HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-17 TranscriptionITEM 2. OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS -Shimek
Elementary
Bailey: Would the students from Shimek Elementary please come forward. Hi, thanks for
being here. I think we actually have a Shimek grad on Council, so...
Hayek: Class of 82.
Bailey: Some day, maybe! You know? Um, we are excited to have you here, and eager
to hear your statements, so I'll just pass the microphone to you and let you get
started. Okay?
Verdick: Hi, my name is Hailey Verdick and I'm a 6th grader at Shimek Elementary. I
would like to thank the City Council for the award, and my parents and the
Shimek staff for helping me so much. Some of the achievements I have done at
school are postmaster, classroom city mayor, assistant school store manager,
patrol captain, three years of regional convention competition, six years of TV
busters, and (mumbled) team. Outside of school I also have completed
community service projects with my Girl Scout troop in the last four years,
including helping the Crisis Center, Animal Shelter, homeless shelter, and Ronald
McDonald House. Thank you again for this award. (applause)
Leigh: Hi, my name is Dylan Leigh and I am a 6th grader at Shimek Elementary. I'd like
to thank my teachers for nominating me for this award. I believe I was chosen
because I am organized and help my classmates when they need it. I am a good
role model and I am a good team player when it comes to sports. These are some
reasons why I'm a good, uh, citizen. (applause)
Parr: Hi, my name is Andrew Parr and I'm a 6th grader at Shimek Elementary. I was
chosen for this award because my teachers view me as an efficient student. They
ask me to help the class with projects. I volunteer to help students who are behind
in their assignments, and I do optional and extra work that I chose to do. I
participate in school patrol and enjoy being a role model for kindergartners and
helping other students. (applause)
Bailey: You're incredibly busy people, and a very impressive array of work in your
schools, and...and in the community, and we appreciate that very much. We have
an award for you, and I'm going to read one of these. They each, of course, have
your own name on them, so you can put them up on your wall or wherever. For
your outstanding qualities of leadership within Shimek Elementary, as well as the
community, and for your sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others, we
recognize you as an outstanding student citizen. Your community is proud of
you, and this is presented by the Iowa City City Council. (mumbled)
Congratulations! Thanks for being here! (applause)
O'Donnell: I'm sure Matt never left the impression that these young folks did!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
2
Hayek: Not even close! (laughter)
Bailey: Your list looked like that in 6th grade?
Hayek: (laughter) Not even close!
Wright: Did you get an achievement award?
Hayek: We had sledding, uh, where the play structure is, there was a great sledding hill
and that's where I directed most of my attention. (laugher)
Bailey: Okay, you were a good sledder! Okay. Well, glad to see that the younger
generation is taking on a little bit more. All right!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
3
ITEM 3. PROCLAMATIONS.
a) National Week of Hunger and Homelessness Awareness: November 15-21,
2009
Bailey: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Co-Chair of the Local Homeless Coordinating
Board, Crissy Canganelli. (applause)
Canganelli: Thank you. Um, men and women of the Council, um, this week is a week of
awareness, a week where we are also trying to help educate members throughout
our community as to the needs and uh, issues that folks in our community face
every day. Um, this year, uh, local organizations that are members of the Local
Homeless Coordinating Board, uh, which represent about 24 different
organizations throughout Johnson County, both public and private, have dedicated
their efforts to implementing an event which will be held tomorrow. Um, it's
called Community Connections Day, and I think that this event really does
exemplify the efforts in our local community, which, um, demonstrate the
partnerships and the possibilities that...that we bring to bear in responding to
homelessness. We have participation from our local faith communities, our local
businesses, local private organizations, and public organizations, all coming
together to provide a health and hygiene fair, um, that will offer resources free of
charge to anyone in need, and I've brought flyers that, um, articulate the different
resources that will be offered at Gloria Dei Church tomorrow, so I want to thank
in particular the Members of the City Council and the City staff for their support,
um, their assistance, um, the resources that you have helped us with throughout
the years. This community has made great strides in this past year in addressing
homelessness with our ability to actually move forward in building a new shelter,
which has been aseven-year long journey, so thank you very much for your
support over these many years. Thank you.
Bailey: Crissy, thank you for the work that you do in the community. We really
appreciate it. (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
4
ITEM 5. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
Bailey: This is a time for members of the community to comment on items that are not on
tonight's agenda. If you wish to address Council please approach the podium,
state your name for the record, and limit your comments to five minutes or less.
Vincent: Hi, Jarrod Vincent with Eco-4 Partners, LLC, 6600 University, Windsor Heights,
Iowa 50311. Members of the City Council, thank you for the time to address the
Council. I'm Jarrod Vincent of Eco-4 Partners, a real estate development
consultation firm, representing Steven Moss, the Moss Family Farms, and Moss
Family Development Group. We are here today to introduce our project and its
intentions to the City Council. The Moss Family Development Group was
formed by the Moss family with the consultation of Eco-4 Partners to develop 170
acres at the northwest corner of Highway 1 and Interstate 80. The ground is
directly west of the NCS Pearson facility. Moss Family Farms have been the
owners of the 170 acres for three generations. As a result of interstate
construction projects and extenuating factors, access and overall efficiency for the
use of land as farm ground has become difficult. It is the desire of the Moss
family to use this ground for a good and unique purpose. The intent of the Moss
Family Development Group is to create an office/research oriented village setting
to be known as the Moss Green Urban Village. With Moss Green Urban Village
the objective will be to create a unique pedestrian-friendly business, research,
commerce, and education community that will employ a comprehensive, holistic
approach to environmental concerns. By using green construction and
infrastructure, the environment will take top priority. Currently no other large-
scale office/research park development in North America provides the proven
environmentally conscientious and sustainable technologies at all levels of
construction as is being proposed for the Moss Green Urban Village. We will
create a modern day example for the nation to follow as it moves into the future of
commercial development. As one of Iowa's most active cities, Iowa City brings a
number of assets to the table. A strong sense of community, the University of
Iowa, commendable primary and secondary education, and the newly realized
wind energy supply chain campus. Recent economic development activities in
Iowa City and a shortage of office park real estate property make this the optimal
time for the introduction of the Moss Green Urban Village in order to fulfill the
current growth needs of the community. Based on current economic conditions
and office park development needs nationally we believe the park's potential will
be fully realized in five to eight years. Upon completion of construction, the park
will generate at an estimated 2,000 new jobs, all qualifying for the high-quality
job creation standards set by State Rise programs. Additional job creation will
take place in the entertainment, retail, and service industries. We have estimated
a growth in Iowa property tax revenues of $2...excuse me, $2.95 million per year
and compounded total tax revenues over the construction period of $9.15 million.
Our potential immediate tax revenue sources area $20 million town center
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
development committed to you by a development group from Texas, $13 million
of office/research facility development committed to by local developers, $10 to
$15 million of moderate density residential committed to by a California
developer. These immediate revenue sources would result in an estimated tax
revenue increase based on current City-only (mumbled) of $767,000 per year.
Tax revenues created during the first two years of construction would be in excess
of $1 million for Iowa City alone. Those estimates represent current
commitments only. We are in contact with other groups, willing to make
additional commitments when the beginning of....uh, upon the beginning of road
construction. Tax revenue increase estimates based upon those forthcoming
commitments will be made at the time construction has begun, and those
commitments are received in writing. The current status of the project, uh, the
northern most 60 acres of the property is currently in the application process for
annexation into the City limits and rezoning to interim development status. Uh, in
addition, the property owners to the east have agreed to annex their land to give
right-of--way to the City for construction of the initial three-quarters of a mile of
Oakdale Boulevard and to make a connection to Highway 1. Moss Family
Development Group has also purchased the 30 acres to the west, uh, to provide
the, uh, existing neighborhoods with the appropriate buffer between the
commercial development and, uh, their current residential status. Uh, Moss
Family Development Group, uh, is also going to be presenting the economic
development staff with a, uh, development agreement, uh, in reference
specifically to the road construction. Um, we have current lease commitments for
the buildings, uh, in these projects representing over 100-plus high-quality jobs
with immediate income of $75,000 per year and it should be noted that this is
prior to road construction or City approval. A monumental achievement for a
project of this kind, which we believe is a testament to the need for, and the
market validity of, macro-green development. As for the commitments of the
developer, Moss Family Development Group has committed to funding the initial
three-quarter mile section of Oakdale Boulevard in order to realize the potential of
development commitments on the table at this time. Uh, Steven Moss, a partner
in Moss Family Development Group has committed to the initial building project
of 60,000 square foot office building, certified LEED platinum as designed by the
Engineers in the Building Group out of Omaha, Nebraska, and
they've committed to using all local subcontractors. Uh, in conclusion, what the
Council can obviously expect to see from us is an annexation application in future
meetings, uh, some discussion about a development agreement when it's gotten
through staff, and we would humbly ask for you to consider our request through
the most efficient possible process. Thank you very much.
Bailey: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment?
Roberts: Good evening. Mayor Bailey, Council Members, I'm Cindy Roberts. I used to
live on Grant Wood Street in the southeast Iowa City. I was at the work session
last evening. I wanted to extend my sincere appreciation for the discussion that
you had concerning various crime prevention initiatives that you are considering
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
6
after the Davenport visit. Ideas such as a juvenile detective bureau, landlord
training, and background checks would serve, would appear, would serve our
community well. Uh, Davenport also has a curfew ordinance in place,
longstanding, though I don't recall that being mentioned. There is of course a
price tag to many of these initiatives being discussed, and that's a reality that's a
somewhat difficult one for the Council to address, but there is also the reality that
certain crime and safety issues in Iowa City are not improving with the passage of
time. I think any of us who have lived in Iowa City for a period of more than just
a few years. I've lived in Iowa City for over 20 years. We've come to realize that
the demographics of Iowa City has changed over the years, that's not necessarily a
negative thing. That's just the reality that we're...that we're dealing with. A
community grows, a community matures, but with that sometimes come issues
that then we have to deal with, uh, perhaps differently than we expected. The
critical thing is how our City officials, and community, whether it's our
neighborhoods, our neighborhood association, of which I'm very involved with
the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association, how we respond proactively to the
changes that have occurred, and how we need to change how we respond to that.
And that's as we look at topics as law enforcement, the obvious needs of our, uh,
police officers, we need additional police officers in Iowa City, that's been a
longstanding, um, issue for our police chief. Housing issues, social services - is
there enough? Are they preparing or are they providing the types of services that
are needed for some of our residents? As has been said in many times over the
past several months, this is not just a southeast Iowa City issue. This is an Iowa
City community issue. I truly look forward to seeing how this Council, as well as
the 2010 Council, will move ahead and begin putting discussions, um, on crime
prevention into action, because we need change, and we need it now. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
O'Leary: Good evening, Council, um, I'm Ryan O'Leary, uh, I reside at 161 Westside
Drive, but I'm here tonight to, um, relay recent activities at our Parks and Rec
Commission, and to bring you up to date with, uh, items we've been discussing
and items we'll be working on in the future with you. Um, but I'm also going to
say how much I appreciate the opportunity to serve on the Parks and Rec
Commission for the last five years and the next five weeks, uh, and then my
service will end, so, uh, again, very much, uh, enjoyed the process and uh, your
recent invite to joint work session a couple of months ago. Uh, talking points that
I want to bring up, and then any questions you may have. Um, first and foremost,
uh, Mike and I wanted to, uh, mention that discussions are, um, actively taking
place for increasing revenues, uh, and um, also affiliate user fees in the Parks and
Rec facilities, um, so that we don't have to explore limiting the hours of those
facilities, uh, as we contemplated the alternatives. Um, another item is that, um,
the public has been encouraged to, um, give feedback in the form of surveys for
the Farmer's Market. Um, the master plan consultants pointed out how, uh, how
much the citizens appreciated the Farmer's Market and we felt in order to, um,
best plan and improve in the Farmer's Market we would reach out to the citizens.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
So in their utility bills they were given note that, uh, they could respond to the
surveys on the web site. Um, the third item, the, uh, ongoing implementation of
the master plan. We have clearly alliterated, uh, thirteen goals and uh, thirty
strategies that would help, um, accomplish those goals, and uh, work within the
budget and CIP opportunities, and last, um, just that the Parks and Rec
Commission is, uh, participating, working with the Council on budget reductions
for next year, and preparing for the budget process with, uh, Parks and Rec staff.
Bailey: Thank you.
O'Leary: Thank you.
Bailey: Anyone else for public comment? All right, then we'll move on to Planning and
Zoning matters.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
8
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
b) CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 7.91 ACRES OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ON HUNTINGTON DRIVE WEST OF TAFT
AVENUE, FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY TO
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (REZ09-00007).
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open.
Davidson: Good evening, Madame Mayor, Members of the City Council. I'm Jeff Davidson,
the Director of Planning and Community Development for the City. Item b,
under Planning and Zoning items, is a request from Arlington Development to
rezone a property from IDRS to RS-8 to allow the development of small, single-
family lots in the vicinity of Taft Avenue and Huntington Drive. Uh, there you
see the, uh, where the property is located in far east Iowa City. Here is an aerial
view of the same property, and you can orient yourselves to...get the arrow going
here. Uh, here is Stonebridge Estates and the property under consideration
according to the developer would be, uh, as proposed, would be subdivided as
Stonebridge Estates Part Ten. Uh, the property is slightly less than eight acres in
size. The existing zoning is IDRS. The proposed zoning is RS-8. Uh, some
background information, um, oh, and I did want to emphasize. This is just the
rezoning. We do not have subdivision before you this evening, uh, so it is just the
rezoning. We will address a couple of platting issues, but those will be taken up
at the platting stage, not this evening. Um, the, oh, the applicant has also
indicated that they have not chosen to use the good neighbor policy and have not
had discussions with neighboring property owners. You will recall that is an
optional, uh, step that a developer can take. It is not compulsory. The property is
currently as...has the ID designation on it because it does not have the
infrastructure necessary for development, but as proposed we expect that it will,
and so it is appropriate for the, uh, the rezoning to occur. Uh, the...there is the,
uh, concept plan. You can see a relatively small-lot development. You can see
the extension of...keep doing that. Uh...the extension of Huntington Drive here,
north-south direction, and then Thames Drive, uh, which would be extended over
to, uh, Taft Speedway. We're not certain when this connection to Taft Speedway
will occur. Taft Speedway is currently, um, has a County rural design standards
that will need to be reconstructed at some point into a City street, and that'll have
to be determined, uh, at the time that Thames goes in, uh, with the construction
project there, as to whether or not that tie can occur now, or that will occur in the
future when, uh, Taft Avenue is reconstructed. Uh, couple of other things -the
proposed RS-8 zoning does allow for duplex development on corner lots;
however, the dimensional requirements of these lots, uh, they do not meet the
dimensional requirements for a duplex, so we anticipate that this would just be
single-family residential development. Uh, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
9
we feel that this is generally in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for large-lot development in this area, but if you look at
the pattern of existing development that has occurred since the Comp Plan was
adopted, uh, there is a very logical transition from higher-density housing to
lower-density housing. I did that...I did that actually directly wrong. It would be
higher-density housing to lower-density housing, and we feel this transition is
appropriate, and the Planning and Zoning Commission did, uh, concur with that.
Uh, I am going to address an issue that has been brought up by the City Council
with the other, uh, parts of Stonebridge Estates, and that is the treatment of lots
along Taft Avenue. That was brought up as a concern by, uh, by Council last
time we talked about Stonebridge and I will get into that in...in just a second, uh,
so that you can, uh, have discussion about it if you'd like. Uh, in terms of
environmentally sensitive areas, uh, there...when the property's subdivided it will
need a sensitive area's site plan. Um...oh, and also at the time of subdivision, the
developer will be required to, uh, pay an exaction for the future upgrade of, uh,
Taft Avenue, or according to the model that we've used, uh, successfully for, uh,
past arterial streets, uh, as well. Um, the...couple of other things in terms of
subdivision. Uh, neighborhood park land or fees in lieu of, and in this case it will
be fees in lieu o£ Uh, will again be collected at the time of the subdivision.
Storm water management is not an issue. It will convey to the...to the adjacent
creek that you see...right...right there. Um, and uh, they, the developer will be
required to pay a, um, a tap-on fee for an extension of municipal water, at the time
of subdivision. Uh, the remaining issue then that you may wish to discuss is,
uh...the buffering that you see along the, um, the lots here, uh, that will have their
backs to Taft Avenue. This received quite a bit of attention by staff working with
the developer, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission. What is
proposed...uh, and this varies slightly from what is in your packet, uh, with...and
the difference is in the evergreens that have been added, uh, to the front here to
make more of an impermeable, um, barrier there. Um...
Karr: Jeff, excuse me, they have the revised one (both talking)
Davidson: Oh, you have the...you have the revised one, okay, great! It differs from the one
that was in the packet that went out last Thursday. Um...this is the treatment that
is proposed for the lots, it will be adjacent to Taft Avenue. Uh, as mentioned, the
Comprehensive Plan calls for this to be residential development. You may wish
to discuss that, but the existing Comprehensive Plan does call for residential
development in this area. What we are proposing is a combination of a berm that
would be planted with the design that you see here, for these lots as the treatment
between the residential lots and Taft Avenue. We do anticipate that Taft Avenue
will have substantial truck traffic from the industrial area that we are further
developing in southeast Iowa City, so undoubtedly there will be some issues
there. This is what we feel is an appropriate treatment. We...we try and
discourage, uh, plain, blank fences, which you see in other parts of town, uh,
because of the visual impact on the arterial street. We feel this is a better
treatment. There is some question...we...we don't know yet because the design's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
10
not far enough long, of whether or not we will have to collect fees, uh, for the
eventual, um, implementation of this at the time that Taft Avenue is
reconstructed, or if we can go in and put at least some of this in, prior to that time.
We'll have to make that when we get a little bit further along in...in the design of
the subdivision, we'll have to make that determination, but ultimately we hope to
end up with a combination...well, with a planted berm in this area for screening
between the residential and Taft Avenue. Um, are there any questions? Before
you continue your public hearing?
Hayek: Well, in terms of, uh, the process, um...there are a couple memos that went to
P&Z earlier in the fall.
Davidson: Uh-huh.
Hayek: And then, uh, you flash forward to the CZA that we have before us now.
Davidson: Yeah, and actually I...I, Matt, I meant to run through the four...the four
requirements in the CZA and...
Hayek: Well, and my initial question is does this...is the CZA, does it represent whatever
accord was reached with the developer, following Planning and Zoning phase?
Davidson: It...it does, and just real briefly, uh, the issue that was discussed extensively at
Planning and Zoning Commission was this transition right here to the adjacent
property, and it received a lot of discussion. We were not, and remember, this is
just a concept plan, this is not a plat. Um, we were not comfortable with the way
this was stubbed, and the juxtaposition with this residence, which is currently in
the County, and not proposed for annexation at this time. Um, we had suggested
a curving of the street more in this direction, maybe making asingle-loaded
situation along the creek here, um, and... and lots platted off of this side, uh, there
was also discussion of a cul-de-sac here because that...that curving of the street
and bringing the street up, and then eventually back over to Taft Avenue
was...basically we're not able to reach an accord, and it was...it was left that that
would be an issue to be determined at the time of the subdivision. That's why the
conditional zoning agreement doesn't have anything addressing that. Okay? The
conditions in the, um, the...the four conditions that with your approval are
proposed is that the developer will grant the necessary construction easements for
the reconstruction of Taft Avenue, the contribution of the exaction of which'll be
12.5% of the cost of, uh, upgrading Taft Avenue, that the lots adjacent to Taft
Avenue will be a minimum of 140 feet in depth, and then the...the substantial
compliance with the landscaping plan that I showed you. Those are the four
conditions in the conditional zoning agreement, that if approved the developer
would be required to adhere to. Any further questions?
Hayek: The area up by that, to the north of the concept plan, is that part of the
application? How do...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
11
Davidson: Uh, well let me just clarify. This property here is not part of the application. It is
just the area, well, let me go back...the area, the shaded area that you see there.
That property to the north is this property right here.
Hayek: So how do you...how do you deal with that, in connection with the subdivision
phase, when it's not part of the parcel.. .
Davidson: Well, it'll be dealt with at the subdivision phase, Matt. Basically that subdivision
has to leave in one form or another the treatment that occurs right here, in terms
of connecting or not connecting to the adjacent property, and that
determination...you'll approve that plat ultimately, and that's where the decision
of bringing a stub that would later be connected to this property, for future
development, or a cul-de-sac. That'll be determined at the time of platting,
ultimately by you. You'll have a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission at that time.
Wilburn: When the, um, when it is subdivided, when you do look at the platting, you
mentioned that the...they'll have to provide a sensitive area's site plan in relation
to the creek. During those conversations is that when you'll look at, um...the
aspect that...related to the northeast plan that talks about some type of public
access to the creek, or is that part of the buffer, is that where you'll look at that
part?
Davidson: Right, yeah, that will be scrutinized at the time of the plat. There is a formal, uh,
with the other portions of sub, of uh, Stonebridge on the other side of the creek
there...we...we very much addressed that head-on and up in the northern...if I
can get this to work, in the northern portion of the subdivision up here, there's
actually an area that was originally proposed as platted lots, where lots were
removed to open up the access to the creek for the adjacent neighborhood. And
there's also a very nice linear trail that goes between, uh, Lower West Branch
Road and Court Street, uh, that...that I think it has to be completed by part seven
or part eight, I can't remember which one, but eventually it'll be a nice linear trail
between those two streets.
Wilburn: Good.
Bailey: So what's the timeline, how does our timeline with upgrading Taft Avenue and
then this development coordinate? How do they match up?
Davidson: It is in the unfunded year, currently. It's in an un...it will be...because of the
development exaction, it will be placed in the furthest out year of the funded years
of the Comp Plan. This is the first exaction we will have gotten for Taft Avenue.
So it's currently in the unfunded years. With that exaction we need to put it into a
funded year. It automatically, just like American Legion Road and before it,
Lower West Branch and the other Sycamore Street, we put in the furthest out
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
12
year. It's up to you then, in your discussion of the CIP, to prioritize it into a
sooner year if you wish to.
Bailey: And...along Taft Avenue berm, planting...will there be a sidewalk or trail?
Davidson: Potentially planting on top of the berm, potentially.
Bailey: Right, right, and then closer to the, in the right-of--way, will there be a trail or is
that just going to be...
Davidson: There will be a wide sidewalk.
Bailey: Wide sidewalk.
Davidson: On one side, likely this side, uh...when Taft Avenue is reconstructed. Eight-foot
sidewalk on one side, four-foot sidewalk on the other.
Champion: And when the developer doesn't wish to meet with the neighbors, do we notify the
neighbors of the rezoning, or it's just a sign put out there or...
Davidson: They're notified...there's information on the web, and there's sign posted...signs
posted out on the property giving the web address, as well as, uh, the number for
the Urban Planning Division. Any further questions?
Wright: Just a comment then...actually pleased that this is coming in as RS-8 rather than
RS-5. I think it's really a better...better design for this particular piece of land.
Bailey: Well, I'm pleased that we're berming and...and requiring some planting, because I
think...I think this will prevent some discussions in front of other Councils,
because there will be substantial truck traffic along that road.
Wright: A lot of conflict over that without some...some proactive design.
Bailey: Yeah, and I hope...I just hope this is sufficient, but...it's something. Anybody
else wishing to comment at the public hearing?
Moreland: (unable to hear) John Moreland, I'm one of the developers for this, and uh, I'd just
like to say that our plans are to put a cul-de-sac in here when we do it, because
that's what staff really wants, and uh, and we'll probably be a couple years, as far
as the timeline.
Bailey: Literally?
Moreland: Probably. (mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
13
Bailey: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment at the public hearing?
Okay. Public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Hayek. Discussion? Okay, roll call. First
consideration passes 6-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
14
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS.
c) AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, TO ALLOW SPECIALIZED
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
(CI-1) ZONE BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Public hearing is
closed. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wright: So moved.
Champion: So moved.
Bailey: Moved by Wright, seconded by Champion. All those in favor say aye. Those
opposed say nay. Motion carries.
Champion: Move first consideration.
Bailey: Moved by Champion.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
15
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS.
d) AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY
IN THE TYPE OF FENCE SCREENING REQUIRED FOR SALVAGE
YARDS.
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Public hearing is
closed. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Wilburn: Move first consideration.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Discussion?
Wright: I'd like to offer an amendment, uh, this, uh, particular resolution that, um, let's see,
right at the moment it reads that the Board of Adjustment will have the discretion
of modifying the requirement of solid fencing areas that will not be visible from
public streets or from public view, and per our conversation last night at the work
session, I would like to add, uh, or from the Iowa River, or visible from the Iowa
River.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Okay, we have an amendment by Wright, seconded by Wilburn. Any discussion
on the amendment? Okay. Um, let's vote on the amendment.
Dilkes: Let me just clarify that the actual ordinance provision as opposed to the memo,
which I think you were reading from, says...currently says not visible from streets
or other public rights-of--way. And we'll be adding Iowa River.
Bailey: Streets or other public rights-of--way, or the Iowa River, will be how this
ordinance will read. So, um, let's vote on the amendment. All those in favor of
the amendment say aye. Those opposed say nay. Okay, the amendment carries.
So we'll move forward on first consideration with the amended language. Any
further discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
16
ITEM 6. PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS.
f) AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, TO CLARIFY STANDARDS
THAT APPLY TO DUPLEXES AND SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLINGS IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (OPD)
ZONES.
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open.
Davidson: Matt, you had asked, uh, at yesterday's work session for clarification. Your
question was, uh, were the...was the Home Builder's Association or other
constituent groups formally asked for comment. The Home Builder's Association
and several constituent groups, uh, namely developers, are on our...our list that is
notified, and so they were notified. We did not receive any comments.
Hayek: Okay.
Bailey: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment at the public hearing? Okay,
public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Wilburn: Move the first consideration.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wright. Discussion? Roll call. Item carries 6-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
17
ITEM 7. RENEWAL OF CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SUMMIT
RESTAURANT & BAR INC. DBA THE SUMMIT, 10 S. CLINTON
STREET.
a) HEARING
Bailey: This is a hearing, and the hearing is open (bangs gavel) and we'll first hear from,
um, our staff...with a big pile of paper.
Kelsay: Sergeant Kelsay with the Iowa City Police Department, uh, Chief Hargadine, uh,
was unable to attend tonight because of a conflict and I'm here as his designee.
Uh, I would like to...I spoke with, uh, City Clerk Karr earlier this...today, this
afternoon, and she said I needed fifty (away from mic). What I'm distributing is,
uh, calls for service or incidents, uh, for the Summit 10 S. Clinton. Uh, I
received, or the Police Department received on October 27 the application for
renewal of the Summit's liquor license. Per your guidelines and your criteria, uh,
and I was acting as the Chief s designee, I did a review of, uh, the Summit, the
persons operating it, the premise, and the application itself. As a result of that
review, I've forwarded my findings to Chief Hargadine and he issued, uh, a letter
that I believe you all have copies of, that based on primarily an excessive PAULA
rate, uh, PAULA per visit rate of 1.925 PAULA per visit, per the renewal period
or the review period, he was mandated to recommend denial. There were some
other associated issues that were also concerning, but really the denial came down
to the PAULA per visit. I would like to use the renewal sheet that I have and just
go down it. We start right away with the PAULA criteria, but I would like to
explain some of my numbers and tell you what I have done, uh, after having been
through this a couple other times now. You can see that the PAULA...number of
PAULA citations during the 12-month renewal period, and the renewal period
that I reviewed was October 30, 2008 through October 29, 2009. There were 154
PAULA associated with that address, uh, 80 bar checks associated with that
address, uh, doing the math it came out to 1.8125 PAULA per...I'm sorry, 1.925
PAULA per visit. I have gone through...all of the calls for service, uh, since I ran
the statistic query, and you have a highlighted copy, and I would like to explain
some of those highlights and how I have made an effort I guess to massage the
data to reflect it in the best light for Summit to see if it would make any
difference. Uh, when I go through the number of PAULA citations, when I go
through the number of arrests, and I did not distribute that to you; however, if
you'd like to see it I have the arrests for the premises. When I go through those
154 PAULA arrests to see if they were indeed associated with bar checks, I find
nine PAULA charges that stem from something other than a bar check, uh, out
with subject, but some other event that caused that contact - not an officer
initiating, uh, a bar check. If I take those nine PAULA off the total 154, that
reduces the number down to 145 PAULA associated with bar checks. That would
give me a PAULA rate of 1.8125. When you look through the calls for service, I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
18
looked for other types of activity that might...be coded something other than a bar
check, but in practice have been a bar check. That's something that has come up
in conversation again with other premise...with Tom Lenoch who is, uh, one of
Mike Porter's managers, not for this particular business, that officers are out on
some other activity code and it's not getting logged as a bar check. When you
look at...the...out for investigation, you will see that there are a number of calls
listed under out for investigation, and it's...if you go over to the type of call, it's
alphabetical. When I looked through those calls and examined each of those
calls, there are two of them, the ones that are highlighted in green, that very
clearly are associated with some other investigation the police officer is doing.
Some other activity. The other out for investigations, none of them result in any
charges, but if you say, well, maybe that investigation was to see if there were any
PAULAs. So if I take the remainder of those out for investigations, that's 15
additional potential bar checks if you again try to...try to massage it to the bar's
favor, that gives me 95 bar checks resulting in 145 PAULA for a PAULA rate of
1.5263 during the renewal period, or during the review period. Uh, that's the best
that I could come up with when I reviewed the calls for service. I would just also
like to call, uh, your attention to as you flip through here there will be a few items
that are highlighted in purple. Now I know my way around a computer, I know
how to use one, I don't write code. When I do the search for this particular
address, for some reason, 210 S. Clinton Street is popping up. That is
inappropriately captured here, and those items should not be in there. There's a
total of nine calls for service that you'll see are coded purple that aren't associated
with this particular establishment. Also, I went through and examined each of the
262 calls for service that do show up on this sheet, to try to determine again, is
this appropriately associated with the Summit, or is this just 10 S. Clinton. When
I did that, if I take out all of the calls that aren't specifically tied to the Summit,
neither the call for service nor the charge nor the report says this involves Summit
staff or this involved the Summit in anyway, but it just involved the sidewalk.
That removes 26 calls for service, plus those nine that weren't associated with the
address. That takes me down to 227 police calls for service that are directly
associated with the Summit, uh, either inside or outside, or bar staff calling us.
So, again, what I'm trying to do there is demonstrate that even if you looked at
these numbers in the best light and try to whittle out what potentially might not
be...how do you know. I still end up with 227 calls for service. When you slide
down to that nuisance calls, the 113 calls for service, and I apologize that I'm
throwing a lot of information at ya, but 133 nuisance calls for service, when I
adjust them...by saying how can I be sure again that it's at the Summit, when I
adjust those, it takes it down to 87 nuisance calls for service, out with subject
drops from 62 to 47. Assaults or fights drop from 38 to 32. Suspicious activity
drops from 4 to 2. And unknown problems from 2 to 1, and disturbances
disappear. Intoxicated pedestrian stays the same. The last thing that I want to
show on this particular color-coded diagram, I wanted to examine certain types of
calls for service, particularly the fights, to see how many of them occurred inside
and how many occurred outside, how many of them were associated with bar
staff, because again, these are questions that have come up in conversation either
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
19
with staff or in going through this process before. When you look at the fight
calls, when you look at any of those, but when you look at the fight calls anything
that's coded in red on your sheet...at one time either was inside the Summit or
involved Summit staff. Anything that is coded in blue, occurred directly outside
the Summit, is associated with the door or the sidewalk area directly in front of
the Summit, but is not...I was not able to find any indication that it was ever
inside or that staff was involved, other than appropriately identifying it to us in
some cases and saying there's a fight outside. That color coding holds true for the
other items that it's paired with. The fights in progress, intoxicated pedestrians - I
looked at the 5 intoxicated pedestrians that officers called out or, I'm sorry,
indicated by a call for service. I really expected all those to be officer-initiated
calls and not have anything to do with the Summit, other than they occurred
directly outside the doors. Of those 5, 3 occurred directly outside, 2 actually were
incidents that were inside the Summit. Uh, suspicious activity, neither one of
those when I looked at it, neither one of those was inside, but the medical assist,
which I didn't code as a nuisance call, but I was curious in examining it, the
medical assist there were 5 of them. Three of them I was able to identify as inside
the establishment, 2 I just wasn't able to make a determination and that's why
those aren't coded. The reason I bring all this to your attention is, just examining
the calls for service, this is a high amount, I mean, the Summit has a huge
capacity. They have over 700...736...736 for the capacity. They have a huge
capacity. A lot of people pass in and out of that door. You step around the corner
onto Iowa Avenue, in front of the next bar, down the street on Iowa Avenue,
which is Joe's Place, and you don't have...forget the PAULAs even for a moment,
although that is the sticking point here on this one, but you don't have this type
calls for service. The Summit itself, either because of its capacity or because of
the crowd that it caters to, or because of its staffing, continues to draw an
inordinate amount of resources from the Police Department. Those are some of
the issues. The aside issues that the Chief addresses in his memo and that came to
light as you go down this renewal form, uh, but when it comes to the end, it's the
PAULA rate, no matter how you slice it, that still even in best light is one and a
half times what Council's mandated as...as not good enough. The rest of the
numbers speak for themselves. I'd like to flip back to page 2 of the renewal form
though, item #C. These are additional items that are just hard to capture
statistically. Part of what I do is I review the persons associated with it, the
owners and the management. Uh, I review cooperation levels. One of the
managers, uh, Alan Eckhart who is probably the manager that I deal with the
most, and when I say that, understand that that's by phone and the light of day.
Alan has been very helpful, has provided information about criminal activity, uh,
basically private residence acting as bars, uh, charging an admission or paying,
uh, charging people, you know, making them buy cups, bootlegging when it
comes down to it. He's also provided information about other bars, uh, engaging
in inappropriate or illegal or questionable activity, which either I have been able
to address or been able to address through the City Attorney's office. His
concerns and his complaints have resulted in criminal investigations and have
resulted in charges, and for that I'm thankful. One of the other managers, and his
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
20
information is listed on there, does have, uh, a recent public intoxication arrest
and at that time there was also an interference charge filed. There's an additional
history of prior intox arrests, uh, I have to note that. That's part of my review
period. I would also point out though that the most recent incident anyway and
that's the one I was most attentive to had nothing to do with the Summit, other
than it shows up on his criminal history when I...when I do the review through
Iowa Courts Online, and I'm...I need to note it. When you come down to it, the
Summit's PAULA rate is currently at the time that I did this one of the two
highest year-to-date rates for any bar or licensed liquor establishment in Iowa
City, and for that reason, for it being well in excess of Council's benchmark, uh,
the Police Department recommended denial. I would like to...I was asked about,
I had questions about what their PAULA rate was prior to...February 6th, when
the new criteria came into play, during this same review period. Uh, their... if I
look at the period of October 30th of last year through February 7th of this year,
before the new criteria came into place, they had 26 PAULAs, uh, resulting from
20 bar checks, for a PAULA per visit of 1.3. Since February 8th of this year,
through October 29th, they've had 60 bar checks resulting in 128 PAULA for a
PAULA per visit of 2.13, and again, those aren't the massaged numbers. That's
the numbers that just spit out when I run the address check for, uh, Summit. Uh,
the...PAULA by month are available on line, but if anybody would like to review
them I brought all of 2008 and all of 2009. The most current month is not yet
posted, but for the month of October, uh, the Summit was visited 7 times, as far as
bar checks...logged as bar checks, resulting in 22 PAULA, and again, those are
raw numbers. That's not going back and individually examining calls for service
or PAULA charges. Any questions?
Bailey: Questions for the Sergeant?
Dilkes: Sergeant Kelsay, why don't you give us at least one copy of each of what you
have there and we'll put them into the record.
Kelsay: Yes.
Dilkes: (away from mic) all.
Kelsay: Okay. I have...this is a copy of the...criminal complaint on the manager, one of
the managers. That's a packet containing all of the 2009 PAULA reports, by
month, through September of this year. And this is all of the 2008 PAULA
reports by month, uh, for each month. And...this is a listing by address of all
arrests associated with the address 10 S. (away from mic).
Dilkes: Sergeant, you want to give one of those...a copy of each to Mr. Porter?
Kelsay: Absolutely!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
21
Karr: Do you wish to accept these into the record, or do you want to wait till the end
and accept them all at once?
Bailey: Let's wait till the end and accept all of the correspondence.
Kelsay: There were none of these left, is that correct?
Dilkes: I'd already given Mr. Porter one of those.
Kelsay: Okay.
Karr: I do have extras.
Kelsay: (away from mic)
Bailey: Any questions?
Wright: Sergeant Kelsay, if you were to take the Summit, exclusive of the PAULA rate
(mumbled) problems and calls for service to other bars in town, how does it rate?
Is it still, uh, excessive?
Kelsay: There are still issues there, again, large part due to their volume. My personal
opinion is they could increase their staffing and address some of that. I have
always found staff responsive, as far as the staff that's there. There would be
issues that I would discuss with them, but, uh, I believe that...I believe that the
remaining issues we could work with the adequate...or mutually agreeable
solution.
Bailey: Other questions for the Sergeant? Okay.
Kelsay: Thank you.
Bailey: We have representatives from the establishment here. Would you care to address
Council?
Porter: Troy's really got me painted as public enemy number one, doesn't he? Uh, I
guess, uh, thank you for issuing my dance permit, uh, I think we got them...
Bailey: Mike, we know you, but if you would state your name for the record that'd be
great.
Porter: Oh, I'm Mike Porter.
Bailey: Thank you!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
22
Porter: I live in Coralville, Iowa. Um, I...I guess I'm not going to really say a lot, uh,
what I really do want to say is more philosophical things. Um, I employ over 200
people in this town. My four businesses downtown contribute over a million
dollars a year in taxes. Um, most business people and other people that I've
talked to that are politicians in other towns would love to have me in their town,
um... it seems to me that Cedar Rapids before the flood was trying to expand their
bars and restaurants in their downtown. Um, Des Moines expanding their bars
and restaurants in their downtown. Cedar Falls gave one of their buildings to a
bar owner up there so he could develop, but yet in Iowa City you want to run us
out. Uh, corporate restaurants refuse to come to Iowa City. Uh, fast-food chains
maybe. Corporate restaurants probably been 15 years since one's opened. You
guys have to rely on us local people to run these. I run a really nice restaurant at
the Summit, um, I don't know...I guess I don't know what to say, uh...Troy tried
to paint a pretty bad picture of me, but yet I've done nothing illegal. Everything
he said, I've done nothing illegal. And, I guess I really want you to consider that.
I've been in this, you know, been doing business for 20 years in this town, uh, 7 of
which at the Summit and haven't broken the law. So that's really all I have to say.
Havercamp: Hi, I'm Steven Havercamp, I'm an attorney for the Summit and Mike Porter
individually. Uh, some of you may have already heard that, uh, the Summit and
Mike Porter sued the City (away from mic)
Bailey: Uh, when you talk... you need to be in front of a microphone when you're talking.
Havercamp: ...I'll give a copy of that to (away from mic)
Bailey: Thank you.
Havercamp: The...and I think it's important to be aware of that. I think it's...we've, uh, sued
for...uh, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, uh, the Summit's sued for
declaratory judgment that the resolution which has been passed is
unconstitutional, uh, we've sued for damages as well. If the, uh, Council denies
the liquor license tonight, the Summit will appeal that as uh the Field House has
before that, as well as Etc. Uh, I suspect they'll be suing as well for damages.
Um, and I suspect every subsequent denial, uh, that is made to an established
liquor license based upon this unconstitutional, uh, resolution will also result in
law suits and appeals. In the reasons are I think three=fold, although I know
you've heard these, some of these arguments before, uh, I want to make sure that
we're all on the same page regarding it. The first is the, uh, resolution runs
directly contrary to Iowa law. Um, the City is usurped its, uh, constitutionally
delegated power in, uh, in enacting an ordinance which, uh, does not comply with
Iowa law. The second thing is the, uh, provision as I'll go into a little bit more
detail, and I'm sure you've heard at least some analogies regarding it, is uh,
unconstitutionally vague. Uh, the third reason is maybe a...two reasons, uh, one
is the ordinance is being applied unevenly and in a retroactive manner. Each of
these three factors, uh, gives rise to constitutional issues, uh, due process issues
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
23
for each of the applicants which is coming before you. I think it's important for
you to understand some of the facts which the Summit believes is important, uh,
in considering its application. The Summit's been in business since 2001. Its
liquor license has been renewed each and every year. It's never been suspended
or revoked. Uh, the reason is...is attempting to use its best efforts to comply with
state law, and local ordinances. The state law dictates that this body grant, or
approve, a liquor license...absent unusual circumstances, and those unusual
circumstances generally relate to, uh, reputation, whether the applicant has good
reputation. The state has specifically provided that in considering whether
somebody has a good reputation, that the pattern of sales of alcoholic beverages to
minors, uh, for which the licensee or permittee or agents have been pled or found
guilty. There's two components of that provision. One is sales, and the other one
is, uh, pled or found guilty. The sales component is important because it imparts
culpability on the bar. In other words the entity whose license you may vote to
revoke or not renew, uh, it's important that they be culpable in the offense which
is being alleged against them. Uh, two and found, uh, pled or found guilty. Uh, is
another very important factor, uh, since mere allegations should not, and do not,
under Iowa law constitute a basis for denial. That's fundamentally wrong, and it's
not a practice which is adopted in the United States. Uh, hearsay statements,
mere allegations should not result in a denial of a liquor license. The City, uh, as
you may or may not be aware has always interpreted that statute or the state
statute in line with what we're saying. The...that first of all, conviction was
necessary, uh, before lack of reputation was found, uh, the prior resolution which
was resolution 62, or 06216, specifically provided that it must be a pattern of
convictions, not citations, convictions. And, a memo from the City's Legal
Department states, and I quote, I think it must also be clear that a conviction
would be required to deny an initial or review application. The other factor that
the City has, up until this recent ordinance, always recognized is that PAULA
violations was not, could not be the sole reason for denial of a liquor license. We
know from the, uh, the report from the Police Department to the Council that is
the reason why he's recommending that the Summit's liquor license be denied.
The sole reason why the liquor license is being denied. The...but we know,
again, in the past, City Council...has adopted the state's position and our
positions. We have a memo from the Legal Department specifically stating that,
"The number of PAULA violations is not in and of itself sufficient for
administration of a civil penalty." Moreover, the prior resolution, uh... states that
the police chief may consider PAULA violations in making recommendations, but
not mandating it. The Summit has always complied with the state statutes, as well
as the City's prior interpretations of the, uh, statute. However, and... and it's
important to note this year the Summit has not received a citation, let alone a
conviction of selling alcohol to minors. Uh, and I believe they were just checked
last week. Was there any citation? When the City...passed the resolution in, uh,
January, 09-38, it has essentially turned the state statute on its head, and also
turned its prior resolution on its head. Instead of convictions, now the standard is
citations issued, regardless of whether the citations are valid or not. Instead of
discretion left to the Police Chief in using PAULAs as one factor and making
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
24
decisions, now if a certain threshold is met, the Police Chief must recommend, uh,
the denial of the liquor license. There's a number of problems with that, in
addition to being preempted by state law, uh...one of the probably most glaring
problems is the term visit has not been defined, and so when the Police
Department comes up here and they're saying we're massaging the numbers, the
reason they're massaging the numbers is because they don't know what a visit is,
and the definition of a visit is necessary in order to, uh, determine when a PAULA
visit occur...or occurs. We have the deposition testimony of two police officers.
The Police Chief and the designee for enforcement of this policy. Each has
testified that they have a varying understanding of what the definition of a visit is.
Having reviewed past Council meetings, uh, minutes, it's clear that the Council
has yet another interpretation of what that definition is. The result of course is,
uh, a result which I don't think is beneficial to any party. Uh, for example, the
Police can enter the Summit, uh, for some reason, find that there's no, uh, do some
I.D. checks, find that there's no, uh, PAULA violations, issue no PAULA
citations, and not classify that as a visit. However, the Police can also go to the
Summit when for example unrelated call. For example if the Summit calls
because there's a public intoxication issue going out front. If the Police officers
come in and they card some people, and they issue citations, that will constitute in
some instances a visit. Uh, so that...creates a situation where there's no rhyme or
reason as to what the interpretation of a visit is, and it's incredibly difficult for the
Summit and every other bar owner in the city to comply with that resolution.
Moreover, the City standard states that it must be, the citations, PAULA citations,
must occur on the premise of the establishment, yet if you look at the
recommendation by, uh, the Chief in this case, he admits...that some of these
citations may not have occurred on the premises. So, what essentially is
happening is the Summit's being held responsible for activity taking place off
their site. They're being held accountable for a violations made by, possible
violations made by third parties, when they have no culpability in it, and there is
another issue, which I know you're aware of and I understand by the questions
which were asked tonight, uh, probably painfully so, which is when this ordinance
was enacted, and was...the notice was given to the bar owners, it was in February,
which means that the Summit, the Field House, Etc., probably the Union and a
handful of other bars did not...are being held accountable for a time period before
they even had notice that the, uh, resolution was going to be passed. In other
words, by making it...by applying this ex-post facto, you're requiring a...a
establishment to comply with rules it didn't even know existed. That's
fundamentally unfair, and unconstitutional. But, perhaps the most glaring
example of how this resolution is not successful is in its application, and I know
you don't have our petition in front of you, but we had the opportunity to crunch
some numbers as well. And we found, uh, even though the Police states that they,
that this resolution should be enforced evenly...and they've dedicated an officer to
fulfilling, uh, the tasks which are required under the resolution that fewer than 20
of the City's 110 businesses with Class C violations, or Class C liquor licenses,
have been visited 18 or more times in 2009. Meaning the PAULA, uh, ratio could
not even be used against 82% of the entities in Iowa City who hold a Class C
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
25
liquor license. We also in evaluating that information found that, uh, in 2009, 45
establishments, or 41 %, of the businesses holding a Class C liquor license have
never been visited by the Police Department. 45% of those holding liquor
licenses have never been visited by the Police Department. The City has visited
the majority of its 110 establishments holding Class C liquor licenses, three or
fewer times in...2009. So the majority of the businesses it's visit...it's visited
three or less times. This is not...uncommon. We looked back...as I believe the
Police Department's looking now, as well. In 2004, the City didn't, uh, visit 47%
of its establishments, even a single time. The figure was 44% in 2005, 45% in
2006, 44% in 2007, 49% in 2008, and the City did not visit 48% of the
establishments, that's 30% of the time, a single time in the last seven years. Those
are a few of the, uh, practical applications of what's going on here. We feel that
it's being...it's a vague, an unconstitutional policy. It's being applied in an
improper manner. It's going to result in extensive damages to not only the
businesses, but to the City going forward. We'd ask that you reconsider the policy
and for tonight we'd ask that you, uh, grant the Summit's liquor license, or make a
recommendation for that license. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment at the hearing?
Shipley: Hi, my name is Jeff Shipley. I'll try to make my comments really quick. Uh,
simply, I'm just curious, I'm here to ask, what is the City hoping to accomplish by
preventing this establishment from operating? Um, to me it's not very clear.
Obviously binge drinking is a very serious problem in this community. I don't
believe anyone is here to deny that. Um, but when we approach and tackle this
problem, we need to focus on the cause and not the symptoms, and to me the
symptoms is a cultural affliction of binge drinking that you have tens of thousands
of kids coming to this town and for whatever reason they have a desire to drink,
and that's really unfortunate. Um, but when you have these problems with a
younger generation, you have to be clear, you know, 18, 19-year-olds, 13, 14-
year-olds, all they want to do is be treated like adults, and that's the problem when
you focus on PAULAs is all these kids want to do is be treated like adults, and if
you make a distinction based on an arbitrary agent and penalize them accordingly,
I mean, that's attacking the symptom. That's not going anywhere close to the
whole problem of binge drinking and this culture that we have. Um, so it would
be very interesting as a partnership for alcohol safety, uh, meets in the future, and
as you make this decision tonight, I really encourage you to...let's you know, sure
the symptoms are bad, but let's focus on the causes here and on another note, um,
I mean, I don't really care for the Summit, but to me when you have the City
Council, when you have an industrious productive entrepreneur in this community
who has to come and beg to the Council for permission to operate his business
and be productive, that's...that's aproblem to me, so uh, yeah, best of luck.
Thank you very much!
Bailey: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
26
Wilburn: Point of order. Um...I'm just looking for some information...in the past I believe
these have been hearings and not public hearings, and the...the license holder and
staff have spoken to this issue. Is this a practice that, am I incorrect in that
practice or...
Dilkes: It's not a public hearing in the way that we normally think of as a public hearing.
It's... it's in... it's provided as an opportunity for the establishment, in this case the
Summit, to be heard.
Wilburn: Okay, thank you.
Bailey: Thank you for pointing that out. Okay, any...questions before we close the
hearing? For Sergeant Kelsay or for the Summit? Okay. (bangs gavel) Hearing
is closed. Do we have a motion?
b) CONSIDER A MOTION TO DENY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
Wright: Move to deny, uh, the liquor license in accordance with staff recommendation.
Bailey: Okay, moved by Wright.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Wilburn: Um...
Champion: Can I just ask, uh, Eleanor, since they've already told us they have a law suit
against us, should we be discussing this at all?
Dilkes: I think you can discuss the reasons why you chose to grant or, uh, approve the
license, and I think you should. I will point out the law suit wasn't filed this
morning. It was filed at 4:21 this afternoon, so I have to see it. I haven't had a
chance to look at it. Um, and we haven't been served. It was filed with the Court
it looks like at 4:21 this afternoon. Um...but there's been no, um, injunction or
stay issued by the Court with respect to this proceeding.
Bailey: Further discussion?
Wilburn: You know, I think that, um...having been on the Council, uh, for...12 years now,
as this discussion related to...the...responsibilities of the Council in monitoring
compliance with the liquor license holder, uh, these different rules that we've
established, uh, have...assisted us in trying to fulfill our responsibility and
obligation under state rules, which has been pointed out, to monitor compliance,
uh, of the liquor license holder. Uh, if you step back and think about it, in terms
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
27
of businesses, if there's a restaurant in town they have to...they have to, um, fulfill
their responsibilities for the public health. Uh, and there's guidelines they have to
fulfill with inspections, etc., etc., and uh, that is...there's a risk that a restaurant
takes because of a product that they (mumbled). We certainly welcome
restaurants, uh, in the community, but uh, the public has an expectation that, uh,
while part of doing, uh, good business, which again is appreciated and the revenue
that comes in and circulates through the community, um, that they are providing a
healthy product, that people aren't getting sick at a restaurant, and so there are
rules that govern that. In a similar way we have a responsibility, um, and there's a
risk involved with anyone that chooses to apply for a liquor license, we have a
responsibility, according to state law, and part of that responsibility's been
delegated to cities across the state. So again, uh, I view the rules that we've
developed as a tool to assist us in... in uh, fulfilling our responsibility. Uh, part of
which, uh, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Eleanor, part of, um...helping
us come up with some type of, uh, quantifiable, uh, measurable figure, uh, was
interpreting...doesn't the state law mention, um...the moral responsibility of
something of the liquor license holder, is that correct?
Dilkes: The good moral character.
Wilburn: Moral character, and so...
Dilkes: And let me just say with respect to the legal arguments that Mr. Havercamp has
made, I don't intend to sit here and address those. They have been briefed. All of
the arguments he's made have been briefed extensively in front of the Alcoholic
Beverages Division. We have briefs that are this thick.
Wilburn: Okay.
Dilkes: Um, so there are answers to each point that he raises, but I don't...I don't think
you're interested in (both talking)
Wilburn: I won't pretend to (both talking) answer those. I guess my point being that we
look for a way to try and help us, uh, fulfill our responsibility. And so,
um...um...you know, that's why I will be, um, supporting, uh, denial of this
liquor license because of the, um, the issues that are, um, occurred here, and we've
set a way for us to observe and monitor this, and uh, I'm going to go ahead and go
forward with that.
Bailey: Thank you. Other...
Wright: I appreciate the comments you made about responsibility, Ross, and there
certainly is a responsibility on the part of the City Council. Uh, there's also a
responsibility on the part of the liquor license holder to uphold, uh, the law and
this case, the law for consumption of alcoholic beverages, whether you agree with
it or not, is 21. That's not a local decision. That's state law, uh, in response to a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
28
federal, uh, purse strings involved with the highway bills. Uh, and I look at the
list of...the PAULA report that we got for September of 2009, and there are really
very few peers at the Summit in terms of size, but one that comes close is
Brother's Bar and Grill. It has a capacity of 556. Still not quite the size of the
Summit, but a very large operation. PAULAs aren't a big problem. And I look at
most of those that are listed here and PAULAs aren't a big problem. We have a
few institutions in town which for whatever reason, whether it's staffing, um, I
have no idea, where we do have a problem with PAULAs and we do have a
problem with, uh...other calls for police service, and it's a drain on the City when
we have this type of, uh...consumption or over-consumption of our police
resources, and it's contributing to a culture that I think the community does not
appreciate, uh, so in this case I...I have absolutely no problem in supporting a
denial.
Hayek: I think the way I look at this is that the task before us tonight is to apply an
ordinance that we enacted, uh, quite some time ago after considerable deliberation
to the application that is in our packet. Um, and...when we do so, uh, I know I
personally see that the numbers are...are at the top of the chart. It's already been
discussed, um, with respect to the PAULA statistic and...and others that are
included in there. So, uh, limiting my analysis to that, our existing ordinance
and...and the numbers in this application, uh, makes the decision easy for me,
um, if...the...the argument that our ordinance is...is unconstitutional or should
otherwise be rejected by the appeal's process is one that we will, uh, have to wait
and see what happens. I mean, there is a...an appropriate venue for that, the
appeal process, both at the state level and ultimately in the Court system, and we
will find out at some point in the future whether what we enacted, uh, based on
our deliberations and working with staff, uh, some time ago holds up. And... and
that is a separate consideration and one that we are not equipped to pick up
tonight and...and shouldn't, because there hasn't been an answer. In the
meantime, uh, our ordinance has not been struck down. We have not been
conjoined from, uh, proceeding tonight on this application and I'11...I'll support
denial.
Bailey: Further discussion? Well, I too am going to support denial, um...you know, I'm
willing to broaden this out. I certainly appreciate the nightlife that we have in
downtown Iowa City. Um, you're right. Other towns should be envious of it.
However, our expectation is that...that establishments downtown conduct
themselves in a legal manner. It should come as no surprise that PAULAs are a
problem, whether we had something on our books in February or not. It should
come as no surprise. If we go back and look at those PAULA rates before we put
that on the books, those PAULA rates were high at this establishment. I mean,
there are ways to address it apparently because there are only a few in this sort of
range, and I...what I would like to say, the message that I would like to send with
these kinds of denials is please, talk to your colleagues and find ways to address
it. I mean, there are certainly...apparently some people are finding methods. So,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
29
yes, valuable...valuable establishments downtown, we need them to conduct
themselves in a legal manner. Any other discussion?
O'Donnell: Well, it always bothers me...when you do something like this. This Council set
forth an ordinance and you really have to support it. There are many things that
come into play, uh, fake I.D.'s We don't know how that comes into play. And
what happens to a fake I.D. once you get into the establishment, um...but I...I
feel compelled to support this because we have an ordinance on it that we all
supported so...but it is not an easy decision and it, um, troubles me to do this, but
I have to support it.
Bailey: Any other comments?
Champion: I have no comment.
Bailey: All those in favor of the motion to deny say aye. Those opposed say nay. Motion
carries.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Wilburn: So moved.
O'Donnell: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Donnell. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
say nay. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
30
ITEM 8. AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, BUILDING CODE, BY ADOPTING
THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, 2009 EDITION, AND THE
INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, INCLUDING APPENDIX F
RADON CONTROL METHODS, 2009 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS THEREOF; TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA (FIRST CONSIDERATION).
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Bailey: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open.
Siders: Good evening, my name is Glenn Siders. I'm here representing myself, and I say
that in the fact that I'm not here representing Southgate Development Services,
nor am I here representing the Home Builder's Association. I'm here to address
the adoption of the new building code. Part of that, specifically, are the livability
standards in that code. Uh, many of you might recall a couple of years ago you
looked at a similar ordinance. Did not get approval of the Council. Uh, so it died
at that point. Uh, it was then I became interested in that, uh, portion of the
amendment, uh, and for the last two years I've worked with your City staff to
rework that section, uh, requirement proposed amendment, uh, and there are some
differences. And I wanted to point out a couple of those differences, primarily
one of the focuses we had was to try to figure out how we could regulate, uh,
certain aspects of a home without increasing the cost. Most of those proposals in
the livability standard before you are of no extra cost to the construction of a
home or a very, very minor cost to the construction of a home. We also wanted to
focus on the purpose of these requirements, which is to make a place adaptable to
a person in need at some point in their life, either it be a temporary adaptability or
as you age, uh, and have a need for, uh, certain requirements in your home, you
could convert your home and make it livable, uh, without going to a great expense
to do that in the future. Uh, those were two of our primary focuses. I think we
have accomplished that. Uh, I am quite comfortable as a builder, as a home
builder, that we have achieved that, uh, we have, uh, been before the Home
Building, uh, Home Builder's Association's Board and reviewed that, tweaked it
with some of their comments. I think you have in your packet, uh, a letter
supporting this from them in there. Uh, we feel very comfortable, and I would
encourage you very much, this time, to look favorably on these as you adopt and
move forward with your, uh, adoption of the new code. Thank you.
Bailey: Thanks, Glenn.
Smith: Good evening, my name is Dan Smith. I'm here tonight on behalf of the greater
Iowa City Area Home Builder's Association. The Home Builder's Association
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
31
and Members take great pride in our craft and are committed to building quality
homes. We enjoy a good working relationship with the Building Department,
with Building Official Tim Hennes, Director of Housing Doug Boothroy, and are
appreciative of their willingness and desire to involve our association in policy
decisions, in code implementation, that directly impacts the construction and
housing industry. While we certainly may not agree with every item in the
proposed code, it does represent a collaborative effort between City officials and
the housing industry, and symbolizes what can be acho...achieved through open
communication and a collaborative process. We encourage the Council to adopt
the building code amendments as presented and thank you for your time, and
happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Bailey: Thank you, Dan. Anyone else wishing to comment at the public hearing? Public
hearing is closed. (bangs gavel)
b) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Hayek: Move first consideration.
Wilburn: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Hayek, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Champion: Well, this is different from the last time we went over this area of the building
code (laughter) and I think this is a great accomplishment, everybody's able to
work together and come up with a compromise. Thank...thanks to all of you!
Wright: And I think come up with a code that's really going to serve well into the future,
uh, making homes adaptable to changing needs of the residents.
Hayek: I agree, and I hope this experience can serve as a template for future dialogue on
whatever issues come before us down the road. I think this worked well, and
certainly made our jobs. easier up here.
Bailey: Okay. Roll call. Item carries 6-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
32
ITEM 15. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ENTITLED
"FRANCHISES", OF THE CITY CODE TO ADD A CHAPTER
IMPOSING A FRANCHISE FEE ON THE GROSS REVENUE OF
FRANCHISEE MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY DERIVED FROM
THE DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SALE OF ELECTRICITY AND THE
DISTRIBUTION, DELIVERY AND RETAIL SALE OF NATURAL GAS
BY MIDAMERICAN, OR OTHER NATURAL GAS PROVIDERS
UTILIZING THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF MIDAMERICAN, TO
CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE CURRENT OR FUTURE CORPORATE
LIMITS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, AND ON A REVENUE
PURPOSE STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE PURPOSE OR PURPOSES
FOR WHICH THE REVENUE COLLECTED FROM THE FRANCHISE
FEE WILL BE EXPENDED (SECOND CONSIDERATION).
Wilburn: I move second consideration.
Bailey: Moved by Wilburn.
Hayek: Second.
Bailey: Seconded by Hayek. Discussion?
Raso: Good evening. My name is Joe Raso. I'm President of Iowa City Area
Development Group. Uh, first I want to reiterate, uh, the position of our
organization that, uh, we feel that the City should hold off on the passage of this
ordinance until a more detailed analysis is completed, and uh, the options that are
available to provide for the basic, or all the options are available to provide for the
basic needs of the citizenry during these very challenging economic times for, we
know both the City, uh, citizens and our businesses. Uh, second I want to inform
the Council that at this time, um, that we're aware of we do not have a single
interstate commerce business in the community, uh, that supports moving forward
with this franchise fee. Now, as you'll recall there was one business I mentioned,
uh, two weeks ago when I... when I spoke to the Council that indicated that they
could, uh, support this proposal, um, but uh, since has informed us that they do
not. Now, all the major industrial and commercial users, both based on
employment, utility utilization, and when we look at, uh, as property tax payers
are concerned with the fairness this proposed action, of this proposed action,
especially since commercial and industrial users pay 100% as all of you know the
assessed value of their property, and it's generally discussed both locally and at
the state level that this property tax system puts a disproportionate share of the tax
burden on our businesses. It's also important to remember that it is not just the
property tax, uh, taxes these employers pay, but the residential property, local
option taxes, and other user fees that their employees pay to the City on a yearly
basis. Adding cost to their operations adds tremendous risks in this highly
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
33
charged, uh, global economy we're in, especially at a time when local and state
governments across the country are providing significant assistance to attract and
retain good paying jobs with quality benefits, just the kind of companies we
represent here today. If you'll recall, I mentioned, um, two weeks ago that the
payroll from these companies exceeds over $ 190 million annually to our area
economy, and our companies employ more than 4,500 individuals here in our
region. Uh, and those employees are based in Iowa City from the companies I'm
referring to. Uh, based on tax records, these companies contribute more than $6
million annually to City, County, and school taxes, or a ratio of $8.00 in current
taxes paid, put at risk for $1.00 of new revenue, new tax revenue. In many of the
discussions we've heard about the franchise fee there's been, uh, this artificial
linkage between the fee and the City's support of very specific public safety
services, but when we discuss this issue with our clients, they speak clearly about
the absolute importance of public safety to them, and their businesses, and that all
City services should be viewed holistically with the entire City budget and
General Fund. Now unfortunately tonight several of our clients were not able to
be here, uh, Pearson, ACT, and Loperex, just to name a few, um, but we know
that I believe Pearson has been in communication with Mayor Bailey, uh, here in
the last week or so and also know that Loperex, uh, is planning to contact many of
the Council Members with their specific concern, but I do want to share with you
that all three of these organizations, uh, and the clients that we represent who,
again, employ several thousand people here in Iowa City, uh, support ICAD's
position on this issue. Uh, with me here tonight are several other Iowa City, uh,
businesses, and also ICAD Group investors and Chamber Members that would
like to address their concerns related to this issue. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you. Further discussion?
Easton: Good evening. My name's Derek Easton. I'm the Proctor and Gamble Plant
Manager at the, uh, facility on Lower Muscatine Road. (mumbled) Um, my
facility's been in Iowa City for 50 years. We're the largest producer of shampoo,
conditioners, body washes, and uh, oral rinse products, and in the last several
years we've invested several hundred million dollars in the facility, expanding it.
New technology and infrastructure, we've also added 300 jobs. Uh, we currently
employ over 1,000 people at the facility. So we're a pretty important part of the
local community economy. We believe there's a legitimate need for the
expansion of, uh, fire and police service in the community. And we strongly
believe that the first duty of local government is to provide for public safety. So I
want to make it clear that we're strongly in support of the choices you've made so
far in expanding the services. Um, we also believe that the discussion you had
initially when you discussed it in the spring, uh, was appropriate, where hard
choices might have to be made in order to support the expansion of these services.
Um, these are difficult economic times, and in the current economic climate no
business can afford a more significant cost structure than it currently bears. Uh,
the franchise fee that you're allowed to impose, if you so chose, is up to 5%. I
know that you've only discussed up to 2% so far, but any additional cost burden
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
34
gets passed through directly to the companies that have to find a way to offset it.
So any fee you impose on us we have the new challenge to make up the
difference. Uh, in our private sector businesses, uh, when times get tougher,
we're asked to step up and find a way to offset those costs with more efficient
operations, other cost savings, and essentially we're asking you to do the same
thing. We currently enjoy very attractive utility rates in Iowa City; compared to
national averages we look very advantageous. It's one of the reasons we chose to
invest here in the local community. And we've made, as I said, hundreds of
millions of dollars of investment in the last three years. Um, with the potential
passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, that situation could
change significantly. Uh, most of the announcements I've seen, uh, from several
different sources indicates that should that pass at the national level, our utility
structures are likely to change significantly here. And any franchise fee that
you've imposed will cause a more significant burden on the local businesses.
Now, the increased cost and higher risk, uh, of future fees, uh, create a lot of
uncertainty in the business community. Uh, it could put at risk future expansion,
uh, the ability to hold on to the jobs we've been able to add to the community, and
uh, the ability of our company to secure future business for our site. It's, uh, very
difficult economic climate. We're working very hard to be competitive. We ask
that you do everything you can to help us be competitive so we can continue to
invest in the community. Um, I also have...it's a little unusual, um, in that I am
going to read for you a letter from my Union, um, my Union President wasn't able
to be here because of family commitments, but he has asked me to read this to
you, so I will. (reads letter; letter on file) I'll be happy to make this available to
you. Thank you very much.
Bailey: Thank you.
Karr: Mr. Easton, if you'd like to I could take that into the record.
Easton: Sure!
Karr: Thank you.
Eaton: Good evening. My name is Anita Falkofske Eaton. I'm the Plant Manager for
Proctor and Gamble's Iowa City Oral-B Laboratories manufacturing plant. We
are a global supplier of toothbrushes. With almost 20% of our production
exported to Latin America, South American, Europe, Australia, Asia, and yes,
even China. Our economic impact on the City of Iowa City and surrounding
communities is significant. We employ approximately 475 people, pay $350,000
in property taxes to Iowa City, support a payroll of $22 million, and benefits
spend of about $13 million. By anyone's measure, these are excellent jobs,
working for an outstanding company, and they are jobs that this community
should be supporting, not discouraging. The City proposed establishing a
franchise fee on electrical and gas utilities. For Oral-B, which competes on a
global basis for every new and existing product we produce, we oppose this new
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
35
tax. The proposed amount has the potential to grow significantly, when coupled
with pending federal legislation, and is yet another hurdle for our site to
overcome. We compete with internal P&G facilities and contract manufacturers
around the world for the right to make products. Labor rates in lower cost
countries like Mexico, China, and India are approximately 1/7th, 1/15th, and
1/20th, respectively, of our labor rates in Iowa City. We combat this difference
with automation. The level of sophistication required to automate, to compete
with companies that use people to assemble products, is significant, and capital
ranges from $1 to $2 million for a brush machine, a molding machine, or a
packaging line, fitted with automation. When P&G and other competitors look at
sourcing decisions, product cost and capital expense are major drivers. We work
hard to manage the cost and capital equation to remain competitive. The
employees of Oral-B are deeply aware and committed to the battle. We know
increasing our product cost is not an option. Every cost increase we have, be it
our wages, our benefits, materials, or any other costs we as a team need to find an
offset. Our checkbook doesn't get a bonus infusion of cash. We have to hold the
bottom line. We make hard decisions required because we know that failing to do
so risks the future viability of our site. In the past eight years at Oral-B, we have
decreased our operating expenses 20%. It has been difficult and hard, and some
tremendous sacrifices have been made. For three years, Oral-B team members
worked without a pay increase. They helped absorb increases in medical costs.
They have implemented cost-savings and eliminated non-value-added work to
average cost reductions of 2 1/2% in each of the last eight years. To improve
costs and capacity, they have flexed between afive-day, eight-hour shift
operations to seven-day, 12-hour operations, and back again. They flow to the
work with reductions in job classifications from 33 to essentially three. And most
recently, they have agreed to the elimination of their paid lunch, allowing the
implementation of a much needed shift overlap that allows for communication,
training, and capability building that is critical for long-term productivity
improvements. For each of them, this means ahalf--hour less with their families
every work day. Our work to reduce costs through these contributions,
commitments, and sacrifices coupled with our... implementation of automation,
has resulted in the doubling of our plant's productivity per employee. And we
have had help maintaining this bottom line. Our suppliers have become engaged,
and they have supported us throughout this process. We have reduced or held flat
our material costs through very difficult economic times for both us and our
suppliers. This is not easy work. It takes true commitment and leadership at
every level. They say it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes a village to
keep a manufacturing plant operating in North America. We need local
government to support our fight, and we need to be proactive about it... proactive
about it. If we wait until adverse, uh, sourcing decisions are made, it will be too
late. I stand before you as the leader of the team that is P&G Oral-B and ask you
as leaders of Iowa City to support the manufacturing jobs in this town and oppose
the institution of franchise fees. The primary responsibility of a government, any
government, is the safety and security of its citizens. Anew fire station and more
police protection are needed. We don't disagree. We encourage you rather to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
36
work with City employees to employ practices to identify and eliminate non-
value-added waste in City operations. Like P&G asks ourselves in consideration
of our consumers, ask yourself -does this service work or activity add value to
Iowa Citians? Is it value that they're willing to pay for? We encourage you to
make the difficult decisions to stay within your budget and support the citizens of
this city, many of whom already bear increased costs, just like the employees at
Oral-B. Courage, determination, will, and sacrifice are what is needed to get
things back on track. It is not possible to achieve a win for the greater good by
simply shifting costs. We respectfully request you oppose the implementation of
a franchise fee.
Bywater: I'm David Bywater. I'm here, uh, as a private citizen, 211 Post Road is my
address. I'm also here with a company that does not have the depth and breadth of
business, uh, record that the two that came before me do, but one that has a
long...long life experience here in Iowa City. The Economy Advertising
company is my business. I'm the owner and operator of that organization, and
we've been in existence here in Iowa City since, uh, 1896. The company was
founded by my great-great-grandfather. We're very proud of that legacy, um, and
I'm also very proud of the two individuals who spoke before me, to come and talk
about the impact of the franchise fee on their businesses. We're very proud of our
city. We stay here because we're committed to its livable environment and the
wonderful place that it represents, and we're very proud of the City staff that we
get to work with. Over and over and over again it's proven to us as business
people here in the community that there is a group here that is eager to work with
and help us grow. Uh, help us develop and help us succeed into the future. Like
the other two organizations who were here before you a minute ago, though, our
company is also facing its challenges. We are struggling to maintain a
manufacturing operation here with international pressure, uh, as well as some
distribution challenges, uh, in the local and regional landscape. But we will
persevere. We're committed to that. We do business nationally and we enjoy the
record of business that we have, uh, as we look over the history of our company
and so forth. But like the other two, I'm also here to ask that you reconsider your
vote related to the franchise fee. This is, um, a proposition that will bring added
expense to our company, and will bring about, uh, more difficult choices for us to
make as we work towards sustaining our operation. We look at our current cost
structure and realize that, uh, we're already paying a disproportionate amount of
property taxes as Joe mentioned. We're looking at the 1% local option as a cost to
our community, and the people that participated. We're also looking at the high
water and sewer rates that we've paid over the course of time. And those things
are all telling us that this is becoming a more expensive place to do business.
Now, as I said earlier, we're committed to staying, but we would ask that you
consider your vote again related to the franchise fee, and ask us for further
assistance as you need to. I think both the two individuals that were before me
came forth with, uh, the challenges and how they addressed them within their
businesses. Uh, I think there are individuals as well that could help the City as it
works toward a very challenging budget situation that's before you. We
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
37
understand that there are challenges ahead. We understand that it's going to be a
very difficult spring. We understand this is a very tough choice and I thank you
for your consideration this evening.
Schweer: Hi, my name is Dan Schweer. I'm just a nitpicking private citizen. I've discussed
this with the City Attorney once; uh, I'm just going to ask that if you're going to
pass this, let's be fair. I listened to you talk about a half an hour the first
consideration about being fair. There's a neighborhood that has about by my
count 30 houses that are on Eastern Iowa Light and Power that aren't going to be
paying this electric fee. You've got a new subdivision going in. That number will
go up to 100 houses. When does it become not fair? I understand that we don't
have a franchise fee with that...with the Eastern Iowa Light and Power, but if
you're going to pass this and you talked and preached about fairness, let's
everybody pay it or not, and that's all I'm going to say. Uh, I don't think that
somebody across the street should be paying the 2% and the people across the
street shouldn't, if they're in the City limits, which they are. So, if you're going to
go ahead and pass it, I...I agree with all these people. First thing I...I live just
down the street from all those industries and I'd love them to stay but, um, like I
said, that's all I'm after is fairness. If my church is going to pay it, the church out
there -they should be paying it. If I have to pay it, then they should be paying it.
I don't want to, but...that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
Shipley: Hello, uh, my name is Jeff Shipley. I'm serving as a Student, or the Student
Council Liaison from the Student Government. Um, Madame Mayor, Esteemed
Councilors, uh, thanks for letting me speak to you today. First I'd like to, uh,
thank the ICAD group and the other people, the business owners, who came to
speak to you today, particularly Oral-B whose product I enjoy. I brush my teeth
once a day, sometimes multiple times a day. Um, you're welcome (laughter) uh,
this is really an unfortunate situation the City is in. Um, you have a... a really
hard choice here between harming our industrial backbone and manufacturers in
the community...in our community, and between meeting public safety needs.
It's really...you know, it is a shame that we are in this situation. Um, and as I've
said, um, before...I mean, I think there are additional solutions beyond taxation
where we can tackle our problems. Certainly it's going to be hard. Certainly
tough decisions are going to be made and drastic cuts, and there's going to have to
be a lot of critical thinking and discussion, but it's possible, um, and as my role as
liaison I look forward to working with you, uh, in the coming months to help
tackle these issues, cause certainly...I mean, with what we heard tonight, um, it
really is an unfortunate situation, and to think that the City Council would be
taking this action, I mean, earlier in the meeting we proclaimed that there's
homelessness and hunger awareness, and yet in the same meeting are we going to
be taking a course of action which is going add to that problem. Um, so I think
there's a lot of questions that need to be asked here, uh, and I'd like to point out
the meeting two weeks ago on November 2nd, um, Miss Champion voted to defer
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
38
this. It was not unanimous, and the very next day, she secured re-election in... for
the City Council four more years. I'm not a political scientist. I don't know if
there's a correlation between that, uh, but it's comforting for me to believe that
there is. Um, so...first, I mean, just a couple solutions to throw out here. I mean,
easy and right off the bat, the City owns many prominent properties in the
downtown area that are very valuable and expensive, and should be put back on
the tax rolls, and that alone would do a tremendous amount to improve the...the
budget situation. Um, just a few final comments, um, you know, it's important to
understand how we got in this mess. Uh, certainly City Council didn't do
anything, um, to directly affect, you know, our depressed economy. You know,
of course a lot of the problems we're in is cause of the flat housing market in
2008, the mortgage bubble popped, and that was very unfortunate. A lot of
people lost a lot of money, um, but really where we go from here, when we're
facing a depression, a recession that's very deep, and is probably going to persist
long into the future, what we need to think about is savings. Savings and capital
accumulation is what helps get an economy back on its feet, especially in a highly
capitalized economy like we have here in Iowa City in the United States. So it's
very important to be frugal and... and to invest wisely and to have a high savings
rate and to accumulate that capital so we can further invest in our businesses. So,
um, again, I...I really hope you think very critically on this issue as you vote
tonight and in the next few weeks, um, again, please avoid taking a path which
has very detrimental effects to our community. Thank you very much.
Bailey: Further discussion? Discussion among Council?
Champion: Well, I...was very much for this franchise tax a few months ago, and then when I
heard the economic development meeting, or I heard (mumbled) campaigning that
this is going to be very detrimental, I think it's really naive for the City Council to
believe this isn't going to affect our economic growth, because it will. It may
affect some things that we're working on right now. We have...everybody's
making big budget cuts, 20%, 10%, 15%...we think we've made a lot of budget
cuts, but I, again, I'm asking to defer this franchise fee until after the budget to see
if we can't find... it's going to be very painful. I'm willing to do the painful. I
really hate it, but I'll do it! (laughter) Uh, ways to cut our budget to provide for
this new fire station, and...and not...not...and make sure that our future economic
growth will continue. We're (mumbled) on other economic growth factors right
now. We shouldn't rush into this. It sounded like manna from heaven when it
came to me, but you know what? That's not always good to get free bread. So I
hope that we can, um, at least postpone the second and third readings of this, uh,
franchise fee until after budget time.
Hayek: Connie, let me ask you a question about that. Um, it's one thing to postpone, uh,
this until the budget cycle, and take up the budget, um, mindful of the option to
pursue funding like this to fill a gap or make up....make up a difference. It's
another thing to propose to defer it until after that, because that would require to
do into the budget cycle, um, with...with no means of plugging in this as a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
39
potential revenue source, uh, which means that in addition to the cuts that we
made last year and...and intend, well, be forced to make no matter what in FY11,
um, we would be picking up these 15 new positions with...with no other option,
uh, other than perhaps the emergency levy, um...but for, uh, even more severe
cuts within the budget. So I...I just wanted to get a sense of where you are with
that. Do you see what I'm saying?
Champion: Yeah, I understand what you're saying and...I'm not saying it's going to be easy,
but for instance, we have made budget cuts for several years now, but we haven't
eroded any of our services by doing that, and maybe we're going to have to think
about eroding some services. I mean, we've been lucky in the sense we haven't
had to (mumbled) yet, uh, we haven't had to do any of the real painful things,
although I'm not saying it's been easy. It hasn't been easy. But I am really fearful
that we're going to lose some of our manufacturing, and that's just like putting the
wash...putting the baby in the, what's that saying? Throw the baby out with the
wash (several talking) um, I mean, I...that's right! But I, um, I'm very concerned
about this now, and...and I just really would like us to just think about this.
We've heard from major manufacturers here, um, I think what really got me
intuned to this whole ting was when, uh, Electrolux moved to Mexico, uh, out of
somewhere in, I mean, it's becoming a real big problem and we've got good bases
here for these companies that've been here for a long time. I don't want them to
leave and go to Mexico or China or even Indiana.
Bailey: Further discussion?
Hayek: Dale, do we know our, uh, so called gap that we have talked about and
anticipated, budgetarily?
Helling: No, I anticipate in the next few weeks we'll have that information. And will
certainly share that with you even prior to putting the budget together. Uh, it's
largely a matter of being able to project revenues, uh, and sorting through the
budget, uh, we're just finishing up on reviewing budget proposals so it's
something we'll have to come together pretty quickly, but we don't have it yet.
Wilburn: Just as a review...and to refresh our memories, over the past, uh, four, five years,
um, we have had departmental reviews, uh, cuts, looking for savings, not filling
positions by attrition. Is that not correct?
Helling: Uh, about five years ago was the last time that we had any, uh, significant
reduction in force. That was in the 2004, uh, situation when the state, uh,
revenues were down and they cut a lot of the, uh, the um, aid to the...to the cities.
Uh, since that time, I don't...I don't recall that we've had to reduce any positions,
but we have (both talking) made some...some, certainly some cuts in our
expenditures, and uh, many of those were ways that we could...we could, uh, do
that without...without, uh, cutting services, but in some other instances they have
had the effect, uh, for example, we cut the travel budget and that included the fire
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
40
department, so our firefighters didn't get to train, uh, last year that they normally
do. That's just one example, there's some others, but nothing as significant as I
would anticipate if you're looking to find, uh, say a million four, whatever it
would wind up being, to staff the fire station and add the police officers that we
want to do.
Champion: Well, Dale, correct me if I'm wrong. That year that we had a...we had to send the
state $600,000, wasn't that what it was, for retirement, or we didn't get $600,000,
um, we...we didn't keep three police (mumbled) by a grant, and we were also
going to be using that money to staff the fire station. That's how long we've been
talking about it. So we really didn't cut any positions that we were financing.
Helling: We...we had hired additional firefighters on the way to...to achieving that nine,
um, and we did reduce by two or three positions, uh, in that case we didn't have to
lay anybody off. We managed our way through it, over the two year period that
we had, uh, but what...the end result was that we had fewer firefighters, and
police officers.
Champion: And we didn't staff the fire station. That was the end result of that whole thing,
cause then we were already going to use that money to staff the fire station.
Helling: We didn't have the money to continue (both talking) to hire the additional
firefighters to be able to staff it, and sustain that staff.
Bailey: And that's my concern. We've been talking about this fire station and staffing it
for five years now. We've...we are moving ahead on construction. We've gotten
broad community support to do so. I'm not exactly sure what the community
thought when they were supporting that, how we would find the funds. We went
to the legislature last year and asked for alternative revenues. This is the
alternative revenue that they gave us. I mean, revenue or tax, whatever you want
to call it. Um, there's a... an extreme expectation for cities to manage their way or
to run their operations on...on limited revenue streams. We don't have a
gambling boat. We just recently imposed a local option sales tax, specifically for
flood recovery. We have limited revenue options. When our property tax
assessments go flat, when our interest income goes flat, we face huge challenges
as we will face this year. Um...you know, I believe that we have made hard
choices, perhaps we haven't made the difficult choices that...that you want us to
see, and I believe that this budget cycle will ensure that we will have to make
some very difficult choices. One of the difficult choices I think that we are
making is moving ahead with this franchise fee, in light of the impact, but to
answer another concern that we've heard from citizens. Um, we've been talking
about this for months. I think that some of us realized when we started talking
about this that MidAmerican wouldn't assume this. That it would be passed on,
unfortunately, to consumers. We've talked about opportunities to, um, address the
impact on commercial entities, which we all know pay inordinate amount of
property taxes, compared to what residential, um, properties do. We...we realize
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
41
that, and we've talked about ways to address that. We haven't come up with
anything. I mean, last night I suggested that if we can figure something out with
the budget that this will go away. Others were skeptical, but I'm committed to
that, I mean, maybe that does sound very optimistic, but...I have to remain an
optimist to do this work. So...I'm...this is a difficult choice to move ahead.
I'm...I'm...I want to move ahead on this. If we come up with something different
in the budget cycle, I'm ready to...I'm ready to remove this franchise fee, but for
now, we have told people we're moving ahead on the fire station. We told them
that we won't only build it, but we'll staff it, and that's what this is about, and I
think we have to keep our eye on that in moving forward. We have...we have
stopped and started with this fire station for years and it is time to do the
courageous thing and move ahead on it, and I'm...I would not like to defer this. I
wil1...I will entertain any discussions in the budget that we can remove this. I...I
agree, but I think we need to move ahead, otherwise we're sending horrible mixed
signals to our community.
Champion: I want to just make something clear. I'm going to staff that fire station, one way
or the other, and I'm not insinuating that we don't staff it. I think it's very
important.
Bailey: Right, and if we can staff it in the budget, pulling out this franchise fee, Connie,
I...I'm willing to pull out, take away this, I mean, to remove the franchise fee. I'm
absolutely, but I think by saying that we're going to move ahead and staff it and
use the franchise fee to do so, and then slowing that process down yet again, as
we've slowed this process down in moving ahead on that fire station, I think
is...is...is not the right signal to send at this time. We just got the I-Jobs funding
to move ahead on construction. Let's keep this on track. So, that's where I'm at
with this, and it's not easy.
Hayek: In all fairness, I think...you can do what Connie's saying. You can...you can not
have the franchise fee and staff it. You're just talking about further cuts to...to
existing General Fund budget to...
Bailey: Potentially $2 million to find the money.
Hayek: Theoretically, you know, you can do it. I think part of the problem is that...that
the General Fund budget is $50 million, and at the time when we're making
serious commitments to public safety, uh, it seems logical for someone to say,
well, that's off the table for purposes of cuts. That represents $ I S million out of a
$50 million General Fund. Now you're down to $35 million. Um, so I mean,
those are the numbers you're playing with, if you intend to pay for these new
positions out of, uh, the non-public safety portion of the General Fund.
Bailey: Right!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
42
Wilburn: I think also by not having this as a potential revenue source, some of the General
Fund monies that we've used to support economic development activities would
be, uh, have to consider to be taken off the table too.
Bailey: And may even be without...with this.
Wilburn: And that's true.
Bailey: We don't know what this budget's going to bring.
Wilburn: That's true.
Wright: (both talking)
Wilburn: And I...certainly have enjoyed having the, um, the larger end (mumbled) medium
sized, smaller businesses doing activity in the community, but um, you know, and
we've done some activities to partnership in terms of helping, uh, retain and some
local expansion, but if we take this potential revenue source off the table, again,
going back to, um, using some of our General Fund revenues to support retention,
local expansion, that would disappear too, because we've made this commitment
to police and fire, which in part came from a request from a major employer.
Bailey: Right.
Wright: And I think the point, uh, that was made about in the budget, if we take public
safety off the table in terms of budget cuts, it does leave us with a significant
smaller pot, from which to cut, and it's no secret that we last built a fire station in
Iowa City when our population was about 46,000. Our population is now pushing
70,000. Uh, our police force is stretched very thin. We haven't talked about
additional police that need to be hired, but that's part and parcel to the, uh, to the
use of the franchise fee. Our...our police force has been stretched past their
limits. This has been the case for some time. Uh, both of these are long, long
overdue, and I think...we're approaching in terms of public safety the...the
possibility of the so-called perfect storm. Um...while I agree with you, Connie,
that we probably could, um, somehow or another take that money out of the
General Fund budget, I think that would be pretty difficult. We're talking, you
know, at that point, uh, cutting into core services of the City, um, I don't like this
franchise fee particularly. I realize it hits everybody, whether you're a large
employer or somebody living on a fixed income. Uh, it hits non-profits. Non-
profits are stretched to the limit in some cases. They've seen their sources of
income drop drastically over the past few years, uh...the timing of this is not
perfect, by far. At the same time, uh, I think this is probably the best option we
have before us at the moment to keep this on track, and to allow us to meet
that...that...basic requirement of city government -providing for public service
and public safety.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
43
Hayek: I...uh, here's the background from my perspective. Um, and then I'll apply it to
our immediate situation. The franchise fee is something that municipalities across
Iowa, including this one, have lobbied for for probably decades, um,
and...and...currently many of the larger municipalities already have it. Dubuque,
Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, Council Bluffs, and...and others. Um,
and it is a means of diversifying the revenue stream away from the property taxes,
that as a municipality we're...we're stuck with, and in a community like Iowa City
where upwards of 40% of our tax base is off the tax rolls because of the public, at
least non-private, uh, land, that's a particular challenge. Um, I'm...I'm really torn
on this. I mean, I am an ICAD member. I am a Chamber member. Um, I think if
we weren't, uh, in the midst of not only severe budget cuts but, um, but also
severe losses of revenue in terms of, uh, the income that comes to the City and uh,
historic dependence on increases in property valuations, uh, but for those...
but...but for the circumstances we find ourselves in, um, I...I would...I would
push to, uh, meet these public safety needs dollar for dollar out of our budget, but
the fact is that serious cuts were made last year, even more serious cuts are going
to be made this year, um, and (coughing, unable to hear) income sources. We're
talking about millions and millions of...millions of dollars from...from a General
Fund budget that is just not that big. Um, I...I'm not convinced that deferral is
going to answer the questions for us, um, and... and we've got to have, uh, a sense
of...revenue expectations, so to speak, going into this cycle. Um, I also think
that, uh, leaving it for another day opens up the possibility that we would...we
would use more than 2%, uh, because the temptation would be there to...to fill the
gap. Um, and then... and in that sense, this ties our hands. I understand that it
opens the door, and that future Councils can do whatever the heck they want, um,
with that. Um, I'm torn, I'm reluctant, but I think we should push forward.
Champion: Can I just make one more comment, then I'll be quiet. Well, probably not! But,
um...
Bailey: We never believe you when you say that! (laughter)
Champion: Part of this franchise fee goes to the administration of the utilities, and that was
about $400,000, Dale (mumbled)
Helling: About 350 I think, 330...maybe it was...
Champion: 330? Anyway, it was (both talking) it was a rough estimate. Now that is already
coming out of our General Fund basically, because we're already doing that.
Helling: Um...a lot of it is. Some of it would come out of the Enterprise Fund.
Champion: So that is going to free up that amount of money, or somewhere around that
amount of money in our General Fund. So, that's already...with the franchise fee,
cause we have to have the franchise fee to do this. So would you consider,
obviously this is going to pass with or without me, would you consider a 1 1/2%
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
44
franchise fee...since we're going to already get 300,000 or 400,000 in our General
Fund?
Helling: Just...just so everybody's clear (both talking) yeah, I can't say that that will all be
General Fund money because there are purposes that we would have to use it for,
and it...we would state, and one of'em for instance is undergrounding, and that
would go into a fund to pay for undergrounding. Some of that's paid out of the
General Fund. Some of it's paid out of projects, as we do projects and
underground the facilities, uh, some of it's paid from the Enterprise Fund, so...it's
really hard to say how much of that money would actually accrue to the General
Fund, but it would be a... it would be a probably half or less, I would say.
Hayek: Well, I'm open to...to considering somewhat less than the proposed 2%. Um, not
a lot less...because it becomes counterproductive, and at 2% we're already on the
low end according to the information I've got from the League of Cities, on the
low end of what is typically charged, but um...
Bailey: I think (both talking)
Hayek: ...talk about that. Let me add one other thing, and that is there was interest from
private sector over the last few weeks in looking at ways of protecting the
businesses that are most adversely impacted by this. Um, by...by carving out
some protections for them, or providing some sort of rebate or other means of... of
lessening the impact to those hardest hit by...by that, and I pursued that. I've
talked to staff, I've...I've done research on my own, and...and that appears to be
an exceedingly difficult line to try to walk down, um, number one, I think those
sorts of things are questionable, uh, legal, um, liability, um, given some current
litigation and...and the potential for some sort of finding that classes were treated
differently. Um, I think there's also a practical, uh, obstacle to this, as well, which
is...which is that, um, it would be hard to say to one class of fee payers, you get a
break, but this other class does not, or even within a class. Say you're talking
about within the industrial class or within the commercial class, saying the top ten
biggest payers of the franchise fee will get some sort of protection, but everybody
else will not. Those are very difficult things to...to lay out and I think they would
open us up for quite a lot of criticism.
Bailey: Well, I want to speak to the 2%. I mean, I think we went back and forth on this,
and I think we were being very cautious, very prudent about 2%, when we had the
ability to do 5% and I think we...we had the cost associated with the fire station,
the additional public safety that we want. We have...we have all that spelled out.
I would rather go ahead with the 2% at this time, and like I said, if there's
something we discover in the budget, or opportunities to reduce this, I think that's
when we go back and do that. We can do that.
Hayek: And let me ask, sorry to interrupt, but let me ask about, I mean, the thing we lack
right now is the...is the anticipated gap for FY11, and those numbers we're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
45
waiting on outside sources for to be able to calculate internally. Do I have
that...we've projected what we think they will be. We don't know what they will
be.
Helling: We don't totally lack it in terms of...we have last year's projections to go on, uh,
but...because some things have...we've got some surprises, in terms of the
valuations. We should have peaked this year because it's a valuation year, but it
stayed flat. Um, we'd be...we got a surprise, and the other way the rollback is
inched up a little bit, um, we've also, uh, found that our...our interest income is
probably going to be even less than we anticipated, um, that alone is over a
million dollars a year, out of our operating fund, so there...those kinds of things
we have to...we have to put that altogether. Last year we took a quarter million
dollars out of the budget. We cut that with the prioritization that we did in...in
May, uh, and projected, uh, $750,000 to balance the budget for 2011. That was
without the fire station and without the additional police officers. Whether it's
going to be 750,000, whether it be less, could be a little more - I don't know at this
point, and that's what we...we really need to...we need to get, and that's
something we typically get in November when we, uh, come up with the figures
in order to put the, at least the preliminary budget together.
Hayek: I've got to think that, uh, it sounds like the numbers can be...could turn out rosier
on some categories and gloomier on others, so it's (several talking) at this point,
but...I mean, you know, that..that gap, whatever it turns out to be, whether it's
more or less than what we've projected, what I think in form on some level are
decisions about our percentage. But I don't know what our options are once we
get into it, um...
Wright: Well, when we get into it what we may actually find is that...uh, we could reduce
the fee, and I would be more than willing to consider that. Um.. .
O'Donnell: I...I've been on (both talking) go ahead.
Wright: Let me just finish...if a 2% turns out to be higher than we had, um, calculated as
necessary...we can roll that down.
Bailey: Or we can reduce property taxes with input from people, I mean, that's another
option, I mean...
Wright: Depending on where we are with the rollback and (both talking)
Bailey: Right. You know, if... if things truly are rosier...I don't anticipate that they're
going to be, but...I mean, I think that...that some things are better, some things
are worse. It'll all balance out. Mike?
O'Donnell: I've served on the Council for 12 years and we've been talking about a fire station
for 12 years. We've been understaffed. We haven't hired a, um, I don't know how
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
46
many fire personnel we're down for a city our size right now, but I know we are
down, and in our police department. Um, we've broken ground for a fire station
and I would be first to say that we probably shouldn't build that station unless
we're going to staff it. And I've...I've been through 12 budgets. I can almost
guarantee you that there's not going to be the cuts, the money found to, um, staff
that fire station, with...with the...with our budgeting. Um, we're very fortunate
we live in a town with the University of Iowa, which is a huge part of our...of our
revenue, um, but not in property taxes. Um, they have 30% of the property in
Iowa City, which we don't get any taxes for. Um, I...I am compelled to support
this because I support public safety. So I...I will be supporting this.
Bailey: Shall we move to roll call? Okay, roll call. Item passes 5-1, Champion voting in
the negative.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Wright: Second.
Bailey: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Wright. All those in favor say aye. Those
opposed say nay. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
47
ITEM 22. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Bailey: We'll start with Mr. Hayek.
Hayek: Nothing.
Wilburn: Nothing.
O'Donnell: Nothing.
Wright: I'll make it unanimous -nothing!
Bailey: Well, I would like to wish everybody...isn't it Thanksgiving next week? Happy
Thanksgiving on behalf of all of us, um (several talking) I couldn't remember
what week we're in! I don't have to cook so it doesn't matter.
Wilburn: Just good luck to City High, uh, football team in the State tournament on, uh,
Friday. Go Little Hawks!
Bailey: Okay. And tomorrow evening, um, at 7:00 P.M. in this room the Police Citizen
Review Board is conducting a community forum, and everybody is welcome to
attend. Presentations will be given, followed by public discussion. It starts at
7:00 tomorrow night.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.
48
ITEM 23. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF.
a) City Manager
Bailey: City Manager?
Helling: I have nothing, but Rick does.
Fosse: The holiday lights are up on Iowa...or Iowa Avenue so you can go out and take a
look at those. Staff has rewired them with LED lights now so they're more energy
efficient. They worked with the color a little bit to make the snowflakes pop a
little better. So on your way out to the, uh, your car tonight you can take a look at
'em.
Bailey: Thanks!
Wright: Will we have the clear lights along, um, Washington Street in the trees again this
year?
Helling: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of November 17, 2009.