Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 01-24 TranscriptionJanuary 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Council Present: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton Staff Present: Fruin, Dilkes, Dulek, Karr, Bentley, Havel, Andrew, O'Brien, Scott, Jennings, Fosse, Moran, Rummel, Yapp, Rackis, Boothroy Others Present: Graham, UISG Council Appointments: Page 1 Hayek/ Okay. Welcome to the work session, everyone, and ... welcome back from Hawaii, uh, Dickens. (laughter) Dickens/ Tough trip! Hayek/ Some guys have ... have it made! Uh, all right. We've got a lot ... lot to get through on our work session here tonight before the formal. So we'll get started, uh, initially with Council appointments, which is the first bullet point. Uh, I think we have three open, but really only can make two based on what I'm seeing. Uh, first one is, uh, Civil Service Commission. Uh, one opening and one applicant, Paul Hoffey. Is everybody okay with him? (several responding) Mims/ Looks fine! Hayek/ Okay. Uh, second ... is, um, for the Senior Center Commission. Uh, the applicant there is male, but the gender balance requirement is female so ... let's continue to advertise (several responding) for that one. And the last one is for the Youth Advisory Commission, uh, application from Alexandria... Karr/ Can we go back to the Senior Center? Hayek/ Oh! Karr/ The Senior Center gender balance, the requirement ended 12/19/11. That's the three - month date. So Council may appoint any time after 12/19/11 as noted on the cover sheet. Champion/ Oh! Hayek/ All right. Well then let's uh ... let's consider it. Karr/ You certainly can readvertise, but I just wanted to note that isn't a gender balance requirement any longer. Champion/ Well I do think this person is qualified, Mark Holbrook. Hayek/ Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 2 Mims/ Yeah, that was fine with me. I missed the ... (several talking) Hayek/ Yeah, I think we all did! Okay. Are you comfortable with Mark? (several responding) Okay. Make that note — Senior Center (several talking) Dobyns/ ...is our liaison to the, uh, YAC, um, I'm going to recommend that we continue the search. Had a chance to talk with the single applicant, who served very admirably over the last year, but she's a senior currently and won't be able to spend that much time on the commission. So, I spoke with her yesterday; she's still going to participate in sort of a, uh, advocacy leadership position, but I'm going to recommend just so we have someone who's going to be on the commission for more than just three months that we, you know, continue the search. Is my ... that's my recommendation. Hayek/ Okay! You comfortable with that, everyone? (several responding) Okay. So we will appoint Paul Hoffey to Civil Service and uh, Mark Holbrook to Senior Center Commission. Okay. Uh, agenda items is the next bullet point. Agenda Items: ITEM 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 1, "DEFINITIONS;" AND AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 119 "AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT," TO ALLOW FOR RED LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Throgmorton/ Well, Matt, I guess I'd like to say that, uh, in the, uh, I guess it's the formal meeting packet there's that memo or email that I had sent out, urging that we, uh, defer second consideration on the red -light cameras issue, uh, pending a work session that focuses on that particular topic, and I'd like to recommend that we do that. I ... I guess we can't formally act on that recommendation right now, but at least we can talk about whether we want to do that or not. Or you know ... you tell me how ... how it ought to proceed. Hayek/ My guess is that if there's a majority that favors deferring the agenda item tonight... and also favors a work session, um ... that that would be the way we'd proceed. We could talk right now about whether there would be a majority... Throgmorton/ Right, right... Hayek/ ... in... in favor of this. Dobyns/ Could we progress with the second consideration and then have a, uh, work session opportunity prior to a potential third, if it goes through tonight? Is that an option? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 3 Fruin/ Yeah. You could certainly do that. We would have to look at the, you know, what was planned for the ... the, uh, work session on the 21St which is your next meeting, and if you're comfortable delaying that ... that item or scheduling a ... a new work session, we could certainly accommodate. Dobyns/ And some of us did submit some questions to City staff; um, I know, Jim, you and I had a chance to, you know, sent some in, and so some substantive information was sent to us that's part of the public record (mumbled) take a look at, which ... you know, in lieu of, you know, any further discussion, I think also is very helpful in terms of some of the thoughts that I had. Throgmorton/ Yeah (both talking) Dickens/ ...February so we have a whole month pretty much in between now and then, that we could do it then. Dobyns/ Wow, get crazy with it. So, okay! (laughter) Throgmorton/ Rick, you couldn't know this, but I actually did not submit a ... a set of questions. Dobyns/ Okay! Throgmorton/ Because I wasn't sure what procedure to follow with it. That's what I was kind of alluding to in the email that I shared publicly, uh, so I certainly could share the questions I have with the Council, uh, the City Manager, I mean, you tell me how to do it and I'll do it. Hayek/ Well, what if we ... what if we did second reading tonight knowing third reading is in a month. If there are four people who want to ... and maybe it would only take three people to work session it prior to the third reading, so if there are three people who want to work session it ... prior to the third reading, we could do so. Um ... and individual Councilors could get ... could submit their questions and ... and get those answered. Dobyns/ Sure! Hayek/ If there's a data question or something else you'd want answered in advance of the meeting, do that. Throgmorton/ And I think part of what is involved is deliberation among the Council Members a ...about how we want to proceed on this particular topic ... for example, I think there's certain questions that can clearly be directed to the staff and the City attorneys and, you know, sort of legal questions, and there's some other factual questions that the City Manager's office can answer, but then there are ... there's just sort of thinking aloud... about ... how we value, uh, the ... the potential public safety benefits, uh, relative to other concerns like Michelle raised last time about, you know, potential Big Brotherism kind of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 4 stuff and ... I think we can ... we can only come to that by reasoning together. That's the way it seems to me anyhow. And we gotta do it aloud somehow. Payne/ When is the third ... would the third reading be scheduled for February 21St9 Fruin/ Yeah, that's our intention right now. Payne/ So we would have ... if we did it, we would have to do it before February 21St9 Hayek/ Or the ... is that a combined meeting? Dobyns/ It's combined. Hayek/ So, in advance of...at the work session in advance of the formal meeting? Karr/ That's your regular schedule now is everything on Tuesday night unless you wish to set a special... night. Fruin/ Yeah, if I ... if I can jump in, just so you know, on the 21St our intention was to, uh, utilize that work session to bring forward kind of staff's roadmap for addressing the strategic plan initiative. So, um, if you're comfortable with pushing that back to ... to March, uh, we can do that, or if you feel that needs to be, you know, laid out in February, then we're going to have to look at an alternate date. Part of that strategic plan, of course, is the neighborhood stabilization discussion, which I know has been, uh, a topic that you've all been, uh, involved with for some months, so you may be anxious to move forward on that. Champion/ Well maybe it'd be possible. I think it's very important to keep that work session for what it's scheduled for. Mims/ I agree. Champion/ But maybe we could defer that third reading until we have this work session. I don't think it's ultimately going to make any difference. It's just for a contract anyway. And, um ... and then we can actually talk about it quite frankly, cause ... I mean, some of us have real strong objections to it. And, we have had a discussion before the new Council, um... so it might be ... I mean, I don't care if we have the second reading tonight or not, but if we can defer the third reading til we have a work session. I think we need to keep that other work session for what it's slated for. Dickens/ We don't have a lot of other work sessions planned, or no major topics at this point, but once we get this strategic plan I'm sure it'll fill up a little more too, so ... it's fine with me if we do it that way. Throgmorton/ Sounds reasonable to me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 5 Hayek/ (several talking) ...are there three people who want to work session this again? I mean, we work sessioned it and so I assume that's the case. All right. Are there four people who would, um, who would support deferring the third reading from February to a... a later date? Dobyns/ Is that a substantive... substantive delay, I mean, if it does go forward ultimately, I mean, one month in terms of... Fruin/ I think, Marian, March 6th would be the next meeting, is that correct? So you're (both talking) couple weeks delay. (several talking) Hayek/ Are ... are there four people who would support deferring it, at least to the ... to the March meeting, for example, the first March meeting? Karr/ Deferring the second or the third, assuming the second is tonight? Hayek/ Assuming the second is tonight. And ... and maybe we don't do it tonight, but... but ... uh, I ... I agree. I don't think we should bump the strategic planning work session item, which is very important to all of us. I'm not interested in holding a stand -alone meeting (several responding) work session meeting on this. Champion/ Well my suggestion is to defer the next reading, or to start the work session at 5:00. And have a half hour to discuss this. I'm willing to do it either way. Dobyns/ I'd be willing to try ... that keeps with the philosophy of trying to stick with this change and trying to have a work session on a Tuesday, prior to, urn ... I'd like to ... if I was going to wiggle with it a little bit, I'd rather just move the start time to 5:00 and have an entire new work session on a new date. Would be my recommendation. Hayek/ Okay. Payne/ I guess I would rather ... have the work session before the vote. I ... I don't care if we vote the second vote tonight, but before we do the first ... the third vote, I definitely would like to have the work session. Hayek/ Okay. So could we do second consideration tonight and then move up the work session start time by half an hour on the ... third... Karr/ Sixth! Hayek/ ... on the 261h Karr/ On March 6th . Mims/ March 6th This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 6 Karr/ On March 6 th q . Hayek/ Whenever ... is that the ... is that the next meeting following tonight's? Karr/ No. February 21 St. You want to do February 21St, the night of the strategic plan. Allow for a half hour discussion. Hayek/ I think that's the suggestion. Fruin/ We can do that. Karr/ Okay, and then the third reading would be put back ... put on the 21St, as well. Fruin/ Correct. Karr/ And then Council can decide at that point whether to proceed or defer. Okay. Hayek/ Okay. Fruin/ That's fine. Throgmorton/ So, Matt, how ... how should I get my questions to the... Hayek/ Send em to Tom or Jeff, I would, uh, suggest and they will disseminate, uh ... if...if it's a public safety issue, if it's something else, they'll know where to send it. Throgmorton/ Okay. Fruin/ Yeah, we can ... we can distribute those. Throgmorton/ Some of em, there're two or three that would, uh, be relevant to the City Attorney's office. Fruin/ We'll work with Eleanor to get those answered. Throgmorton/ Great! Hayek/ Anything to add, Jeff? Okay. (laughter) Thanks for being ready! (laughter and several talking) Okay! We got that, uh, Marian? Okay. Thanks! Throgmorton/ Great, thanks! Hayek/ Other agenda items? ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING POLICIES IMPLEMENTING IOWA CITY CODE 4 -5 -8, INCLUDING ALLOWABLE PAULA RATIO, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 7 PAULA RATIO DEFINITIONS, CRITERIA FOR AUDITING ESTABLISHMENTS, AND INITIAL DEPOSIT AMOUNT FOR AUDITS. Dilkes/ I wanted just to run through the, um, Item 15, the um ... implementing standards for the PAULA rate for the ... um ... you got that handed out tonight. I apologize that wasn't in your packet, but it needed a little more work. Um ... so ... just essentially what this does is it sets the PAULA rate, uh, and again, we're talking about the exceptions, the non -bar exceptions. Uh, what we previously called the restaurant exception and what we call the entertainment venue exception. So, um, they have to maintain a PAULA rate of .25, um, and there has ... based on at least ten bar checks. So remember when we're talking about a PAULA rate, the numerator is the number of PAULA citations, the ... the denominator is the number of bar checks. And the implementing standards provide, number one, that it'll be both checks by University Police and the Iowa City Police. It's defined as... as a check that is identified as an officer - initiated check of a liquor establishment for PAULA or other alcohol related violations. And if you go down further you'll see what it's not and what it's not is responding to calls for service, such as a fight, etc. So it's really a specific visit, urn ... to check for PAULAs or other alcohol, uh, violations. Um, the officers actually call out that when they communicate with dispatch that it's a ... a bar check. Um ... the standard also clarifies that if...if the officer re- enters the establishment after, uh, taking someone out to issue the citation that's still part of the same check. Um ... and it also clarifies that it doesn't apply to an officer just being present like for a drink of water when it's not really related to PAULA enforcement. Um ... then the standards also, and these are just the things that we said in the ordinance that you're adopting that would be done by resolution. Uh, it also sets forth the factors that the Police Chief will consider in deciding whether to ask for an audit. Um ... and it sets the, uh, down payment on the audit amount of $2,500. Any questions? Hayek/ I assume one of the public policy reasons behind the, what is not a bar check is to not discourage bar owners or employees from calling in the event of a problem, to get police assistance? Dilkes/ That's part of it. I think the other issue was that, urn ... you remember the last time around when we were trying to attach the PAULA rate to the license, and there were claims by the bars that they had a lot more, urn ... visits than ... because they were counting visits as calls, all other calls for service. And so it...it messed up the numerator, denominator, and there was a lot of argument about that. So that's the clarification. Hayek/ Okay! Thank you. Other agenda items? Throgmorton/ So, Matt, um ... this is the moment when we get potential topics on the ... the list of agenda items? Hayek/ No, this is, uh, we're going over what's on tonight's agenda. So if there's any agenda item that ... you have a question about, uh, want to clarify in advance of the meeting now'd be the time to ask those questions. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 8 ITEM 22. CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL #183. ITEM 23. CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE POLICE LABOR RELATIONS ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY. Fruin/ Mayor, if I ... if I may, I just want to, um, remind the Council, uh, Items 22 and 23 deal with, uh, two labor agreements and uh, it would be appropriate if you have, uh, questions or need clarification on any of the details of that, uh, either of those agreements to ... to offer those up during this work session, uh, as opposed to the formal, and... and Karen Jennings, uh, is here and she's uh ... uh, was involved in the negotiations and is prepared to offer any clarifications that you may need. Payne/ I did have one question. On Item 23. Fruin/ Okay! Payne/ Um... about the second sentence it says, the second portion of the FY2013, FY2014 splits will be applied to ten -year officer step rather than paid across the board. It just was ... I didn't quite understand what that meant. Jennings/ Sure! Um, beginning with the last, um, contract that we negotiated we used to have a five -step pay plan in place for the police officers... that they topped out at four and a half years. There was interest amongst the police, um, union in creating a step for ten -year officers so that they had the ability for more movement later on in their career. So the wage agreements, they have the split agreement. The July, the first half of the portion will be an across the board split, or an across the board, um, raises apply to all officers. The second half, we will calculate an equivalent dollar amount, as if we were going to, um, give an across the board increase to all officers, but instead that amount will be, um, divided by the officers who are eligible for the ten -year step, and used to ... to grow that step. So the whole group will get an increase in July, only the six -year step ... or I'm sorry, the ten -year step six will, um, be added to the second half, and that was per the union's request. Payne/ Okay, so only the ten -year officers will get two... Jennings/ Correct! Payne/ ... in both... in both fiscal years (both talking) the 13 and 14. Jennings/ That's correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 9 Dobyns/ I could use a primer on this! Uh (laughter) this isn't ... not exactly, you know, in the mainstream of what I do. Hayek/ Yeah! Dobyns/ Um ... and so my sense, looking at this, is that ... how much of this is outside of a expected precedent, or trajectory of what would be expected as far as benefits for, um, you know, professionals in these areas. Dilkes/ Rick, maybe I can explain just a little bit, um... Dobyns/ Please! (laughter) Dilkes/ Um, typically the Council has a closed session discussion about bargaining and expectations and ... and strategy, um, prior (both talking) right! And, right, and... and if... if the Council as a whole needs more discussion about those things before you approve the tentative agreement, you want to do that in executive session. If you just have a question about what the words here mean ... then it's appropriate to ask it tonight. Dobyns/ Got it! So what am I ... voting on? I mean, I'm voting on the words. Dilkes/ Right. Dobyns/ Even though the meaning is obscure to me. Dilkes/ If you don't understand the words, you should say so and we can explain what they mean. Dobyns/ Okay! All right. I understand the words, they appear to be in English (laughter) but in all honesty and candor, urn ... I mean, taking a look at this, this is new, you know... Hayek/ Then we need to executive session this again. Um... Dobyns/ I mean I ... I don't even know what to ... you know. And the rest of you looked at me and I've already talked about an extra work session but ... um ... I mean, these are ... these are the people who take care of the city and um... Fruin/ (mumbled) ...one approach is if, urn ... you're not comfortable with the numbers themselves or the terms as you interpret them now ... then maybe an executive session's appropriate. If you just are looking for kind of a ... a primer on ... on our contracts or the collective bargaining process itself, um ... that, and it doesn't necessarily... it won't necessarily impact your ... your decision here tonight, we could do that at a ... at a later date. So it...it really kind of gets at the type of information you're need ... if you're looking for procedural and process and ... and generally how our collective bargaining agreements are structured, then we can certainly look out a little bit further to, um... to hold some type of work session to do that. If it's the content here in the proposed This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 10 agreements that we've negotiated, um, then we need to have an executive session to talk about that. Dilkes/ You ... you could also sit down and have a one -on -one discussion with Karen and, uh, Sarah of my staff, for instance, just to (both talking) Dobyns/ That's... that's what I would prefer to do, because all six of my colleagues here may be voting one direction or the other, but I can't tell you I can't, you know, and if I'm the only one then I would prefer to do that, rather than take up your time. Um, I don't know, those of you who understand or... Hayek/ But we want to respect your, I mean... Dobyns/ Respect my ignorance? (laughter) Hayek/ No, respect your role in this and ... and if you have questions or ... or confusion about some, about any part of it, and it merits an executive session, then, you know, we should do that! Dobyns/ Well I don't think (both talking) I think I would welcome time just to sit down with members of your staff and you, to sit there and... Throgmorton/ I wonder if maybe we could do this. Maybe you could have that one -on -one kind of conversation and then if you still have good reason to want to process it further we could do an executive session. Dobyns/ I like to think I'm a quick learner so (both talking) Payne/ We have to vote on this tonight, right? Hayek/ That's the thing, are you prepare ... are you comfortable voting on this tonight? Dobyns/ Uh ... I think it's fairly clear I am not. Hayek/ Okay. Dobyns/ I mean, um... Payne/ (mumbled) Dilkes/ We're not talking about an executive session tonight. (several talking) Hayek/ No, no, no! It has to be noticed and... Payne/ Oh, it does? Okay! (several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 11 Dobyns/ No, I don't think I ... um, how much of a problem is that? In terms of deferring this vote because of my ... problem? (laughter) Mims/ Well I don't think we want to put it off for a month! I mean, so if... Dobyns/ Yeah. Mims/ I mean, I think it's important for... Payne/ (mumbled) Mims/ ...for everybody to move forward on this, I mean, everybody's negotiated in good faith and they're waiting on us to make some decisions, and I think it's ... urn ... imperative that we move forward as expeditiously as we can, with ... the issue that we've got, and so... Payne/ Could we add it to next week's ... what we're doing next week on the ... aren't we ... (several talking) yeah! Champion/ I'm not willing to postpone this decision. Hayek/ Oh we may not need an executive session if you just ... if you get your questions answered on one -on -one (both talking) Dobyns/ ...could do this in ten minutes! I mean, if I ... I think as far as answering the questions (both talking) Mims/ ...get our work session done... Dobyns/ That's what I'm thinking! Mims/ You've got time before the formal. Dobyns/ I've got my dinner, um ... (laughter) Dilkes/ There you go! Hayek/ Let's ... let's see if (several talking) Fruin/ Yeah, we'll connect after the work session. Hayek/ Okay. ITEM 6a AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHSIDE MARKETPLACE TO EXCLUDE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 228 & 232 BLOOMINGTON STREET AND 311 & 313 LINN STREET. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 12 ITEM 6d CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 4.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1920 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -5) ZONE TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RRI) ZONE (REZ11- 00019) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Payne/ I also have to recuse myself from the other two Planning and Zoning items that will remain on the agenda. Hayek/ Right! 6, uh... Payne/ 6.a and d. Hayek/ Okay. So you're going to recuse yourself from which ones? 6.a ... 6.d. Any others? ITEM 6b AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 821 E. JEFFERSON STREET. ITEM 6c REZONING .47 -ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 821 JEFFERSON STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -44). (REZ11- 00018) Payne/ Well, b and c are ... deferred right? Hayek/ Yeah, and I'm going ... I was going to mention that. So, all right, you'll be ... the first four under P &Z you will ... which brings me to, uh, to this, we got word today that the applicant wants to defer 6.b and 6.c., which is the Jefferson Street rezoning and comp plan change until the next meeting, but because that's a deferral and not a withdrawal, we still open the public hearing. And then we continue it, but we will not take action on those items tonight. Throgmorton/ Will ... will we have any discussion? Hayek/ No (both talking) as long as the public hearing is open I don't think we do any discussion ... on... Dilkes/ No, not if you defer it. Hayek/ Right. Dilkes/ We can, it's up to you, but ... right, but one thing I wanted to say, you're also ... if you, because you're going to have to open the public hearing, you're going to have to do your ex parte disclosures, and I just, for those of you ... the new ones, I sent out that memo, and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 13 I just wanted to tell you, you need to say who the conversation was with and a short summary of the substance of the conversation. The idea being that you want to give people who are in the audience and may have ... notice about what they need to respond to. Hayek/ We'll take the lead on that. You can ... hear how we disclose those things. Payne/ Since you're going to open the public hearing and all that, I mean, I will eventually have to recuse myself from those two also so I'll just say a through d. Hayek/ That's fine! Okay, any other agenda items? ITEM 4g(7) Royceann Porter: Rebuttal of PCRB Complaint # 11 -01. Throgmorton/ I wanted to ask a question about agenda item 4.g(7), paren 7. Hayek/ Okay! Throgmorton/ Uh, and it concerns a particular individual. Hayek/ Uh -huh. Throgmorton/ And there's a related, um, Police Citizens Review Board, uh ... minutes of the PCRB meeting, and then ... in the January 12th, uh, packet, was it, um ... IP7, there was also, um, a letter I guess from a ... from a citizen. And, I think you all probably talked about this in executive session before we got on the Council, I don't know for sure but I'm guessing you did. Uh, if not, just tell me and I'll stop guessing, uh, but it seems to me that it's something we should talk about and probably not ... would probably have to be in executive session. Dilkes/ Yeah, there wouldn't be any grounds for an executive session on that. No. Throgmorton/ Because... Dilkes/ And we did not have an executive session. Throgmorton/ Okay sorry, I just misunderstood that. So why there wouldn't be any grounds, because... Dilkes/ You may have ... the PCRB goes into executive session when they're dealing with a certain, when they're dealing with a complaint. But the Council did not, with respect to these letters. Throgmorton/ Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 14 Hayek/ I mean, the Council hasn't received or reviewed this case or taken up any of these matters. Karr/ You've received the final report. Hayek/ I know, but I mean, in terms... in ... in any sort of deliberative fashion. Throgmorton/ Right, okay. Karr/ PCRB will be discussing these letters at their next meeting. One of them was addressed to PCRB. The IP7, which is why it isn't under your correspondence. So they will be discussing it at their next meeting, and you'll get those minutes. Throgmorton/ So it's possible we would want to, uh, discuss this further after we hear from the PCRB, is that what you're suggesting? I mean, it seems to me it's something we should discuss, um, but maybe it's not timely. Dickens/ Think we have to wait for it to go to them, and then they send a recommendation to the Council. That's usually how most of the committees (mumbled). Then if there's enough (mumbled) Dilkes/ You might not get a recommendation, uh, on any particular thing from them, but you will get their minutes. And then you could decide whether it was something the Council wished to have any ... a work session about. Hayek/ Well why don't we wait and depending on the outcome of that, we can make the case for placing it on a work session. Throgmorton/ Okay. Dickens/ When is their next meeting? Karr/ Uh, off the top of my head, it's ... it's prior ... it's in February. I don't know, um, I believe its ... I was going to say I think it's either the same night as yours or it's the latter part. Hayek/ Any other agenda items? Okay! Let's move on to the next item, selling public housing units and replacing them. This is at IP3. Selling Public Housing Units and Replacing Them (03): Boothroy/ Good evening, um ... I'm here to talk about this. Also with me tonight is, uh, Steven Rackis, who's the Housing Administrator. I don't know if you've all had a chance to meet him, at least the new Council people, but uh ... we're here to help out in this discussion. A couple things about public housing, uh ... put it in some context. Uh, when we're talking about selling, disposition, and acquisition of public housing, whether it's stuff that we own or stuff that we want to own, uh, everything has to be approved and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 15 signed off by HUD. So, uh all of our units while they're in the, uh, City's ownership, uh, there is a condition attached to the, uh, ownership that requires the HUD ... HUD to release and approve any sale or, uh, disposition of public housing. So that's... that's the one thing that's out there that we need to think about ... as we move forward. The other thing is that ... uh, we haven't uh, the public housing units that we're talking about they're 80 units, uh ... uh, we have not expanded, uh, built, or acquired any public housing units since 1995, 96. Uh, so, uh, the units that we have in place or as the map shows up there in different parts of the community were all done, uh, either through new construction projects or through acquisition, uh ... um, under my direction back in the, uh, 80s and 90s. So, uh, not quite an eon, but at least back, uh, earlier. So we have about 80 units, as you can see up there on the map, uh ... most of `em are pretty well spread out. If you go to the east side up by Scott Boulevard, there's a large cluster there. That's the, uh, 20 Shamrock units, uh, you may have seen that, um ... uh, they're duplexes and three - plexes on one tract of land, uh, we built that in 1983, 84, urn ... none of the developments to the northeast or south existed at the time we built those units, um ... and it's a multi - family development. The other, uh, little larger, or not larger but the other clump down by, uh, on Muscatine Avenue is another multi- family. We built two four -plex units there. Today we use, those are totally occupied by, uh, people that have, uh, handicap or, because they're all accessible. Uh, so we have four, uh....or excuse me, we have eight, uh, units on, two four - plexes, on that particular site. The rest of the units are either duplex, uh, or single - family, um ... or zero -lot line units. Uh, the other area, you can see that they're ...they're kind of sprinkled throughout the community. Then you go down to the southeast part of town, uh, in the Whispering Meadows area, that's what I call it, uh ... and that's at the bottom of the screen, uh, there are, uh, approximately 30 units in that area. Uh, those were also built as new construction, uh, in 19, uh, 95. Uh, those are all single - family or zero -lot line single- family, uh ... structures in that particular area. Um... in the information that I sent you, uh .... I tried to split this out in terms of what we're kind of pre- approved by HUD to sell and under the Section, uh, 5.h agreement that we have with HUD, uh, we ... we are pre- authorized to sell, uh, single ... the single - family unit ... the single - family units for the purpose of home ownership, affordable home ownership. So, uh, the client has to be income - qualified to purchase, uh ... uh, this house that presently is a public housing unit, but uh, under the HUD program and agreement, HUD will release those if it's for a qualified individual, for the purpose of home ownership. Those funds are by agreement reserved for developing additional, um ... uh, affordable, uh, home ownership opportunities. And we built 16 or so, uh, new structures throughout the community as well as having sold 26 public housing units, uh, under the Section 5.h program. So, uh, we're ... we're 26 less public housing units today than we were back in ... at the time I did the Section 5.h program. Uh, a couple of things about the 5.h program is that ... is that, uh ... you can't evict to sell. Uh, you ... you just, the tenant either has the option to buy, if they qualify, uh, and want to. If they don't, they can stay in the unit as they ... if they're in good standing, for as long as they want to stay in the unit. So, we're a little bit limited in terms of...of uh, unit availability when it comes to selling it because we have to wait. If...if the tenant in place doesn't want to buy, we have to wait until the tenant, uh, or until the unit becomes vacant and then ... and then we can market it to either to a Section 8 client or to some other person in the community. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 16 Dickens/ Are those month to month or are those... Boothroy/ No, we have a ... an annual lease. Yeah. Um... Mims/ Can I interrupt you for just a second? I... Boothroy/ Who said ... oh, I'm sorry! Mims/ Susan! Boothroy/ I lost you there for a minute (laughter) Mims/ We're in the dark up here! (laughter) I'm trying to understand, and what I'm hearing, either I'm not understanding you or I'm reading something wrong, but in ... in the first page of your presentation here, under the conclusion, on number one it says that these 5.h, the 5.h home ownership agreement, the sales proceeds cannot be used for replacement of public housing units. Boothroy/ That's correct. Mims /It says they must be used to develop affordable home ownership opportunities. Explain to me what that is, I mean, if... Boothroy/ Well, the home ownership program, the unit... the... under the Section 5.h program, those are, as I said, preapproved existing public housing units, single - family units, that, uh we can sell and we transfer ownership to the tenant. The proceeds from that sale, then can be used to build non - public housing units, but are affordable and sold to people that need income guidelines. Hayek/ Would an example of that be, uh, local non - profit that does this kind of work in the region and giving the proceeds to them? Boothroy/ No. That's not ... that's not part of the plan. The plan indicates that it's sold for home ownership directly to, uh, somebody who qualifies for the program. I'm not sure I understand... Hayek/ But the proceeds of which ... isn't there a distinction between to whom a unit might be sold and what we can or must do with the proceeds? Boothroy/ The proceeds must be reinvested for home ownership opportunities. Uh, made available to, uh, people that can purchase... that can qualify to purchase that unit. They're not to be sold to another corporate entity, if that's what you're asking. Hayek/ No. Champion/ That's not what he's asking. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 17 Mims/ And we can't maintain ownership of them as public housing units (both talking) Boothroy/ Right! Mims/ So the proceeds would have to be used to basically... buy and refurbish or build a home that was then going to be sold to an income - eligible person. Boothroy/ Correct. Champion/ And we've done that, several of `em. Boothroy/ Right, we've done that. Mims/ Okay, now I understand. Boothroy/ Okay. In fact, right now we have, uh ... some of you weren't involved, but we ... we purchased a house up on Davenport Street that was burned out that we're going to build a, uh, and that's under the, uh, home ownership program. So the proceeds from some of the sale are going to be used to construct those two units on Davenport Street, uh, to help the Northside and it's a home ownership. It's not ... it's not to be owned by the Housing Authority for rental purposes. Mims/ Okay. Boothroy/ The other ... the other option is ... is the, uh, that's a preapproved option, uh, so we know we can do this. That's... that's... that's a given. And we know that we can do it, uh, for all the units that were identified, and when I wrote up the plan at that time, identified all the single - family and, uh, units in Iowa City so we'd have the greatest flexibility in terms of location and ... and where people could ... may want to live in terms of buying the units. The other option of course is to look at doing a disposition plan and that's... that's another, uh, totally different way of approaching it, and this would require, uh, making the argument that the units are, uh, distressed or dilapidated in some fashion, which none of them are, and that the neighborhood in which they're located, uh, is a troubled neighborhood, which none of `em are. So, uh, we can't meet those criteria, and I think it makes it very difficult, uh, for HUD to approve a disposition because it's really, uh, only, uh, mostly it's designed for distressed properties... that... that housing authorities own, and we don't have any distressed properties in distressed neighborhoods, according to HUD definitions. So, uh, that's kind of...that's kind of where we are with... with what we have in terms of...of our options. We can ... we can, uh, look at, uh, more aggressive... aggressive marketing in the Whispering Meadow area, and I do have a ... let's see, how does that ... got it! I put this up here because ... uh, that's a blow -up of that area and I think that, uh ... when you see it on the bigger map, you saw that particular cluster. Throgmorton/ Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 18 Boothroy/ Uh ... it's changed over the years, as I said earlier. When ... when I built those down there, it was all fields. Today, there are houses all around what was built. So everybody moved to the Housing Authority, uh, over time, but there's a lot of other affordable housing, uh, entities in the area with housing units, and because of that, there's been some concern about the congestion and... and... and the number of units in there. Uh, I think if we're going to do a more aggressive marketing in the Whispering Meadow area, uh, that's something to know, from your perspective... if we're ... if in the long run you would like to see us thin that out more. I think the second thing is that we would need some help in changing our plan a little bit, uh, cause under the guidelines we could go up to 100% median income at the ... at the Council's discretion, which would then help us get a ... a bigger market with regard to, uh, selling units. Right now we're at 80% median income, um, and I think it's time to move in that direction. We're finding that people at 80% median ... there aren't as many that can qualify at the bank because of the way things have changed over the last two years. It's very difficult to get qualified, and ... and of course we're also competing with the ... the City's project for ... uh, flood, uh, flood damaged properties down in the, uh, along the Iowa River which, uh, directly impacts our customer base. Champion/ Doug, what is the median income now? Boothroy/ Urn ... let's see. I didn't bring that. Champion/ Roughly? Boothroy/ Family of four, what is it (unable to hear person away from mic) Champion/ That's close enough. Boothroy/ That's the median, and that's at 100 %. Champion/ That's at 100 %. Boothroy/ Right. And I think that's a ... that's a good place to be at, uh, when we're talking about trying to get people interested in ... in, and being able to afford... and then being able to stay in a housing unit over time because when ... when you're at the bottom of that range, it...it...small things or any kind of...of change, uh, in your life can have a dramatic impact on your ability to stay in that unit, and the last thing we want is vacant units. Um... so I mean that's... that's one thing. I think the other thing that ... that, back, uh, previous Councils had indicated to us is that they really didn't want us to ... to look at buying, uh, and refurbishing uh ... uh, houses in older neighborhoods anymore, after we did ... after I did the project in 95 and ... and bought houses throughout the community. So, I think if we're going to look at trying to, you know, reduce that impact in Whispering Meadows and move it into some other areas, I need to be able to have the option to move into existing neighborhoods and buy a house here or there. It all has to have your approval as well as HUD's approval, uh, so that, uh ... we can begin to ... to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 19 balance that out. I think the last thing I would say is that, the 80...80 unit number that was in the previous memo, the November number, was a number that ... that we recognized as a threshold that ... that maintains, urn ... uh, the kind of revenue we think is necessary to keep the public housing program viable. You have the ... the capital improvement plan uh money that comes in at about $100,000 for 80 units, and then we have the operating subsidy, which we didn't mention before, uh, for 80 units is about $300,000. So as you reduce the number of units, uh, in your program, you reduce, uh, that income and uh, we've never had to come to the City for money from Home or CDBG for any kind of operating costs or for any kind of capital improvements and uh, and those funds are, I think, particularly important in order to keep houses in neighborhoods well maintained, uh, and an asset, uh, as far as the way they look. Uh, so ... you know, I think there is movement that can be done, but I think ... I think we have to look at it, uh, have to have a plan and we have to make sure we don't jeopardize our financial position. Hayek/ I ... it's clear to me, and I think this probably comes back to the ... the query that Connie made, that these memos are based on the sale of existing units, uh, and ... and the replacement of those units by the City elsewhere ... is ... would it be a possibility for us to, uh, sell some of these units, not replace them with more public housing but instead use the proceeds for some other appropriate, you know, authorized purpose, whether it's... Boothroy/ Well, under the Section 5.h program, you could sell those units and ... and build or refurbish existing homes for home ownership. So it wouldn't be public housing. Because we sell ... we ... we're no longer the owner, uh, of the property. They pay property taxes. They ... the deeds in their, uh, name and so forth. The way that works is ... is not only do we, uh, make the unit available to them, but we generally subsidize, or take back a second mortgage to help `em make it affordable. So we may have a $25,000 to $30,000 second mortgage on that house, that... that... that they're required to ... which also locks in the ... the uh, affordability of the house. Hayek/ So do the proceeds from a given unit that's sold go back to that, to the owner of the same unit... Boothroy/ No, no, it just goes into a pot (both talking) and we use that money to invest in new houses or uh, whether it's new construction or whether it's, uh, an existing house that we've refurbished. Now, all the ad hoc funds to date have gone into new construction. Uh, because... Hayek/ Who has done ... who has done that new construction? Is it ... is it... Boothroy/ (both talking) Private contractors, uh... Hayek/ Okay. Boothroy/ ...several different pro ... private contractors have done that. We bid it out, uh, the last one we did is Longfellow, uh, we still have a unit for sale in Longfellow because of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 20 market, uh, having difficulty, and we've been marketing it aggressively. We've got a real estate agent and so forth, but as I said, you know, uh, we have the competition of the 160 - some units that we ... that we've been pulling out of the flood plain area, uh, where you've got a 25% down payment assistance that's forgivable and it's difficult to compete against those kinds of things. People can qualify for much bigger houses, much more expensive houses under that program, uh, as opposed to our program. But I would like to see us at the median income because I think it'd help us in Longfellow, uh, move that other unit and then we have the two units in the, uh, on Davenport Street that we would like to get started on, and I don't see with the cost of construction on Davenport Street cause the land was so expensive, uh, as well as it being in a historic district that ... that it would be very easy to find anybody to ... to buy it at 80% median income. We really need to be at 100 %. Hayek/ And when you keep saying "we" is it that the City is initiating these construction projects, uh... Boothroy/ Right, we ... we ... we spec it out ... it's a construction project like ... like uh, we ... we... bids, you know, we design the building, we have somebody come in and design the building. We spec it out and then we ... we advertise it for contractors and they come in and they build it, uh, and it's ... it's a turnkey. In that sense. Hayek/ Okay. But the ... but what I don't hear you saying is we could take the proceeds from the sale of a public housing unit and ... and shift them to, for example, our annual HCDC process whereby a... Dilkes/ (mumbled) no, we could not under the 5.h plan, and whether we could for the rest of the houses would be dependent on what HUD would authorize. Boothroy/ Right. (both talking) Dilkes/ That ... that's the answer to that question. Hayek/ Okay. Dilkes/ So you have to split `em into 5.h and non -5.h. Essentially what you'd have to do is come up with some other plan for the non -5.h houses that would require HUD approval. Champion/ Well that's not impossible. Boothroy/ No. I think it's ... I think it's, uh ... next to impossible! Champion/ Well, nothing's impossible! Boothroy/ I didn't say impossible! I said next to impossible. Champion/ You telling... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 21 Boothroy/ I ... I ... I was involved in ... in doing the ... the disposition plan for Broadway, which was down on Broadway Street. That was before Broadway Street was extended. We built those units there, and the, uh, it...it was denied twice by the Kansas City office because it didn't meet any of the criteria that they felt was, uh, for... for disposition. Uh, it wasn't in a troubled neighborhood. Uh, it ... the units were in good condition. The only way that those got sold was by ... by a kind of a stroke of luck. I ... I got a telephone number. It happened to be the Assistant Secretary of HUD, and I dialed straight through to him and I told him what I wanted to do and he said it was a great idea and he over ... and he overrode the, uh, Kansas City office. But I couldn't get beyond the Kansas City office. It was dead in the water, uh, and not ... what I'm trying to tell you, Connie, is that ... is that, uh, unless it's ... unless you get a really good situation going for you, it's not ... it's not a foregone conclusion that you can sell these. Hayek/ But it is ... is it something we could look at? Boothroy/ Oh, yeah, I think we can. I think we can explore it. I don't have any problem exploring it. I'm just saying that I wouldn't get your hopes up that it's going to be easy and it's not going to be complicated, and I don't even want to give you the idea that you'd get to keep the proceeds. Champion/ Well, I think it'd be nice if we could disburse some of this housing that's happened in the southeast side of Iowa City. And I ... I think we should approach HUD, or whoever it is, that we want to try to disburse some of these units cause it's causing problems for the neighborhoods, a perceived problem. Boothroy/ Uh -huh. Champion/ Um, that we'd like to sell some of them, but use it to invest in another public house in another area of town. They wouldn't approve that? Boothroy/ Oh, they might! Champion/ Well... Boothroy/ I was talking about doing a disposition plan for some of the ones that aren't in the Section 51, uh, I mean, we can explore that. Uh, we can sell those in the Whispering Meadows. It's already preapplu ... preapproved. What we can't do at this point without getting approval from HUD, we can't use the proceeds to buy public housing. Champion/ I understand, I understand that. Boothroy/ We can use the proceeds ... to ... (both talking) build or sell for home ownership, but we can't use it for public housing, and if we want to, uh, look at that and talk to HUD about it, I'm ... I think that's a good idea. That's fine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 22 Rackis/ Just to clarify if I may, um, the Whispering Meadows area, if that is the area of concern, all of those units are in the 5.h program. Boothroy/ Right! Rackis/ So it won't be putting together a disposition plan. That's not the issue. Those aren't multi - family units. So if that's the sole area of focus for the Council, I think we could come back to you with a strategy to thin that area out. What I think Doug is trying to say is that as we take the proceeds from that, we're contractually obligated to use that for home ownership opportunities somewhere else in the community. So it's not only focusing on thinning this area out, but also where the new home ownership opportunities will go. The difference will be these are publicly owned right now, so we would sell these and the resulting proceeds would be invested in home ownership. So at the end of the day, once all the sales and transactions take place, our number of public housing units will drop. Boothroy/ Unless we ... unless HUD approves an amendment to the plan to allow us to ... to reinvest (several talking) and that's what I'm going to explore. Champion/ Yeah, that's what I suggested before. I don't want you to get to the point ... I'm not against public housing and I'm not ... I don't want to get to the point where we don't have the money to maintain it... Boothroy/ Uh -huh. Champion/ ...but I do want to disburse this housing over the community a little more. Um, it's really congregated and ... I don't know if anybody else feels that way, but that's exactly how I feel about it (several responding) Throgmorton/ I'd like to toss two or three cents in here. (mumbled) my voice is shot. I don't know why. Uh... Champion/ You talk too much! Throgmorton/ Yeah, could be! (laughter) Could be! Um, so I won't talk very long. Champion/ No, it's all right! Throgmorton/ Um ... I ... I ... I would think it would be a mistake to sell these public housing units because there's a perception of a problem in the area that ... is not clearly connected to the public housing units themselves, or to public housing ... as ... as it is, um ... uh, conducted here in Iowa City. That said, I ... I would, uh, support the idea of looking into the possibility of...of selling some of these units, but ... uh, rehabilitating, you referred to this possibility earlier I think, Doug, rehabilitating some units in other parts of the city, that would ... would be part of the public housing program, but not in this area. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 23 Champion/ That's what we said! Throgmorton/ Yeah, so I'm just trying to be clear about what my own understanding of it... Boothroy/ And I think another thing I would ... I would explore with HUD is whether or not, uh, we could ... make them public housing for a period of time, uh, that way we would have the funds to improve them and deal with them, and then possibly put them in the Section 5.h plan so that it, down the road, if those units ... we would like to move them, uh, market them, we could. So we'd have the flexibility for any that we bought that went into public housing, could subsequently go, uh ... uh, to home ownership at some point in time and we'd buy something else. Champion/ I love that idea! Thank you! Dilkes/ I'm concerned we're ... we're not seeing eye to eye here, okay? (several talking) Is ... is the Council asking as ... as Doug I think just said, that you want the City to explore a... HUD allowing us to con ... to take the proceeds when we sale... sell, and reinvest in public housing, i.e., publicly owned housing? Champion/ Yes! Throgmorton/ I am. Dilkes/ Is that what you're ... okay. I don't ... that's not ... clear to me that that's what ... the majority is asking. Hayek/ I would have interest, and I don't think what ... I don't think the staff memos thus far have addressed this and probably we need to go take another look at this. I would be interested in what our options would be if we sold some of this public housing, uh, and then took those proceeds and ... what we could do with those proceeds, short of buying or developing new public housing. Champion/ You could (both talking) Hayek/Whether it's, yeah, so whether it's the non - profit sector or ... or what have you. That's ...those are the questions I would like to... Payne/ And I have a question related to that. Could those proceeds be put into the University's program then? Because that is to help affordable home ownership. Boothroy/ If ... if it's for home ownership. Uh, I mean, you couldn't give it to the University, but the City could be a partner and use it to, uh, partner with `em, uh ... to ... uh, create home ownership. The issue that sometimes you get into, and I'd have to check on this, but... but when we've done home ownership through the HUD program in the past, is they require the house to be 100% lead -based paint. The problem with some of the locations that the UniverCity is going in is that those houses are not lead -base free, so ... uh, you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 24 know, I'd have to look at that. They ... HUD is ... HUD is very strict about allowing families to move into houses that aren't lead -base free. Hayek/ Here is what I would suggest... cause I don't think the answers to my question or questions are ... are in these materials. Maybe we need to set this for another work session, get those answers, uh ... uh, to Council in advance of that so that we can have a discussion as ... as a Council about whether to replace with more public housing, whether to replace with something else. Boothroy/ Well I think that ... I ... I can't answer your questions without getting an answer from HUD. Because there... because, you know, we have a contractual arrangement through one program. So, uh ... what I think I hear you saying is is that you want the greatest flexibility with the use of the sale proceeds through the Section 5.h plan, and ... and what would HUD, what latitude would HUD give us with that. And til I... and so when I get that answer, then we could have another meeting. Hayek/ Okay. Boothroy/ Cause that's... that's only, otherwise we're just speculating. Hayek/ Right. Right. Champion/ The other question that I ... I have to ask, urn ... is from the Council ... is there a majority that would be interested in purchasing more public housing outside of the congregated... congested areas of public housing? Or would you rather this money went into housing rehab? Hayek/ I don't know if we're at a point of being able to even answer that. Um... Champion/ Well because I would ... that would be a big question... Boothroy/ Well let me come back with those ... with an answer from HUD, because it may tell you what your answer is. Champion/ Uh -huh. Boothroy/ They may just say no. Hayek/ ... can and can't do (both talking) Boothroy/ ... if they say no, then that will tell you something. Hayek/ Okay. Boothroy/ Yeah. That'll tell you! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 25 Payne/ I do have one more question. Do you have an idea in your mind what the ... the optimum number of public housing units is to keep the program afloat? Boothroy/ Well, we ... we think 80 is a good number because it gives us about $100,000 in cap funds, and so uh ... um ... you know, I think that that number could be smaller than that, but I think, uh, you know, you've gotta be right in that area — 70 to 80 — in order to make it work, and um ... uh, we'd have to look at those numbers. I think first I'll get the information from HUD, try to get something in writing. I can't guarantee it, so (laughter) uh, and then, uh, and then we'll find out what we ... what our options are. Champion/ But we could always, since you said you only really could probably have, what, 70, we could basically sell some of these houses and then reinvest it into more affordable housing (both talking) Boothroy/ Yeah, we could ... we can look at that. I think that the issue for, uh, us is ... is that, um ... is making sure that we maintain the right (both talking) economic balance and I don't know the answer, and I'll look at that as well. Uh, I think the other question I had for you, and this doesn't require HUD approval is ... is whether or not, uh, we could sell these at 100...100% median, or median income, or even 120 %. Does that, having that flexibility to go up so that we make ... we can be better at marketing, uh, work for you guys? Champion/ I don't have any problems with it. Mims /It would for me. I think that's fine. Boothroy/ Do I have four? Hayek/ I'd be okay with it. Boothroy/ Okay. Okay. So we'll ... we'll do that. That'll help out a lot, particularly in the Longfellow area since we've got one for sale there. That'll make, uh, hopefully we can use that. Mims/ Doug, one last question I have is you've talked about the 70 to 80 number to keep the thing viable. I guess what I would like to see ... as we move forward and make some decisions, I think there's some of us that are interested in possibly decreasing the number of public housing units. I'd like to see a more comprehensive financial analysis of why it takes X number of units to keep this thing viable. Boothroy/ Sure! We can give you, I mean, it is complicated but, you know, the operating subsidy and the cap fund ... it's not just the cap funds. It's the operating subsidy, which by the way also supports the Section 8 program. So, which also supports money that we give to the City for supporting various other operations within the City. So it goes all the way into the General Fund cause it ... the Housing Authority does pay money directly to the General Fund. So it's ... it's a bigger... bigger thing than you might imagine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 26 Mims/ Yeah, but I ... I guess I would just like to see if we can get a little more comprehensive (both talking) Boothroy/ Yeah, and I think when ... once I get some answers from HUD then I can start putting that together, because if the answer is really no, then ... okay? Hayek/ Okay! Thank you! Throgmorton/ Susan, I ... I'd like to hear greater clarity at some point. Not here right now, about why, uh, you and perhaps others believe it would be valuable, potentially valuable to reduce the number of public housing units. I personally don't see any problem with public housing units. So I don't know why they would need to be reduced, but you know, if I hear the argument maybe I'd be persuaded. Boothroy/ Well when I come back I'll probably make that argument myself! (several talking) Dobyns/ (mumbled) Function of Boards /Commissions (IP4): Hayek/Okay. Let's ... let's keep going here. We gotta ... so thank you for your time and ... and input, Doug, and Steve, and uh ... we'll take this up when we get the ... the additional information. Uh, next item is function and potential consolidation of various boards and commissions, IP4. A very helpful list of the required boards and commissions, and the, uh, not required boards and commissions. Throgmorton/ So we can't get rid of required boards. (laughter and several talking) Karr/ So again, staff did not make any recommendations. Our assignment, as noted, was to identify the boards and commissions we currently have. The requirement, the establishment of it, give a brief list of duties, and then come back for further direction from Council ... on proceeding. Mims/ Is there any way, and I think this was kind of mentioned, um, possibly the other night, on some of these that we have had such difficulty in filling. Um, and I guess particularly I'm looking maybe ... is it the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment that we just, I mean, I looked at the times that's been advertised. It's like... Champion/ Three years! Mims/ ...30 or 40 times. Is there... legally can we ask ... the same people who are on the Airport Commission for example t be on the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment, I mean, can we ... is there ways that we can... Payne/ Can we consolidate? Is that what you're saying? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 27 Mims/ Well, I mean, you can't legally consolidate. They have to be separate, but can you get the same (both talking) people... Karr/ I think she's ... I think what Susan is suggesting, not a consolidation of two boards but realizing the independence of both of `em, can some of the members be appointed to more ... yes. Dilkes/ We'd have to look at that. Champion/ They don't meet very often, right? They.. Karr/ Well it's not the meeting, it's ... it's sometimes it's the requirement and the conflict. Throgmorton/ But I don't see how the Airport Zoning Commission members could be identical with the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment (several talking) Dilkes/ No, those two I don't think but whether you could have the Airport, some members of the Airport Commission serving on the Airport Board of Adjustment... Throgmorton/ Right. Dilkes/ ...is something that might be a possibility. I'll have to look at it. Mims/ Cause it, yeah, we've got ... what do we do when we don't have people on these if they need to meet? Or if we don't have a quorum? Dilkes/ I don't... Karr/ We can't meet without a quorum so this ... this particular one hasn't met. There hasn't been an issue yet, I mean, some of these are required but as needed. Mims/ Right. Dilkes/ These aren't our problems, frankly, because I, 1 mean in 15 years I don't think I remember the Airport Zoning Commission having to meet or the Airport Board of Adjustment (laughter and several talking) Hayek/ I'm going to sign up for that one when I (laughter) Dilkes/ There was that one ... (several talking) updated, yeah zoning. Um, Airport zoning, I think was the only time. So... Hayek/ You know ... if I might, in switching to the not required by state law list, urn ... but we can have a discussion about which ... which of these, if any, we might want to consider moth- balling, but ... but an easier task might be to look at the term of years of service and the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 28 number of members we ... I mean, we have... several of these have nine members which seems like a pretty big number to me, especially when the seven of us are able to do what we do. So, um, you know, and I... some of these are clearly ones that we've struggled to get people to volunteer for, and I wonder if shortening the term of service and reducing the number of, uh... (several talking) Dobyns/ I'm sorry ... Terry? Dickens/ Five years is a really long time (mumbled) Dobyns/ Yeah. Dickens/ I know it takes a while to get up to speed on it but ... like the Board of Appeals is a five year (mumbled) there's several others that are four -year terms. Throgmorton/ Yeah, too much. Dobyns/ Which of these are, um, have problems filling? Champion/ None of these really, except for the Youth Advisory Commission. Throgmorton/ I wonder if any of the commissions, uh, sense that they ... don't really need to exist as a commission. If any commissioners feel that way. Or board members. Champion/ Well I don't really think Parks and Rec or the Senior Center would even consider disbanding (laughter) I mean ... that's um ... the Telecommunications, that seems to get filled, um ... Board of Appeals... that's a really important commission. I would hate to get rid of that. Dobyns/ (mumbled) ...the issue was not being able to fill, so I guess I don't see a problem, based on our original concern and premise, uh, the commissions not required by state law. I mean, a small group in theory should be five to nine to be able to function. They all are. We could have a reduced number of years to serve, but it doesn't seem to be a particular problem with getting people who are interested. I could see decreasing the years served might change the demographic of those who might be interested in the commission, cause my sense is younger members of our community, uh, are in general, uh, based on general knowledge, are more likely to participate if the number of years is less. Hayek/ Well, what I would throw out is that, I mean, staff has not recommended anything. They just gave us raw data. Is... suggestion to staff that ... that they look at these and tell us whether they think it would help to reduce the term of years or the number of members on any or all of our commissions. Would that help us ... avoid vacancies? Karr/ Recruit, would that help with recruitment? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 29 Hayek/ Sure, um, and is that something you ... if you could wave a magic wand to try to rectify some of our vacancy problems, you know, is that what you would do? And if so, what would you take a look at? Payne/ I mean, are we trying to reduce costs of staff at all, of costs of copying and sending out information, I mean, if we didn't have this many members or, um, I mean, it could have a, uh, a cost savings too. I mean, is that important? Hayek/ Something we should look at probably, yeah. Dobyns/ I'd just like to see, just the demographics and range in the not required by, you know, to see, you know, what age groups of our community are participating on the boards. Just to get a sense of is it, uh, you know, skewed toward older members of our community. Payne/ Do they have to tell us their age when they apply? Karr /I was going to say, we can certainly ask for voluntary information, but that's not a requirement (several talking and laughing). Dobyns/ Forget that then! Throgmorton/ I certainly support Matt's suggestions about what ... what we could ask staff to do, and I would suggest also that we ask, uh, the commissions, uh ... the ones not required by state law, the commissions whether they have any input in this particular... Karr/ Maybe what we could do is some sort of a... a simple questionnaire that we could send to the staff of the boards and commissions, and ask them to take it back to their boards and commissions and get that recommendation from them and report back to you. Throgmorton/ Okay. (several responding) Karr/ Okay! Information Packets (1/12 and 1/19/12): 1/12/12: Hayek/ Great. Thank you! Okay, info packets. Uh, two info packets, January 12th and January 19th. Please note the, uh, KXIC schedule, uh, in the January 12th packet. Does anyone have anything on either of those packets? 1/19/12: Mims/ No, I just want to thank Rick for the memo in the 19th packet on the elevation of Dubuque Street; helped answer some of our questions about doing two lanes instead of four, so that was very helpful to have. Hayek/ Looks like we're doing four! (laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 30 Mims/ That's kind of what it looked like! Karr/ If any of you are interested in the Chamber Banquet, that's also in the 19th packet, please let me know so I can make the reservation. Hayek/ Uh, why don't you count me in on that. Karr/ Okay. Dobyns/ I think I'm already going so... Payne/ For work? Dobyns/ No. Just ... because of the nature (mumbled) include me in the... Karr/ Yes you do wish to be ... included? Dobyns/ Yeah, I ... I just (mumbled) the right table with the right people. (laughter) Karr/ One each? (several talking and laughing) Dobyns/ Well, that's kind of what I was saying (several talking and laughing) Hayek/ No offense! Karr/ One? Okay. Council Time: Hayek/ Uh, okay. Council time? Anything? Okay. Pending work session topics? Pending Work Session Items: Throgmorton/ Well, um ... as a possibility, I ... there's clearly been some significant publicity over the last few days in the DI and the Press - Citizen about um ... Old Capitol Center and... and uh, one of the editorials or guest opinions that appeared in the Daily Iowan, couple three days ago, linked those, uh, complications that occur within the Old Capitol Center to the, um, the School District's requirements for transporting, how students have to get around, uh, the city, and to our, um, transit system, the structure of the transit system with the hub. It seems to me there's a complex of issues there that need some careful attention, uh, maybe that would be a topic for us. Dickens/ It was reprinted in the Gazette, I think. Champion/ Right, and that (several talking) uh... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 31 Fruin/ If I can make a suggestion on that. We've um ... there has been a lot of attention, and obviously um, we're looking at it from a number of different angles and I don't know that we've communicated all of those different angles to you to ... to let you know how we're approaching the situation. Certainly there's police aspect and a transit aspect and a few others, um ... maybe it would be helpful if we put together, um ... uh ... a ... a memo of sorts that outlined the different angles that we're taking to address the situation, and once you had that information and looked at kind of our operational plan, you'd be ... you may be better situated to decide if you want to have a work session on that. Throgmorton/ Yeah, could be (several talking) sounds good. But I'm thinking also of the School District and ... and I don't really know what its policies are, with regard to when students are ... are able to take advantage of School District bus, uh, the bus system operated by the School District. Maybe Connie and... Champion/It's three miles! Throgmorton/ ... Susan remember but some... some people obviously have to use our public transit system, because of School District policies. So that creates a confluence of factors that ... I think result in ... in difficulties. So... Mims/ Well, I think seeing what they're talking about, what they're looking (several talking) Fruin/ ...and I'm glad you brought that up, because clearly our strategy, um, does not just involve our staff members. We are working with the School District and other stakeholders, the Mall for instance, on how we're approaching the issue. So we'll try to outline all those, uh, external stakeholders as well and the types of, um ... things we're discussing with them. Okay? Hayek/ Great, thanks! Champion/ (mumbled) the bus, I mean, the public transit also does loops though for some of those schools. There's an eastside loop and a Westside loop. Is that right? I think so. (mumbled) Dilkes/ We'll talk about that at the work session. Champion/ Okay! Hayek/ Thank you! (laughter) Tell us about all the loops, Chris! (laughter) Uh, okay. Meeting schedule. There is an insert, I think, that has the current meeting schedule dated January 13t ". (several talking) Champion/ It confused me! Karr/ Well one out of two isn't bad! (laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012. January 24, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 32 Mims/ It takes up much less paper! Karr/ Well, it is intended, the agenda's totally separate from the schedule. (several talking) Hayek/ The meeting schedule... if anybody has a problem with... Karr/ First ... first page in your info packet. (several talking) That's your agenda packet. Hayek/That's your agenda packet, the info packets are the... Payne/ I just said I can't even figure out which (several talking) Hayek/ Info packet (several talking) Karr/ Stop by! Hayek/ They have popcorn! (several talking and laughing) Karr/ We'll, um, we'll also make that change to include that 5:00 on your February 21St, on your next schedule. Hayek/ I once handled a divorce in which Longenberger Baskets were an issue, heatedly fought over (several talking) yeah, well, then I will back off! (laughter) Throgmorton/ If you're going to talk about divorces let's move (laughter) Hayek/ Allrighty! Um, upcoming events, Council invites. Anybody have anything? Okay! Well, we'll take a pause and start up at the formal meeting at 7:00. Thank you for your time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 24, 2012.