HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-21 TranscriptionFebruary 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 1
Council Present: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton
Staff Present: Markus, Bentley, Hargadine, Havel, Fruin, Miklo, Howard, Andrews,
Dilkes, Yapp, Parios, Mansfield, Karr, Ream, Boothroy, Fosse, O'Brien,
Rummel, Davidson, Goers, Goodman, Moran
Others Present: Graham, UISG
Red Light /Automated Traffic Enforcement:
ITEM 19. 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 11, "AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT," TO
ALLOW FOR RED LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.
Hayek/ Okay, well why don't we go ahead and get started. We have a lot on our plate, uh, in
advance of the formal tonight, urn ... if you look at your...
Karr/ Just as a reminder, you will need to wear the lays so we can pick you up, please. Thank
you.
Hayek/ Also known as microphones!
Karr/ Microphones.
Hayek/ Um... so if you look at your work session agenda, the first item, uh, is the red light
automatic traffic enforcement item. Uh, as you may recall, we decided to add a... uh,
half hour to our work session to go over this point. Urn ... before the third and final
reading tonight. So ... don't know how we want to proceed on that. There's a packet...
there's a memo from, uh, the Chief and from John Yapp, uh, at Item 19. Chief? Thanks.
Hargadine/ Good evening!
Hayek/ Hi! So, uh, this was scheduled because ... in large part Council Member Throgmorton
had some questions. I think, Michelle, you had some as well, and what we decided at the
last meeting was that questions should be forwarded to staff for informational responses,
uh, there's a lengthy memo in our packet, I think attempting to answer those questions. I
suspect the look from these two guys up here is do you have any further questions about
the questions we answered. Did I gauge you right?
Hargadine/ That's very good! (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 2
Markus/ ...had any comments...
Hayek/ Or comments!
Markus/ ...answers, uh, to those questions.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, well, maybe we have questions for them, but maybe we have reasons to talk
with one another.
Hayek/ That'd be fine.
Throgmorton/ That's pretty much what I had I mind, anyhow, that we ... we'd be able to get
really useful information from the Chief and from John, and then deliberate a bit about,
uh, what ... what we thought, so we'd have clear ideas about how to proceed tonight.
Hayek/ Sure.
Mims/ I do have a question though for the Chief before we start amongst ourselves. When an
officer's out on the street, they obviously have discretion about, you know, a charge or
not, giving a warning, you know, how they handle certain situations. Okay? When
municipalities typically go to these red light cameras, and you have that video evidence,
how do you look at that in terms of the discretion that your officers would or would not
use, and let me give you an example. Um, you've got a legal right turn on red, okay?
Car pulls up, does a slight rolling stop, does not come to an absolute complete stop, and I
don't know if these cameras what other traffic they pick up, goes ahead and makes that
right turn, no obvious other traffic in the area. You know, in a situation where an officer
was sitting there, and there was no danger or anything, I can foresee that they might just
let it go as long as the person came pretty close to a stop and looked and everything. Do
you foresee the video enforcement being done the same way, or more stringently in the
fact that those wheels did not come to a 100% stop?
Hargadine/ Well usually those are, um ... addressed by setting, you know, a good foundation
policy, uh, on the front end. For example, it could be that, urn ... we're not going to
enforce, uh, those right -hand turns at all. That ... that's one fair way to do it across the
board. Um ... but certainly I think whatever is done, it needs to be fair across...
Mims/ Okay.
Hargadine/ ...um, to everybody. If it ... if it trips the camera, then ... um ... you know, it ... that,
we're going to have to review that video and agree, okay, yes this is an obvious violation
and then at that point it goes back to the ... to the vendor at that point for billing, if they
agree it's a violation. But it needs to be handled the same.
Mims/ Okay, but you do have the ability to kind of set some of those parameters before you even
start reviewing of certain situations that you might not...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 3
Hargadine/ There's a couple things that we haven't really talked about, and that's assuming that
it goes forward, there needs to be a business plan on how we handle things in- house.
Um, and for, you know, that's precisely one of `em. Um ... who ... who is trained to
review these things, how many. These are all things in -house that we would, um, come
up with our business plan. Um, another thing we haven't talked about much is public
education. And that is a module that is included, um, from all of the vendors that we
talked to, um, it's a huge proponent of this, getting the word out, and it goes towards the
transparency. We've not done much of that, um, as far as ... other than, you know, what's
in the press from these meetings, but that's a huge element going forward, and um, for
example, um, the business plan, those are things that all need to become transparent, um,
should this go forward.
Mims/ Okay.
Hargadine/ Anything else I can think of on that business plan or the...
Yapp/ Well, the other examples I can think of where someone... technically might run a red light,
but should not receive a violation... are things like a funeral procession. Uh, getting out
of the way of an ambulance, if you have to pull out of the way right at an intersection and
you... and you trigger the red light, uh, weather related issues where you attempt to stop
but because of ice on the road you slide through the intersection. Those are all things that
we would write into the business plan as ... as not being violations, and those are some
examples that we've heard at some previous public discussions.
Mims/ Okay. Thank you! Appreciate it.
Throgmorton/ Let me, um ... off ...offer some, uh, I don't know, some data basically and for you
all to hear, and then John, Sam, Eleanor, if you all disagree with anything I say, please...
please yell out. Uh, I know I found the, uh, the memo that the staff gave us to be very
informative, very helpful, so I really appreciate the three of you, you know, taking the
time to respond to the questions that Michelle and I in particular directed to you. Uh, so
that's really good and uh, certainly I ... I conclude that there are no significant legal issues,
uh, associated with adopting this particular, um, not ordinance but resolution, whatever
you ... it's a resolution, right?
Dilkes/ (mumbled)
Throgmorton/ Yeah. Uh, and uh ... um ... but even if there aren't legal issues, there's still sort of
fairness questions I ... I have in mine, but still, the legal concerns, uh, kind of fade away,
but when I look at the, uh, the amount of revenue that might well be generated by
installing these cameras at ten, the ten key sites, uh, you know, I did a, sort of a ballpark
estimate of what that, uh, revenue might be and I ... I came up with something like
$180,000 per year for the ten sites, and I ... I could ... I could, you know, tell you how I
calculated that if you'd like, and then I used some, uh, some estimates that came from an
email by, uh, that we got from Sue Travis about the, uh, the uh ... the likely consequences
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 4
in terms of reductions of severe injuries at the ten sites, and I came up with less than one,
um, that we ... we would, uh, get down, well no. We, I'm sorry, getting myself confused!
We'd ... we'd achieve less than, uh, 0.1 serious injuries per year. We'd get it down that
much. So, I'm not saying this as well as I would like but that it would cost us about
$180,000 per year — us being the people of Iowa City who get charged fines -- $180,000 a
year to, uh, achieve a reduction of 0.1 serious injuries per year at the ten sites that we're
looking at. So ... I find myself wondering whether achieving that degree of, uh, reduction
in serious injuries is worth that amount of, uh, expenditure on the part of the ... the people
of Iowa City who go through the red lights and, you know, get caught by the camera and
that kind of thing.
Dobyns/ Jim, I don't think any of their outcome data, as I read it, said serious injury. I think it
was like crash injuries I think was some of the outcome data that they used. So I'm not
sure you can (both talking)
Throgmorton/ I'm drawing on, uh, there I'm drawing upon the major injuries is the ... the word,
the phrase that's used in the memorandum of January 5t' that we initially got. So, you
know, I ... I could go through the calculation but I don't want to kind of belabor that point.
It just seems to me that ... most of the other issues and concerns I had kind of dissipate,
but I'm still left with that concern. That ... we would be asking ... there would be a cost to
the, to uh, the people of the city, the ones who go through the red lights, of $180,000 per
year, and what we would get in return is a reduction in major injuries of 0.1 major
injuries per year. That's the way I figure it. And, I'm not persuaded that's really worth
it.
Mims/ I guess I look at it this way. Is ... I think we've gotten a lot of information from a lot of
different people... throwing a lot of studies that many of which are very conflicting about,
um, the pros and cons of the red light cameras. Given some of the stories we've heard
here, and even what, you know, some of our Councilors have experienced. I know I
certainly have in driving around town. I have concerns, you know, about some of the
people who are running the red lights and the potential for injuries.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, me too!
Mims/ I ... I don't like the idea particularly of putting up cameras. I don't like moving in that
direction of more and more cameras. But I think with the right, you know, business plan
that goes with it, um, I am still willing to at least give it a try and I think it, you know, I
think how many intersections and expansion to additional intersections and those kinds of
things, I would hope would come back, um, for the Council to look at, but ... I think it's
really hard to quantify, you know, what the direct benefit is going to be, but I think when
you do look at a lot of these cases, it does tend to change certain behaviors. And I'm
willing to ... I'm willing to give it a shot.
Throgmorton/ I think what... whatever decision we come up with tonight will be better as a result
of the questions we asked the staff, the way the staff responded to the questions, the
information they provided. So I'm comfortable with whatever decision the Council
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 5
comes up with. Uh, I just wanted to articulate sort of a bottom line point, uh, fro... from
my point of view.
Mims/ It is hard to quantify, I will agree!
Champion/ Well I think there is a place for cameras. I think it's been shown on 380 in Cedar
Rapids that it has significantly reduced fatal accidents on that particular part of the
interstate. I personally don't feel that any of our ... any of our intersections have a high
enough accident rate to ... to warrant ... to warrant cameras. Um ... my other concerns is
where... where's the money that we recoup from this, how we're going to collect it and
what it's going to be used for. Uh, I do appreciate Larry Baker's letter to the editor that
said it ought to be used toward property tax reduction or some overall good, and not just
going into the General Fund. You know, as people know I'm not ... I'm not for them. I
think this Council's going to pass it and I'm certainly going to support that decision, but
there've been other things that can be done. They talked a lot in different articles about
increasing the yellow caution light. That is actually a major reduction for accidents. And
other things that you can do besides cameras. I hate to think of it ... that it's just a revenue
thing. Uh, and if it is, it is going to produce revenue rather it's that way or not, and I
think the Council needs to think what's going to happen with that ... with that money. As
our budgets become tighter and tighter, the cameras become more of a revenue producing
object, and what can you tell me about the collection of these fines? It ... had pretty poor
results in some states.
Yapp/ Uh, my recollection is the experience in other cities in Iowa, that between 85 and 90% of
the fines are collected, which 10 to 15% of the ... of the violations are not easily collected,
and that's typically with an out -of- state, uh, motorists. Uh, there ... and again, if this
enabling legislation is passed, we would specify in a business plan how that collection
process would work, but one of the options is to go to a collection agency for any
outstanding fines past 60 days, uh ... but I think for an out -of -state motorist it would
become difficult to collect that fine.
Hayek/ The ... John, the...the parameters of the business plan, the ... the, um, ultimate disposition
of funds received and those kind of details are not... are not before us tonight.
Yapp/ That's correct.
Hayek/ I mean, this is enabling legislation to enable staff to pursue a contract.
Yapp/ Yeah, if... if this ordinance were approved, that would allow us to go to the next step,
essentially, of... of developing a contract with a vendor, along with a business plan, and
actually for use of the funds, that's ultimately up to Council's discretion, uh, during
budget time. Uh, and at that time we'll also ... we would have a better idea of how much
...funding we are talking about. Uh ... Jim, you had mentioned $180,000 a year, estimate.
We attempted to estimate the amount of funds and just could not because we do not have
a contract in place yet. And it's very difficult for us to project that dollar amount. Um...
you know, plus or minus tens of thousands of dollars... that's probably in the ballpark.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 6
Throgmorton/ Let me ... let me explain where I got that number, uh, cause I wasn't able to
articulate that a minute ago, but it... it's clearly back of (mumbled) kind of calculation
and got to think broad parameters around the number, but I ... I assumed 300 violations
per site per year. (both talking) Let me finish!
Yapp/ Sure!
Throgmorton/ So I ... I don't know if that's way too many or too few, I don't know, but that's
what I assumed was 300. Uh ... on ten sites, um, I'm sorry, 300 per ... per month. Ten
sites, uh, 12 months, so that's 36,000 per year, times $100 per violation. $360,000,
divided equally between the vendor and the City, $180,000. That's the way I got to the
number. And, uh, you know, plus or minus $50,000, I don't know, but it doesn't strike
me as a big cash cow anyhow which it ... it's been referred to by some people.
Yapp/ In the grand scheme of things, no.
Payne/ Isn't ... isn't the object to reduce, to improve safety? So in the end you would hope you
have zero!
Throgmorton/ Right. So you'd hope it would come down, right (both talking)
Payne/ ...that would be the intent, is to make no money eventually because nobody's running red
lights anymore! That's ... the whole intent.
Dobyns/ I would agree with that, based on what happened in Muscatine, Cedar Rapids, and Des
Moines. Whatever money is come out to the calculations, that's a hunk of change! And I
just don't think we need to even have the appearance of making money. My vote tonight
will not be contingent upon that. But I think I just... state publicly... several of us,
whatever happens, are really uncomfortable with the appearance of the City adding any to
its coffers in the attempt to increase public safety.
Dilkes/ I should note that the, you will, in addition to the contract, have a resolution setting the
fine and staff has discussed that that would be a place where if you wanted to direct that
the money be spent in certain ways that would be logical place to do it at that time.
Payne/ I think though what Jim, what you were saying is, the increase in safety is miniscule for
the amount of money that would be spent to get there.
Throgmorton/ For those ten sites, that were originally identified in that first memo, yeah. That's
the way it looks to me, anyhow.
Dobyns/ You know, these lights when there would be like where the 380 lights are, I mean, that
was compelling data. I mean, two Iowans' lives saved a year. This isn't going to be
anywhere close to that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 7
Payne/ But those are speed cameras. These are red light cameras (both talking)
Dobyns/ ...I know that ... but in terms of public safety. I meant ... and I'm actually sort of
agreeing with you that this is a small number, incremental improvement in public safety.
And I'd be interested, you know, Sam, John, you know, there have been... alluded to
many changes have been made in the lights. I mean, there's the countdown, um, in the
cameras. There's other changes — public education — I assume the, uh, City saw a
decrease in red light running with those interventions. After seeing that, realizing that
technology was available, what made you all think that we still needed to go this, albeit
small, extra step?
Yapp/ Well I think because, number one, even though the amount, the number of collisions is
not... incredibly high, we still have a collision pattern, related to red light running. Um,
more than that, we have a pattern of red light running violations that do not result in a
collision, and I think that is because we already have extended yellow phases, and an all -
red clearance phase, uh, of three seconds at every intersection. Um, which minimizes the
chance of a collision when ... the pattern is several vehicles at the, uh, very beginning of
the red phase continue through the intersection. Uh, several hundred a day per
intersection. Uh, according to our observations. Uh, the effect of that is that vehicles on
the side streets and pedestrians tend to hold back, uh, because when they get the green,
whether it's a pedestrian phase or a green phase, it's still uncertain as to whether there's
vehicles continuing through the intersection. And when they hold back, that leads to
overall congestion, uh, related issues. (both talking) Does that answer your question?
Throgmorton/ I'll bet every one of us up here has been paying attention to how we drive, how
we approach intersections, and ... and when we walk around downtown or come near any
major intersection on foot, we've been watching how other cars behave when they
approach those intersections, and I've certainly seen a whole bunch of cars going through
red lights, and I've seen myself approach a, uh, an intersection and... and see the yellow
light change and have to make an instantaneous judgment about whether to continue or
not, and you know, so I just observe that. I think any driver experiences that kind of
phenomenon, and I ... I do worry about the rear end collision part of this, and I gather the
data's pretty, um ... uh, ambivalent, un ... uncertain about the ... whether red ... the rear end
collisions might actually be more severe in some cases for some intersections than, uh,
than the T ... uh, collisions.
Yapp/ Typically a T- collision is more severe. Typically. In a very high speed corridor, like a
highway corridor, a rear end collision can be severe; however, we do not have, uh, those
in Iowa City.
Hayek/ Well I'm ... I'm ... I'm sticking with my, uh, the ... the votes I cast at the first two readings.
We have a heavily pedestrian community. Um, the experience of other cities in Iowa,
um, has shown a marked decrease, uh, in these kinds of, uh, accidents. Um, and as we've
talked about, uh, from the get-go ... this resolution allows staff to pursue a contract for our
consideration, and all those details and parameters, and business plan components, uh,
are... are... will be decided at the appropriate time, and ultimately if we don't like this,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 8
um, we've ... we've told staff from the get -go that ... that whatever we ... if we go forward
and we end up with a contract that we need to have exit rights. Uh we understand that
that's going to impact what ... what vendors are willing to do because it is an investment
of capital, etc., but that's something we'll look at and that's ... we've been clear about
that. So that we ... if the experience does not go well, either it's not producing the results
we want or has some other unintended consequence, uh, we've, you know, this Council
or a future council (noises on mic) get out.
Dickens/ Plus the State level, we don't know what's going to happen there.
Hayek/ Sure.
Throgmorton/ You know, that actually reminds me of when I was on the council, what, 15 years
ago we adopted a... a commercial pesticide applicators ordinance, and after we adopted
the ordinance the State legislature adopted, uh, new legislation that prohibited cities from
...from adopting those kinds of ordinances. So we had to rescind the ordinance later on.
I ... I don't think that's going to happen in this instance but ... it just reminds me of that
(mumbled)
Payne/ Question that I have ... we haven't talked at all about pedestrians not following the light.
So it's a `don't walk' and the pedestrian walks. Will these cameras do anything with
that?
Yapp/ No.
Payne/ And there's no intent to do anything with, I mean, it is a highly pedestrianated town and
we have pedestrians that walk against the light all the time, which causes congestion.
Hargadine/ We can free up plenty of officer time, um, we have more officers that would be able
to enforce that particular, uh, ordinance, but yeah, that's something that ... I ... I think the
triggers, you know, the radar picks in on the metal car so it's ... I'm not even sure if you
can do it on a bicycle. I think it's probably not even feasible that a bicycle running it is
going to trigger. But um ... that's something that, uh, it's going to take, or require an
officer to ... to enforce the pedestrian rules.
Payne/ Um, the other question that I had was about, um ... I, as Jim stated, you know, we've all
...I've been paying attention to more things with driving and walking. More often than
seeing someone run a red light, I've almost been hit by a bus ... turning right on red.
Because it'll stop. It'll look this way, but it doesn't look that way before it turns, I mean
so is the next thing then, okay, this is also a hazard so we're gonna ... outlaw turning right
on red?
Mims/ That's the case at some intersections now.
Payne/ Not very many, but a few.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 9
Mims/ No.
Payne/ I ... I mean, is that ... is that what we do, you know, just every time we don't like
something we just say, `Okay, we're not going to do that anymore,' or do we try to
educate people on what they really should be doing or give tickets when things happen. I
mean, it...it looks like from the data in here that ... you know, in the last ... four years at
least, we haven't given very many tickets at these intersections for people running red
lights. I mean, last year we gave four ... at these ten intersections. So I ... it just ... it seems
like it hasn't been a high priority in the last four years to enforce it at these ten
intersections and now ... this...
Hargadine/ It's ... it is in the list of priorities, you're correct there, but if...if you're running from
call to call to call to call, then you don't have time to set up on a particular intersection
and run those types of (coughing)
Throgmorton/ Can I bring up one other point that we have not discussed in any prior meeting or
tonight so far, but one of the, um, one of the people who, uh, sent an email or a letter to
us made a point about, uh, how a flat rate fine would have a disproportionate effect on
lower income people, um, and ... and I had sort of thought about that before but not... not
really directly until I ... I read that email or letter, whichever it was. I don't know if you
all have any thoughts about that.
Dobyns/ If this goes through, Jam ... Jim, I aim to kind of discuss this at that later phase.
(mumbled) I think that's probably what's optimal... is in the subsequent plan. If I
understand it correctly.
Yapp/ Yeah, there ... there will be a separate resolution to set the fine, uh ... the fine amount.
Dobyns/ (several talking) ...flat or ... you know progressive or regressive or whatever. So, yeah.
Hayek/ I think that would be appropriately taken up at a subsequent meeting, but ... but I'd be
very surprised if it would be feasible in any significant way to ... to have a sliding scale
based on ... on income. We don't do that with, you know...
Mims / Any other...
Hayek/ ...to my knowledge anything else we impose (mumbled) don't get your sidewalks
shoveled we don't look at your income. That kind of thing.
Hargadine/ I've also heard though in the studies where, um, the cameras are color blind. They
don't see what the color of the driver, or the race of the driver, and so if you run it, um,
it's ... it's doled out proportionately for ... for the violators. Um, because there is no... um,
there is no judgment at that point.
Throgmorton/ It just has to do with the violators, not with any other characteristic of the violator,
right? Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 10
Hargadine/ Right, cause we're specifically looking at license plates. Uh, and not ... the race or
the color of the driver.
Hayek/ Okay. Um ... I ... it looks like people are ... are established in their positions. If there's
anything else people want to add, we'll take it up tonight anyway. Uh, but this was the
amount of time we set aside for this, if people are...
Throgmorton/ Well I really appreciate y'all, you know, dedicating some time to this. Uh ... I just
appreciate it.
Hayek/ Sure, and thanks to staff for its ... its work (several talking). Okay. Let's move on to the
Animal Control Services update.
Animal Control Services Update (IP3):
Markus/ You, uh, have an invitation to me from the County, uh, the staff's recommendation is
that ... uh, we ... get the letters that we asked for from the other jurisdictions before we
consider sitting down and meeting with them. I think Sam might have some additional
comments about some of the other comments made.
Hargadine/ One of the things we discovered when we put, sent the letters out to the other
jurisdictions is that they had questions about how they were billed, and as we, um, were
analyzing that particular, we have found some discrepancies in the, uh, last three year's
worth of records. Uh, as of today we have gone through, uh, all three years worth and
verified the locations, um, that were ... that were provided, and cross - checked them with
GPS to determine whether or not they were either in a particular municipality or, um, this
is GPS telling us that this was out in rural Johnson County. So for the last three years
we've, um, we've... that... that check is done and we will be going back and, um...
probably doing a new report that indicates, uh, a little bit more accurate method of
billing.
Throgmorton/ I ... I noticed we got a letter, it was ... I'm trying to figure out who it's from cause
we just got it in our packet...
Hayek/ ... seeing it for the first time tonight. From the (several talking)
Markus/ It's from the chairperson. (several talking) ...Board of Supervisors.
Hayek/ Rod.
Throgmorton/ Rod. Um ... I'm not sure how to say what I have in mind but uh ... at the M -Po
...MPO meeting, uh, when staff presented its proposal, uh, to the MPO, um ... there were
...there're parts of the presentation that caught me by surprise. Having to do with, um,
the expectations being directed toward other, um, governmental entities. And, you know,
I know we haven't had a chance to talk about that, but uh...um...it...it seems to me that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 11
we would want to be open to negotiating with, um, with uh ... with North Liberty or with,
uh, the Board of Supervisors about various components, having to do with the design,
maybe even the location, etc. Uh, in ways that ... I mean, you ... you know a lot more
about the details (both talking)
Markus/ Yeah, I don't think we have, um, a significant issue about participating in the design.
Unfortunately the way the FEMA funds work, they kind of roll out, uh, and when you
get, you know, when you get notice that it's time to proceed, you have to get moving
down that track. The ... part of the problem with the design is, knowing how many people
are going to participate in it. So you have kind of a classic chicken and egg contest here.
Um, how many people are going to participate determines the size of the facility. So...
that's kind of the quandary we find ourselves in at this point, as well. I think what we're
looking for ultimately is equity, uh ... we don't wish to be providing services beyond our
borders without getting reimbursed. Uh, fairly! So ... as long as the negotiation fairly
reimburses us, I don't have a problem with negotiating.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, that strikes me as clearly a wise thing to do, and I'm fully in support of that.
Just as a person sitting in on the meeting, uh, what ... what I sensed was other people, uh,
from other, uh, governmental entities, hearing themselves being presented with an
either /or choice, uh, and ... and having very little time to make a decision, and having no
opportunity to influence, uh, the de ... the design or location of the facility. That's what I
heard them ... what I saw them hearing and what I sensed they were responding to.
Markus/ Well, in terms of location, I think we ... we wanted to, uh, offer up that location. You
have to at some point determine where you're going to put this, and without going out
and trying to find other locations, we have a public, uh, place that we can put this, uh,
that's why that location is fixed on. I think that also, uh, relates to the design of the
facility as well. So... Chief, you want to chime in?
Champion/ But it has not been designed yet.
Markus/ No it has not.
Champion/ No, so...
Markus/ We have ... we have some parameters about what the expectations are, uh, for what the
facility would need to have in it, but size certainly hasn't been fully vetted and quality
probably hasn't been vetted to the fullest extent yet either.
Champion/ And I do think that the other jurisdec ... jurisdictions were ... kind of horrified at the
amount of money, uh, but that was presented as the worst -case scenario...
Markus / Right.
Champion/ ...because we're not sure what else is going to happen. They certainly could have
some input in the design...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 12
Markus / And we offered that. As I understand it, staff has told me that they have offered that to
these entities...
Champion/ Okay!
Markus/ ...that they could have a say in that, uh, the other part of it is, you know, everybody
would be expected to enter into a 28E, uh, and we'll know more by the time we get into
those negotiations what size we're looking at.
Champion/ But I think we're absolutely right in that we should not build a facility with Iowa
City taxpayers' money, and provide that service to the County without them helping to
pay for the facility that it's going to be in.
Throgmorton/ I ... I sense that they are in agreement with that.
Hayek/ You ... you know it seems to me that this is a ... a difficult but important process for local
governments to ... to go through because we're trying to achieve a regional solution to a
regional problem, um, that really hasn't had that kind of, uh, approach historically, um,
and so you know we've got the ... the initial cost parameters that ... that we were looking
at, you know, our neighbors are looking at what their options are, whether it's to go with
us, whether it's to contract with ... with, uh, you know, an out -of- county provider or do
something else, and ... and I think that's natural. And, uh, I do think it's, uh, important for
this to continue at a staff level, at least for now, because we're still answering questions
about information, we're still looking at what the options are, and I don't think we're at a
point where we're ... where we should be engaging in ... in negotiation between public
bodies. We just don't lack that ... the information to do it. I would throw out that, you
know, as these other jurisdictions look at what ... look at all of their options, whether it's
to go with us or contract with an outside provider, you know should we be doing that as
well. You know, should... should we be looking at, um, whether it makes sense to
contract with a third, uh, party to ... to perform these functions. Should we be looking at,
you know, building a facility and ... and turning it over to a non - profit group. Um, or... or
something like that. I mean, is ... are these things we should add to the ... the homework,
so to speak?
Markus/ Yeah, I think we can add those to the homework. I would tell you though the facility
probably, we probably have to get through FEMA because the dollars, uh, obligated from
FEMA are to the City of Iowa City for this facility. And then maybe discuss the
operational parts of it, um, subsequent to the facility actually being, uh, constructed. The
other thing I want to comment on is that... for us to have this negotiation, you have to get
some numbers out there. So you have the conversation, you say, `We want you to
participate on an equitable basis,' you know, if I were to bring that to you folks, the first
thing you'd say to me is, `Well, how much is it going to cost me ?' And so that's what we
tried to do with these organizations. You're talking about a state -of -the -art facility, a
very expensive facility, and... and probably organizations that aren't used to paying an
equitable share of the estimated cost of operations. So ... when we present it now, then
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 13
people, then the reaction is, `Well this is too expensive. So let's go out, you know, and
check others.' We encouraged them to check with others to begin with! We encouraged
them to look at the private sector to privatize this operation. We encouraged them to look
at non - profits. And they've done that, and so if those alternatives are, you know,
desirable to `em, we encourage `em to pursue those things! What we need to know at
some point is, you know, who's likely to be in so that we can start sizing this facility, so
that we can design this facility! That's where we need to go. So ... trying to negotiate
with somebody when we don't have hard numbers, and remember, the numbers are
estimates. Like most things in construction, it's an estimate until you got a bid, and then
...then even that's questionable because by the time it's done you have change orders and
other issues that get dealt with, so how do you, you know, compute what the actual cost
is. So what we have at this point are `best estimates.' But ... who's in, who's out, that's
an important discussion, and ... they take risks, but we're taking a lot of risk, and we've
been taking a lot of risk for a lot of years in this issue.
Hayek/ But ... but are we ... are we proceeding in a way that leaves any options off the table for
Iowa City? That ... that could potentially deliver... an ... an appropriate level of service to
animals in our jurisdiction?
Markus/ Do you mean alternate, uh, service providers?
Hayek/ Whatever, yeah!
Markus/ I think we have to date, but if there's uh ... desire to have us look at that, we certainly
can. I think there is the potential that you could control your cost of operation differently.
With an NGO or a private... private operator.
Hayek/ I mean, I understand you've got FEMA funds in the balance and... and the restrictions on
that, but I ... I don't know why we wouldn't consider something like that, uh, in the same
way that... that... that the other jurisdictions appear to be at least entertaining.
Markus/ The only thing I would kind of caution you about is, the facility dollars are tied to us at
this point.
Hayek/ Right.
Markus/ And so we need to move in that ... that direction. I had a conversation about that very
issue today and I was assured that, um, there's no prohibition for us to consider outside
operators, uh, to operate this, subsequent to its construction. So if...if that's ... you know,
a desire then we should get that kind of...or I'll just tell you, we'll ... we'll examine it and
if that's satisfactory to the Council, that's fine. (several responding)
Hayek/ (mumbled) I mean, I think we're looking for direction on ... on this, um ... so it would
seem to me to make sense ... to at least explore that.
Mims/ Sure, I would agree.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 14
Hayek/ Okay. All right, do you need any ac ... do you need any other action from us on this?
Markus/ Well ... you had a very direct letter to the City Council, and I think, um, without, uh,
putting their (several talking) administrator in jeopardy with his County Board of
Supervisors, um, is it ... is it, uh, fair to me to assume that I can respond to the Supervisors
that we would just as soon get their letters and the letters from the other jurisdictions, uh,
before we would sit down and meet? One of the things in the letter that they talk about
is ... is having a delegation that ... that can sit down and negotiate these things. And the
reality is, you can have people sit down and negotiate, whether that's me or (coughing)
you know a limited number of Members of the Council, but ... you can get your advice
from legal counsel, but it's my understanding only the governing body can ultimately
decide what that agreement, uh, whether that agreement's acceptable to you or not. Uh,
a, you know, a smaller number of Councilors can't do that, and the City Manager can't
do that. If it's an agreement, it has to come through the ... the review process. So ... unless
you're going to sit down and try and have all of the elected officials from all of the
entities sit down and try to negotiate this agreement. I don't see that happening. (several
talking)
Hayek/ I ... I had a golden retriever as a kid. That doesn't qualify me to negotiate an animal
services' contract. (laughter)
Throgmorton/ Well...
Markus/ I think it would be beneficial if you would give that kind of direction to us so that I can
respond with the authority of the Council behind me.
Throgmorton/ I ... I think I personally have a ... a couple principles that are guiding me, and then
with regard to the details, I'm in position to ... to, um, say too much, but uh, one principle
is, uh, that uh ... I fully support the idea of us ... uh, getting reimbursement from other
entities around here for the capital and operating expenses of the Animal Shelter.
Markus/ On an equitable basis.
Throgmorton/ Yes. Absolutely! Am fully, uh, on -board with that. The second is, uh, I strongly
encourage us to find some way to negotiate as effectively as possible with the other
governmental entities who have expressed an interest to ... to possibly be involved. And,
you know, we've got to give `em a little bit of... a little bit of wiggle room because they
...they're responsible to their constituents, responsible to their taxpayers, and so on.
Hayek/ I ... I mean the pressure here is ... is essentially the FEMA ... pressure (several talking)
And ... and that's what ... that's what is driving the, you know, faster than we prefer,
uh ... movement on this.
Markus/ Well, and ... and we're not alone in that. All you have to do is pick up the paper and
read about the travails of the University and the issues that ... that they have dealt with, as
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 15
well. I ... I attempted to kind of broker this process by inviting the administrators of the
two larger communities and the County, uh, administrator and I think that, um, the
County may, um, wish to have a different representative or ... or other representatives
present during those discussions. I don't know ... I sense that they were not pleased with
my invitation, uh, so at some point, um, maybe if they chose somebody else in their, um,
from their delegation to sit down with us, that would advance this process. I, you know,
to negotiate something like this with, um, even ten people is a very difficult thing to do.
So I think if you can keep the group, you know, small, concise you can get something
done but when it starts to exceed uh, a dozen people at the table, I don't think it's very
productive.
Hayek/ Do you have the direction you need from us?
Markus/ I think so.
Hayek/ Okay. Okay, thanks everyone on that. Okay, let's keep moving here. Next item is
Council's FY2012 -2013 Strategic Plan at IP4.
Council's FY2012 -2013 Strategic Plan (IP4):
Markus/ Geoff Fruin's going to, uh, run you through this. He, uh, kind of prepared this
document so, uh, I asked him to share his, um, process with you.
Fruin/ Good evening, um, I'm just going to take a few minutes and kind of walk you through this
document, uh, can certainly respond to questions, but understand you have a full list of
topics you want to discuss here before the regular meeting starts so ... I will be brief here.
Uh, this is the first status report, if you will, that uh ... staff is offering up to you. Our plan
is to come back to you approximately every four months and give you updates on where
we stand on this, uh, on the priorities that you set in the, uh, strategic planning sessions
late last fall and early this year. Um, so this first status report obviously doesn't talk a lot
about the progress, uh, we've made but rather focuses on the blueprint going forward.
We wanted to give you all a sense, uh, of the direction that ... that we're moving and make
sure that you're comfortable with that direction, give you an opportunity, uh, to ... uh,
steer us in a different direction if appropriate, or have us look at additional things that we
may not have mentioned in this report. Understand it's a ... it's a lengthy report and uh
...um, you may not have had a chance to go through it all by tonight, but certainly at any
time, you know, throughout the course of the year, you can, uh, ask questions or... or
request more information on any of these initiatives. Um, you know, by nature the
strategic... this type of status report is very fluid, so we expect that it will evolve
throughout the course of the year, as we get input from you, from other stakeholders, um,
as we do research on other communities and programs and policies that may be working
there. So as we do come back to you every ... every few months, we will highlight the
changes and ... and let you know if there's any, uh, change in direction. Certainly, as I
mentioned, the future reports will be much more focused on the progress that we've made
to date. I'll just walk you through how the document's structured and then again we can
go over any questions that you might have. The first couple of pages just speak to the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 16
process itself and what your priorities, um, were for this past year, for this coming year.
Um, then as we move to pages 3, 4, and 5, it's a table, uh, there that just illustrates your
six priorities, and kind of gives you a summary on where we're at with those, so it's kind
of at a quick glance type of, uh, information. The bulk of the document follows the
tables, and those are, um, reports on each of the six initiatives that ... that you have
established as your priorities. Uh, within those reports you'll see the staff action plan.
Generally speaking what the action plan attempts to do is identify the ... the areas of focus
that we'll be taking a look at. It could be policies that we'll be reviewing, could be, uh,
different programs that we have in place, could be, um ... capital projects that may be on
the horizon. So we'll be looking, uh, we'll be looking at all those things in each of the
six goals. Um, I'm not going to go through each of the six goals again tonight and walk
you through that, but certainly if you have questions, we ... we can do so. Uh, so skipping
all the way to ... to page 22, um, which is the appendix to the report. One of the things
that we talked about in the, uh, strategic planning sessions was that in addition to these
six priorities there's a number of other projects, uh, that are on- going, and we don't want
to lose sight of those. We also want to give you, uh, through this document an update on
where we stand with ... with these initiatives, um, for the most part these are ... CIP
projects that are coming up in the next year. Uh, they don't have the ones that are out
three or four years. Uh, we'll continue to refine this as ... as, uh, the year goes on, but I
call your attention to the last column on these tables. Um, there was questions at the
strategic planning, um, sessions on these projects are on- going, but it would be nice to
know when they will be brought to Council, or what types of decisions, uh, will Council
need to, um, be involved with. So the anticipated Council decisions, just kind of gives
you a ... a quick indication on when these projects will come back to you. It could be
awarding a bid. It could be approving specs, but we wanted to give you some comfort, or
at least the knowledge, uh, that uh ... these projects, while yes they are on- going, you will
have opportunity to ... to shape them in various ways throughout the year. I promised to
be brief. I hope I was! (laughter) But I can certainly answer, uh (several talking)
questions. (several talking)
Hayek/ It's comprehensive. Uh, it shows ambitious, but clearly defined goals. Um, it's well
written.
Mims/ It's nice to have one document to kind of keep all those different pieces together!
Throgmorton/ I ... I certainly agree with Matt and Susan, um ... but I guess I'd want to express a
caution looking downstream. It... it would be pretty easy to kind of insert fluff along the
way, uh, in... in these kind of boiler plate language.
Fruin/ Yeah.
Throgmorton/ And I don't think we'd really like to see that, uh, so this is a great first, uh, first
report, and I... for me especially the CIP stuff, but uh... just a caution!
Fruin/ Yep. Absolutely! Point well taken.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 17
Payne/ The column ... the strategic plan column, I like that and the appendix. You can see how it
relates back to the plan. Cause I continually have to flip to the back page to see what the
letters stand for cause I can't ... I don't know them yet.
Fruin/ Yeah! (laughter)
Payne/ Is that something that could be on, put on a footer on every page for a while, til we learn
what they are? (laughter)
Fruin/ Yeah, we can certainly do that. I'm glad you brought that up, Michelle. One of the things
that we want to do, you know, more of a... institutionalized within our own staff
processes. As we compile our CIP recommendations to you, we want to base them in
part on what your priorities are. So as we go through this exercise next year, we'll be
asking the questions at the staff level how does this get us closer to the Council's goals in
each of these areas, and if they don't, then we'll need ... need to take a hard look at those
projects and ... and decide if we really want to use City resources to pursue `em if they
may be outside of, again, your priority areas.
Hayek/ Any questions or comments to Geoff? Okay! Thank you for that work. Okay, next item
is neighborhood stabilization.
Neighborhood Stabilization:
ITEM 7b CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH
20 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLE 9A,
GENERAL DEFINITIONS, CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF
"HOUSEHOLD" AS IT APPLIES IN THE RM -44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20,
AND CO -1 ZONES.
ITEM 7c CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH
20 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLES 2B
AND 2C, AND PARAGRAPH 14- 4B -4A -7 TO ESTABLISH THREE AS
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ALLOWED WITHIN A
MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IN THE MULTI - FAMILY ZONES
AND IN COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT ALLOW MULTI - FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS AND ESTABLISH GRADUATED RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY FORMULAS FOR MULTI - FAMILY DWELLINGS BASED ON
THE RELATIVE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER DWELLING UNIT IN
MULTI - FAMILY ZONES AND IN COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT
ALLOW MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.
ITEM 7d CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH
20 ON AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLE 5A, OFF -
STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS, TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR MULTI - FAMILY
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 18
DWELLING UNITS WHEN LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED
UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA (UTA).
Markus/ Speaking of, uh, strategic plan, neighborhood stabilization items, um, probably crosses
over a little bit into economic development items, as well, depending on your perspective.
Uh, Jeff is going to, uh, comment, uh, on the agenda items that we have this evening. I
think Bob might be commenting, as well.
Davidson/ Yes, good evening, uh, Members of the City Council, Mayor and Members of the City
Council. I'm Jeff Davidson. The Director of Planning and Community Development.
Uh, with me is Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, and also Karen Howard, Associate Planner,
uh, who was the drafting of the ordinances that, uh, it is being suggested that you set
public hearings on this evening. Um ... if you look at the strategic planning information,
uh, that Geoff Fruin just presented to you, under the neighborhood stabilization, uh,
section are some items that are related to Items 7b, c, and d, uh, on your agenda, uh, this
evening, and the setting of public hearings for three specific, uh, ordinance changes that
are suggested. Um, in the last couple of months you have had three, uh, controversial,
high profile issues, uh, very exciting City Council meetings with a lot of debate and
discussion. Uh, which have resulted in the, well, just real quickly, the Bloomington -
Linn, uh, project was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City, uh, excuse me, City staff. Uh, it was initially... the initial
reading was approved by the City Council, and the second reading was, uh, defeated. Uh,
then there was the 911 N. Governor project, uh, much less defined, but they requested
rezoning for a multi - family housing project. Uh, that was, uh, recommended for approval
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City staff and was defeated on the first
reading. And then there was the 821 E. Jefferson project, which, uh ... was not
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and has, uh, as
you'll see on your agenda this evening, has been requested to be withdrawn, both the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and the zoning action. So from ... from these items
came a request from the City Council to take a look at the high density, uh, multi- family
zone, the RM44 zone, and the perceived evils, I'll use that term, that were suggested to be
associated with that zone in terms of...large parties, excessive noise, vandalism, and
spill -over parking. Um, subsequent to that time was the controversy regarding the 511 E.
Washington Street property, which was a project that was proceeding under the current
zoning code, but for which there was some concern about the, basically what that zone
allowed the project to do in terms of a significant intensifying of the use of the property,
and the neighborhood concerns that came out of that, and from that came some direction
from City Council to staff to take a more ... to basically broaden our look at these
neighborhood stability issues, uh, and to bring you a plan for doing that. Um ... out of that
came three items which were determined to be a higher priority than the several other
things that you saw in Geoff Fruin's, uh, strategic plan update report to you. There are
many items that we intend to eventually get to in the name of neighborhood stabilization,
and of course we're talking about the close -in neighborhoods around the University
campus, where there are these redevelopment pressures, that it is perceived is changing
the intensity of the neighborhood and bringing some of these negative externalities to the
balance that we're trying to achieve in these neighborhoods. Um ... so the three items...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 19
which are items 7b, c, and d on your agenda, what's ... what we're here to debate this
evening are the merits of setting the public hearings, not ... not to debate the issues
tonight, but to (noise on mic) debate whether or not you want to set the public hearings,
basically putting a moratoria into effect for those three items and the ... the suggested
changes, basically, that ... that those, um, those three items would ... would put forward.
This is a change in our typical process, and there's been a lot of debate of that, and let me
be as explicit as I can. The reason for changing our process, and we have done this
before, is in the name of the so- called rush to the well of projects that would be brought
ahead of the what is normally about a 60 -day period to take it through the legislative
process and bring it back to you. When there's been a concern that we wish to stem that
rush to the well, so to speak, we would take an action has ... as has been suggested
tonight. Um ... I do want to emphasize that that is ultimately your call, uh, as to whether
or not those three items should have the hearings set tonight. If you chose not to set the
hearings on any one of them, or all of them, they will still proceed through the legislative
process, but there will be the ... a period of time of roughly 60 -days where projects would
be able to be brought, consistent with the current code, and that's basically what... what
there is to debate tonight. Um, we do have some idea of what we think are probably four
projects that are out there looming and we've had discussions with those developers. We
have had discussions with the developers. They have known that these suggested
changes are coming, uh, at least we've had several discussions, let's put it that way, um,
there may be contentions that there hasn't been enough debate, but nevertheless, uh, that
is a lot of the reason for the concern about the, again, so called rush to the well. So uh,
we can, if you'd like, elaborate on any of those ... those, uh, projects that are looming, uh,
and answer any questions about those if you would like. Uh, I'm going to ask Bob Miklo
really quickly to step through the, uh, the three, uh, suggested amendments so that you
understand them. And then I'll give a very, uh, quick conclusion, um, again, I want to
emphasize though, if you chose not to set the hearings, it does not, uh, end the discussion
of what Bob's going to present to you. It simply puts it through the more regular
legislative process, which will result in them being brought to you, back to you in about
60 days.
Miklo/ Well we did, uh, some research on this, uh., given the issues that have been outlined and
before the Council. We looked at other college towns or communities that have large
universities, and what they've done to address, uh, similar type issues. Uh, we ... we
looked at, uh, Ames, uh, here in Iowa, uh, Madison, Wisconsin; Lincoln, Nebraska; uh,
Lawrence, Kansas; uh, East Lansing, Michi ... Michigan among others. Uh, essentially,
um, these communities have used their, uh, zoning tools or zoning ordinance to try to
address some of the concerns that arise when high density housing, uh, that's generally
marketed to students, um, when that's located in, uh., adjacent to neighborhoods or takes
over ... over neighborhoods. Um, so the goal was to find solutions that minimize
conflicts, uh, between, um, high density housing and adjacent lower density or owner-
occupied, uh, single - family areas. But we also looked at techniques used to also help
improve the, uh, neighborhoods where the high density housing is ... is built itself. Um,
when we did the, uh, central district plan, uh, we had a ... a housing session and we heard
from, uh, a lot of students and University representatives who attended those sessions that
some of the higher density neighborhoods, they didn't find desirable and... and were
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 20
concerned. Uh, so some of our research that goes beyond what's being presented tonight
looks at, uh, how, uh, we might improve areas, not just where there's a mixture of family
and, uh, student housing but the student housing areas there themselves. Um, the
concerns generally, uh, have been to do with ... with large parties, over -flow parking, uh,
vandalism, urn ... and when ... when we look at, um ... um, police statistics, uh, this is, uh,
shows that outside the downtown, uh, the number of calls are in those areas, uh, where
we do have high density housing. Uh, looking at, uh, nuisance calls to our Housing
Inspection department, you'll find a similar pattern of where we have the high density
housing that we have a lot of calls. Um, so these are issues, like I said, that other college
towns deal with, but they're perhaps magnified here in Iowa City when you look at the,
uh, statistics or the number of undergraduate students that are housed in the larger
community versus on campus. Um ... your ... in, at the University of Iowa, uh, 20% of the
undergrads are housed on campus. When you look at other colleges in Iowa, Iowa State
it's 32 %, University of .. of, uh, Northern Iowa it's, uh, 36 %, some other... some other
college, uh, colleges 40% at the University of Nebraska, uh, 40% at Michigan State, so
much higher, uh, percentage of the students are housed on campus where there are
dormitories. There is some supervision, uh, when compared to Iowa ... to Iowa City. Uh,
the next, uh, slide shows that when you look at the percentage of...of our housing units
that are in the form of multi - family, uh, again, it's much higher in Iowa City. Uh, Ames
is comparable, uh, in terms of statistics, but if you look at other communities in Iowa, it's
a much lower percentage of their housing is in the form of multiple, uh, units. You look
at the U.S., uh, the average ... or the, if you look at the U.S. as a whole, it's 26 %, but
again, uh, we're much higher. When you look at the percent of our housing units that are
rental versus owner- occupied, again, with the exception of Ames, comparing us to other
communities in Iowa it's a much higher percent of our, uh, housing units are rental
occupied versus owner- occupied. I think what these slides illustrate is that we as a
community are doing our share, our fair share of providing housing for University
...University students. Again looking at what, uh, some other college towns have... have
done in their zoning techniques we found some practices that we think could be
applicable to Iowa City and could address some of these concerns. Uh, Ames for
example has what they call a... a neighborhood impact area, uh, and in that area in Ames,
and there are other college communities that have similar, um, zoning techniques, uh,
there is a different set of regulations in terms of parking, building design, open space, uh.,
and the ... the intent of those..those ordinances is to allow the continued construction of
multi - family housing, again, multi - family housing, uh,. that could be, uh, marketed to
University students, but do it in such a way that the min ... that the conflicts with the
larger community are ... are addressed or controlled. Um, we have a ... a display showing
where we would ... we would recommend such an overlay zone, um, or an overlay area,
and this is, uh, very similar to the same area that the UniverCity Neighborhood
Partnership applies to, uh, basically those neighborhoods close ... close to campus and uh,
those that have high density housing. There are some areas, uh, for example that are
zoned lower density within this display that we may have in the future other
neighborhood stab... stabilizing, uh, techniques that we could apply to those. So that's
why it's, uh, a fairly large area. Um ... another technique that university towns have used
is the control on high, uh, high occupancy apartments or apartments that have a large
number of bedrooms. Um, in Iowa City the, uh, the RM44 high density, multi - family
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 21
zone, uh, the PRM zone, uh, they both allow five unrelated persons, or essentially five
bedroom apart ... apartments. Our medium density, multi - family zone and our
neighborhood stabilization zone, and our commercial office zone allow four, uh,
unrelated persons, or essentially four apartments. It's, urn ... this, uh, high occupancy
standard that creates a real incentive to build, uh, dorm -like apartments. Um, since the,
uh, mid- 1990s, with the exception of a few projects downtown like the Vogel House and
Plaza Towers, over 75% of the apartments built in downtown in the adjacent older
neighborhoods have contained four or five bedroom apartments. Um, so there's ... our
zoning code is structured such that it's now encouraging, uh, these types of buildings.
We have, uh, drafted an ... an ordinance to eliminate the possibility of further four- and
five- bedroom apartments, and this is Item 7b on... on your agenda. Uh, limiting the
number of...of bedrooms per apartment to three, uh, would help assure that as
demographics and the student enrollment, um, change over time, the design and layout of
these apartments, uh, would be attractive to a... a rental population, in addition to
students. Um, students are able to live in one, and two, and three- bedroom apartments,
but four- and five- bedroom apartments, the way they're designed and laid out, they really
are not attractive to, um, generally not attractive to populations other than students. So,
eliminating the possibility of... of four- and five - bedrooms, uh, will help us address some
of the negative, uh, effects, uh, that we see from high- density housing, um, that have
effects on the larger community. Um, it'll also help us assure that the, uh, sort of housing
has a limited ... limited audience is not over - built. Uh, of the three ordinances, uh, before
you, this is perhaps the simplest and probably the most crucial in terms of addressing the
concerns about unsupervised dormitory -type housing. Uh, another technique used in ... in
college towns that we looked at is, uh, graduated density in terms of...of multi - family,
uh, or ... or number of bedrooms. Uh, a graduated density provision, uh, requires less, uh,
lot area for a one - bedroom than it does for a two- or a three- bedroom, and the three
requiring more than for the ... for the two. And the whole idea is ... is, as you have more
bedrooms, you have more lot area per, uh, per apartment. So, the uh, this provision
would ... would provide that the maximum number of, uh, occupants on a property would
be, uh, roughly the same regardless of whether occurs in one -, two- or ... or three -
bedrooms. So essentially it provides an incentive to build one bedrooms. It's neutral in
terms of, uh, of two bedrooms, and it's a disincentive in terms of three, but it doesn't
prevent the construction of three- bedroom apartments. In our, um, C135 and CB 10, are
two of our downtown zones where we don't have a stated, uh, density, uh, we would
suggest that, uh, the way to address that would be to have a maximum of 20% of the
apartments be...be three bedrooms. Uh, the, uh, the last technique that we ... we looked at
was, uh, was parking for, uh, apartments near the University and uh, other college towns,
uh, have ... have gone to this ... this technique. Um, generally our, um, for years our... our
zoning ordinance required, uh, two parking spaces for two or three- bedroom apartments.
And um... and the idea behind that is if you have a two- or three- bedroom apartment, you
may have a family where there's only one car or ... or two cars. But in, uh ... uh, a college
type situation you might have three, uh, roommates, all with three cars. So the proposal
is in the University impact area to require if you have three bedrooms, you provide, uh,
three off - street parking spaces, uh, this would not apply to the outlying neighborhoods,
uh, where you would tend to have more apartments occupied by families that may have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 22
just one or two ... two cars. Um, so that's... that's a quick, uh, outline of the three, uh,
amendments before you, and Jeff, you'll finish up.
Davidson/ Yeah, just real quickly, uh, to conclude here, uh, before your discussion. Urn ... as
I've ... as I've indicated, um, I think what ... what needs to be debated by Council, if there
is a majority of you that prefer to wait for the 60 -day period and have the benefit of the
Planning and Zoning Commission discussion prior to setting the hearing for these, that is
within your purview this evening. Uh, there have been some specific questions asked
about the 511 E. Washington project. The second and third items, c and d, are the two
provisions that would impact that, uh, proposal, uh, going forward, under the existing
rules. I do want to emphasize to you that that project does not have a building permit
secured yet. Trying to work through the, uh, details of the existing zoning ordinance and
if you wish to allow that individual to proceed according to the rules of the existing
ordinance, then you would not want to set the hearings for item... items c and d, uh, this
evening. Uh, it's not impacted by the number of bedrooms provision because the C132
zones does already not allow four -and five- bedroom units. Um, otherwise, um... you
would want to set the hearings this evening and then the moratoria would go in effect, if
you were to do that, for any provisions that are inconsistent with the proposed changes.
Projects that are consistent with the proposed changes, uh, would ... would be allowed
to ... to go forward. Uh, are there any questions before you begin your discussion?
Mims/ Jeff, what other projects are out there that staff is aware of, uh, can you give us any idea
that would be impacted by...
Davidson/ Yeah, I ... I asked the building officials in the HIS department... so that we would have
accurate information to give you, uh, as I mentioned the 511, uh, Washington project, the
developer, uh, has not submitted building plans yet because they're basically based on the
site plans that we've seen, hasn't... haven't been a building... hasn't been a building yet
that ... that, for which building plans could be prepared. So, that individual is attempting
to work through the ... the site planning issues. Uh, there are three other projects, um, one
in the ... the Governor and Burlington, uh, vic, uh,..vicinity. Uh, 224 S. Governor, 906 uh,
Burlington. Uh, there's a proposed six -unit townhouse project, uh, five four - bedroom
units and one three- bedroom unit. Uh, remember this is the central planning district, so
that ... a concept has been submitted to design review for that, uh, project. Urn ... there is
not an approved site plan or ... or a building, drawings for that project yet, and it would be
impacted by the four- and five- bedroom, the 7b ordinance proposal. Uh, 404 and 408 S.
Van Buren, uh, is again a project, uh, that uh, there have been building plans submitted.
Excuse me, not building plans. Uh, let me make sure I've got the right, uh, information
here for that. Uh, they have submitted plans for design review too, uh, a concept
basically for design review to, uh, and let me see ... it is a ... 12 -plex with eight four -
bedroom units and four five - bedroom units. Uh, and it would be impacted by the 7b, um,
proposal. And then, uh ... 404 S. Johnson is a project, and I want to be clear on this, uh,
because it is distinct from the other ones, in that it ... has had a building permit issued for
it. Uh, and there is, uh, I know that there is, um, some debate going ... going on as to
whether or not it has achieved vested interest status and that determination will be made
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 23
tomorrow by the Director of HIS and ... and the City Attorney's office. Eleanor, is that
accurate?
Throgmorton/ Jeff ...what is ... what is that vested interest mean? Can you explain that?
Davidson/ Uh, it has ... Eleanor, maybe you can explain it as well as I can.
Dilkes/ Well the ... the term that we use in the code is substantial progress, but when ... the
analysis that ... that one must go through in determining whether there is substantial
progress has to be done in the context of the ... the law as ... as to when a developer has
what we call `investment backed expectations' such that to affect his plans, his or her
plans, would, uh, affect a taking. Um, so ... that's kind of it in a nutshell.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, those...
Davidson/ (both talking) So those ... excuse me, Jim.
Throgmorton/ ...on that point, I ... I was wondering when ... when a takings might kick into effect,
so...
Dilkes/ Well, with respect to the project that Jeff is talking about, uh, the hearing hasn't been set
yet, and I don't know what's in the ground up there, so ... the question would be ... what is
the status of that project when you all set a public hearing on that. And, we'd have to
look at that.
Davidson/ So those are the four projects in terms of documents having been submitted to the
City, either to design review or to the site planning process, and the site planning process
is the initial step before you would submit building plans. Once you have a site plan
approved. So those are the ... those four projects are the ones we know of.
Champion/ And all those have five - bedroom units, except the 511... Jefferson (both talking)
Davidson/ I believe that is correct. Yes.
Champion/ ...that is only (both talking)
Davidson/ Excuse me, the ... the uh, the project at the corner of Governor and Burlington, Connie,
is a mix of four and threes. No fives.
Hayek/ Is it fair to say that 7b is something we've ... we did within the CBD, central business
district, I mean it's...
Davidson/ Right.
Hayek/ And what I'm...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 24
Davidson/ That was a fairly recent code change that Council made to eliminate four- and five -
bedroom units in the central business district zones, C132, 5, and 10.
Hayek/ And what I'm interested in is ... is the ... is the degree of clarity we've reached at this
point, as to these three items. Um, I mean that's... that's part of the criticism, uh, over the
last week, um...
Davidson/ Karen, would you like to just clarify the status of the ordinances, uh, real quickly for
Council?
Howard/ Well, the ordinances that you, I believe Marian handed out draft ordinances, um, for
you. As both Bob and Jeff has ... have characterized that 7b is a fairly simple amendment.
It's one that we've done fairly recently in the CBS, CB 10 zones, C132 zone, um, we also
did it in 2005, uh, when we ... we ratcheted down the occupancy for the same reasons in a
number of the other zones. So, this ordnance would basically change it for the final
remaining zones that allow four- and five - bedrooms, um, would basically change it to be
similar to all the other zones in the city. So that's ... and the other ordinance provisions
that you have, you know, they're fairly... fairly well written in front of you, explicit, but
they haven't been vetted through the Planning and Zoning Commission yet. So these are
new ideas, of course, that we haven't, um, done yet in Iowa City as far as the graduated
density requirement, um ... we have them in the ordinance form here for you to look at,
but it's something that we have not tested out in Iowa City yet.
Markus / And it's because of that that I would, uh, recommend that you consider for setting
hearing, uh, 7b, uh, as opposed to 7c and d at this point. I think even in discussions with
staff, our conversation has been that, um, those two are the most likely to be changed
through the hearing process, as well.
Hayek/ C and ... d?
Markus/ C and d.
Miklo/ Right, c and d are the most... are... are pretty complex. Well, c's pretty complex. D's not
all that complex.
Markus/ And it hasn't received any vetting at this point.
Howard/ And d is the parking. Of course the parking provision for the University impact area
would merely be...be changing the parking requirement for three- bedroom units from
two parking spaces per unit to three. So it is a fairly simple change, um, but you know
that one hasn't also been vetted through the Planning and Zoning Commission either, but
it's not as complicated of course as the graduated density formula, and it should be noted
that ... that the graduated density, um, standards are set up so that they do give bonus
density for ... for doing smaller units. So, you know, in a wash, some of the developers
may ... may find that those are beneficial to what ... what they want to do as well. So like I
said, maybe there needs to be a little more time to digest, um, those proposals.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 25
Payne/ Karen, I have a question. I don't know who can answer it, but ... it's on the parking
ordinance. Um, you said it would change the parking requirement from two parking
spaces to three parking spaces, for three- bedroom units. Is that also mean single - family
homes...
Howard/ No, just (both talking) in the University impact area, just for multi - family units.
Payne/ Okay. Cause obviously the University impact area covers single - family homes.
Howard/ Right, that's a good clarification to make. Just for ... this is just multi - family dwelling
units in the University impact area.
Dilkes/ I just want to interject for a minute. I think one of the clear distinctions between band c
and d are that, um, b, um, is very, fairly simple, um, language, fairly simple to
understand, fairly simple to ... to understand what effect, the effect will be when the
moratorium kicks in. I have signed off on 7b. I have not signed off on 7c and 7d. Um...
I ... I am not comfortable at this point with my level of review of that, to sign off on it,
um, not that you can't set a public hearing on that, but I think that it's very important
when you set a public hearing that's going to have, uh, that's going to kick in a
moratorium, um, that we need to really, while the Planning and Zoning process may
change that as it moves through that, we need to ... going into it, have a very clear idea of
what we're impacting, what we're not, and ... and ... and the details of the ordinance.
Dickens/ By accepting b we're not setting the moratorium for that.
Dilkes/ Pardon me?
Dickens/ Would there be a moratorium if we accept b?
Champion/ No.
Dilkes/ If you set a public hearing on b, it will, um, put a moratorium in place.
Hayek/ But ... but to be clear we're, I mean, whether... whether you do it at the front end or after
it goes through the legislative process, there is a 60 -day moratorium because at some
point we have to set a public hearing. (several talking)
Davidson/ And that's why, Matt, I stated at the very beginning, the issue is whether or not you
wish to stem any projects that would be inconsistent with that proposed change. That's
really the issue be ... behind setting the hearings today.
Dilkes/ But ... but the point that I was making is that at the point that you set the public hearing,
you need ... there needs to be very good clarity about what it is that you're setting a public
hearing on, and I don't have that comfort level with c and d.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 26
Payne/ So does that mean ... the language that would be in c and d, if we set a public hearing,
would ... could not change...
Dilkes/ It could change, but what the moratorium... is on is will be on what the ordinance reads
when you set the public hearing.
Payne/ So, if it changed, it could extend that 60 days because (both talking)
Dilkes/ No, it...no it could not extend that 60 days.
Payne/ Even if something changed in it, it could not extend the 60- days...
Dilkes/ There are provisions in the moratorium, um, part of the code that limits the ability set
a ... to effect any particular property more than once a year. So I guess it would depend
on the nature of the change.
Dobyns/ For the new guy on the Council, I'm trying to ... on March 20th we have a Council
meeting. If the Planning and Zoning Commission votes, uh, and deliberates on this
matter, and puts this forward to us as a recommendation, theoretically that would be the
day that we could then go ahead and, uh, issue a public forum. Then a moratorium would
start beginning March 20tb.
Dilkes/ The moratorium always starts when you set the public hearing. So if you set the public
hearing (both talking) right.
Dobyns/ ...upon recommendation from Planning and Zoning. Next natural date would be March
20th. So, we're talking about a month, where the various, um ... interested parties would
proceed at various levels where they are in their construction plans. I'm trying to
understand... not being a construction guy.
Howard/ So ... so it could be the...
Dobyns/ ...happening in that month. Then why are we ... why is there a concern about that? The
rush, but I'm ... I'm not sure exactly what's the harm in allowing that 30 days.
Howard/ There ... there may be no harm to allowing the 30 days. It does give notice to the
developers that you're seriously considering these ordinances and we don't know,
because so many of these projects are so ... so much in their infancy that they ... like Jeff
has said, they've not submitted... gotten far enough, so they could still be caught in a
moratorium. In other words, if you set a public hearing on March 20th, they may still not
have found a way to actually construct the projects.
Dobyns/ Yeah.
Davidson/ I ... I certainly wouldn't be inclined to use the word `harm,' Rick, but there is 30 days
in which certainly any of those three projects, and there could be others.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 27
Dobyns/ Sure, the rush.
Davidson/ Could... receive a building permit, do the foundation work necessary to become
vested projects, and then not be subject to a change later on in the (both talking)
Dobyns/ So what (mumbled) they start ... the shovel's in the ground, there's cement in the
ground, and ... I don't think we're really supposed to, uh, prejudice Planning and Zoning
by commenting any further, would be my sense. That's what they're there for. We
should do, you know, put the cart before the horse. But I think obviously we're talking
about this. I think builders out there have a sense is that somebody means business about
the, these potential changes. And so if they...
Davidson/ I think that's an accurate statement, Rick.
Dobyns/ If they have concrete in the ground, over the next month, um, even though all these
deliberations are going on, then what might happen is there going to be some ... anger
toward the City in that, look, even though we were aware that you're all deliberating this
and we are certainly aware that b and c might go into play. We've now put ... we've
rushed; we've put cement into the ground, and all of a sudden we're going, well, you
should have known better because we've been deliberating it. Well, you didn't set a
moratorium.
Dilkes/ No.
Markus/ I think you have (mumbled)
Dilkes/ No...
Dobyns/ I'm just trying to finish the question, but thank you (laughter).
Dilkes/ I think what you're characterizing is cement in the ground means that whatever you
...whatever change you make will not affect that project.
Dobyns/ Okay. So there's a point, Eleanor, where the project goes forward, and I'm trying to
wonder are any of these projects at that point. I think not yet.
Markus/ Not yet.
Davidson/ Right, but I think (both talking) it's fair to say ... I think it's fair to say, Rick, that there
would be some effort, likely, on the part of the development community to bring projects
forward, whether or not (both talking) whether or not any of them receive building
permits, we just don't know until they've worked through the details with the department
of HIS.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 28
Hayek/ Well this gets my ... back to the question I asked initially about ... about clarity and that's
why I asked about 7b initially. I mean, if...you know, if staff's recommendation is that c
and d not be set for public hearing tonight and legal, uh, concurs with that, clarity is not
there, you know ... you know, why don't we withdraw, why don't we send those to the,
through the normal legislative process, um, that's ... you know, the nuances of those, of
those two proposals have not been vetted, um ... and ... and that level of detail, uh, doesn't
appear to be, uh, where we need it to be, um ... I mean, that...
Mims/ I would agree!
Hayek/ ... you know...
Champion/ Yes, I agree, even though I hate to agree with it! (laughter)
Throgmorton/ Well, let me toss in a few cents worth here too. I ... I think you all know that I ... I
really strongly support the idea of, uh, having a strong set of regulations and a sense that
will encourage the development of, uh, high quality neighborhoods in the core of the city,
uh, and provide a healthy living environment for ... for a diverse mix of residents. We
need to do that! And I hope the developers in the room understand that, that that ... that
we are trying to go in that direction. But, I think there's a real question of fairness here.
And I'm ... I'm really concerned about, uh, by, uh, sort of dropping this, uh, set of, uh,
proposed regulations out. Uh, in a sense on the spur of the moment. Uh, is ... it's just not
fair, uh, to the ... to the people who own the property. Uh, there are a set of rules that
they've been operating under, uh, when they bought the property and ... that's a fact. So,
I ... I think we want to do two things simultaneously. One is... send a strong signal to
builders and developers and property owners about what the direction we're ... we want to
move, and to encourage them to work with us, to move in that direction. Uh, but not pull
the rug out from underneath `em, uh, in a way that would strike others as being unfair.
Mims/ I would ... kind of add to that, and I agree with a lot of what you have said, Jim, and I
guess one of the things I would ... also like to comment on is ... I want to thank the staff
publicly for what they've done and I want to remind everybody here, and particularly to
the developers maybe, cause sometimes you guys get the heat from them, sometimes
more than we do, that this really came from Council, and I think you commented about
that at the beginning, Jeff, but this, you know, and I think as Tom mentioned, this came,
uh, from Council when we did our strategic planning back in November, and we talked
about, kind of as Tom mentioned at the beginning of this, two kind of conflicting things,
you know priority of economic development and priority of neighborhood stabilization.
And sometimes these are pretty darn tough when it comes to economic development in
our neighborhoods, and that's something that we're challenged with. But, I do want to
give staff credit for moving expeditiously on this, as we as a council requested. And,
they have brought to us, um, you know, three ordinances, um, initially with a
recommendation that we set public hearings on all of them tonight. Um, but that
certainly left that in our court, um, you know, as the policy- setting body for this
community, and after, you know, the last minute looks and details, you know,
recommendations both from City Manager and from Legal, um, is that on two of these
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 29
that we do not move forward with those public hearings tonight, that there, you know,
they're such new concepts in some ways, haven't been vetted, etc. Uh, very distinct from
7b, which is something that we already have done multiple times in the past in different
parts of the city. So I think that's one thing that we've, you know, really talked about is
...is some of that distinction there. Having said that, um, this is my first time through
kind of a real major I would say rezoning as ... as a Member of the Council, and I'm really
concerned, um, about fairness in terms of people who have put time and money and
energy into projects, um, in the community. Part of the process that has been noted is
that at some point in time, there is going to be a moratorium. When we set a public
hearing, there is going to be a moratorium. The ... the difficult that I have is I have looked
through, um, kind of what projects the staff is aware of that are kind of on the horizon
here, is trying to make that judgment, simply with regard to the number of bedroom ones,
the ones that would be impacted by 7b. Um, because I'm going with staff on 7c and d,
leave those off the table. You know, where does that biggest negative impact come, not
only for those developers, but also for the neighborhoods with those potential four- and
five- bedroom projects, because there's going to be a 60 -day moratorium at some point in
time. And so ... you know, is it better to do it now, uh, it...it gets it out of the way. It
potentially could be less than a 60 -day moratorium, depending on P &Z's schedule and
our schedule. And then you know what you're doing going forward, um, for those that
have projects kind of in line, but can't get it done to the point that they're vested in the
next 30 days, then they're still looking at a potential 60 -day moratorium, further down the
road. Balancing that, those issues which I don't know the exact answer to, and it may be
different for different developers, depending upon how far along they are on those
projects. Um, with the interest of the neighborhoods, I am very, very inclined to support
setting the public hearing on that one tonight.
Hayek/ On b?
Mims/ On b. And I ... it's a double -edge for the developers, I understand that. For some of you,
it may be better that we do it now and get it out of the way. I realize it may then restrict
you in terms of the number of bedrooms, but there ... that's not necessarily the end of the
world either in terms of...I wouldn't think, in terms of the profit and ... and money on
those buildings. Urn, but pushing it out another 30 days before we set the public hearing
could in fact make it worse for you! If you don't get in under the wire.
Hayek/ I'm uh ... that's ... that's my inclination as well, and I wrote down some comments. I
wanted to thank, uh, staff as well and I'm ... I'm glad you did so because, uh, a lot of what
you're seeing is ... is the result of, uh, an increasing level of alarm at the Council level,
um, and in the neighborhood level about what we're seeing in ... in our established, uh,
neighborhoods, and frankly there was pressure to just, you know, issue a blanket almost
emergency moratorium, uh, that was totally ill- defined and staff wisely said, no, it should
be targeted, it should be limited in geographic scope, etc., and that's what's before us. I
think ... but I think what distinguishes b from c and d is the level of clarity we already
have with b. Um, we ... we have done it before, and that ... and when we did it before it
was vetted. It was based on... on, uh, research, if you will, um... and... and I... I think that
makes it somewhat different from, uh, from c and d, which ... which are more of a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 30
unchartered territory, uh, kind ... kind of, um, classification, at least from my perspective.
Um... so I... I... and I want to hear, you know, we're going to have public discussion
tonight. Uh, I assume we're going to pull c and d, and... but... but if we go forward with
b, depending on what the Council wants to do, I, you know, we'll have input from the
public...
Throgmorton/ At... at that moment, right?
Hayek/ At that moment! And so ... make our decision at...at that time.
Champion/ Well I think it's the right decision to pull c and d out of our discussion tonight. Um, I
think something along these lines is eventually going to happen, and I ... I think it came
from the Council, but I think it really came from the neighborhoods, people who have put
a lot of...who are vested into the neighborhoods, just like the contractors may be invested
into their property decision. So we have two conflicting things here. We have
neighborhoods vers ... versus development.
Hayek/ Well, and... and we're going to have that (both talking) we're going to have that at the
appropriate time, as well, I mean, we're... we're really not debating the merits of... of c
and d, and frankly they may be things we want to implement, uh, at the appropriate time,
and then, you know, there will still be people on opposite sides of those issues.
Champion/ Right, right, right!
Payne/ This is ... item ... item b is exactly what we asked staff to look at, to start with anyway.
The number of bedrooms is the issue ... was the issue that prompted the whole discussion
anyway, urn ... I ... yes we need ... we need apartment space, but do we need it to be as big
as it is, and that was ... that was the question, because of the effect it has on the
neighborhood. So I ... I think this is exactly what we asked them to do, and yes it's ... it's
a ... at some point in time it's going to be a detriment for the builders, cause they're going
to have to have a moratorium, but whether it's now or 30 days from now, it's still going
to have to happen.
Dickens/ I guess I'd like to get a little more information from the developers and builders over
the next 30 days. That's why I'm ... I'm not opposed to setting a public hearing, but not at
this time. I'd really like to hear a little bit more from them, how this is going to affect
them. The public hearing can still go ... take place on the 21St of March, but in the
meantime we'll know a little bit more which places are really considering getting their
plans done.
Payne/ We would only be setting a public hearing then on March 21St (both talking)
Dickens / Right, but once you do that, the moratorium starts.
Payne/ ...then the 60 days would start then.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 31
Dickens/ Right.
Hayek/ Okay. Let's...
Dilkes/ Okay, I ... I just want to make sure I'm clear. I ... I thought I was clear when the Mayor
was talking, but I just want to make sure ... that I'm clear. My understand is Council is
directing that... c and d be withdrawn from tonight's agenda and that you will consider
Item 7b (several responding) at the formal. Okay.
Hayek/ Is there...
Throgmorton/ Without knowing how we're going to decide on 7b, right?
Dilkes/ Right. (several talking)
Hayek/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ One other thing, uh, I wanted to bring up in relation to this, uh, for the staff, for
Jeff and Bob and Karen. Has to do with, uh, the provision of open space. Uh, parks,
small parks in the vicinity of higher density development. So you know, the ... the more
that we have higher density, uh, apartment complexes, even ones of the kind that we're
envisioning now, uh, the more we will need to have small quality, uh, public park space
for the people who live near them. Right, it just comes with higher density development.
Davidson/ Yep. Open space, Jim, is one of the items on the neighborhood stabilization list that
we're going to get to. It wasn't the first top three priorities, but it's ... it's on the list and
we intend to get to it.
Hayek/ Okay, let's ... let's, so I want to confirm what we're going to do. At the beginning of our
meeting in half an hour, I'm going to tell the public that 7c and 7d have been withdrawn,
and will go through the normal legislative process. And further, while I'm ... in that
section of the agenda, that f and g were withdrawn by the applicant. At the front end of
the meeting so that if people are there, or here, to address us on that, they have that
information. That, do I have that right?
Champion/ Yes!
Hayek/ Okay. Okay ... uh, let's keep crankin' here! Council appointments is our next item.
Council Appointments:
Hayek/ Um ... let's see here, where do I start?
Mims/ (mumbled) Board of Appeals.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 32
Hayek/ Yeah, well we've got ... looks like we've got a couple of, uh, spots, but we've got a
gender...
Champion/ Gender balance problem.
Hayek/ ...both on the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Appeals, is that right?
Mims/ I thought Board of Appeals...
Hayek/ Or did we...
Mims/ ...was gone past the date, hadn't it, or not?
Karr/ Board of Appeals, the ... the date is, urn ... 1 /30, so you can make any gender appointment
after 1/30 (several talking)
Hayek/ Okay, but it's Board of Adjustment we have to wait on.
Mims/Right.
Hayek/ So Board of Appeals is, uh...
Mims/ Scott McDonough was the only one, I believe. He looked qualified.
Champion/ Yes!
Hayek/ Okay. I'm writing this down.
Payne/ Scott McDonough? (several responding)
Hayek/ I know him. He's ... he's very good. Um ... then you get to Historic Preservation. It
appears that we have the four, uh, current members from the respective districts (both
talking)
Mims/ All reapplying!
Hayek/ ... seeking, yeah, and with nobody else vying for those spots. Is everybody okay with
(several talking) Okay!
Dickens/ They're all good people.
Hayek/ Next, hold on ... hold on! Telecommunications, we have, uh ... uh, two vacancies and
three applications. I want to disclose to you all that one of them, Laura Bergus is an
Associate in my law firm. She's on the Telecommunications Commission now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 33
Mims / And I was going to suggest that we reappoint her since we tend to reappoint people, at
least give `em a second term.
Champion/ Yes!
Hayek/ And I checked with Eleanor, and I'm free to vote on it, um (laughter) I don't yet
represent AT &T (laughter) so...
Champion/ Well you looking to do that?
Hayek/ Yeah! (laughter) Too ... too small potatoes for them! Uh, so ... just get that out there.
will be voting on this but ... but I'm disclosing that relationship.
Mims/ (mumbled)
Hayek/ So ... yeah, we have two spots open on that. Anybody want to make a pitch for one of the
others?
Champion/ Well Matthew Butler certainly has the experience.
Hayek/ Okay.
Mims/ Yeah, that one's fine.
Dickens/ I would agree.
Hayek/ Matthew Butler and Laura Bergus for Telecomm. And then 25f, uh, is the Youth
Advisory Commission. (several talking)
Throgmorton/ I'd like to say a word on his behalf. I know him through Trinity Episcopal
Church. At least know him in the sense that I've observed him quite a bit over the last
couple years. He's a fine young man and (several talking)
Dobyns/ ...very active in multiple things, and he's a sophomore, so it's good to get some young
blood in there.
Mims/ Good!
Hayek/ Okay. Think that's it for Council appointments. Agenda items. Anything we, uh,
haven't touched upon tonight that uh (laughter)
Agenda Items:
ITEM 5g(9) Cody Graham, UISG City Council Liaison: City Code Section 8 -5 -6
amendment
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 34
Throgmorton/ Um...
Dobyns/ I think Cody had a letter as part of the, uh...
Graham/ I did! I wasn't sure if this was the (several responding)
Hayek/ Oh, yeah!
Graham/ (mumbled)
Karr/ Cody, could you turn your mic ... thank you!
Graham/ Uh, I did submit a proposal to the Council and you'll find that, um, at 5g(9). Um,
basically the letter, the proposal sums it all up. I can guess answer any questions or
clarifications, urn ... whether or not you are willing to, uh, support the proposal ... I mean, I
hope you do support it, but I would just request, uh, that you move on it one way or the
other, uh, very quickly. My tenure in this position will be ending very quickly. Of
course I'd rather see that, uh, pass while I'm sitting here, as opposed to later on, so...
Champion/ I think I'd be willing to put it on a work session.
Graham/ So putting it on ... my suggestion, uh, request would be putting it on the, uh, work
sessions for March 6th. And so that would give it enough time for, uh you to consider it
two or three times.
Dobyns/ ... as well.
Throgmorton/ Sorry, I'm a little slow in the uptake. I'm flipping back and forth ... here in my
paperwork. What specifically are ... are we addressing here?
Champion/ Public urination and (several talking)
Throgmorton/ Yeah, I'm completely onboard with (several talking)
Graham/ Sure, and all I'm ... yeah, like I said, all I'm requesting is that you consider it sooner
than later.
Hayek/ Can ... can you...
Dilkes/ I think it's ... it's, yeah, Cody was nice enough to talk to me before he proposed it, and I
think it makes a lot of sense. Um, so, um, I would propose to put the actual ordinance
amendment on the March 6th agenda. And you can still talk about it on... on, if you have
problems you can always defer it, but at least we'll (several talking)
Hayek/ If there's a concern from staff on this, though, I mean, we obviously want to hear that. It
doesn't sound like there is (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 35
Dilkes/ No, in fact we might ... we'll name `em differently I think. I mean, I think we should
probably just name one public urination or ... and not (several talking) thing. So...
Hayek/ Okay.
Karr/ Can I go back to Council appointments? Telecommunication, you had one vacancy for a
non - expired, and you had two full- terms.
Hayek/ What? We dropped the ball on that (several talking)
Karr/ (laughter) my point is I was wondering if you'd like to consider another appointment.
Champion/ Oh!
Hayek/ Oh, I thought you'd copied the same page twice!
Champion/ I did too!
Karr/ No, I put them together cause the applicants are the same for both. So you have one for
two vacancies and you have one for...
Champion/ ...why do we have two pages!
Karr/ That would be Items 25d and 25e on the agenda.
Hayek/ All right (several talking)
Karr/ I'm sorry! (several talking) So, I ... I didn't know if there was any interest to appoint one
of the other...
Champion/ Sure!
Hayek/ Well, so ... look at the third guy, Nicholas Kilberg.
Karr/ For the unexpired?
Champion/ Right.
Hayek/ He's an attorney with Pickens "eel (mumbled) Barnes and Abernathy.
Champion/ So all three (both talking)
Hayek/ I've litigated with (mumbled) (laughter) Anybody... okay with him? (several talking)
Okay, put him on the two -year term which would be, uh ... 25d (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 36
Karr/ Thanks!
Dobyns/ (mumbled) ... agenda items, Mayor? Is there any interest from Council on payday
lending restrictions, geographical? There was a letter from...
Mims/ Yes! There is on my part.
Hayek/ To work session it?
Payne/ ...put in on a work session.
Dobyns/ Put it on a work session.
Mims/ Yeah.
Payne/ Sure.
Hayek/ Okay.
Karr/ Are you in the Info Packet now for the payday lending? Is that where you are?
Dobyns/ Yes, that's...
Karr/ You're not on agenda items. You're on payday lending in the Info Packet.
Dobyns/ Oh, so ... okay, so that's not part of agenda items?
Karr/ Not yet, but you're asking it to be! (laughter) You're...
Dobyns/ I thought the letter was part of the agenda. Okay. All right.
Karr/ The, uh, the memo on the payday lending or the letter? (laughter) The payday?
Hayek/ How about we just put it on a work session? (laughter)
Karr/ Fine.
Hayek/ ...what its province is! (laughter) Other agenda items?
Champion/ And to think he made it through medical school! (laughter)
Dobyns/ Thank goodness I didn't go to law school!
Throgmorton/ Matt, I do want to bring up one possibility. I know that there's a, uh, request to
rename Broadway Street, and uh, it's on the pending work, uh, work session topics. I
think it's pretty clear that that particular topic is connected to a ... a broader issue that we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 37
need to find some way to talk about. And we could do it, uh, perhaps in, uh,
well ... perhaps in ... in a work session. Perhaps in an executive session, depending on
exactly how we frame this. Um ... but ... but I think it's connected to the, uh, concerns that
some people express with regard to the Old Capitol Center, uh, and ... and uh, activities
that have taken place there. Uh, and I know there's a memorandum in our ... in our packet
somewhere in this, uh, vast amount of information, uh, addressing that topic. I think we
need to find some way to talk about the, the uh, complex of...of issues that are associated
with that. Renaming Broadway Street is not going to deal with that complex of issues.
Now maybe I'm being too vague, but it's because ... I'm intentionally being vague.
(several talking)
Hayek/ Why don't we...
Mims/ The request has come forward, so I don't know do we want to just let staff respond to it
first? Give us a recommendation? Or do you want to put it on a work session?
Karr/ Is this the renaming of Broadway Street that's on your pending list?
Throgmorton/ Yes.
Karr/ That is implied. It's on the pending list. Waiting for staff to give you the information.
They are looking at it. (several talking) So it's already in the hopper, waiting for the
(several talking)
Throgmorton/ ...but the...
Hayek/ I understand your point, Jim, but I think we should probably wait until that comes up at a
work session, and I know it probably only addresses a fraction of the issues you think we
should address. But I ... probably at that time, and I know that's kind of kicking the can
out, but ... but...
Throgmorton/ Okay.
Hayek/ Do you know what I mean? Um...
Throgmorton/ All right, well maybe you and I can talk about that...
Hayek/ Yeah, let's talk about!
ITEM 5g(11) Jane A. Messenger: Second Request for opinion on two proposed new
geographic feature names, Cardinal Creek and Cardinal Creek South
Branch, Johnson County, IA.
Mims/ Yeah, in the agenda packet we had gotten some correspondence ... hate to take up this
time, but naming of creeks. Has there been any response to that or is staff going to
respond to that? Or...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 38
Markus / Rick, why don't you come forward. Tell us your preferred name! (laughter)
Fosse/ No, there's not been staff response to that yet.
Mims/ Okay, I mean, the letter indicated it was their second request. I don't know where the
first letter ever ended up at because we've never seen it before either, or at least I don't
recall, but...
Fosse/ We'll follow up on that.
Dobyns/ I ... I called today, Rick. Where is the creek? I assume it's by Camp Cardinal Road.
Fosse/ Well, that's... that's the same question I have. (laughter)
Dobyns/ I ran around out there and I didn't fall into it, so I don't know... (several talking and
laughing)
Fosse/ Got find it before we can name it, yes!
Mims/ Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it!
Fosse/ Uh -huh.
Hayek/ Other agenda items? If not ... I'm going to switch to Info Packet. We have three Info
Packets — the 2"d, 9t', and 16'.
Information Packets (2/2, 2/9, and 2/16/12):
Throgmorton/ There's probably something to comment on there, but I'm not sure what's...
Champion/ Well I do ... I do want, just comment on Tom Markus' letter to the camping people. I
thought it was incredibly well written, and I also liked the idea that you offered some
other alternative to them, which they may not be interested in, but I thought it handled a
very delicate situation very well, and thank you very much.
Throgmorton/ I agree!
Markus/ I can't take full credit for that letter. That was accomplished...
Champion/ Your signature was on it!
Markus/ Yes, that was a compilation of a lot of staff people that tried to refine the message.
Champion/ ...very proud of it! It was not confrontational. It was decisive and good. Thank
you!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 39
Markus/ It went through a number of iterations. (several talking)
Hayek/ We probably need to get some KXIC dates for Marian, uh, before we leave (several
talking)
Dickens/ Remember to show up for `em!
Payne/ Oh, did you forget?
Hayek/ Who wants leap year? I mean you're only going to be able to do this once a term.
(several talking)
Dickens/ I'll do it. That's the 29tH
Champion/ I'm going to be...
Karr/ It's IP6.
Champion/ I want a couple husbands!
Payne/ You want a couple what?
Champion/ Couple husbands. Isn't that when you can (several talking and laughing)
Hayek/ Okay, so February 29th, uh, Terry.
Karr/ Terry?
Dickens/ Yeah.
Hayek/ We have March 7th and March 14th
Mims/ I'll take the 7th
Karr/ Thanks.
Champion/ Where is that?
Karr/ IP6 of the 2/16 Info Packet.
Hayek/ I'll do the 14th
Payne/ I'll do ... I'll take the 28th
Karr/ Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 40
Hayek/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ I'll take some date but I can't...
Karr/ April 4th and April 11 to
Hayek/ Jim, you're April 4th (mumbled) is April 11 th
Payne / Who's April 11 tnq
Champion/ I can do April l ltnl
Karr/ And Connie's April 11th. (several talking) I'll do another list for the Info Packet.
Hayek/ Done!
Payne/ What are these future commitments? Why are they...
Karr/ Um, I put them down there so I didn't forget. Rick already scheduled them. So I wanted
to include them into the schedule so as not to forget them (several talking)
Dobyns/ I have a structured life! (laughter)
Karr/ So ... they'll be incorporated as they come up but I wanted them located in one spot.
Payne/ So Rick has already taken the 16th, July 18th, all those dates?
Karr/ Yes!
Dobyns/ And there's a problem with that? (laughter)
Dickens/ No! I think it's very admirable.
Dobyns/ I...
Hayek/ You got enough dates for now? I want to give us a ten - minute break before what could
be a long meeting (several talking) Um...
Throgmorton/ Can I say something about Council time?
Hayek/ You bet!
Throgmorton/ Real quick, uh, I went to City High's um ... um, the performance at City High
where the 7th and 8th graders from Southeast Junior sang, and Maore sang as well, Mannerchor
the ... the men's glee club from City High. We're a creative city, right? Let's invite 04
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 41
Mannerchor
AIV M ore to come here and sing at the start of one of our Council sessions. Have... have
them stand up there and some of 'em behind us and sing one of their songs!
Hayek/ We ... we can talk about (laughter and several talking).
Throgmorton/ We're a creative city, right? Let's ... let some of that, uh, flow out right here!
Hayek/ I'll think about it! (laughter) Any other... Council time that we want to, I mean, we can
also, you know, cut uh, bait at this point and take up the rest of these after tonight's
meeting, if...if there's more Council time we need to get into. Should we do that?
Mims/ Yeah.
Hayek/ Okay. So we will...
Mims/ Let's adjourn.
Hayek/ ...we'll adjourn to spend, I never know what the term is ... the work session, take a ten -
minute break, and go back to the formal at 7:00.
(BREAK and FORMAL MEETING)
Work Session:
Hayek/ Okay!
Mims/ Okay, so we're back to the work session?
Karr/ Work session!
Champion/ Oh, I thought we were done.
Mims/ We're not quite done.
Karr/ The only item I had left was we really do need to decide the April through August
schedule.
Hayek/ Yeah.
Karr/ Cause we'll be setting hearings and...
Throgmorton/ There's a date when I, uh, do you need microphones on?
Karr/ Yes!
Throgmorton/ Um, there's a date in, uh ... July when I plan to be in Washington, D.C.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 42
Karr/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ And ... you know, I gotta find the schedule, oh, there it is. Um ... the 24th of July. I
reserved a room at the Doubletree Hotel, you know the...
Champion/ And I'm always gone the first Sunday in August.
Karr/ I believe I scheduled around the August one. I ... I had asked each one of you to let me
know about absences and tried to schedule with the ones I had heard from. So if we need
to make some changes, this is probably a good time to do that. And Jim, the 24th is the
one?
Throgmorton/ Yeah.
Karr/ Uh, again it's a Council decision... it's a Council decision. Your summer schedule is
always more flexible. Uh, we can always add meetings, but it's always a good idea I
think before people make plans for those who are ... have still not made plans to decide a
schedule that we can work around.
Payne/ can we move that 24th of July to the 31 St? Oh, no, I was going to be gone that week!
Karr/ I was going to say (laughter) I think you're gone!
Hayek/ So I guess no! (laughter)
Mims/ Sure, if you want to miss the meeting! (several talking and laughing)
Karr/ I think you're gone!
Payne/ That's okay, because I can always ... I can move my vacation so I'll take off later and go
into the next week so I ... I can do that.
Dickens/ You can't ski then anyway!
Payne/ I know! I can swim though!
Hayek/ So go to the 31St?
Karr/ Is there interest on the part of everyone to keep two meetings a month?
Champion/ No necessarily in the summer. We don't always do that.
Karr/ Well...
Mims/ Yeah, but I think we probably need to at this point. We've got...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 43
Karr/ Okay. So we'll just...
Mims/ Don't you think? We can always cancel if we don't have enough on the agenda?
Karr/ Well, but if we ... the cancelling becomes a little bit problematic as you go farther on. You
certainly can, but as you set public hearings...
Mims/ I see what you're saying!
Karr / And this is what staff is looking at now also for ... you certainly can, and you certainly can
call them.
Hayek/ Well our option is to do the 17th or the 31 St. It seems to me.
Champion/ You talking about July?
Hayek/ Yes!
Champion/ Either one's fine with me.
Mims/ Yeah.
Dickens/ For once... everyone worked for me.
Karr/ So go with ... go with 10 and 31, or go with...
Hayek/ Why don't you do 31, I mean, it cuts the middle between July and August meetings a
little better.
Karr /So 10 and 31? 10 and 31.
Payne/ 10 and 31.
Throgmorton/ Yeah.
Karr/ Yes?
Hayek/ Yes! Sorry! Okay. Do you have what's...
Karr / Any other ... any other changes? So we only had one in August. Scheduled.
Hayek/ Okay.
Champion/ And that works fine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.
February 21, 2012 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 44
Karr/ Okay.
Champion/ Has in the past. We can always add.
Hayek/ Anything else, Marian, for meetings? Okay. Upcoming community events, Council
invites? (several talking) Okay. Okay! Thank you. That was a long slog, but we made
it to the end! See you later!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 21, 2012.