lehman: Are those transfers, Steve? Atkins: I'm going to find that out. Right now I don't recollect, Emie. Lehman: Do you remember Steve Kanner? Kanner: What? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #88 Lehman: Are these transfers. My suspicion it may be what we...transfers are charges within the staff. Karmer: I'm not sure, Ernie. Atkins: David's budget...David's budget. Sorry. Economic development...we personalize them around here. The economic development budget has service charges proposed of $89,000. Of that, 50,000 is the payment to ICAD. Lehman: Okay. Was that a motion to cut in half the services and charges? Atkins: So if you're going to cut something you'd be cutting the 39. I'd have to look up the details of... Vanderhoef: So there wouldn't be anything for running...is part of David's salary out of that? Atkins: No. His salary is separate from that. These are the services and charges, what Steven singled out. And those numbers...I'm trying to think what else we have. I know he does a business survey and we pay interns to do that. Vanderhoef: How about the business fair? Atkins: Business fair would make a small contribution to that. Or if we have...but most ofit...ofthe 89, 50 of it is ICAD. So you have 39 you're working with. Lehman: But we have a motion to amend it by cutting services and charges. Is there a second to that amendment? Pfab: I'd support that. Lehman: We have a motion and second to amend that. All in favor of that amendment raise their right hand. Opposed same sign. Motion is defeated, 5 to 2, Kanner and Pfab in the affirmative. Next? Champion: Are we done? O'Donnell: We might be finished, Em. Lehman: Are there other motions to amend the budget for fiscal 03? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #11 Page #89 Kanner: I would move that we save approximately 150,000 a year by removing three police officer positions through attrition over the next three years. Lehman: We have a motion to amend by eliminating the position of three police officers. Is there a second? Motion fails for lack of second. Is there any other discussion on the 03 budget? Are we ready for a vote on item number 11, which is the 03 budget? Champion: Please. Pfab: As amended? Champion: Yes. Lehman: Well obviously it would be as amended. Roll call. The motion carries, 6/1, Kanner voting in the negative. Now we're going to talk about number 12, which is basically, I believe, capital improvement projections more than anything else so... Karr: I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor? I'm sorry, could we have a motion to accept correspondence? O'Donnell: So moved. Vanderhoef: So moved. Pfab: Yes. Lehman: Moved by... Pfab: Second. Lehman: ...O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. All in favor? Motion carries. (all ayes). Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #12 Page #90 ITEM NO. 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVIING THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2005 AND THE MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2006. Lehman: now we're looking at capital improvements projections 03 through 05. Actually we're looking...yeah. Hopefully we're looking at 04. I think we've about murdered 03. Champion: I'd like to move that we just do 04 next year. Karr: I'm sorry, do we have a motion on the floor yet? Do we have a motion on 12 yet? Lehman: Oh, I see. Yeah, I'm sorry. Vanderhoef: I'11... Lehman: (read item number 12). Do we have a motion? Pfab: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Atkins: May I comment? What we'll likely do is...in fact what we will do. We will prepare for you a little summary sheet, you know, without excruciating detail showing the implications on those that you've moved. You know, fire equipment, some of the things you've decided. And then we'll recalculate the debt for you. Lehman: Okay. Champion: So, I think, probably we should just accept what we've done and discuss this again next year. Because we don't know what's going to happen with the stuffwe've approved for this year. If the bids come in high, obviously, we're going to have to reject some of them. If they come in low we may be...may move along really smoothly. So I have a hard time discussing...since we've already through this once, we've already been through it. We've had many discussions about it. Then I would move we just vote on this and wait for Steve's letter and we see what happens. Because none of this...it's all just a plan, it's not...I have a hard time... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #12 Page #91 Atkins: Now, it's important in the sense of we use it planning our work. You know Rick does it and Kafin and all the folks in communicating with development proposals. And from the perspective it's very helpful. Now, I'm going to owe you something on the 15% policy thing anyway. And we do need to go back because you did make changes in here that will effect the schedule on borrowing. And I (can't hear) the full impact of that yet. Lehman: If there are projects that we absolutely do not favor, the time to say so is now. We want to take them out. I mean, obviously anything that's in there can be moved... Champion: Right. Lehman: ...eliminated, moved out, whatever. I mean...but this is a planning tool for not only the staff but for the public. Pfab: Also... Vanderhoef: Well I had even talked about it today about deferring this item until we had a chance to make those adjustments. Champion: Good. Good idea. Vanderhoef: But... Atkins: They give you...they certainly give a different picture when we do make the adjustments. Vanderhoef: It's going to give us a different picture. Champion: Is that a motion, Dee? Vanderhoef: I was assured by the City Manager that we can make those adjustments later as long as we just go ahead and approve the plan right now. So as long as this comes back to us and then we sort of look at the bonding over the next...for 04, 5 and 6, I think... Champion: No, I like your idea of deferring that part because I'm afraid we get so busy that we won't really look at it if we don't just defer it. Do you know if we say well we're going to look it after we get Steve's memo about the changes in stuff. If we defer it then we'll actually have to put it in at least a work session or have a budget work session to go over it again. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #12 Page #92 Atkins: You're going to have one anyway. No matter what we have to do that for you. Pfab: So... Lehman: Connie, did I hear you make a motion to defer? Champion: Yeah. Lehman: We have a motion to defer this. Vanderhoef: I'll second. Lehman: And a second to the defer. Now would you like to discuss the motion to defer? Pfab: Steve, does it do any good to defer? Champion: Yes. Atkins: It doesn't hurt. I mean this is something we do. It's a message you're sending. Pfab: But if we approved it nothing else would change. Atkins: If you approved it...you've already made a number of amendments. I need to come back...let me just think out loud a second. Given the number of amendments that you've made, it's probably best that you do defer. I'll m-calculate it,... Pfab: Okay. Okay. Atkins: ... bring it back to you. Pfab: I call the question. Champion: Second. Vanderhoef: That's what I was thinking this afternoon when I called you. Atkins: Got you. Now I understand. Okay, I'm fine with that. Lehman: We have had the question called. All in favor of calling the question signify by... Champion: Aye. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #12 Page #93 Pfab: Aye. Vanderhoefi Aye. Lehman: Opposed? All in favor of the motion to defer say aye. Opposed? Kart: We need a date specific. Youjust...do the next one, the 19th? Vanderhoef: Defer to the... Atkins: Defer to the 19th and I'll give you an update as to where we are. Lehman: I believe that the motion to defer was to the 19th. Pfab: That is correct. Lehman: The motion carries. Now, Steve, when you prepare for this meeting would you indicate to us what the projected capital improvements programs at this point will do to the portion of the...of our tax bills used to retire debt? Atkins: Yes. Lehman: And I want to thank you Connie for making that motion. I would not have voted in favor of this item. I will not vote in favor of capital improvements program that use...that exceeds the 25% limit whether it's tonight or the 19th. Atkins: Okay. I don't think you've gone... Lehman: We haven't even scratched the surface. Atkins: Haven't gotten down below 25% but... Lehman: Haven't come close. Atkins: ...if we projected this out from the changes that you've made, you may find yourself at 25% in 06 or 7, something such as that. I just don't know that until I mn those numbers for you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #15 Page #94 ITEM NO. 15. CONSIDER A REOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONVEY AN APPROXIMATELY 43,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL OF UNDEVELOPED NORTHGATE DRIVE LYING NORTH AND EAST OF A SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 7, HIGHLANDER DEVELOPMENT FIRST ADDITION TO NORTHGATE PARK ASSOCIATES AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CONVEYANCE FOR MARCH 19, 2002. Wilbum: So moved. O'Donnell: Second. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Dormell. Discussion? Pfab: Again I'm going to ask the City Attorney here, does that...is that just a... Dilkes: This is the road...relocation of the road. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Roll call. (7/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #16 Page #95 Lehman: Item 16 is relative to Oaknoll and I'm president of their board and Ms. Vanderhoefwill do it. ITEM NO. 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONVEY THE VACATED WEST BENTON COURT RIGHT-OF-WAY, A 15,577 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL LYING NORTH OF BENTON STREET AND WEST OF OAKNOLL RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, TO CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT SERVICES FOR TItE SUM OF $7,500, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CONVEYANCE FOR MARCH 19, 2002. Champion: Move the resolution. Wilbum: Second. Vanderhoefi Okay, moved by Champion, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Kanner: Could... Pfab: I... go ahead. Kanner: Could someone refresh my memory on what was the procedure we adopted a years ago or so on how we were going to price these out? Dilkes: I believe you said that you would look at assessed values of neighboring properties as well as any appraisals of the specific property being conveyed. In this case, Oaknoll received a specific appraisal and that is what they're offer is based on. You've also been given the information about what the assessed values of neighboring properties are. I...which is higher than, significantly higher than the per square foot value being offered but that's because of the blanket utility easement on the property. Pfab: In...but the...the blanket utility easement, I have great difficulty sorting that out because they have use of the property and but no liability. The City retains the liability to everything there. I have...I can't support that...the numbers just don't come out. Dilkes: Well at this point they are City utilities so we need the easement. Pfab: I...something just doesn't...the math...I can't make the math work. Kanner: Yeah, it's 48 cents per square foot that they're paying us and the property surrounding is $3.95 per square foot. So the question is does the easement drop the worth of the land that much? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #16 Page #96 Dilkes: Well it makes it unbuildable. Champion: Can't build on it. O'Donnell: They own everything on both sides... Vanderhoef: It just becomes open space. Pfab: But they own it. What happens when...if...when they decide that they want to build on it and take over...shut off the utilities there? Vanderhoef: Well they have to move them. Dilkes: They couldn't decide if they...they couldn't decided to build on it while we hold that easement. Pfab: But the...do I understand the utilities only go to supply Oaknoll? Dilkes: I can't comment on (can't hear) P£ab: I think that that's the problem and that's what bothers the dickens out of me. Champion: Why does that bother you? The line going from the street to my house only supplies my house. Pfab: Yes, but do you...you want to sell your property for 48 cents a square foot up to your house? Kanner: I think what might happen is they'll buy...eventually they'll want to buy those utilities and then they'll be able to use that land and they'll have gotten a very good deal. Pfab: I'd like to see the appraisals. It's just something... Vanderhoefi But my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong... Pfab: It just scares the heck out of me. Vanderhoef: ...is that if they move those utilities then they have to pay to move them, not us. Dilkes: We would require that they move to...that they pay the relocation cost. I mean basically we could... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #16 Page #97 Vanderhoef: And the relocation cost will go on their property some other place and then we have permanent easement. Dilkes: Basically you could attach whatever conditions you thought appropriate on your decision to release an easement. Pfab: I would like... Vanderhoefi Okay. Dilkes: I mean you've got the easement and so you essentially control... Vanderhoefi So we would negotiate that if the came to us and said they wanted to relocate the lines at their expense and then we can make the conditions at that point. Because... Dilkes: They can't make use of the property without.., for building purposes without your consent. Pfab: I would like to see the contracts or what...this is a very, very loosely constructed piece of information here. We've got appraisals that are 100% apart and we're just going down the middle. It's about...not quite a tenth, one-ninth of the surrounding value. It just doesn't make sense. I would like to see some more numbers. I'd like to see the appraisals. So I just...there's no way I can support this. O'Donnell: I'm not interested in that, Irvin. We've gone through this every time we've talked about this. Champion: We just won't know. O'Donnell: They own both sides of the road. Pfab: Okay that's your vote. O'Donnell: Let's vote on this. Pfab: But I'm not going to. Vanderhoef: Any other comments? Roll call. Motion carries, 4/2 with Pfab and Kanner voting in the negative. Lehman: Hey we're getting close to the end here. Vanderhoef: Yes. O'Donnell: Hard to believe isn't it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #17 Page #98 ITEM NO. 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM BY SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. O'Donnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Pfab: I have one question. IfI vote no will that be an illegal vote? Pardon? Dilkes: No, Irvin, it won't. Lehman: And I suspect is way of...this is a resolution paying Southgate Development $40,000 in damages for an accident that was deemed to be illegal on the part of the Council. We chose to pay the damages rather than take the chance on going to court and fight a lawsuit. Roll call. I'm sorry. Kanner: No, I wanted to say I thought that...I'11 be voting against it. I think that this, as opposed to the case that precipitated this vote, this would be a lot harder to prove and I think the case was in our favor. And I think the 40,000 is way too high especially if you put in the context of this is a normal process. If you want to appeal our decision you go to court. It's happened other times. People make it seem like it's something new. We've gone to court over numerous issues. We've hired outside lawyers. And I think that Southgate would have had a hard time proving that we would have owed them for the fees because this is a normal course of government process. Lehman: Steven, I would agree with you except that I don't think it's a normal course of government... Champion: No it's not. Lehman: ...process when a Council refuses to accept the opinion of their attorney. We go to court, the court roles the council acted inappropriately. I don't think this is a normal course of anything and hasn't been since I've been on the Council. Kanner: Ernie, we take the advise of a lot people and the City Attorney is one of them and it's their respected advise but I think that's our job as Council Members is to make those decisions and... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #17 Page #99 Lehman: But we lost in court which is why I think this is a pretty good...I mean, I think we really need to do this. Vanderhoef: An indication...the whole point that...for me is the fact that once again we would be required to hire outside council... O'Donnell: For 20 to 30. Vanderhoef: ...for this and the prospects of more damages and paying for legal fees for the complainant would be a risk that I'm not willing to take. O'Donnell: And it would be, I believe, a substantial risk to the City. I think when we're approached or when we're confronted by a builder, a developer who's followed all the roles that we've set forward and we have received legal advise, I believe it's absolutely responsible to support it. And I do feel that this is an excellent way for the City to close this very bad chapter and I'll support it. Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries, 5/2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #20 Page #100 ITEM NO. 20. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Karmer: Two things. Lehman: Yes. Karmer: One, can we take our picture on our next meeting, 18th. Kant: I was going to do it the 18th or 19th, yes. Karmer: Okay, either day. Lehman: And you'll let us know. And I...go...okay. Champion: I need to know ifI can brush my hair. Kanner: Second thing is I'm passing out a proposed resolution in opposition to Iowa SF165 that declares English the official language. I'm trying to find out if this...the bill specifically effects Iowa City. There's some language in there that I saw in the paper that leads me to believe that Iowa City and other municipalities would be subject to the same provisions. Even if its not I think it's something we should take a stand at. And I would propose that we look at this as a basis for...use this as a draft for a resolution to be discussed at our next work session. Pfab: I would support that. Champion: Steve, is this really being seriously being considered at the state level? Pfab: No. Kanner: It passed by both houses. Wilbum: It's on the governor's desk. Champion: I missed that totally. Kanner: And it might be too late but I think it would be good to go on record whether it does pass before we get back or perhaps it will be vetoed and they'll... Champion: I hope so. Kanner: Houses will consider it again. But I'd like to put this on our work session.., our next work session. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #20 Page #101 Lehman: Is there interest in the City Council discussing English as the official language for Iowa? Pfab: I think it'd make...I think it would be a good take a stand. Wilbum: Yes. Lehman: We have...are there three people who want this on the work session? Champion: Yes. Wilbum: Yes. Lehman: We have three, okay. Done. Anything else, Steven? Kanner: That's it. Lehman: Ross? Wilbum: Nothing tonight. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoefi Nothing. Lehman: Mike? O'Donnell: Nothing. Lehman: Connie? Champion: (can't understand) nothings. Lehman: I have something. This is cool. Champion: Something cool. Lehman: The Iowa Sports Turf Managers Association recently honored the Parks & Recreation Department by awarding the Iowa baseball field of the year award, this was field two at the Bobby Oldis complex in Iowa City Park. Credit of...for this award goes to parks maintenance workers Joe Wagner, who is our turf specialist, and Mark Heick who are under the supervision of Terry Robinson, Park... Superintendent of Parks and Forestry. Kind of nice. Pfab: I agree. Vanderhoef: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002. #21 Page #102 ITEM NO. 21. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. Lehman: Steven? Atkins: No, nothing sir. Lehman: Eleanor? Dilkes: Just a question. Steven are you wanting this on the formal as well in case you decide at the informal to act on it? Kanner: Yes. Dilkes: I mean that way... I guess if timing is an issue then you need to. Kanner: Yeah, I mean, we might change this. Dilkes: Right. That doesn't matter. Kanner: Okay, yeah, I would want that. Thank you. Lehman: Marian? Thank you very much for the cookies. Do we have a motion to adjourn? O'Donnell: Yes. Vanderhoef: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Wilbum. All in favor? Opposed. Motion carries. (all ayes) Thank you very much. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of February 27, 2002.