Loading...
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.