HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-04 TranscriptionPage I
ITEM 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY OF IOWA CITY
2012 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.
Hayek: Why don't we entertain a motion and then we'll talk.
Mims: Move the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, uh, seconded by Champion. Uh, now we'll open it up for
discussion. I want to introduce, uh, our governor affairs, uh, consultants, uh, Tom
Stanbury and Jessica Harder, who came over here from Des Moines this
afternoon. They just introduced themselves to the Council and, uh, we're excited
to have you on board, uh, to represent us in Des Moines, and um ... um, what we
need to do and ... and we're happy to hear from you, if you want to ... make any
comments. If you don't feel it's necessary, I'm not sure we do either (laughter). I
think we're already off to a very good communication start, uh, with you. Um,
you'll see in the packet, uh ... uh, a memo ... uh, to the City Manager from our
management intern, uh, Simon Andrew, um, regarding our legislative priorities.
You want to discuss those at all, uh, further to what we've already done?
Throgmorton: I want to raise a question with regard to the economic development section,
especially second... second paragraph.
Hayek: Uh -huh.
Throgmorton: Uh, which currently reads, "Of greatest importance is the retention of tax
increment financing, TIF; however, the City believes certain reforms of the
current TIF statute should be considered." I think we could state that more
strongly, I mean, when I read it I thought ... uh, language could be something like
this, beginning with the word `however.' "However, the City believes the current
TIF statute should be reformed," or "amended," either one. Uh, because um ... I
think my sense is that this Council is uniformly in agreement that the TIF
legislation needs to be changed, and if...precisely how we don't know, uh, that
has to be worked out.
Champion: Would you restate that... for me?
Throgmorton: Sure, uh, so I'm suggesting the following language: However, the City believes
the current TIF statute should be reformed or amended. Pick a word — I'm not
sure which of those would do better. So the only ... I'm suggesting deleting the
words `certain reforms of and changing the word `considered' at the end of that
sentence to `reformed' or `amended.' I'd be happy to read it again if you'd like
(both talking) I think stronger language, and I think clearer.
Markus: What would the distinction be between reformed and amended?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 2
Throgmorton: Uh ... um ... I'd be happy to go with either one of those. So .... so all I'm trying to
do is ... is strengthen the current, uh, sentence. Cause the current sentence, I think,
in my way of reading it, is a bit ... vague and not strong enough and not clear
enough about expressing our sense that the TIF legislation needs to be amended.
Hayek: Thoughts on ... on that suggestion?
Champion: Well, I like the idea. I mean, we do know there are problems the way it is set up
now and we've been pretty good about maintaining some reserve in our TIF
relationship with corporations. I don't object to stronger language.
Dickens: I think that's where we wanted to head was ... just be a little (several talking)
Hayek: I'm fine with it! I mean...
Champion: And I don't care about reformed or amended. (several commenting) I think
amended, I guess I liked reformed better. Amended sounds like you're changing
a word or two, but I don't care either way.
Throgmorton: Yeah, reformed might be stronger.
Hayek: They typically talk about reform of a statute (mumbled). Okay. How do ... how
do we take this up then if, uh ... if there's...
Karr: It was moved by Mims and seconded by Champion. If...they concur, we can treat
it as a friendly amendment. If not, we'll just amend it as a separate motion.
Mims: That's fine with me — friendly amendment.
Champion: Friendly amendment's fine with me too.
Hayek: Tom, are you comfortable with that?
Markus: The only thing I was thinking is that using the term amended means that there's
going to be something left at the end. Um, and I think that's partly what we want
to accomplish too is ... is we actually want a TIF statute at the end of all of this.
Throgmorton: Yeah, agreed!
Champion: So you...
Markus: ...that amended, I think clearly signals that ... reform almost seems a little bit
grander in terms of how the whole thing might end up. Amended to me means
that you're going to take parts of it and change it...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 3
Dobyns: That's an incremental... suggests an incremental change.
Markus: Yes.
Dobyns: Okay.
Champion: (several talking) another friendly amendment? (laughter)
Mims: Amended is fine!
Throgmorton: Yeah, and I'm certainly okay with the word `amended.'
Hayek: That's fine with me! Any further input on that? Thanks for that suggestion, Jim.
Okay, we'll close discussion. Uh, roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 4
ITEM 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY OF IOWA CITY
STRATEGIC PLANNING PRIORITIES.
Hayek: We need a motion on that.
Dobyns: So moved.
Throgmorton: Second.
Hayek: Moved by, uh, Dobyns, seconded by Throgmorton. Uh, discussion? You'll see,
uh, information in our packet regarding that. This is basically the follow -up to
our strategic planning sessions and an attempt to summarize, uh, conclusions we
reached.
Throgmorton: I again have a couple, uh, thoughts that I'd like to process with the Council, but I
don't want o just hop in there, if somebody else has something else they want to
bring up ... initially. That'd be dandy. Okay, uh ... well ... I ... I noticed that, uh,
under significant new projects, policies, and initiatives — the first bulleted item is
expressed differently than what we discussed and agreed upon in the strategic
planning session. Uh, the general topic, of course, is consistent with what we
agreed upon, but the language differs, and I think substantively it has a different
meaning, and I think it's important for us as a Council to be as clear as we
possibly can to, uh, staff and to the School District and others in the public about
what we mean, what we intend ... by this particular initiative. Uh, so I'm
concerned about the way it's expressed right now and the fact that it differs from
what ... what we, um, agreed to in ... in our strategic planning session.
Markus: Could you define that?
Throgmorton: Oh, sure! I, in the strategic planning session we used language kind of like this.
Uh, that, uh, the City and the School District would jointly agree, uh, mutually
agree to jointly invest in, uh, our older schools and older neighborhoods, and that
we would also, um, now I've forgotten the exact language here ... jointly agree that
any ... any new elementary school would, uh, in ... uh, be planned complimentary
with, uh, a ... a new sustainable neighborhood. Now I'm ... I'm kind of inventing
the last bit of that language cause I don't have the text right in front of me, uh...
but there's a difference between (several talking)
Dickens: ...nothing in here about the older schools.
Payne: ...leaves out the discussion about the older schools and, um ... keeping the older
schools up with technology and such, and the way, um, development occurs
around new schools and things like that, and we definitely talked about that stuff.
Throgmorton: Right, and I ... I know ... what I understood when ... when we were processing this
particular initiative, was that we were going to ... work with the school... School
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 5
District so that they ... they would ... agree to invest in the older schools located
within the city limits, and we could identify three or four or whatever, but the
older schools, while we simultaneously would explicitly agree to invest in our, the
neighborhoods within which those schools are located. So I ... I don't think the
intent was that the City of Iowa City would put dollars into the older schools
directly. But that the City would put, uh, dollars, new dollars or at least new
initiatives into the neighborhoods within which those schools are located.
Meanwhile, if all this would work out well, the School District would explicitly,
uh ... uh, announce its intention to invest dollars and whatever else into the older
schools themselves, so that the two would be mutually reinforcing. The schools
would reinforce the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods would reinforce the
schools. That's the way I understood it (several talking)
Champion: That's exactly right. The only thing you said earlier ... that I didn't like is, you
mentioned something about new schools and sustainable neighborhoods, but I
think my point was that a new school ought to be in a neighborhood that's already
sustainable. And ... my whole point was the new schools are not being put in older
neighborhoods, so ... they're increasing the leg between neighborhood and
schools. Do you understand ... I don't know how you would put that in writing,
but ... it's a concern ... of mine ... and I've spoken to them several times about it.
They're building up inequities in physical facilities. So to me a new school ought
to go in an older neighborhood.
Hayek: You know, Jim, I ... uh, I mean, I think your summary of what we ... what we
decided is ... is accurate, but I'm not so sure this doesn't... include that. I mean, I
read it as, uh, collaborative eff...collaborative efforts with the School District, uh,
regarding schools in established neighborhoods, which I think is a proxy for older
schools, um, and then the ... there's the ... the new school component at the end of
that sentence. Um...
Throgmorton: Not to me!
Hayek: Okay (several commenting)
Payne: I kind of go back to what Connie says. It doesn't ... to me it doesn't touch on the
inequities in the schools in the older neighborhoods that we have, and I think
that's one of the things that we ... that we talked about.
Mims: I think we have to be a little bit careful in language that we put in here that is out
of our purview.
Hayek: Uh -huh.
Mims: I mean ... it ... running the School District is not within our purview, and certainly
as Council Members and community members, we want to have equitable
schools, I would hope that we all do just as good community members and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 6
certainly, I mean, it helps benefit in terms of the way we try and develop
neighborhoods and maintain neighborhoods. But ... that's not in our purview, and
I think, uh, some ... little bit of the language that Jim used to begin with talked
about them agreeing to do certain stuff and us agreeing. Well, we can't put
language in here about the School District agreeing to do anything. I think
actively working with them towards certain goals, um ... and I think ... I think I'm
more in line a little bit with what Matt is saying in terms of it does talk about the
success of schools in the established neighborhoods, and to me that success is not
only that they maintain them physically but also that people, parents want to send
their kids there because of the way they're staffing, what they're doing with
technology, um... all those other pieces. I ... I guess to me this gets at it pretty
well, I mean, it ... it's a huge, complicated issue and we can't necessarily get all
that language down without step ... either stepping on toes or restricting us in ways
that we don't want to be restricted either.
Throgmorton: I would completely agree with Susan that we have no right to state what the
School District, School Board will do, uh, and when ... in our strategic planning
discussions, we were pretty clear about that (both talking) we, uh, said to
ourselves what we wanted to do was initiative a process that ... that wherein we
would be working with them to try ... we'd take the initiative. So that we would
try to get them, uh, to jointly agree with us, but it's not as if we ... we'd be telling
them what they have to do. I mean, it's clear they would have to make their own
decisions, but we ... somebody's got to take the initiative. And ... and the
suggestion was that we as a City Council would take the initiative.
Markus: Although I think that the joint meeting we held, I think that while I completely
understood the request from the City, I think the ears that heard it might have
interpreted it differently than how it was intended, and I think there's some
sensitivity that's been created there now that I don't ... I don't think we want to
jump too far onto the other side of us pushing, um ... this issue. So I think the
words a little gentler in terms of, uh, how we go about working with them, using
collaboration, you know, that ... more subtle approach to this. I think it's pretty
clear they understand what our concern is and what our issue is. I don't want to
memorialize something that tends to be, um, interpreted as us intruding into their
area of responsibility or offending them in that process. On the other hand I
would say I think we have to make it clear what our concern is, otherwise it, you
know, it may not go the way you want it to.
Throgmorton: I understand what you're saying about that. People can hear things differently,
read things differently. At a minimum, we need to be clear about what we intend.
So...
Dickens: Our investment into the neighborhoods and...
Throgmorton: Our, yeah ... our initiative would involve explicitly intending to invest in the older
neighborhoods, in a way that would... enhance and strengthen the viability of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 7
older schools, and ... and other things as well, but uh ... but do that, and then if the
School District chooses not to do something else, we can't make `em! But a ... but
another part of it would be that we explicitly intend to initiate a... a conversation,
connection with the School Board and School District about this particular topic
so that they ... to try to persuade them to jointly agree to mutually enforce the
schools and ... and the older neighborhoods.
Champion: Well I think that (several talking)
Hayek: ...this gives us entree to pursue that policy and we've got ... we've got a specific
bullet point on support of neighborhood stabilization, uh ... um, and then as part of
that, a specific reference to initiating collaborate... collaborative work with ... with
the School District on those issues. I mean, I think I share Tom's view that we
need to be ... we need to finesse this a little bit, in light of the current sensitivity,
but I ... I totally agree with you as to the ends, uh, we're trying to pursue here and
the ... and the ... the strong reasons to ... to spend time on this.
Champion: I like ... I actually like the way it's worded. It gives us the right to try to work with
them. We know we're interested in neighborhood stabilization. I mean, I'm not
very sensitive (laughter) I think we probably (several laughing and talking)
Dickens: Not at that last meeting (laughter and several talking)
Champion: I'm willing to leave it the way it is. (mumbled)
Hayek: Well, Jim's made a suggestion to modify the language. Uh, is there support for
that? (several talking)
Dickens: ...like to keep it the same, but knowing that we want to make sure this is a
priority of this Council, and when we take it to the other ... the other entities that
this is one of our major concerns. But I don't know if that needs to be ... how that
can be put in there that this is one of our strongest points.
Throgmorton: Well, I'm hopeful that the discussion has, uh ... um, provided clarity, if there was
any ambiguity, clarity for the staff about what the Council is .... is seeking to do
here.
Markus: My sense is it's a good, uh, specific signal to City staff, Jim, um, the way (several
talking)
Hayek: Okay. Then you had another area.
Throgmorton: Uh, well, the ... on the next paragraph, the `develop an economic development
strategy,' urn ... and it ... well, let me just read it. Develop an economic
development strategy for existing commercial properties outside of the previously
noted downtown and near - downtown districts. I'll just express what I understood
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 8
we had agreed to during strategic planning session. I'm not sure if it's what
everybody else understood and agreed to either. Uh, what I had in mind was, uh,
basically four or five clusters of...I think what one would call neighborhood
commercial areas. Uh, Sycamore, uh, Sycamore Mall or Rochester and Scott,
um ... (several talking) Towncrest; uh, out by Benton Street and Mormon Trek;
particular clusters that we ... could (mumbled) called neighborhood centers. Not
all commercial properties within the city. And ... but the way it's expressed right
now ... is very broad.
Markus: I think what happened is the ... I would agree with you, Jim, that those were the
four clusters that we had identified. I think what we tried to do is not exclude by
only including those that we may have missed, and there may be others, um, in
fact I think there are other cluster locations, um, that probably didn't get
specifically mentioned because I think we were talking about them more
spontaneously during that conversation, and I think there may be others that we
didn't wish to exclude by just identifying those four.
Hayek: Yeah my ... my recollection is consistent with that, that those ... those areas were
identified, not spontaneously but ... but as illustrative of what we had in mind.
Um, and I'm not even sure all the things that popped up were even written down.
I mean, I ... I think I had talked about, um, like the Kirkwood - Gilbert Court area,
uh, just, you know, east of Gilbert as one area of many that could use a look -see.
Um...
Payne: I guess I remember it like ... like you're saying, Matt, in that we didn't want to
leave out other areas of town. We didn't want to just say it was just downtown
and near - downtown. It was other areas of town besides that, and we just talked a
out some specific areas that were outside of downtown.
Markus: Maybe as a suggestion we could identify those four that Jim mentions and just
add that standard, uh, cover language of including but not limited to, and include
those four items or four clusters. Would that make ... make it clear?
Throgmorton: That might be helpful. The main thing I'm conscious of is, uh, and I think the rest
of you would agree, is that we don't want to be saying we're going to be
developing economic development strategy for all commercial properties
throughout the city. Then it's kind of like saying we're going to do everything
for... for them, but instead I think what we wanted to do was focus some energy
on some particular parts of the city, uh, and maybe we don't need to identify all of
them, and maybe we should just direct staff to identify those particular localities,
but ... but (both talking)
Hayek: Why don't we do this, um ... I mean ... I don't think this opens it up to an
interpretation that it's all, but if we took out existing and put targeted, um, without
defining which targets we're looking at, but... (both talking) without saying, you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.
Page 9
know, because we may look at any one of those that were illustrated at the .... at
the strategic planning and determine no, in fact we don't want to do (both talking)
Champion: ...new ones showing up too!
Hayek: There may be some new ones! Targeted or identified or something like that.
Markus: The other thing that we're doing is we're putting together a reporting mechanism
so that all of these items will be identified and then they will have subcategories
below them. They'll show an assignment of staff. They'll show what we're
proposing to do, specifically, and will be showing progress. Every four months
you'll get a report that shows those things, and when those reports come in, you
can add, subtract, modify, adjust as we go forward so that we're all on the same
page on those things.
Champion: Sounds good!
Throgmorton: I like Matt's suggestion, and that would be very helpful, Tom.
Hayek: So why don't we treat, um, existing, or replace existing with targeted? Is that all
right? Treat that as a friendly amendment? (several responding) Okay.
Anything else on the language proposed? Any further discussion generally?
Okay, uh, roll call, please. Uh, item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
special formal meeting of January 4, 2012.