Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-27 TranscriptionPage 1 ITEM 2. OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS — Lincoln Elementary Hayek: Would the students from Lincoln Elementary please come forward! (speaking away from mic) Well, hi, uh, everybody. I'm Matt Hayek. I'm the Mayor of Iowa City and this is your City Council behind you and we're really honored to have, uh, you here and want to say hello to you and your ... your family and... your families and ... and anybody else from Lincoln who's here to support you. This is a ... one of the things we do at the beginning of our City Council meetings throughout the year is invite leaders from all of the elementary schools in Iowa City to come, uh, and ... and talk to us about what they're up to and what they do in school, and of course you don't get here unless you get nominated by your teachers and obviously they've, uh, identified you guys as ... as leaders in your schools and that's just a great thing, and it's something that we want to recognize. So, um, I know you've been told the drill here and I see you've got a... some, uh, pieces of paper to read and so why don't I hand the mic to you and you can just start out and tell us a little bit about yourself. Blatz: Okay. Hello, my name is Marshall Blatz. I'm a sixth grader at Lincoln Elementary. Thank you for inviting me here today. I am honored to be recognized as a good student citizen by my teachers and school staff, and want to thank them for nominating me. I moved to Iowa City in August 2011 and have found Lincoln and the Iowa City community to be very welcoming to my family and me. I am a student ... I'm on student council, on safety patrol, and in band. I also play piano, football, and basketball. I cannot be able to achieve the things this award honors without the good example set by my teachers, neighbors, friends, and family. Thank you again for this great honor. (applause) Hayek: (away from mic) ...or give it to you as ... as you prefer. Want me to just hold it? Leftwich: Yeah. Hayek: Okay! Yours looks good! Let's see what it has to say! Leftwich: Hi, I'm Josie Leftwich. I'm honored that my teachers chose me as one of the outstanding student citizens at Lincoln Elementary. I believe that being a good citizen is helping others and being kind and respectful anywhere I go. And one of those places is school. Some of the things I've done to be chosen as an outstanding citizen at my school are being respectful to my teachers, listening to them, doing my work on time, and helping classmates and fellow students. Many of these traits my parents have taught me, so I would also like to thank them. Hayek: That's wonderful (applause) Well we give out what's called a Citizenship Award, and we give it to people that your teachers and your schools consider, uh, student leaders, uh, and uh, it's a really great honor to receive this, um, but it's also great for us to have you come and ... and tell us a little about you, and ... and, uh, one of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 2 the reasons we do this is because we're ... we're on TV and people out in the community can see, uh, who you are and ... and we hope that you will set example not only for the .... for the other kids at Lincoln but for the students throughout the ...the community about what ... what hard work means and what it means to ... to be a leader at your school and to do well and to help others, and obviously you've, uh, done a lot already, uh, and you're not even done with elementary school! So, we have, uh, and I ... I also want to, uh, reiterate that ... that, uh, we appreciate what your parents and teachers do. They have a huge role obviously in ... in what you do. So, each of you will get a Citizenship Award and I want to read it. It says: For his or her outstanding qualities of leadership within Lincoln Elementary, as well as the community, and for his or her sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others, we recognize you as an Outstanding Student Citizen. Your community if proud of you. Presented by the Iowa City, uh, City Council, November 2012. Marshall, here's yours! Blatz: Thank you. Hayek: And I'm not going to shake your hands. I've got a bit of a cold (laughter) (mumbled) ...yours, and I want to congratulate both of you, keep up the good work! (applause) Uh, before we move on, we have a lot of people — I think some of them are clearing out after these student awards were just announced, but uh, we have plenty of room out in the hallway and we've opened up, uh, a live video/ audio feed in the conference room just on the other side of the hallway. So if newcomers arrive and it gets too congested, I encourage you to use that so that you can follow the meeting, and we do need to keep the doorway open, uh, for fire safety purposes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 3 ITEM 4. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Hayek: This is the opportunity at each City Council meeting for members of the public to address the City Council on items that are not on the agenda. So if there's something that's not on tonight's agenda that you would like to bring to our attention, I invite you to come forward, uh, to sign in, uh, at the podium and also verbally give us your name and please limit your comments to five minutes or less. Gravitt: My name is Mary Gravitt and I'm here about that new, uh, dog rule that you're considering for the ped mall. I don't think that that's fair. Only dogs that should be in the ped mall... Hayek: You know, Miss Gravitt, actually that is on tonight agenda's. Gravitt: Oh, it's on tonight? I looked through here... Hayek: Would you mind coming back, uh, when we take that up? Gravitt: Which ... the item will that be? Hayek: Well, now you've stumped me! (laughter) Gravitt: ...cause I looked through... Hayek: It's I ... Item 11, I believe. Gravitt: Item 11? Karr: Yes. Hayek: If you could stick around until then and we'd ... we'd like to hear from you on that. Ohloff: Hi, my name is Matt Ohloff. I live at 827 E. Market Street, #1, Iowa City, IA 52245. Um, I'm a Iowa City resident. I'm also an organizer with the National Organization Food and Water Watch. I sent you guys some materials a couple weeks ago, a resolution concerning labeling genetically engineered foods. Um, I know that Iowa City doesn't have the authority to label foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, but Food and Water Watch is working to pass legislation in states and um, to pass rules in the country to label genetically engineered foods, and we are asking, uh, city councils to pass ... pass nonbinding resolutions. So you have received that, and we would encourage you, um, Food and Water Watch supporters and G.E. labeling activists in Iowa City to, um, to, uh, take that up at your next meeting on December 11th. I'm not sure what exactly the rules are for the procedure, but um ... I would ... I would ask you to do it at your next meeting. So, um ... genetically engineered foods, uh, have been This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 4 make ... have been quietly making their way onto grocery stores shelves since Round -Up Ready corn and soybeans were introduced in 1996, and now the majority of processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients. Genetically engineered foods, um, are made by inserting genetically, uh... genetic material from one species into another. They're unlabeled, untested, and potentially unsafe. Unfortunately for consumers, regulatory agencies overseeing the approval of genetically engineered foods were not set up to address the long- term human health and environmental impacts of genetically engineered foods. The Food and Drug Administration, the USFDA, conducts no independent safety testing on genetically engineered foods, and instead relies on data submitted by the biotech companies themselves. Because foods containing genetically engineered ingredients are not required to be labeled, consumers do not know when they are consuming genetically engineered foods. The only way for consumers to know for sure is if they eat organic, which, um, you're not allowed to have genetically engineered ingredients. Um, biotechnology ... biotech industry spent over half a billion dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions between 1999 and 2009 to ensure that regulatory oversight of genetically engineered foods remains watered down and consumers are kept in the dark about this issue. Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta secured regulatory approval and patented the seeds for G.E. corn, soybeans, cotton, and many other crops. Now some biotech companies are looking to patent genetically engineered animals, which if approved for human consumption could open the floodgates for a whole new wave of genetically engineered foods on our shelves. So this is an urgent issue ... on many levels. Uh, labels are the best way for consumers to make choices about the foods they want to eat, but the government has failed to require labeling for genetically engineered foods. Um, currently the only way for consumers to ensure that they're not eating genetically engineered foods is to only buy products with the organic label, which I said earlier. Uh, Food and Water Watch is calling on state and national lawmakers and regulators to require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, thereby giving consumers the right to know what's in their food. Across the country we're urging local municipalities like the City of Iowa City to stand with consumers and pass resolutions pressuring the federal regulators and lawmakers to requiring ... to require labeling for genetically engineered ingredients. The City of Cincinnati just recently did this a couple weeks ago. Um, in some states, like Iowa, we're pushing to statewide legislation that would help spur Congress to act on G.E. labeling. The recent narrow defeat of California's Prop 37 which would have required G.E. labeling in the state serves as a reminder to us all that the biotech industry will continue to lobby hard against consumers' right to know. The biotech industry outspent the pro - labeling side 5 to 1, about 50,000,000 to about 10,000,000, um, in that, uh, in Prop 37. Um, so thank you all for considering this resolution. Let me know if you have any questions, uh, this is an urgent issue that impacts every resident of Iowa City. We all eat, um, so ... please let me know if you have any questions. Also, on a personal note, I stand with ICLUC and encourage you guys to pass, um, the initiatives to implement backyard chickens. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 5 Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Mims: So moved. Payne: Second. Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Anyone else, uh, during community comment before I close that out? Yes, sir! Sobolewski: My name is Edward Sobolewski. I live at 746 Juniper Drive. Keep baby chicks and adult chickens away from persons with weaker immune systems, including the elderly. Hayek: Sir, uh, actually I think you're here regarding the chicken issue. Sobolewski: Yeah! Hayek: So, the way community comment works is we ... it's an opportunity for people to talk to us about things that aren't on the agenda. Sobolewski: Oh, okay. Hayek: What you're talking about is, so I'd ask that you return later in the meeting. Sobolewski: Okay. Hayek: Stick around. We'll get to `em in a few minutes, but that would be the appropriate time for comments. Sobolewski: Great, thank you! Hayek: Thank you. Anyone else for, uh, community comment? Again, items that are not on the agenda. Okay, we'll move on to, uh, Item 5, which is Planning and Zoning Matters. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 6 ITEM 5d CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.02 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON 1ST AVENUE NORTH OF ROCHESTER AVENUE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(RS -5) TO LOW- DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12). (REZ12- 00025) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Has anyone had any ex parte communications to disclose? (several responding) Davidson: Uh, good evening Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council. I'm Jeff Davidson, the Director of Planning and Community Development for the City. Uh, Item 5d on your agenda, as the Mayor's indicated, is a request from Jeff Miller Construction Inc., uh, for a rezoning action from, uh., RS -5, uh, residential single - family, to RM -12. Uh, the purpose of the requested, uh, rezoning is, uh, for this property ... uh, right here to be developed as a, uh, 16 -unit multi - family building. Just to orient you, uh, this is the grounds of Regina High School. I'll show you an area photograph in just a second; uh, here's First Avenue, uh, Rochester Avenue, uh, you can see the location of the property. Also of significance is Hickory Hill Park and we'll talk a little bit in a minute about this edge with the park right here. Uh, the property is, uh, one... slightly over an acre in size and it is currently owned by, uh, Regina, uh, School. Uh, as I mentioned, the desire is to have this property developed as a, uh, multi - family building. Uh, the, uh, Regina Foundation is, uh, selling the property because they do not believe it has ... they have use for it any longer. Uh, here's the aerial photograph I mentioned. Uh, just to orient you, you can see the athletic field for Regina High School. The construction of this field, uh, has cut off the possibility of this property being used as an access for the school, uh, and so for that reason Regina is, uh, marketing it for sale. Uh, we have had discussions over the years with Regina. Uh, I think everyone's aware their existing access point's here on Rochester Avenue are the sole access to the property. You know we have kept track of those. It is a manageable traffic situation. We do have the turn lanes on Rochester Avenue and do feel that there's good, safe access, uh, to Regina High School via those, uh, access points. The existing zoning of the property, RS -5, reflects it being owned by Regina for an institutional use. Regina, uh, because it's a private institution, does not have the P, public zoning, that would no ... normally find with a public school. It is allowed by special exception in the RS -5 zone, and that's why it's currently... has the RS -5, uh, zoning. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, uh, let's see, couple ... I'm sorry! That's the one I'm looking for. Uh, you will note that the adjacent properties, uh, are ... are zoned RM -12. Actually both sides of the street, uh, different types of dwelling units on each side of the street, multi- family buildings on the west side of First Avenue, duplexes, uh, under the RM -12 zoning on the, uh, east side of the street. Uh, we do feel like, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, that if it's not going to be used by Regina, that the proposed, uh, zoning is ... is appropriate. Uh, in terms of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 7 compatibility with the neighborhood, this is on the very edge of the central planning district, so the building which I ... went there's ... a drawing of what the building would look like, another drawing ... uh, would be subject to the central, uh, planning district design review standards, cause it's on the very, uh, edge of that property. Um ... in terms of the site plan, as I did mention, there ... there was significant discussion, uh, at the Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, of several issues. One was the issue of the edge with the park, and you can see the required buffering, uh, that ... that will be required, uh, as part of, uh, buffering the ... this is visitor parking. Uh, the required parking for the units of the building are ... is underground. I think I went by it pretty, yeah, excuse me ... there you see the, uh, the underground parking that would be provided. Uh, the visitor parking then would be buffered from the park by virtue of this, uh, buffer area, and that will all be scrutinized, uh, at the time of site plan review. Um... in terms of environmentally sensitive areas, the ... the developer does not believe, uh, that the, uh, project will trigger a, uh, level 2 environmental analysis, but we will scrutinize that at the time of the site plan, and that could trigger an additional, if there are, you know, basically what we ... we anticipate could possibly found would be critical slopes, and if that's determined to be the case then there would be an additional level of review that could ... would go back to through the Planning and Zoning Commission and to you. Otherwise the level 1 environmental review will be administrative, and ... and again, through the site plan, uh, by staff. There was also a lot of discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission about traffic issues, and you have a ... uh, memorandum, uh, from Kent Ralston, traffic engineering, uh, staff person, uh, about those issues, and I'm not going to go through that but if you have any questions I'd be happy to take those questions about any of the traffic impacts. Basically, you know, on an arterial street, uh, both horizontal and vertical curvature of the street, obviously we're concerned about having a manageable traffic situation here. Uh, we do believe that the situation is manageable, uh, we do believe, excuse me here... that the location of the access point, uh, in this location... we've taken a look at that in terms of site distance, visibility in both directions, and it has been determined to meet the requirements for site distance. Uh, we have been trying to work with the neighborhood and the Police Department to get some additional traffic enforcement in this area. Uh, I think that's called out in Kent's memo, uh, as well, and I know from driving First Avenue that the police have been out there with a little more frequency, uh, and ... and recently since we've asked them to, um ... uh, step up their enforcement in the area. Um, oh, um ... Rick, you mentioned in the work session the correspondence that was received today from, uh, Sue Ford and asked me to address that specifically. Uh, you probably saw me leave the work session. I was able to catch our staff person who staffed the Planning and Zoning Commission to ask them about, uh, the issues that are brought forth in Miss Ford's letter. Um, the ... the issue of drainage on the site, obviously this is the side of the hill. Everything's built on the side of the hill from this point up to, uh, the top of the hill at First Avenue. Um, it is at the site plan review stage that ... that the drainage is scrutinized and would be at that time in terms of making sure that adjacent properties aren't negatively affected, as well as This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 8 making sure that there is drainage that works for the property, uh, here and ... and uh, that would be done at the site plan stage. Um... similarly the grading. There will have to be a lot of grading done, as there was for the adjacent property, in order to fit this building onto the site. Uh, a grading permit is required. That's issued by our HIS department and they will scrutinize the grading of the site at that time when they ... when they issue that, uh, permit. Uh, the statement, I did ask, uh, Karen Howard about the statement that the, uh, that the Planning and Zoning Commission alluded to having made a mistake when they approved the adjacent building. Karen did not feel that was an accurate statement that was made. Um ... and also the comment about preferring that the building be owner- occupied rather than rental. I think you're all aware that's nothing that we at the City regulate, as well. So, uh, the recommendation from staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission is to, uh, approve with the, uh, couple of caveats that are called out in the ... the, uh, Conditional Zoning Agreement, and if I can find those ...excuse me ... here we go! Uh, 20 -foot buffer established between, uh, the park and the parking lot. Uh, to provide a visual screen and that the property would be consistent in general with the conceptual site plan that I've showed you, and that would be the location of the driveway and all those sorts of things. So ... those are the two CZA conditions. Are there any .questions for me? Champion: Jeff, the 20- foot... is that from the parking lot, the public parking lot for the Hickory Hill Park? Is it 20 -foot from there or is it further up the street? I can't quite get the location. Davidson: Uh, it's... actually I still have that up here, uh, Connie. It's, uh, basically between the closest point and the edge of the park. That would have to be at least 20 feet. Hayek: So ... did you get your question answered, Connie? Champion: I'm just havin' a hard time gettin' this... position, with that little parking lot is. Davidson: Yeah, and...and remember, Connie, this is a concept right here. I'm not showing you the actual plan that will be built. That is done at the site plan stage. Champion: Okay. Hayek: So, Jeff, does ... do the two items that the CZA covers include the ... the buffer and then the placement of the entry? Davidson: In general that the configuration you see here is what will be...be brought in. Hayek: But do I understand it correctly that the design review is not part of the CZA because it's within the central district... Davidson: Right. That is an additional step required of any multi - family building in the central planning district. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 9 Hayek: Which this would be and so you would go through that... Davidson: ...very edge so it will be subject to that. Champion: Okay. Dickens: Connie, the parking lot's like 60 or 80 feet farther down. Champion: Further .... I couldn't ... but I just couldn't get the perspective on it. Dickens: ....just rough going by the map that ... it's quite a ways down. Champion: Okay. Davidson: Any other questions for me before you continue your hearing? Dobyns: Jeff, what are the concerns about the property to the south not being done correctly? I think was due in part to the drainage from the incline just west of the property. Do you have a sense what that drainage issue was or... Davidson: Um, I ... I'm sorry, I don't, Rick. I was not part (both talking) you may hear some comments from the public today, uh, stating that, but certainly if... if the drainage of that property is not ... is creating some problem, uh, that is something that again our enforcement would ... would scrutinize as to whether or not that was working as designed. Dobyns: Okay. Thank you. Davidson: Any other questions? Thank you. Hayek: This is a public hearing, so if you'd like to weigh in on this item, invite you to step forward. And if you ... sign in and also verbally give us your name, that'd be great! Wasserman: Hi, I'm Ed Wasserman. I live in the building immediately adjacent to this property. Uh, just to the left, we're up the hill and I guess I'll just repeat some of the points that were raised and....raise at least one more. There is, uh, concern among the neighbors as ... as to the ... the feasibility of building on this site, given the, uh, flow of water that comes through every winter and spring during the melting period. It's all extremely steep and um...it...at the moment goes on to the sidewalk. The developer should certainly be concerned because if they dig a basement for the parking lot, that's where it's all going to go. Uh, the ... the drainage and slope are issues that are of concern. Another concern has to do with as you were just asking before, uh, not the north part but the south part of the building, which is pushed as you can see very close to the property line, which is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 10 where our building is, also very close to the property line. So we have an extremely steep slope where since I have the garage closest to this property, I already know we're having water in my ... in my garage. So building that close is a concern particularly because, and I brought Karen the photos, the only trees, the serious trees that would prevent a great deal of erosion are exactly along that part of the building. So where the building is sited now takes out about eight mature trees and so you can't see from this how much tree ... is there that provides both visual and ... and uh....uh ... blocking, you know, visual blocking as well. Do we still ... no, that's... nothing shows up there (several talking) that's worthless, I'm sorry! (laughing) That's why I brought the other photos in the first place. So what you can't see from here, you can see the very edge of our building very ... very near the blue line, okay? So ... you see the track and you see the blue line that's running perpendicular into the track? Our building is right there. You can see how close it is to the property line, and what you can't see although it's a little bit dark there is where the trees are, and there are at least ten or twelve mature trees which, you know, when they radiate up, they radiate down, so as much area underground is root system as there is, uh, branch system above so my own personal concerns since I have to look at this prop ... er, this new development is how much, uh, visual block there would be from the existing trees and also the drainage problem, because you take those trees out and then it just becomes like a, uh, like waterfall into the other properties. So the trees are providing both ... both, you know, visual cover and also some element of protection, you know, ground protection. So these were issues that were raised. They were raised, uh, by me and others at the meetings. They didn't necessarily show up with great prominence on your materials but I just wanted you to know that they're there and I gather there's another step in this process, the site planning, uh, that needs to be considered. Is there anything you would like to ask me because I'm 24 hours jetlagged from coming back into the States so I expected other neighbors to be here. There have been several thus far. No other questions? Thank you for your time. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate it. Throgmorton: Welcome back! (unable to hear response, away from mic) Hayek: Would anyone else like to weigh in during the public, uh, comment session? Okay, I will close the public hearing at this time. (bangs gavel) 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Mims: So moved. Dickens: Second. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 11 Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Champion: Move first consideration. Payne: Second. Hayek: Motion from Champion, seconded by Payne. Discussion? Throgmorton: I ... I wonder if anyone from the Planning and Zoning Commission is present. I'd be curious to know ... I know they voted seven to nothing in favor of this, uh, particular, uh, rezoning, but I ... I wonder if they addressed this particular topic and if they could, uh, give us some sense of how they responded. Mims: Well it seemed to me some of these issues aren't ... I mean, aren't necessarily relevant at the rezoning point. It's more at that site design and if there's, um, if the steepness of the slope kicks in the sensitive slopes ordinance and those kinds of issues, at...at that point in time. Am I right with that, Jeff, or... Davidson: Yea, uh, that's exactly right, Susan. Um, and Jim, I did try and get a feel, even though I wasn't present at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Um, Karen said that both the drainage and the traffic issues received a lot of discussion. Um, and I think if I were to characterize the way she characterized it to me was that it was felt, and the 7 -0 vote reflects that, that they were manageable issues. They were certainly issues and the ... and the ... the issues raised by the adjacent ... the adjacent neighbors are certainly valid, but it was determined that through that site planning process, and remember, this has been fully vetted by staff as well, the people who issue the grading permits, the people who, uh, approve the site plan, and it was determined to be a manageable situation, in much the same way that the two buildings further up the hill were... were managed as well, in terms of their grading permit and their site plan. Dobyns: Jeff, if the issue was site configuration, which I agree with Susan isn't the relevant to tonight's vote. At what point would the public be able to come to the City, either this forum or another one, to contest that? Davidson: Uh, because the ... the rezoning is conditioned on the general configuration, the layout that you saw, and I think the greatest issue, Rick, is the location of the driveway on First Avenue cause we want to make sure that there's good visibility. We would want to make sure that since that location has been evaluated and been determined to be appropriate that that was ... that that's the appropriate location. If... if a member of the public had an issue with that, now would be the time to comment on that specific CZA condition. Otherwise the ... the site plan review is administrative, and the public does not have the right to, uh, does not have a means to provide input on that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 12 Dilkes: If I'm remembering correctly, I think there is an opportunity for objection at the site plan review stage, and I believe the appeal is to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dobyns: Okay, so there is an opportunity for citizens to vote for it. Okay. Dilkes: I ... I'll confirm that for your next reading, but I'm pretty certain that's the case. Hayek: Thanks for that information! Other Council discussion? If any! Okay. Why don't we take up first consideration. Is there a motion? (several talking) ...it's pending! That's why we're talking about it! (laughter and several talking) Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Uh, item passes, uh, first consideration passes 6 -1, Dobyns in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 13 ITEM 5f CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.38 ACRES LOCATED AT 1030 WILLIAM STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY (RM -20). (REZ12- 00023) [Discussion only at formal meeting] (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Dobyns: I would move that Item 5f and Item 16 be combined as ... because they are relevant with each other. For discussion and vote. Karr: You want to move up Item 16 at this time? Dobyns: Move up Item 16, yes. Thank you Hayek: Yeah, we'll read that as a motion to Move 16 to be considered immediately after 5f. Dobyns: Yes. Okay. Hayek: That capture your thoughts? Good! (laughter) Thanks! Karr: Is there a second? Hayek: Second? Champion: Second! Hayek: Uh, moved by, uh, Dobyns, seconded by Champion. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. And the reason for this is that these two items are related to the same subject matter and we want to get all the public comment in, uh, at the same time, uh, and ... and not repeat ourselves, uh, later in the meeting. Um, so I'll take up Item 5f, uh, and it reads as follows (reads item 5f) This is second consideration but staff has requested expedited action. Dobyns: I move that the rule requiring that ordinance must be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, that the second consideration and vote be waived, and that the ordinance be voted on for fin ... final passage at this time. Mims: Second. Hayek: A motion to collapse from Dobyns, seconded by Mims. Discussion? Any ex parte communications, uh, from the last reading? I, uh, briefly talked to the City Manager and the City Attorney today about the fact that there was a request to combine these, and I got a phone call from the ... the applicant representative, uh, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 14 yesterday, but I didn't get a chance to return it. So ... to the extent that that's any communication. Any other ex parte? Okay. Roll call. (mumbled) next part. Dobyns: Okay! Mims: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time. Dobyns: Ali, okay. Champion: Second. Hayek: Pass and adopt moved by Mims, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call, please. Uh, item passes 7 -0. So now we'll take up Item 16, which is at the end of the packet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 15 ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER OF SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF IOWA CITY SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P. FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS (LIHTC) TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI -UNIT SENIOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 1030 WILLIAM STREET AND COMMITTING LOCAL FUNDS TO THE PROJECT. Mims: Move the resolution. Payne: Second. Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion? Are there any questions about the ... this item? Any input from the public? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 16 ITEM 5g CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 4C, ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS, TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED USES AND TO REFERENCE STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURES FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Hayek: Okay, we're going to do the same routine with the next item, which is 5g, uh, and I'll entertain a motion... Dobyns: I would move that Item 10 be, what's the language, Marian? Moved up or ... moved up to, um, to be discussed and voted on with 5 ... Item 5g. Mims: Second. Hayek: Okay ... the motion is to move Item 10 up to be considered immediately after, uh, 5g. It's been seconded by Mims. Uh, discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. Okay, so Item 5g and 10 are both related to the urban chickens issue. Uh, and so ... why don't we entertain input from the public during the, uh, Item 5g, uh, discussion point. So I'll ... I'll read that (reads Item 5g) Champion: Move second consideration. Payne: Seconded. Hayek: Moved by champion, seconded by Payne. Discussion? I know there are people from, uh, the audience who would like to weigh in on this, so I think before the Council takes up discussion, if there are, uh, members of the audience who'd like to weigh in, uh, please do so. Sobolewski: Hello again, Edward Sobolewski, 746 Juniper Drive. Sorry for jumpin' the gun earlier! Hayek: Oh, no problem! Sobolewski: Um ... keep baby chicks and adult chickens away from persons with weaker immune systems, including the elderly, pregnant women, diabetics, patients receiving chemotherapy, and people who are infected with HIV. Um, when I search cdc.gov for advice regarding the health risks associated with raising chickens, that was the first item on their list. Um, people with weakened immune systems and those who have to take medications that compromise their immune systems, have to take ... have to, um, take extreme measures to avoid infection on a routine basis. Uh, there's a constant regimen of handwashing, sanitizing, and other measures to, uh, fight pathogens that most of us would not even have to worry about ... and this is something that I see daily with my wife who has to take This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 17 medications that weaken her immune system substantially. Um, the ... the thing that springs to mind with me when I think about the chickens in Iowa City is, is it really fair to ask these people to have to add `watch out for your neighbor's chickens' to the already long list of things that they have to endure. And that's on top of the noise, smell, and attracted vermin that would ... that would be a nuisance and bother to everyone else in the community. Um, in rural settings where there's plenty of space, these ... these aren't such great concerns, but in a urban environment, you can't get around that sort of thing. You ... if you're... unless you've got a huge yard, your ... your neighbor's chicken coop is going to be uncomfortably close to your property and potentially your dwelling. So, it's ... it's just something that would have to be dealt with routinely. Um, ordinarily I'm a solid supporter of organic food and the DIY culture and in most cases I would be firmly in support of taking measures to increase the quality of your food and to (clears throat) uh, to increase your own self - reliance, but this is not the sort of thing that I can support. There are lots of reasons why having chickens and other livestock in the city are a bad idea, and with that in mind I would urge you to please vote against, uh, allowing chickens to be raised in our city. Thank you for your attention. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Norbeck: Hi, my name is Martha Norbeck from 906 S. 7th Avenue. I'm an Iowa City native and I must confess that, uh, we did have a pet chicken when I was a kid. Uh, she's deceased, so I feel like I can say that. Um, we also had dogs in the neighborhood, we had cats in the neighborhood, urn ... and I now have a dog, and I can promise you my dog is noisier and messier than our chicken. Um, I appreciate your consideration of this ordinance and I ... I've been listening to comments about concerns about noise and smell and mess, and yes, when you have a large quantity of chickens, those issues become an issue, but the only time we heard my hen make a big fuss is when she laid an egg, and then we ran outside and we got the egg when it was still warm and it was really, really cool, and it was a great learning experience as a kid. I now live in a neighborhood with five dogs on one corner, five dogs on another corner. I have cats that use my flowerbox... my flowerbed as a litter box. I have neighbors, teenagers who play their music way too loud. That's part of living in town. I want to live in town, and part of the burden of living in town and the pleasure of living in town is my neighbors, and so yeah, I've got loud dogs, yeah I've got the cats that are using my flowerbed, and yeah I might have a chicken laying an egg and letting everybody know about it, but that's part of being in a ... in a community, um, and we do have choices to live other places if we do not want to be that close with our neighbors. So I encourage you ... I know there's been discussion about a possible neighbors vetoing things. Let me tell you, I could veto things like crazy if I was allowed to complain about my neighbors and their dogs, but that's not the point! That's not what living in an urban environment is about. It's about, you know, being comfortable with the fact that we're living together, and um, I encourage you to... to consider the ordinance as is, um, and to sort of think of four chickens as on par This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 18 with four dogs — similar price, similar burden for responsibility for the ownership, um, and not to make this such a high bar. It's not a big deal! I mean, relative to the dogs, and if we're going to start being all critical about the chickens, then we need to start ... then we're opening the door to going back and reviewing all the other animal ordinances, and I think in line with ... keeping with how things are already set up and the precedent already set with animal control, I recommend that you consider continuing that same line of thinking that's already in the City ordinances. Thank you. Hayek: Thanks for your comments. Daly: Mary Jo Daly, 532 Meadow Street, Iowa City. Regrettably I own a duplex, so I don't think I would qualify, but if I did qualify ... um ... my three constantly visited bird feeders and pair of nesting cooper's hawks on my property, who raised at least two broods this year, if you took them away and brought in four chickens, you probably would not increase the avian biomass on my property. But... might increase my fun! (laughter) Thank you. Hayek: Thanks for your comments. Mitchell: Uh, hello, I'm Jarrett Mitchell, uh, 304 S. Summit Street. Uh, I guess I was going to just speak quickly I guess to what Mary Jo just said, uh, and relate a story, uh, about my neighbor and something that they had done recently — they installed a bird feeder this spring, uh, on their property. We're both renters, uh, and so it's unclear as to who, uh, would be asked, uh, about that property, if there was to be a veto privilege. Is it the renter? Is it the owner of the property? Uh, but my neighbor nonetheless a renter, uh, installed a bird feeder, uh, and it attracted quite a few birds, uh, unfortunately those birds instead of nesting, uh, on his property, uh, nested right in front of my window. Uh, and so what I have now, um, outside of my house, uh, are probably about 20 birds nesting out there. Uh, they're not here now but they were there in the spring through the summer, uh, and uh, my yard ended up looking something like what Gilbert Street looks like right now. Many of you, if you've walked downtown, have seen the, uh, avian waste, uh, throughout our downtown, uh, and I don't think, uh, that anyone who walks downtown is any more, uh, susceptible to becoming sick, uh, than they would be in any other situation and yet we all know that our downtown is full of bird waste. Uh ... and we have a situation where my neighbor, uh, has created a situation where birds go to his property, uh, or is it his owner's property, uh, and they go there and they feed and they come and they nest on my property. They sleep in front of my window. Luckily I, uh, get up early. It's not really that big of a deal for me to hear the birds chirping at 6:00 in the morning, but you have a situation where my neighbor has created a situation. It affects me. There's waste in my yard, and yet there's not a problem. Uh, I think I'm very excited that we're here at the second reading, uh, of this issue. Uh, and I would encourage you all, uh, to not set this ... I think very dangerous precedent of a neighbor veto. Um, this issue to me is about property rights. It's about the right of each individual to dictate This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 19 what happens on their property, within the guidelines that the City has created. Uh, I think there are some things that we've created that are manageable, uh, and that are positive, but I think some of the things we're seeing, uh, they're just being brought up. I wasn't, uh, able to come tonight to the Planning meeting and hear what people had to say about neighbor veto, uh, but some of the things I see would possibly be the most highly regulated urban chicken ordinance in the country. And I think that the precedent set by other cities have shown that we don't need such deep regulation to basically discourage anyone from doing that, uh, and so I would say ... please, with the neighbor veto, let's not go there. I think not only because I think it's bad for this issue in particular, but I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set. If we say that the City will allow a neighbor to tell another neighbor what they can do with their property, and then you let alone put in there the convolution of the owners and renters and how many different situations like that that are butted up against each other, how many different, uh, places butt up against a property. We have owners, renters, who's who, who has the power and privilege in this situation? I don't think that you all really want to go through what, uh, it will take to determine that and I don't think that it's necessary to figure out who will determine that, and I don't think precedent -wise that it's what we want to do as a city. Um, and I would also just say in terms of, um, what, uh, the $100 fee for the first year, $75 for the second year — even this I feel like too is something, uh, where it's a bit exorbitant. I don't think that we need to have a fee that high. I think that we need to have a situation that's regulated. It's clear that we need that, but we don't need a situation that discourages people from doing it, and I think financial inhibition, as well as, uh, creating neighbor veto creates a situation where nobody will want to do this, and we'll continue to have the large amount of people, which we do have in our community, who are keeping chickens, as we all know, at this time, uh, and will only have a bigger problem where we have more people breaking the law. So I encourage you to create a situation that is tenable, uh, that's not expensive, uh, and that does not make this, uh, insane convolution of what property rights are. So I thank you all very much for considering the issue and uh, thank you. Hayek: Thanks, Jarrett. Gassman: Hi, I'm Shannon Gassman. And I wanted to thank you all for your discussion tonight at the work session. I thought it was a productive discussion and brought forth some of the opinions that, um ... have been vaguely stated but not necessarily specifically. So the specifics were important to discuss. Um, I think the City Manager has an interesting point about trying to encourage discussion and, um, trying to convince your neighbors that ... your chickens are not going to be a problem for them. However, um, echoing Council Members Throgmorton, I have a concern with, um, the neighbors who ... might have a serious grudge towards this whole, um, ordinance as a whole and who might just sabotage the right of the applicant to have chickens. They might just say `no' for their own personal opinion, which is giving rights to ... the neighbor more so than the individual applicant, which I don't think is wrong ... I'm sorry, which I think is wrong, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 20 um ... and it's unprecedented in our city. There's no other, um, policy within our city that gives neighbors that right. We gave you a huge list of other activities that you can do in your yard, um, that have absolutely (mumbled) right to neighbors about vetoing that power in your yard. Um ... so ... I, um, actually echo Jarrett's opinions also that I think that this is something that could go through to other issues with neighbors. I think you might be hearing from people, um, trying to veto their neighbor's dog, trying to veto a building that they're trying to put onto their lot — a garage, a fence, a shed. I think you'll be opening up a whole can of other issues that, um, the City just shouldn't be involved. Neighbor issues are neighbor issues; um ... civic governmental issues are another thing. So, um, also in terms of the cost, I appreciate your discussion about the cost and considering our concerns. Um, I think the ideas that you discussed tonight sound adequate and I really appreciate, um, your looking into the different costs that, and... timeframes, that other cities have put forward. Um, finally, I would ask you to consider why you want to pass or don't want to pass this ordinance, and why we're here on the second reading today. Um ... my hope is that you really want to give citizens the right to keep chickens in their yard and don't have some other initiative in mind. I know that having a chicken ordinance in Iowa City would be beneficial for things like the Blue Zones project, but ... we shouldn't be creating an ordinance just to create an ordinance just to say that we have it. We should be creating something, shaping a policy that can actually be achieved by average citizens and it should be a po ... a policy that is accessible for those who wish to keep chickens and it should give them a true and fair right to do so. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Any further input from the... audience? Pascoe: Hi, I'm Judith Pascoe and I live at 317 Fairchild Street, which is in the near northside and um, I want to thank the Councilors and staff for taking up this issue, which has turned out to be surprisingly contentious, but we appreciate all the work you've put into it. Um, I live very near the northside, the North Market Square, which many of you know, uh, for years and years was a place where people drove their ... their geese to market. So Market Square, and if you consider the history of Iowa City, I think the amount of time in which one couldn't keep chickens is actually much shorter than the amount of time in which one could keep chickens. My neighborhood's been densely populated for over 100 years and I think for a large part of that 100 years, it was perfectly fine to have geese running around, um, so that's the ... it's possible that the not keeping the chickens is kind of a blip in history. Um, second, um, and if we judge by other similar towns experience, only a very tiny number of people actually decide to keep chickens. Often in other places it's been, you know, 10 or 15 people. So I would encourage you to keep the amount of bureaucracy and the amount of work for City staff to an absolute minimum, um, because I just think it's an awful lot of... of paperwork and problem- solving for what may not be a problem at all for a hypothetical problem. Um, my ... in my own situation, I have a single - family on one side. On the other side there's two apartment buildings, which I think have about 20 people in them, uh, renters who typically turn over every year. So it's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 21 going to be kind of complicated to decide at first ... it's going to be difficult deciding, like just keeping track of all those people and getting permission from all of them, but then having to do it on a yearly basis when they move out and other people move in just seems very, very complicated for possibly 10 or 20 people in Iowa City wanting to keep chickens and certainly people should have the right as they do now with noisy dogs to complain if a neighbor is not keeping chickens properly, but I don't think we need to have this, uh, unprecedented neighborhood veto, uh, in advance of something that may ... it's just a kind of hypothetical problem that hasn't been born out in other cities experience. And finally my last point, um, this proposal for the backyard chickens has been spearheaded by a lot of young people and I come to these meetings for other reasons often, and there's usually not a whole lot of young people here and we usually don't have things where younger people are leading the charge. We've had small children here wanting to keep chickens, we've had some, uh, quite young people that have brought this forward and those people are very interested in sustainability issues. They're very interested in the future of Iowa City. The Backyard Abundance people are in favor of this. So I just think it's important to think of the people that are actually going to be in Iowa City longer than many of us are the ones that are very strongly behind this for the most part. So I'd encourage you to ... to support this, um, being able to keep backyard chickens. Thank you. Hayek: Thanks, Judith! Okay, we'll close, uh, down the ... oh! One more! Anciaux: Okay, my name is Don Anciaux and I live at 2119 Russell Drive. Uh... several years ago I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission. I served as Chair for a year when they were doing the scattered site housing program, or the... investigation, and they were also re- writing the, uh, Planning and Zoning Code, and I think I had about 90 meetings in that year. Uh, one of those meetings I went to ... I'd like to share you ... with you a conversation that I had with Ernie Lehman and Bob Elliott. I don't know how these people stand on chickens, but there's another issue that goes here. Bob was having trouble with one of...one, and actually I think he had problems with all the zoning laws that night and thought they should be done away with (laughter). Mayor Lehman told Councilor Elliott that the City Code is full of laws that we may or may not think are necessary. But every one of those laws addressed a problem that was either real or perceived at that point in time in history. I have to agree with Mayor Lehman's insight. At some time in the past citizens realized it was time to ban horses, cattle, pigs, even chickens from the city limits. Why they did that, I don't know. They were closer to the situation than we are now. They actually had to put up with the things. Why did the City Council do ... oh! Excuse me. Someone even had the gall to outlaw geese from Goosetown! Why did the City Council... City do this? I will tell you why. The town grew... as the town grew people realized farm animals do not belong in town. The people long ago recognized that they don't want the noise, waste, smell, health hazards associated with raising livestock in town. Just because a vocal minority wants to raise chickens in town, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 22 and were able to entice a number of people to sign a petition does not mean that this is the right course of action. It is a step backwards. I found a neighbor that said he wouldn't mind raise ... people raising chickens. I proposed this scenario to him. I have a chicken coop in my backyard and you want to sell your house. The realtor shows your house and the exactly like your house, without a chicken coop next to it. Even though he didn't intend to sell at the time, he decided it would... would not be nice to have a chicken coop next to his house. He had never thought about, and ... in that situation. How many people that signed that petition actually thought through the ramifications of passing this chicken ordinance? Your proposed regulations state deed restrictions, neighborhood association rules, etc., can prohibit someone from getting a permit. I predict new subdivisions will be using covenants to prohibit chicken coops. Unfortunately I and just about everyone else in town lives an older part of the city that's already been, uh, subdivided. I'm sure that my developer never considered the city would take a step backwards and allow chickens in my neighborhood. We live in a clean, civilized city. We live in an area that we can drive five minutes out of town, purchase fresh eggs that are organically grown and meet all the criteria that ICLUC members want. Changing the zoning laws causes windfall profits for some, and unintended consequences and financial loss for others. Imagine living next door to a chicken coop that smells, clucking chickens, food ... food and waste droppings. Now imagine raccoons and there are raccoons in my neighborhood, trying to get at the chickens at night. Opossums and rats coming into the yard to eat waste, feed and droppings, neighbor's cat checking out the coops and making them cluck. You tell me that the urban chicken policy covers all these problems. That is looking through rose - colored glasses. You haven't seen anything yet! You put chickens in a backyard in a pen, you're going to have a bare backyard. Do you want to live next door to a neighbor that has no grass in his backyard? I don't! In closing, at the last meeting I believe it was Mayor Hayek said 85% of the comments made to him were against the ordinance. It is time to step up, represent your constituents. It is time to step up and do what is right. It is not a time to allow the City to take a step backwards. Vote no on this ordinance. Thank you. Hayek: Thanks for your comments! Dillman: My daughter lives in downtown Portland. Hayek: Could you give us your name first, sir? Dillman: Uh, Drew Dillman at 845 Normandy Drive. My daughter lives in downtown Portland, Oregon, uh, in a densely populated area with a house ... where the houses are ... the yards are very small. Uh, her neighbor has four chickens, uh, that they have allowed in recent years to be there and they have been a lot less problem, a lot less noise than the loud dogs that live next to my mother's place. And that's all I wanted to say. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 23 Hayek: Thank you, sir. Okay, let's close it down to Council discussion. Throgmorton: So, can we be, uh, clear about what we're actually voting on? We're voting on the rezoning initially, or ... or not rezoning but changing the zoning code. Hayek: That's correct. That's what this specific item is (both talking) Throgmorton: ... and we voted ... we did that last week or two weeks ago, a 5 -2 vote in favor of doing that, right? Hayek: that's right. Throgmorton: Yeah, okay. And the second vote is explicitly on? Hayek: Well, there's a second vote on the zoning amendment. Throgmorton: Well, I mean the ... the (both talking) Hayek: ...the next item? Throgmorton: Yeah, the other item we're discussing. Hayek: The next item, Item 10, is the ... is the infrastructure ... is the frame work for a process essentially... administrative process. Throgmorton: Right, and then A ... assuming we adopt both, or vote to continue both of these, you know, to ado ... do the second ... vote second consideration on the ... on the zoning change and, uh, vote affirmatively on the second topic, then in our next meeting we would revisit both of those and a third topic, right, the third topic being, uh, a policy about... Hayek: Right. At the last meeting we had the first consideration of the zoning and the permit process. Tonight we're taking up the second reading of the zoning, on the permit process, and at the next meeting, I assume, we'll take up the third and final reading of the zoning and the permit process, and then also a vote, one vote only, on the policy itself. Throgmorton: Okay. I just want .... wanted to try to be clear to myself, and to others, about where we are in this whole process. Uh, I'm going to vote for the zoning change, zoning code change, I'll vote for the process, uh, but we had a extended discussion during our work session, which some of you were able to hear, and others did not, like Judith had mentioned I ... I guess that she was present and heard ... heard the conversation, uh, and there was extensive discussion primarily about giving neighbors the right to veto, uh .... uh, any individuals or any households desire to have a ... a chicken coop in that person's backyard. Uh, I oppose the idea of a veto for reasons that have been articulated by other people, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 24 but I ... I think of certain specific reasons like, uh, having to do with barking dogs, you know, we all experience the challenges associated with them. Um, what happens if a neighbor wants to install a window air conditioning unit, uh, do I have a right to veto that or would anybody have a right to veto that, or any other thing that we ... any individual, uh, household would object to. Should we give them a right to veto, and then you know I think also of a particular story having to do with my own childhood. Uh, I loved playing basketball so my dad built a, uh, you know, installed a ... a basketball hoop on our garage, so I'd go out ... I'd set lights, lamps outside at night and be dribbling during the summer and ... and shooting hoops and making these great three- pointers, you know, from 25 -feet out or whatever, and our neighbor, Herb Bisick, uh, didn't like it too much, you know, because of the (pounds on table for effect) the ... the dribbling kind of sound. Should Herb have had a ... the right to veto my father's desire to put a basketball hoop up on my garage? Or up on my parent's garage? I ... I don't think so, but of course I stopped doing all the dribbling late at night because it bothered Herb and I didn't want to do that, and my dad didn't want me to do that either. So I ... I, what I'm getting to is when we get around to all three of these next time, next meeting, I don't know how I'm going to vote, because I oppose the idea of a veto. I may end up voting against some things I've already voted for. Uh, we'll see. I haven't decided about that but I've talked enough. That's my view about all this. Dobyns: Well I know three things. I know that I'm fully supportive of the current chicken ordinance as it is written. The second thing I know is that, um, if there is a veto attached to it then I am very uncomfortable with that. The third thing is that I still know arithmetic and I know that, um, this ordinance is in grave danger of not going forward, um, unless there, at the very least, there is a veto, uh, portion of the ordinance. I now understand what it means to consider holding your nose and voting for something, um, so this can move forward. Like Jim I'm going to vote for it today, though I'm not so sure I can keep holding my nose to this, and I'm not sure what I'm going to do during the third and final consideration. Dickens: I will continue not to vote for this, uh, I'm holding true to the people that elected me and the people that continue coming up to me on the streets, everywhere I go. It's `Dickens for no Chickens' and I'm going to stay (laughter) with that. Throgmorton: That ... that's your campaign slogan? (both talking and laughing) Dickens: Do or die! (laughter) Mims: Um, I did not support the idea of urban chickens when I was running at the same time ... as Terry was, three years ago. Um, and the reason I've changed my mind on this is I think over those three years we have seen more communities in the state who have put this in place, and from everything that we are seeing and hearing, it is being done quite successfully, uh, without a lot of complaints from neighbors. Um, sometimes actually neighbors not even realizing there's chickens This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 25 next door, and so I think that we are at a point where, um, we can see that people are able to do this successfully, uh, without a lot of problems, and we have people in this community who are very interested in doing it, and I think we need to go ahead and move forward and as we have issues, potentially in the future, then I think we will, you know, have to look at whether it's the zoning or the policy that we end up passing, uh, and potentially make adjustments, but I think we need to go ahead and move forward and give people the opportunity. Payne: I've had a lot of people talk to me about my vote no and thanking me for my vote no, and I will continue to vote no. Um, I also have had someone ask me if, uh, what they need to do to have a cow ordinance cause they'd like fresh milk, so I ...I think this can, you know, obviously that was probably a joke, but that was his view on ... on where this is going, where does it stop? With farm animals in town? Mims: I think it stops with chickens! (laughter) (both talking) ...hard enough to get this far. Payne: I hope so! (laughter) Mims: I'm not too worried about it going beyond chickens. Dobyns: And roosters! Throgmorton: No pigsties around, uh? Mims: I don't think so. Hayek: Well I've, uh, I supported the first readings for both the zoning and the ... and the, uh, permit process but I did make clear, uh, at the first reading and I reiterated this evening that once we get to the policy part, which is really the last and final piece, without which none of this, uh, comes to fruition, um, that ... that without, uh, a veto provision in there, I ... I won't be able to support it. Um, I ... I don't think I gave the term 85 %, um, but ... but the people I talked to, uh, and ... and hear from, uh, generally against this. Um, I happen to feel that this is something worth trying. Um, I'm ... I'm excited by the ... the interest among what ... what I think is fair to say a predominantly younger demographic interested in this, not exclusively. Um, but ... but that aspect of community engagement and interest in the community, uh, on ... on the part of newer residents, younger residents, is fantastic. It's what makes Iowa City so great, um, and this is clearly a trend that cities are going, uh, in. Uh, and that's evidenced by the number of cities that ...that have adopted this, both in the state of Iowa and ... and around the country. Um, so I ... I think it's something worth trying. Um, however, there is a substantial, uh, opposition to this, and um, and I think one of the ways to resolve that is to start this process conservatively. And ... and we've discussed a .... a neighbor veto, which is something that Ann Arbor, Michigan does. We talked about that at our earlier work session this evening. Um, something the City This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 26 Manager, uh, endorses as a way to approach this, uh ... uh, ordinance, um, at least initially to ... to and then with time to gauge whether... whether that kind of, uh, re ...restriction or requirement is really necessary and we can always revisit that at ...at a future date. Um, but I think it's the right way to ... to start out with this, um, because I think it strikes a compromise between the proponents and the opponents, um, and it preserves neighbor... neighbor rights. I ... I do make a de ... a distinction between this and some of the other ex ... examples cited, and we can talk about that when we take up the policy, uh, at...at our next meeting. Um, so the public is aware, at our work session earlier we talked about some of the other concerns with what's on the table, namely the ... the, um, duration of a permit, how often you have to come back to renew, etc., and... and uh, and the cost, and uh, a majority of the Council... maybe I think all of the Council, uh, was supportive of staff's recommendation to revisit the initial proposal which had an annual permit and a $100 fee to stretch that out, so that the permit would last for a longer period of time, without a ... an increase in the permit fee so that ... so that year over year, uh, the actual expense to holding a permit would drop by I think a factor of two- thirds, um, which ... which reduces the administrative hassle. It makes it a more affordable, um, project for somebody to undertake, and just seems more fair and consistent, um, and .... and a prudent thing to do. So and I ... we've instructed staff to come back with ... with a policy that ... that makes those changes and I think that is responsive to the concerns we've been hearing over the last week or two. So, we can take all this up at... at our... at our next, uh, meeting where we will have the third and final readings of these two items, plus the ... the policy, but I wanted to get my points out there on the table. Anybody else? Throgmorton: Maybe I could say something here. Um, I ... I think it's pretty clear that this policy will not proceed without some kind of a veto associated with it, regardless of how Rick and I choose to vote on it. Um, I'm not opposed to the veto, but the votes are there for, uh, having a veto component. So I would really like to know what supporters of, uh, the urban chickens notion think about proceeding with a veto component, knowing that the costs and bureaucratic, uh, components are being reduced, so it's better in that sense. It would be very helpful to know! And you can let us know at our next meeting! (laughs) Or in writing before that. Hayek: Okay. Why don't we do a roll call? Uh, second consideration of 5g passes 5 -2, uh, Dickens and Payne in the negative. All right, so now we'll take up Item 10. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 27 ITEM 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "ANIMAL CONTROL," TO ESTABLISH A PERMIT PROCESS FOR URBAN CHICKENS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Dobyns: move second consideration. Mims: Second. Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Mims. Discussion? Dilkes: Hold on one second. Yeah ... I ... the three -year chicken permit issue just came up tonight and I've just looked at the ... the ordinance on, uh, that you're voting on and it specifically calls out a one -year permit. Hayek: Which... Karr: Item 10. Dilkes: Item 10. And so, what we're going to want to do and... and obviously we could not change the ordinance by policy. Hayek: Why don't we defer and then we can collapse second and... Dilkes: No, I think what you want to do is you want to go ahead and amend it on the floor to three years. You want to do that vote, and then we'll collapse the final two next time. Karr: Waive second and give it pass and adopt the next time if there's interest, so you catch up. If we defer you can't catch up (several talking) Dilkes: yeah. (several talking) Dobyns: So does the person who made the motion (several talking) Dilkes: Either way! Dobyns: Okay. Karr: You're going to amend and give it first consideration. You'll start over. Mims: Start over... gotcha! Okay, starting over. Dobyns: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 28 Hayek: You want to ... can we just start over with something... with a motion (both talking) Dobyns: ...is it in the body of the text? Karr: It's a motion on the floor... Dilkes: Motion's on the floor, so let's just have a motion to amend it to a three -year permit. Karr: It was moved by Dobyns, seconded by Mims. Dobyns: Yes, and I move to accept the amendment. Karr: The three -year. Dobyns: For three years. Mims: Second. That's fine. Hayek: Okay, moved by Dobyns, seconded by, uh, Mims. Uh, discussion? So is this a voice vote and then (both talking) Karr: This is a... Dilkes: No, they amended the motion. Karr: They amended, so this is first consideration roll call. Dilkes: Right. Hayek: Okay. Champion: And then next time we'll collapse and do second and (several talking) Okay. Hayek: Okay, we done with 10... for tonight? (several talking) Okay, thank you for, uh, for bearing with us through... through this process. Okay, uh, let's move on to Item 5h. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 29 ITEM 5h CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 1.1 -ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2225 MORMON TREK BOULEVARD FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2). (REZ12- 00020) [Discussion only at formal meeting] (PASS AND ADOPT) Champion: move adoption. Dickens: Second. Hayek: Moved by Champion, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? Roll call please, er, hold on a second. Um ... any ex parte communications? (several responding) Roll call, please. Pass and adopt, uh, passes 7 -0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 30 ITEM 7. AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 654 SOUTH LUCAS STREET. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) This is another, uh, UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program success. Champion: That we all love! Hayek: Close the public hearing. (bangs gavel) 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Mims: Move the resolution. Payne: Second. Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 31 ITEM 8. APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS - FUEL FACILITY PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE TO BIDDERS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Payne: Move resolution. Dobyns: Second. Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by Dobyns. Discussion? Uh, the cost estimate is $665,000 and this will be funded with general obligation bonds. Further discussion? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0. Throgmorton: Matt, uh, I don't know how ... how many people intends... intend to speak on the next topic, uh, but it might ... if there would be a substantial number it'd be helpful for some of us to take a short break. Hayek: Okay. Why don't we ... why don't we just go ahead and take a five minute break, so we'll, uh., we'll adjourn this meeting for five minutes and come back, and then take up Item 9 at that point. Thank you. (BREAK) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 32 ITEM 9. PROCEEDING WITH TAFT SPEEDWAY LEVEE PROJECT ALTERNATE 7. 1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Hayek: Okay, we will resume the, uh, City Council meeting at this time. We left off, uh, just prior to Item 9 so now we will take up Item 9, which is proceeding with, uh, the Taft Speedway levee project alternate #7. The way this has been set up is we've got a public discussion section at the front, um ... almost like a public hearing and so I'll open that in a second and we know there are people from the audience who wish to, uh, weigh in on this. Um, I'm going to ask that you keep your comments to fo ... to four minutes, uh, if...if at all possible, because I anticipate a lot of input and we're already at...at 8:30, um, and I'm also going to encourage the public to, uh, to not reiterate points that have already been made, and... and often you see in these settings, uh, the same message being, uh, delivered again and again and it doesn't give the Council any new information and it takes everyone's time. So I would encourage you to, uh, to ... to offer new information if you're following somebody who's already gone over a point that you, uh, intended to cover. So, we'll close that then and we'll take up the resolution itself. So, with that I will open this up for public discussion (bangs gavel) and if you'd like to, uh, step forward, uh, we'd ask that you sign in, give us your name verbally ... and uh, address the Council. Geerdes: Good evening, Council, my name is Greg Geerdes. I live at 890 Park Place in Iowa City. Have lived there during the 2008, uh, flood, spoken to you before about this issue, as I'm sure you all know, I am strongly against it and I would to summarize my reasons. First, as you I believe have been officially informed, at its last meeting the Parks and Recreation Commission took, at least in my experience, as being the unprecedented step of formally stating its opposition to what it is you are voting on tonight. I have not previously witnessed a ... official commission of this City, who you have chosen to be the representatives of the public and the steward of our park resources, I do not remember such an organization taking a position before on a matter of Council business. Perhaps it has, um, but in a way it's opposition comes for a variety of reasons. The aesthetics that would be imposed upon City Park by the construction of a levee. The Commission also brought up the issue of public safety and astutely pointed out that the road which you proposed or which is being considered for construction as part of the levee would be unsafe for bicyclists and runners, and other pedestrians who are using it. Throughout this evening's session, you are going to be hearing from a variety of people, many of whom have to some extent or another some self - interest at stake. I submit to you that the Parks Commission has no self - interest. They are representatives of the people. They have come out in opposition to what it is you are considering, and that is something that has to be considered. Second point I would like to make is that the taxpayers have no reason to subsidize what it is that is being proposed. There is no need for its construction. Idyllwild is a vibrant community. If one were to look at it today, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 33 one would be hard pressed to find any evidence of flooding. If you were to look at Craig's List, you would see units there renting for $1,500 per month. If you were to look at the public records, you would see units that have been sold since the su... since the flood well in excess of $200,000. The market is telling us that there is no need for what it is that the City is discussing building. Secondly, of course, it's now been clearly established that an option that these residents have is the simple purchase of flood insurance. I submit that that is a very prudent thing for everyone... near the river to do. It is certainly a prudent thing for anyone as close to Idyllwild is to the river ... to do. Clearly, Idyllwild is now where it was built. It has not moved. Clearly everyone who bought there knows how close it was to the river, how flat the terrain is between the building and the river, and certainly knew, or should have known, of the risks of flooding. The taxpayers should not bear the burden of paying for this remedial work, which is itself not necessary as the market, both rental and resale, is telling you. My last point is ... is simple... simply a question. It's a question of fairness. Who was there first? Was it Idyllwild, or was it the people along Taft Speedway, Parkview Terrace, and everyone else? Seems to me that Idyllwild is the last to come along and in my opinion should not be protected to the detriment of others, especially when the taxpayers' dollars are being used for that. Related to that is the unanswered question of what is the effect on the neighborhood that this ... levee would have. We know from the hydrology report that the flow of the river will increase in velocity. When I was addressing to you... addressing you at the last meeting, I raised that question. I still have not received an answer to it. Uh, is the increased flow of the river speed going to cause more damage after the levee is constructed than occurred without the levee in 2008? In other words, are the properties that just got wet in 2008 now going to be ... now going to suffer structural damage due to the flow of the water having increased because the levee. I know that the Parks and Recreation Commission, uh, cited that as an example because they're concerned about the riverbank. What's going to happen to that? Uh, those are my comments. It's a difficult question, but I think when you think about it, it's difficult because of emotion, not because of facts. We all want to help people. Why don't we step back, figure out what's fair, figure out what the taxpayers should do, and I think when you do that, the answer becomes the fairest thing to do is to do nothing. Thank you for your time. Hayek: Thank you, and before we hear from other members of the public, I ... I neglected to ... to do something at the beginning of the public hearing. I was going to ask, and ... well, now ask Rick Fosse from ... from City staff to ... to give an update, uh, on some of the recent memos and .... and provide just some updated information so that everybody has that, uh, the benefit of that information before we .... we receive. So kind of put the cart back in front of the horse here, or behind the horse, and ... and proceed. So, Rick, if you could bring us up to speed. Fosse: Thank you! Uh, we last discussed this topic at the October 23`d work session, and at the conclusion of that work session you asked for some additional information, uh, specifically three things. We followed up with three memos that I'll just, uh, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 34 recap what they were for you. Uh, David Purdy, uh, produced one on the federal urgent need definition. Uh, Julie Talman put together a memo, uh, regarding some flood insurance questions that ... that were raised, and then I also put together a memo with a summary of some estimates for flood fighting expenses for what we spent in 08 and what might be spent in the future, uh, supplementing, if we go with option 7. Um, a question that's come up, uh, subsequent to that meeting, and we've heard it a couple community comment sessions as well as just from Greg tonight is, is just what precisely did Mike Ryan from HR Green mean at the work session when he talked about the velocities will go up, uh, in the river if the levee is constructed. So we talked to Mike afterwards and ... and had him quantify that statement and I want to relay that to you so that you... you know a specific answer to that. Uh, first we'll look at the north bank area. That is the area north of the river, between the river and Taft Speedway. So the models show that during a 100 event currently the velocities in that area range from .4 feet per second to 1.04 feet per second. Uh, if you put the levee in place, the velocities will range from .4 feet per second to 1.15 feet per second. So there is a slight increase in... in some of that area there. Now those velocities, both before and after, are in the range where water is depositing sediments rather than picking it up. So the ... just to put that in ... in perspective for you. Those are non - erosive velocities. Uh, within the river channel, uh, again during the 100 -year event, the existing condition, uh, have velocities that average 4.7 feet per second and uh, with the levee they would average 4.8 feet per second. So I wanted you to have that information. Any questions before we continue with community comment? Hayek: I don't think so. The public is aware obviously of the ... the memos you've referenced relating ins ... to insurance and response costs, etc., and if Council has questions we can ask those but ... I don't think you need to go over that again. Fosse: Okay! Hayek: Thanks! Fosse: Thank you! Hayek: And now let's get back to the public comment. Taylor: Thank you. My name is Wally Taylor. I'm an attorney from Cedar Rapids representing the folks who live along Taft Speedway. I want to focus, uh, on where this money comes from and the requirements that have to be met. This is federal money coming from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, funneled through the State, and then to the City. But it's still federal money and has to be used in compliance with federal HUD regulations. The Community Development Block Grant, um, a ... a program has, uh, three objectives according to HUD, and those are to benefit low and moderate income persons, prevent or eliminate blight, and meet an urgent need because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 35 financial resources are not available to meet such needs. The only possible objective ... of those three that would fit this sit... situation is the urgent need objective. The HUD regulations further break down that urgent need objective into four criteria, all of which have to be met. The conditions to be addressed must pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, or of recent origin, the City is unable to finance the project on its own, and other sources of funding are not available to carry out the project. It seems clear here that there is no immediate threat, no urgent need. Um, I sent a letter, uh, of comments in response to the draft engineering report that was issued, um ... back in September. And I ... I sent a copy to all the Council Members. Um, expressing my concern that the engineering report did not look at alternatives that would avoid building a levee or a floodwall along Taft Speedway, but that would perhaps, uh, alleviate or mitigate the flooding concerns. Um ... those were identified in the report as being possible alternatives, but they were just ... dis... dismissed out of hand, uh, without any real evaluation. It seems to me that if you're going to really evaluate whether you need this project, whether there's an urgent need, whether there is a less expensive alternative which is one of the criteria for the, uh, the block grant that... if there's no other, uh... source of funding or ... or any, urn ... way to solve the problem that would be less expensive that ... you need to evaluate that and the engineering report that you got did not do that! Seems to me you can't really, uh, go forward with this project until you have a really thorough evaluation of all of the possibilities and ways to alleviate or mitigate the flooding, um, that would be less expensive and would not create a devastating situation for residents who live along Taft Speedway and Parkview Terrace and ... other areas that would be flooded more severely because of this levee or flood wall. It just .... it's obvious, if you put this floodwall or levee up there, the floodwater has to go somewhere. It's going to go onto other property and impact others. Uh, and ... if you go forward with this ... I believe you're going to be in violation of the HUD requirements, the HUD regulations, and you're going to be ... devastating folks without looking at all of the alternatives. I ... I think you need to step back and take another look and take this more slowly. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you, sir. Bailey: Good evening, Council. Regenia Bailey, 310 Reno Street. Um, over four and a half years ago, as you well know, Council set a goal to provide flood protection for the community. Um, we determined that the best strategy was to move... remove properties to remove people, um, from harm's way, but when that wasn't going to be feasible, um, the Council sought the best alternative and Council and staff pursued funding, um, to ... for that particular method, and ... which is as you know is what brings us here this evening. I'm here to urge you to continue to pursue the goal to provide flood protection for our community, and to support staff's recommendation. I want to note that I have no vested interest. I don't own property in Idyllwild. My ... my vested interest is as a community member who wants to see adequate public protection and public safety in my community, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 36 because that's what ... how I see this issue. This is about public safety and protection. It's a community responsibility. I think we can all acknowledge that we come together to live in communities, so we join together for protection. We talked a lot about community — not tonight when we talked about chickens. This is the other end of it, is why we come together to protect ourselves, to join our... our financial resources, our smarts together to figure out how we can best protect ourselves. We know that nothing's full proof, but um, taking reasonable mes... uh, measures is a prudent approach, and building infrastructure to protect against a known threat, and that's what this is. It's a known threat in this area. We couldn't remove people or property from harm's way. This is the next best alternative. Yes, I think, um, flood insurance is a really good idea, but that's not a public safety or public protection measure. That's a personal responsibility or personal security measure, a very, very different thing. It's the Council's responsibility and the leaders of this community to undertake the community protection. So as a ... as a community we set this goal of flood protection. We set it a long time ago. We've been talking about it for a very long time. It'd be nice to see this sort of...this discussion ended and finalized. Um, we found the funding. Um, we've refined the strategies — as I've said, we've had lots of discussion, and so if you chose not to move forward with this, um, I would be very curious to know what in the environment has changed to cause you to not pursue the goal of flood protection for our community. So that's something I would be interested in, if we don't move forward with this levee, but I urge you to continue on that path, continue towards that goal of providing that protection. Thank you. Hayek: Thanks, Regenia, for your comments. Holland: Good evening. My name's Joe Holland. I'm an attorney here in Iowa City. I'm glad that you're carefully considering all the points of view and all the issues relating to this. I'm not here to ed ... educate you or rehash the facts because I don't think at a meeting like this you can learn anything you probably don't already know. You can hear opinions and that's about it. I've had a long sort of passing acquaintance and history with Idyllwild. Law firm I was with in 1992 did the original development work for Idyllwild condominiums. Over the years I've represented various people that purchased units in Idyllwild. Lot of those people are retired people. They've sold their homes, are looking for a part of the community to live in. Part of the community where they didn't have to take care of lawn and snow removal. I was also representing those owners in 2008. 1 didn't represent the Association at the time of the flood. I can tell you they were shell- shocked. Like a lot of people in this community! I did after a time represent the Association in the aftermath of the flood, probably starting about 2009. But in those meetings I sat in in 2008 when I represented owners who had units in Idyllwild, frankly I thought that would be a ghost town that somebody, maybe even the City, would be paying to demolish. I never, ever thought that project would come back like it has. There's one unit remaining which hasn't been restored since the flood of 2008, and there's a long list of reasons for that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 37 that we're not going to get into. There's a lot of damage to many of those units out there. The drywall was taken out of some of `em up to 8 -feet off the floor. Condominiums are sort of a unique form of property ownership. They're meant to function as a whole. Buying Idyllwild out was never really an option. One holdout owner could stop the entire buyout. And people suffered varying degrees of damage, and I suspect there would have been one or more persons who would not have cooperated (mumbled) couldn't be a buyout, and frankly that was taken off the table very early in the process. I've read in some of the comments about the desirability of flood insurance and I don't disagree it's desirable, but Idyllwild was... initially constructed in 1992, and I had property there in 1993. It didn't flood in 1993 and those of you who were in the community remember we had a very serious flood in 1993. Flood insurance right now is about $40,000 a year, and I don't think it's realistic to think that the owners would have voted to spend $40,000 when they saw the flood in 1993 and didn't see the water come anywhere close to Idyllwild. The comeback out there's been very remarkable. The efforts have really committed people. I mean, really, really committed... they're... been thousands and ...literally thousands of hours put into bringing Idyllwild back to what it is. There've been thousands and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars, which have restored is an asset to the community and ... in 1992, and the City wanted Idyllwild built. It was controversial, but I'm sure you've heard this in meeting after meeting, the planners are heavily in favor of in -fill development. And that's what Idyllwild was at the time, it was in -fill development. We don't know if it's going to flood again. Storms come in many different flavors and sizes. We don't know what global warming's going to bring, but we know that the predictions are more frequent, more intense storms. There is still an urgent need. We may be living on borrowed time as far as Idyllwild's concerned. There're also objections to spending money for Idyllwild. Lots of people refer to community; you talk about community in the context of chickens. Your former Mayor talks about the concept of community. The City and the Council makes choices all the time where to spend money. (mumbled) local projects in the community that you don't do things citywide. You do something here, you do something there, you do something there, but the cumulative effect of that is part of that community — it's what builds the community, makes it a community. And Idyllwild is a part of that community. There's been also a lot of talk about how it never should have been built. It shouldn't have been allowed in 1992. We can't revisit that — that's 20 years ago. And, not protecting it from floods is going to try to make two wrongs into a right, in some people's views. I don't think that's... a proper way for the City to proceed. You always want to try and do what's the best possible thing at the time. This flood protection just doesn't benefit just Idyllwild. It protects Foster Road and if you were herein 2008, remember Foster Road was in serious jeopardy and there was a real difficult problem with access to a lot of people, whose only access is Foster Road. Protects Parkview Church. And yes, it protects Idyllwild. I think one thing that .... that the Council ... it's going to send a message here whether it has faith in the people in this community and the people who invested those tens of thousands of dollars, those thousands and thousands of hours in bringing Idyllwild back. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 38 There's not really a lot I can say in conclusion, except it ... it's really easy to be against things. I've stood up here in front of this Council in the past and opposed things. And that's really simple to do. It's much harder to be positive and construct something positive and accomplish something. The money's there. You have access to the money. The need is still there. The need to protect people is still there. Frankly, there's not a lot of people downstream. There's University property, till you get down maybe to Bacculis. You've got an opportunity here to protect a community of people from the floodwaters. Finally, I think you need to rely upon your staff and the people who know a little bit more about this than any of us. There're a lot of self - appointed experts in this world, but there's been a very thorough and extensive study, and one of the reasons this protection hasn't proceeded until now is because there was that thorough and extensive study. Your staff supports this. The study supports it. I think that the ... the Council should move ahead with the flood protection, and accept your staff's recommendation. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Roberts: Good evening, I'm Cindy Roberts. I'm an Iowa City resident. I do not live in any of the areas that would be affected by the levee. And I have just one very simple thing to share. I find it disturbing as a community member in Iowa City that a project would be developed and supported that leaves out a certain portion of community members from this project, specifically residents of the Taft Speedway, and others. When I started following this topic a bit more closely, after the 2008 flood, I was just confused by ... it's like I didn't get this. I didn't get, and I still don't get, why it's gotten to this point without someone saying, wait a second — how did we get to this point? Why would a levee project be proposed and be approved and move ahead when it intentionally leaves out a portion of those residents who have been there, the long -term residents who have taken the responsibility that anyone should take, if they chose to live, build, or whatever in a flood zone. I ... I am truly confused on why this has gotten to this point. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. White: Hi, my name is James White. I live at 121 Taft Speedway in Iowa City. I'd like to, uh, comment just on the previous speaker's comment. The Council was given copy of a petition that was sent out back in 2...2011. In November it was collected with 288 signatures on it. It would have had more signatures on it, but we were led to believe by the consultants that in November, and especially by early- December of 2011, a decision would be made on this topic. Two hundred and eighty -eight people signed that petition. There's you community input. It would have been larger. There were other alternatives given... at the time, but the, one of the objections was that Taft Speedway should not be... should not become a levee. And that was loud and clear. So I think the last speaker, uh, mentions the community maybe not knowing about this, and I think that might be the case, and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 39 I know that some community members think, well, that's your problem. That's your problem out in the Peninsula. That's your problem out in Taft Speedway, but it's not. It's the whole community's problem, especially when this project gets very expensive and taxpayers have to pay more than they ... what they've been told they were going to have to pay. Um ... I really feel the Council's at a disadvantage in some respects. We've attended every one of the public meetings, and I think there was an awful lot said, given or take, and I ... you're really at a disadvantage, because you're trying to digest all this in a nutshell, given a very short time. We've been at it since 2008. Those of us who live on Taft Speedway, we've been at it forever, it seems like. But the point is, in fact some of the members that attended the meeting... unfortunately I have to say this, that attended the meeting when you approved the grant to apply for the money to do this project, three of those people are no longer with us. Please consider a vote of no for this project. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Murphy: Good evening. My name is Mary Murphy, and I live at 890 Park Place, which is in Parkview Terrace. I have spoken before you before and I'll try not to repeat what was said earlier. With regard to flood modeling, I grew up in a town that flooded. There was no river in sight of where I lived, yet the water came periodically and it flooded a lot from the ground. I watched the water come up in 2008 behind all the sandbags that were being put up, and despite watching the water come up faster behind the sandbags, then people could pump out, people continued sandbagging, because of the emotion. I certainly think experts are doing the best job with what they can do now with regard to modeling, but no one accurately predicted when the river would crest in 2008 and I very much doubt that people can accurately predict how fast the water will flow or where it will go, if it floods again. And I would remind everyone that a 500 -year flood has a.2% chance of happening each year. And when I spoke with Mike Ryan, the hydrology consultant hired by the City, he in fact said, and these are his exact words — that flood modeling is more an art than a science. And so I would ask you to take that into consideration as you consider how well experts can predict where water will go. Having said that, I'm against the levee for many reasons, and I have certainly documented those and sent those to you in correspondence. The primary question here is not what is good for a very select group of people in the Idyllwild community, but what is good for the community of Iowa City. And I would respectfully ask that you vote this project down. First, Iowa City already has major projects that are going to be very complex — the raising of Dubuque Street comes to mind. That's going to take an extraordinary amount of staff time and might very well run millions over budget. Next, I heard from a school superintendent at a meeting last night that construction costs are expected to go higher because of all the building that the University will do. This does not bode well for any estimates we are coming up with today for a project that will not be built until 2016. Or 12... (mumbles) 2016, excuse me (laughter) A third, Dubuque Street is a very nice entrance into Iowa City and people entering into This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 40 Dubuque Street and coming into Iowa City should see a green beltway. They should not see an earthen levee that reminds them that a flood occurred whenever they enter our town. There will very likely be a road to the north, and much development in the area that Ed Cole now owns and some of the land around that. And it would be very nice to keep the options open for the future with the Parkview Church land and the area around Idyllwild. And to Mayor Bailey's, or former Mayor Bailey's comments, I would add: the people were able to be removed from harm's way. At best what we're talking about in all likelihood is property damage and buying flood insurance, which when I priced it out for my husband and I was very inexpensive. It's certainly a good option. And certainly most households that can afford to do to set up emergency reserves, and Idyllwild is not the low to moderate - income neighborhood that most CDBG grants assist. I do appreciate Mr. Holland's comments about how well Idyllwild is doing. I think they totally support that there is no urgent need for this project. And HUD will require urgent need. If there is no urgent need, HUD can require through an audit or otherwise that the City repay the money. I would next state that levees provide a false sense of security. That people might feel more secure behind them than they should. And, because of that may chose not to purchase flood insurance. This may in fact increase their damages should that levee be breached. And Iowa City's own consultant in one of the most recent public meetings said, one thing they learned from the Missouri floods is that the gophers are relentless. I anticipate that maintenance will be a nightmare, and that over the many years that a levee were to exist, if it were to be built, that the maintenance costs will increase over the time. And this is certainly not covered by the grant money. This would be covered by our tax dollars, and right now the City only collects 43.71% of every property tax dollar. And certainly those current tax dollars are committed elsewhere. Uh, lastly I would state that Iowa City's consultant was quite clear that a levee built to the 100 -year plus 3 -feet level would not have helped in a 2008 food event. And I understand Iowa city staff did make some murmurings about putting a temporary barrier on top of the levee, but I have a brother in the National Guard in Indiana, and I very much doubt that were we to have a severe flood, and remember the chances are very slim, per year, that the National Guard would allow people to live behind a temporary barrier if we had any sort of major flood at all. I would conclude by stating that feeling sorry for Idyllwild is a wonderful thing. The flood damages, they were compelling. The pictures are ...they were terrible! But that's not enough reason to vote for a levee for Idyllwild, and thank you very much for your patience and consideration in evaluating this issue over time. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Simon: My name is Dale Simon and I live at 46 Pentire Circle. Um, I took a job here in Iowa City here in 1997 and I began looking for a condo at that time. There were really only two condominium complexes being built in the area. There were no condominiums for resale that I could find. I decided on the (clears throat) Idyllwild condos over the ones at Wellington due to the proximity to downtown This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 41 and the interstate. One concern about the Idyllwild location was the river. However, I was assured that shouldn't be a concern since the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council had debated the issue and decided the area would be safe to build with some modifications, which was raising the level to the 100 -year flood level. And our local financial institutions didn't even require flood insurance in order for us to get a mortgage. My point is, that I was not familiar with Iowa City and I was ... and I as well as many other members of Idyllwild relied on the assurances given by our local financial institutions, and primarily we relied on the efficacy of the actions taken by the City Council in improving the area for development. Therefore, it seems to me that the city Council has some obligation to support actions of previous councils. I also remember hearing from the Council in the aftermath of the flood that they would respond to the needs of their citizens. It seems the City has in most cases done just that, that they plan to raise Dubuque Street, build a new bridge on Park Road, build a levee for the businesses, such as Hills Bank ... below the Highway 6. They, uh, and improve a levee for the residents of a trailer court in that area. Bought out the homes down river from Mc ... McCollister Boulevard. Offered buyouts to all the residents along Taft Speedway, and offered buyouts to many residents in the Parkview Terrace area. In fact, the Press - Citizen reported the City spend about a million dollars for just one of those residences. In addition, I know there are several lev ... levees being constructed in Coralville and the University if building levees and taking other precautions against future floods. Whereas none of the residents in Idyllwild were offered buyouts, although some of the buildings are below the 100 -year flood level. This seems to be the only area where the City hasn't responded to the needs of their citizens. The hydrology modeling shows that there will be no significant difference to the homes on the wet side if a levee were built. Therefore, to me those arguments seem moot... against the levee. If just one home is worth a million dollar buyout, I would like to think that 92 homes and a church should be worth an $8 million levee, plus providing access to the Peninsula area. To me there seems to be an issue of fairness and equity that needs to be addressed. Why would the residents of Idyllwild area not be ... not be provided any relief when it seems all other areas affected by the flood were provided some relief. Thank you for listening. I'd like to ask the members of Idyllwild community that are here to stand. And (mumbled) Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. (male): Your pen (mumbled) Dillman: Drew Dillman, again, uh, 845 Normandy Drive, which is at the very end, the deep end of Normandy Drive as you come around there, so I am directly, uh, affected by this and have had, uh, some experience because of my location there, uh, in past floods, and I can tell you that, uh, a levee does not provide all of the protection that one might hope for, that it is dependent upon two types of maintenance to work at all. The first one is maintenance during the flood. You have ... you have to have continuous pumping because there ... water seeps This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 42 underneath them, seeps through various things, and you have to pump out at at least the rate that it's leaking in or the water rises up behind that. Uh, the City did a magnificent job. The workers were there night, uh, after night working as hard as they could, doing everything they possibly could, and the churches in the area did everything they could in our area as well, trying to, uh, save, trying to make what was actually a pretty significant wall that ran across our backyard that was probably eight feet wide and ... six, seven feet tall, uh ... trying to make that work. Uh, eventually though after enough time had passed, it became obvious that it wasn't going to work and uh, I remember the night getting up at 2:00 in the morning and leaving when the generators were shut off, which had been running continuously, a large number of these pumps trying to pump the water out at a faster rate than they could. Uh, they were finally just overwhelmed. Levees in my experience, uh, and as I say I've been through two floods, uh, work well for a short-term flood that's not really, really high. Uh, they ... you can keep that up for a little while, but if you keep it going long enough, it will .... they will fail. Something will happen that makes them, uh, not work and that was worse in 93 than it was in this more recent one, if those ... those of you who remember the flood of 93. It went on for months, rather than weeks! Uh, and we had ... we walled our individual home off at that time and pumped and pumped and pumped and finally you ... you just can keep that up for so long, uh, either the power goes out or there's some other failure and the water leaks in, and in that case, it turned out it did more damage. The, A ... uh, small levee that we built, the local levee, the only levee we could have — more damage than good. So when the flood came around, this more recent flood, uh, I declined the opportunity to have the flood. I said I want to be included in that, in that wall, uh, but my neighbors pointed out there's no way I could be excluded without making the wall untenable. They had to run across to keep it in a straight line which was the most ... by far the most efficient way. So we went ahead, but indeed my experience was identical, even though it was a much shorter flood this time. Uh ... the type of flood that we had, because of our location, below a dam, means that our floods go on for a long, much longer than the average ones and because of that, levees are much less efficient. And there will be a cost. There was a huge cost to the City last time in trying to maintain that levee. Uh, and ... and I think that repeatedly we'll have that problem, but even where they have, uh, shorter -term floods, like they did in Katrina. I mean, they fail. Levees are by no means a guarantee, and this one you're building it with a guarantee that it will fail, if it's less ... if it's more than a 100 -year flood. Uh, the second type of maintenance... so there's that maintenance during the flood, which you suddenly become responsible for, which otherwise you wouldn't be responsible for. The water comes in and the water goes out. The second type of maintenance is the long -term maintenance that they mentioned before about, uh, gophers and this and that and the other and that long -term maintenance will be a continuing long -term expense that the City will be liable for once they ... you know, if you undertake to save a drowning man or something, then you have no legal liability before but once you do it, once you undertake that responsibility, then you have a liability to do it reasonably well ... unless you're specifically, uh, excluded. So I would, uh, encourage you to consider the fact that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 43 the, uh, money up front to build the levee is only the down payment on ... on what really in the long run is no guarantee, and in fact in my experience both times in the location below the dam where the thing was long, actually made things worse instead of better. I would encourage you to, uh, vote, uh, against constructing this levee. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Wilcox: Good evening, I'm Cathy Wilcox from 109...119 Taft Speedway Street, and I've spoken to you before and I've also contacted you, and would just like to say a few things here. Um, a number of people have talked about fairness, protecting communities, and I'm all for it, but then why should a select group be protected versus other people? And, um ... think you need to look at if the funds can be reallocated elsewhere, that that should be looked at more seriously. The other thing that I'd like to point out is when the first vote was taken to proceed with the study, um, the main focus was to provide the secondary access to the Peninsula. And I believe City staff had worked on that and said the alternative would be the levee with the floodwall, um, on Taft Speedway. But, at the work session things have changed. There is a new proposal for the secondary access for the Penin... for the Peninsula and that is needed, and it's via Laura Drive. So I think that things have changed quite a bit and ask you to look at the fairness (mumbled) fairness in treating everybody in Iowa City the same way. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you. Kinsey: I'm Joni Kinsey. Also Joni Kinsey - Fields, depending upon which context I'm in. I live at 602 Granada Court in Parkview Terrace, um, where I live with my husband and daughter. We did not flood. We were one of the few houses that did not flood in the 2008 flood. The water eventually ended up in our front yard. We are probably the highest house in the neighborhood, and we had only been in the house about three months. Um ... we had done a great deal of investigation before we bought the house about flooding. T had been around in the 93 era and knew about the flooding in that whole vicinity and um, was, you know, assured both by the Corps of Engineers, the neighbors, other people I knew that water was nowhere near even on our street, nowhere visible from our house. Furthermore the ... the water we were worried about was down our back hill, which is the Park Road hill and there was a, um, storm drainage problem. We would not buy the house without assurance that the storm drains up there were properly routed and the City had never in fact installed a viaduct, whatever they're called, uh, a conduit to ch ... channel that water off the Park Road hill neighborhood up there, and it all came through our backyard, and in fact we said, uh, to the realtor at the time, you know, what ... what's to be done about this and they said the City will in fact fix this, and we said can we get somebody from the City to tell us about this. In the long run, the City showed up with maps. The engineers were there. They said we will put in this conduit through your backyard and so the City made a fairly sizeable investment. They did do it! Uh, we did buy the house and the City This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 44 showed up to do the work, and did the work. The City put in a lot of money in storm drainage, essentially to protect our neighborhood and our... our property. Um, wasn't just us; it had a lot of impact on neighbors as well. My point in all of that is that, um, all of this was assurance to us that this neighborhood was in fact being taken care of in good ways and um, when the several months later the flood started to rise; we were assured by the surveyors even who came around and put stakes in everyone's yard as to what the levels were. Oh, you all are fine! We did absolutely no preparations because even they told us we were watching the levels on the computer and everything was fine. Um, in fact when the levees broke by Friday morning the water was at our curb and by the next day it was well into our front yard. In the end cresting about as far as you are from me, from our front door. And ... we were not given the opportunity for a buyout. As were a number of our dry neighbors. We were ... there are several so- called dry properties in Parkview Terrace. We did not have a chance to be bought out. So when it comes to the issue of fairness, oh they had a chance to leave, no — we didn't actually! When it comes now to the issue of protecting some versus others with the assumption that everyone on the so- called wet side of this proposed levee had a chance to be elsewhere or were in some way taken care of, that's just not the case. Um, essentially if this levee goes in and we have a flood of that magnitude again, I suspect we will flood, and it will essentially be because of all of these levee raisings and this one in particular because as it's been said — the water's gotta go some place! It's going to come in our house. So essentially I'm more or less saying that if we have a levee put in, if we have another flood, the City will have essentially condemned our property, and in fact if the levee is built, and we don't have a flood, it's essentially an inverse con... condemnation because we will be rendered in ... unsellable. When it comes to the issue of fairness, I have a great deal of sympathy for the people in the Idyllwild side of things. Certainly for the Taft Speedway people, especially if the levee goes in because that is completely unfair to them. Everyone here is at risk, and that's not good, and in fact in regard to this issue of community, we're all in the same boat, unless these measures are taken. It's just not going to be fair to some people to put it in when in fact it's going to protect a portion of what is a community. I certainly urge you to vote no on this. Um ... I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding and I wanted to clarify this one issue that not everyone in Parkview Terrace has had the chance to leave. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Dillman: Um, Judy Dillman, um, 845 Normandy Drive. Um, I just wanted to add another expense that nobody else has mentioned is that if this, um, berm is built up, it will be essentially trapping the water in Idyllwild of the drainage coming down from the north, um, I don't know the name of the ... can't remember the name of the road that goes up ... north there, um, but all of the drainage now can flow down to the river, um, through Idyllwild and it will not be able to do that. So as I understand it, there has to be a pump station put in there regardless in order to drain that area for, um, so that's going to be a continued maintenance, um, forever This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 45 on the City, um, if this berm goes up. So ... that's all I wanted to add. (unable to hear person away from mic) Oh, and this, um, person that, um, mentioned that it's $40,000 for flood insurance, that's ... um., we've lived in the flood plain for 30 years and we've ... even when our home was below the, um, the flood plain, we never paid more than a thousand dollars a year in flood insurance. So, um, I assume by $40,000 he means spreading that over a hundred and some condominiums when he says that. So that ... it's not that expensive. Hayek: Thank you. Norbeck: Martha Norbeck from 906 S. 7h Avenue. Um, I wanted to introduce a regional perspective to this discussion, um, I've reviewed the HDR assessment. Its impact analysis is very slim as far as environmental impacts. It refers to wetland issues and en ... other environmental issues and says, well, we actually don't know if it's a problem, but if it is we'll mitigate it or figure it out somehow and try to... (mumbled) so I feel like the analysis hasn't really gotten deep enough to really understand the impacts of this, um, from an ecological perspective, um and the other component is the regional perspective. One of the reasons we experience flooding is because our neighbors upstream are restricting flow, and as people restrict flow along the riverways, we're affecting our neighbors downstream. And I don't have any proposed solution for this, but I just want to raise your awareness with every time that you are restricting flow along your waterway, you're affecting people downstream, and um, our flood protection becomes somebody else's flood problem, and so having open areas for waters to go during flood events is an important way to deal with floods, and every flood event is going to be a little bit different. In the 93 that was more of a local flood, versus in 2008 it was really an upstream rain ev... event that affected us differently locally, and so we ... it's very difficult to predict how these regional hydrologies are going to work and so I just want to raise your awareness that your choices here are affecting people downstream, and the folks upstream are affecting us, and I don't know the solution, but I think the awareness is a starting point. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else ... who would like to provide comment during this public discussion? Bar: Hi, I'm Laurel Bar. I live at 609 Granada Court. Um ... I wanted to say that we lived on Hutchinson Avenue up in Manville Heights for about 20 years. I remember sandbagging, um, in 1993. We bought a cabin on the river after that and redid it. It had been flooded in 1993. We redid the cabin. We did not purchase, uh, flood insurance because, uh, we had to raise it in ... a certain height, in order to get flood insurance down at the river. My husband uses a wheelchair, so we did not raise it. Um, we subsequently have moved down to, um ... river, by the river on Grana... Granada Court. One reason because the house we, um, live in now is more accessible for a wheelchair and urn ... I moved in that Monday and the Thursday we needed to evacuate. Now ... we are one of the homes that did not get flooded and in fact I think we were the first ones, and uh, we did buy flood This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Hayek: Bar: Hayek: Karr: Page 46 insurance. I was assured by the real estate agent — it was just her, you know, opinion from history that it did not flood in that area. But I'm ... my point is is that these things you investigate, as my neighbor did, uh, as far as where you live, what some of the solutions are, because of our experience on the river, we, uh, and in 208 again, it flooded and floated down the river, and um, you just learn from your ... your experience, from other people's experience, and you make proper decisions from what you have learned and, um, I think this is something we all to do as we live along the river, and um, I guess I ... am hoping that you will take this all into account and not go along ... go ahead with the levee. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. And I did not get a buy -out possibility. So... Okay. It appears that we have come to the end of the public input process, um, so I'm going to, uh, close the public discussion (bangs gavel) at this time and uh... Motion to accept correspondence. Throgmorton: So moved. Mims: Second. Hayek: Moved by Throgmorton, seconded by Mims. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. So Item 9b would be to consider a resolution. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Payne: Move the resolution. Dobyns: Second. Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by Dobyns. Discussion? Payne: I'll go ahead and start. (laughter) I wrote my down because I figured it would be a little bit emotional (laughing) so I thought it'd be easier just to write it and read it. Um, I have empathy and compassion for the residents of the Idy ... Idyllwild subdivision. I also believe it is the responsibility of the government and the community to provide for the safe... safety and welfare of its citizens. When making decision... decisions such as this one, logic should be used rather than emotion. I think somebody mentioned that earlier. Using emotion I think would make this decision easy. Expending $8.1 million for the benefit of 92 residences, and at the same time putting others in potentially more harm, is not an effective use of funds. Logic tells me that it's not prudent use of public money to fund the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 47 Taft Speedway levee regardless of where those comes ... funds come from. It's too much money for the benefit of a few. My vote will be no. Champion: I, um, have never been for this levee. Um, it's bothered me that building this levee would affect other people who have been residents of Iowa City, who have been part of this community, who have dealt with the river all their lives. So although some people said thank you for supporting it, I have never supported it. Um, it's with heavy heart that I don't. I think Idyllwild is beautiful. I think it's a grand gesture that somebody built. It's really beautiful, but I can't support it at the expense of somebody else, and I'm hoping ... and I also have problems with the income level, not that I ... I know you're not rich and well- to -do, but this is money that is supposed to be spent on lower income, like we're using it for the levees at the trailer parks, which are definitely... people have no options there. None whatsoever. I applaud the success of getting Idyllwild back. It's ... it makes me very sad to vote no on this, but my conscience will not let me do anything else, and I have to live with my decision, just as you do. Hayek: I'll, uh, let me follow up on you, Connie. Um, I ... I am, uh, I'm going to support the staff recommendation. Um... and I... and I want to kind of explain my thought ...thought process. I would say initially that this issue has involved, uh, a lot of sniping, a lot of unfortunate commentary. Um, who knew what when, who was told what when, um, and ... and I don't think that's good for the community and frankly, 90% of it was uncompelling to me. Um ... uh, but ... but we received so much information that, you know, the challenge became sifting through, um, the hyperbole, um, and... and... and trying to make a decision, in the best interest of the community, and based on the ... the facts that we have. Um, but let me explain my thought process for how I reached wh ... where I am today. I ... I, I'm satisfied with the engineering analysis. It's an important component to this. It answered a lot of questions. Um, it answered a lot of questions for our staff up ... upon whom I rely heavily in terms of making these technical decisions. And I think it's important to remember that... that... we do in fact protect private property. We have, uh, both commercial property and residential property. We are pursuing permanent levees on the south end of town, protecting both commercial and ... and... and residential, um, and we have implemented temporary flood protection, um, all over the community, including in ... in this particular area. Um, and ... and you ... you can say that the Idyllwild area should... should never have been allowed to develop. Um, I ... I wouldn't really disagree with that, and I think you can make the same argument for other residences, uh, on that side of the river and on the other side of the river. Uh, but ... but that's hindsight. Um, the fact is that ... that this ... this, uh, population center is there now, and it forms a significant tax base, um, and a tax base that did not have a buyout option. Um, and as we... for me ... it helps me approach this decision to ... to remember that ... that this is, that our choice is not between building a permanent levee and doing nothing. Um, because if the permanent levee is not constructed, it's simply not realistic to assume that the City will do nothing in response to the next flood. Um, in fact we should assume that temporary levees, uh, will be constructed when the next flood This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 48 occurs, as they were, uh, in 2008. Um, and that means two things to me — first there is a cost associated with temporary levees and second, um, the concerns regarding impact, uh ... um, on the so- called wet side, uh, of a temporary levee are there whether the protection is temporary or permanent. Um, and on that impact issue, um, the ... the report we received, the HDR report, satisfied, uh, the concerns about wet -side impact, uh, at least to ... to my satisfaction. And I would say that many individuals who oppose, uh, this levee, um, on the basis of impact, were grateful to see, uh, the attempts made, uh, with respect to temporary protection, um, several years ago in 2008. Um, and I ... on the cost issue, I think there are a number of things worth ... worth considering, uh, one of the reasons I asked staff for the information on ... on flood response costs was ... is that I was trying to figure out does it ... what makes sense on a purely financial basis, um ... um, going forward, again assuming that the ... that the City, like pretty much any local government, would be under considerable political pressure to respond to a flood event, um ... um ... and .... and that an option would not simply be to say, you're on your own, you know, uh, good luck! And ... and organize amongst yourselves. Um, in ... in 2008 we estimate ... the City staff has estimated, and these are rough numbers, but that ... that more than $100,000 was spent building temporary... temporary flood protection, uh, in the area in question. And ... and that amount of temporary flood protection was ... was not sufficient. It ... it would have required more, and I would submit, based on my experience, and I joined the Council a few months before, uh, the ... the floods hit and Mayor Bailey, uh, led the City during that time. Um, that the next time around there will be pressure to respond even more aggressively, um ... the .... the staff recommendation that ... that's on the table tonight is largely covered with ... with non -local funds for the construction, uh, portion, and ... and we have estimated also that the ongoing maintenance of a levee would be about $30,000, uh, a year. Um, in ... as we know, and has been mentioned earlier, in .... in most flood events, um, the uh ... the 100 -year plus 3- feet, uh, approach, uh, is ... is all the protection that we ... that we would need. Um. we would only need protection if the flooding, uh, goes ... goes above that, and... and in those events where ... where the flooding is below the 100 -year plus 3, um, we don't req ... incur any response, uh, expenses as a city. If we have another flood like the 2008 flood, uh, that would go bey ... above that ... that levee level, um, we would need additional protection, but we start, uh, under that scenario, with an elevated, uh, level surface and the response time drops and the response cost drops, uh, for the City. Um, I think those are relevant considerations, and I would also submit that, uh, the proposed levee if implemented would, um, would see an increase in the property tax base in ... in this area. Um, that I think would be fairly substantial, and that's to the City's financial gain. Um, so I ... I think that a, that this levee, um, makes sense, um, on... on a financial basis, in addition to the other reasons, um, why I'm supporting it. I think our ... our capital expense as a City is minimal, um, and I think we ... we get at ... we see a long -term advantage in terms of our response costs. Um, obviously the ... I think it's pretty clear to ...to the people in this room that the ... that the other alternatives, um, the... the higher levees are... are either too expensive or aesthetically nonstarters, or both, um, and I think that's why staff's recommendation was to go with this particular This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 49 alternative. It's a modest, reasonable, um, approach with a minimal aesthetic impact, um, and ... and I think it's a reasonable one, and the last thing, the last comment I want to make is that, is to put this in perspective and several people have tried ... tried to do that, and again, I was ... I was part of the Council, uh, when the floods occurred and was ... have been part of the post -flood, uh, planning ever since. Um, this levee, um... or some form of permanent flood protection for... for this area, um, once ... once the buyout option was determined to be, uh, not viable, um, is something that I think is consistent with the long -term flood mitigation and protection strategy that the City, um, has developed and pursued over the last four and a half years. Um, and ... and I want to be consistent with that. I think this is something worth doing and that's why I would support it. Dickens: I'm going to follow up Matt by saying I'm going to support it as well. For all the reasons Matt gave, uh,, I'd also like to look at ... we cannot control the cities above us, but maybe we can control the dam and what's above that with the Corps of Engineers. There's been a lot of talk about the Reservoir only holding about 50% of the water that it was designed to. They said dredging is going to be too expensive. We have to look at that, because the expenses that are brought down from that dam and all the areas south of that may exceed what the dredging would cost. I know there's environmental reasons and things like that, but we really do have to look at everything, not just what Coralville's doing, what ... what we're doing here. We have to look at the whole Iowa River corridor and see what we can do to try to prevent something like this happening again. Mims: This has been I think a... an exceptionally long and difficult, uh, decision process for Council. Um, I think we've heard certainly a lot from the public and... and have welcomed that input and information, and um, I think as Michelle said, you know, very emotional decision for, or issue for people, and I think emotional for the Council in terms of trying to determine, um, you know, what our decision should be in this. Um ... very, very difficult for me to ... to decide, uh, which way to vote on this, and ... and Matt as usual has spoken very eloquently, um, in supporting his position, um ... I come down on the side of voting against the levee, and I do that for a number of reasons. I think ... I think that we have to do, uh... I think we have to be very judicious in terms of the way we do protection and where we put in levees and the impact that it has on other people in other areas. Um, as people have said, that water has to go somewhere and the minute you put up a levee, it's affecting other people. Um, I am also very concerned about the costs, not only of the construction of the levee, but the long -term maintenance of the levee, and...too many times in recent years we have seen across the Midwest major levee failures, and I think the ... the sense of security that people get from levees oftentimes, uh, is ... is not valid. Um, that they ... they rely too much on that in terms of safety that they .... they are not going to get. Um, again, this ... this has not at all been an easy decision. Um, as Connie said and... and Michelle said, I certainly feel for the people in Idyllwild, um, but there's a lot of other people that are impacted in many ways, as well, and I will not support the levee. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 50 Dobyns: The 1993 flood proved wrong the tightly held assertion that the Coralville dam spillway would never be breached. Therefore (mumbled) opinion of any subsequent development of the flood plain north of the lower City Park bend of the Iowa River was ill advised. (mumbled) condominium ownership, uh, structure with its clear operational constraints in such a setting was especially ill advised. The Iowa River meanders through a wide flood plain on both sides, and it makes little sense to me to place a levee on one side and not the other. One of the consultants stated in this room they were completely confident that a levee placement on one side would not affect the other. As no trustworthy, analytical evaluation is ever completely confident, I came away unwilling to fully accept the consultant's report. Growing up my family in our home suffered through a flood that left us exhausted in every way. In both Iowa City flood events I witnessed the same suffering in our neighborhoods as so many of us descended to the flood areas to help them. I support a northern re- routing of any flood restrictive traffic off Foster Road, and heavy rainfall drainage mitigation into the flood plain. I do not support any option that builds a levee on Taft Speedway. Throgmorton: Well, this is a very difficult decision. I think we ... we already hear that there are four votes against the levee so, um ... we'll go from there I guess, but it's a ... it's a very difficult decision about which people have very strong and conflicting perspectives, that's very obvious. I want to thank all of...all the people who have phoned or written us, and especially the many people I've had a chance to talk to, face -to -face over the past several months. Many of whom are in the room right now. So I've tried to approach this with an open mind (mumbled) diverse views, and to come up with the wisest and fairest decision I'm capable of. Just like I'm sure the other, uh, folks have tried to do as well. So I want to explain my reasoning and conclusion. I'll touch on some high points, uh ... I ... just to be clear about why I'm coming to the decision I do. First, Idyllwild's located in a flood plain. Private developers should not have transformed it into a residential neighborhood in the first place. Second, the City Council made a policy mistake in my judgment when it approved development of the area 20 years ago. Third, people who brought... bought condominiums there prior to 2008 should have understood there was some risk their property would be damaged by flooding. Understanding that there was some risk, they should have purchased flood insurance. Most did not, as best I can tell. Fourth, like other Iowa City residents whose homes and buildings were damaged by the flood, Idyllwild residents, many of you here, and... and Parkview Church experienced considerable physical loss, financial harm, and emotional trauma, which really matters as a result of the 2008 flood. Fifth, the best course of action would have been to remove those buildings from the flood plain through buyouts. However, Idyllwild condo owners were not eligible for a buyout, using either FEMA or hazard mitigation grant program funds. Sixth, a new floodwall or levee will not provide perfect protection. As a recent national Academy of Science report states, I quote: in the short-run, the presence of the... a levee may reduce risk to the local hazard; however, if the upper limit to the capability of these structures is ever exceeded, the consequences to those with homes or businesses behind the levee can be catastrophic. So This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 51 increasing the property value behind the levee is a bad idea! Seventh, the recommended levee would leave, uh, I think it's seven Taft Speedway homes on the wet side of the levee. Eighth, I'm persuaded the construction of the levee would have miniscule affect on the height of floodwaters in ... in the, on the other side of the river. Uh, so I ... I'm not paying too much attention to that as an issue. Ninth, using public funds to protect Idyllwild and Parkview Church with a flood wall or levee would be to privatize benefits while socializing costs. Assuming that 92 condo owners would equally benefit from the $8.1 million levee, recommended by the staff, each such condo owner would be receiving a subsidy equivalent to $88,000. That's a pretty large subsidy! Tenth, almost half of the condos were purchased after the 2008 flood, at highly discounted prices. People who purchased these condos in my judgment are not flood victims who deserve the public's help, and last, spending $8 million of CDBG funds on a levee designed to protect Idyllwild properties might be an inappropriate or unwise use of those funds. For those reasons, I don't think we should build, uh, a floodwall or a levee, but I do have some suggestions about what we could do instead. I think we should first instruct the staff to explore the viability of amending the City code to require businesses and residents that own structures in the flood plain, in or near Idyllwild, to have flood ins ... to have flood insurance. Second, we should instruct the staff to explore the legal and financial feasibility of having the City provide one -time financial payments to persons and businesses that owned condos in Idyllwild, prior to the 2008 flood whose condos sustained damage from the flood who wanted but were unable to accept a buyout and who continue to own condos in Idyllwild. I don't know how large such payments could be. I don't know if they're even financially or legally possible, but as a rough back of the envelope calculation, I ... I calculated that if... if we, uh, provided payments of something like $40,000 per household, we might be able to partially compensate them for loss of property value to purchase flood insurance and to make it easier for them to move, if they want. Last, I think we should instruct the staff to identify alternative uses of CDBG funds that would directly benefit low to moderate - income households. That's my view. Hayek: I think everyone's spoken. Is there any follow -up discussion? Roll call, please. Uh, item fails; uh, Council Members Dobyns, Payne, Mims, Champion, Throgmorton in the negative. Before we leave this item, I want to bring up an idea that, um ... that ... that I want to propose. It ... it, uh, initiated with ... with staff, uh, and it has to do with, um, us, um, adopting a ... a follow -up rec ... uh, resolution that does two things. First, it, uh, confirms the decision not to pursue, um ... uh, a permanent levee, um, and ... and secondly, it directs staff to look into preliminary design, um, for projects that might re -route the offsite drainage, um, from the northwest corner of Idyllwild, um ... uh ... which would be consistent with what was recommended in the HDR report, and I want to hand out a resolution that was prepared, um, and I'll ... I'll read it so the audience is aware of it. Um, and then see if this Council has interest in it. It says: whereas HDR, the City's consultant for the Taft levee Speedway project submitted a report that identifies a number of feasible options and associated cost estimates for flood protection and mitigation, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 52 and whereas the Council's been presented with considerable information by staff, consultants, and citizens regarding the pros and cons of constructing and maintaining a permanent levee to provide flood protection and concludes on balance that it is not in the best interest of the community to proceed with a permanent levee, and whereas it is in the best interest of the City to proceed with re- routing the offsite drainage from the northwest corner of the Idyllwild site, to the west edge of the site, directly into the Iowa River, which will reduce the risk of flooding caused by locally, uh, by heavy local rains. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council that 1) staff is directed not to proceed with any of the alternatives for a levee along Taft Speedway as contained in the HDR report, 2) staff is directed to proceed with preliminary design for re- routing offsite drainage from the northwest corner of the Idyllwild site, as outlined in the recommendations section of the HDR report. Dobyns: I would move the resolution. Dickens: Second. Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? I had a sense that we were, uh ... that we would end up with a ... with a majority of Council not interested in pursuing this, and I think staff did too. That's why this was prepared, in case, uh, that ... that occurred. Mims: I'm assuming procedurally that you know this wasn't on our agenda. We can... Dilkes: Notice of the subject matter has been given. That's not a problem at all. (several talking) Hayek: And this is not a commitment to do anything, but what it is is a direction to staff to begin the preliminary design analysis, um ... uh, presumably at some point if that design analysis showed that there was something that could be done to abate this issue, um, we'd ... we'd come back, they would come back to us. There'd be public notice, etc., and then we'd make a decision whether to commit to that. Champion: Great! Dobyns: Matt, is there any need for an intent to ... regarding, um, traffic, uh, alteration off Foster Road in the event of heavy rainfall or flood, you know, to be able to, um, get to Mackinaw Village and to the Peninsula neighborhood? Does that need to be a part of this intent at all? Hayek: I don't know. Tom? Dickens: Wouldn't that come up in the study? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 53 Markus: I think this is just dealing with the storm water at this point. Uh, Foster's probably going to have to be studied and then potentially raised to get that out of the flood plain issue. So I think that's a separate issue. Dobyns: Okay! But Rick did ... there was a discussion about, um, you know, instead of...necessarily raising Foster Road, but re- routing north of it, but ... okay, that... Markus: Well, there's an alternative, uh, road that's been discussed and considered, but that hasn't progressed beyond... Dobyns: Okay. So City staff feels this is a sufficient... note of intent. Markus: At this time. Dobyns: Okay. Thank you. Payne: And this would not ... be hiring any consultant to do any more work at this time. This would just be City staff doing the study? Markus: Rick, you want to comment. Mims: Yeah, I was ... I was going to kind of ask in terms what kind of (both talking) we might be looking at, just... Fosse: Yeah, we probably would gage ... engage a consultant to look at...at the options here, uh, for ... for concepting it, just because of all the other work we do have currently going on. Um, shooting from the hip, a ... a conceptual project like that being the $30,000 - $40,000 range ... to get the information and go through the analysis that they need. Payne: Then would we get that back on an agenda to approve or would this be approving that expenditure? Dilkes: This would not be approving that expenditure. The City Manager has authority for consultants less than ... or over, less than $50,000. Markus: If you wish to see it, I don't have any reservation about bringing it back to you. (laughter) Mims: No, I was just interested in some kind of a ballpark figure. Payne: Yeah! Mims: Thank you. Payne: Thanks, Rick. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 54 Hayek: Thanks, Rick. Any other discussion on this? Champion: I don't have any problems looking into this. Hayek: Okay, roll call, please. Throgmorton: Matt, I'd like to know if there's any interest on the part of the other Council Members about any of the three recommendations I made. Hayek: I'd, uh... Throgmorton: In ... in this ... cause, you know, the language I used was to instruct the staff to explore the financial and ... and, uh, legal feasibility. Dickens: Could we do that in a work ... work session? Hayek: Why don't you bring that up at the ... at the next meeting? I mean, people are clearing out now and I didn't get down all of your three and (several talking) Dickens: I think important enough to discuss all the options and ... since we're ... we're moving away from the levee. We've got other ... other ways that we can do things. Hayek: Okay. Uh, why don't ... we'll just pause here for a minute and let people clear out. Markus: You know, while that's occurring, I think it's appropriate to recognize, uh, Mr. Fosse and his staff for all the work that went into this by the City staff to develop this, um, outcomes don't necessarily determine the quality or the amount of work that goes into a project like this, so I'd like to specifically acknowledge Rick and his staff for all the work that he's done (both talking) Throgmorton: ... couldn't agree more! (several responding) Hayek: Okay, let's move on. We've already handled Item 10 so... Karr: Could I have a motion to accept correspondence on 10. Mims: So moved. Payne: Second. Hayek: Motion from Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. Karr: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 55 ITEM 11. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "ANIMAL CONTROL" AND TITLE 10, ENTITLED "PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "CITY PLAZA," AND CHAPTER 9, ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION REGULATIONS," TO ALLOW DOGS IN CITY PLAZA, TO PROHIBIT DOGS IN SIDEWALK CAFES, AND TO ALLOW DOGS TO BE OFF LEASH IN ALL DOG PARKS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Mims: Move second consideration. Champion: Second. Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Throgmorton: Last meeting I voted for this. The more I've thought about it the more I ... I'm inclined not to support it. First of all, I don't really understand who's promoting it ... as a, you know, something we should do. I remember some discussion of that last time, um ... but I haven't heard people saying we ... we need to make it easier to walk dogs on the ped mall, and because of things I said about having lived in Mont Pier France for a while and what I witnessed there (laughter) I... I'm not going to vote for it. Hayek: Okay. Champion: You don't want to pretend you're back in France? (laughter) Hayek: There... there's a woman standing (mumbled) do you wish to address the Council on this? (unable to hear away from mic) Throgmorton: Sorry. I should have waited I guess. Hayek: Can you give us your name again, please? Daly: Mary Jo Daly, and uh, my favorite part of the ped mall is the, uh, children's play equipment outside the Library, and uh, the fountain. Children use the fountain and they use it barefoot and I don't think dogs are a good mix! And we have a couple of dog parks and I'm glad of that. Hayek: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Let's take it back to Council. Jim, we've heard, uh, your discussion. Is there anything else? Champion: I think because there are more residences downtown that this has come up as people walk out of those condos onto the ped mall and I'm ... I can see why they want to be able to have their dog there, but I can also see why there would be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 56 strong objections to it ... since dogs do do what birds do, only in bigger quantities. (laughter) So... Mims: Well, I ... yeah, I mean, I commented on it before, and I think (several talking) lots areas of the country, you know, people have their dogs with `em all the time out in public areas, and I think the culture is such that people manage to make sure they take them to the appropriate places to relieve themselves and um ... I think with the Downtown District coming to us to request they, they must see an interest, um, and need in it in terms of people who are spending a lot of time downtown, so I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Payne: And I think to address Ms. Daly's, uh, concern, I do think there was something in the ordinance that didn't allow the dogs to be within so many feet of the... Markus: It's 15 feet away from the children's play areas. Payne: So it, I mean, that was addressed in some manner. Hayek: Right. Payne: Um, and... everything we do is constantly changing and evolving, and I think, you know, Connie has said this many, many, many times as, you know, we just need to ... if it doesn't work, we can change it back! (laughs) Champion: It's not written in stone! Payne: This is something pretty easy, I think, to ... if it doesn't work (several responding) we can fix it again. A different way. Dickens: As I said before, it's never really been strongly enforced, uh... so I don't see any problem with it, uh ... having worked on the ped mall since it was built, there's always been dogs going up ... usually our officers, if they do stop someone, they just tell them that they're not supposed to be there. So I don't know ... you'd have to research how many tickets have ever been written for having a dog there. Champion: I doubt there've been any! Dickens: S o l ...I don't see a problem with it. I ... I don't like it, but it's not going to change what's already going on there. Hayek: Further discussion? Roll call, please. Second consideration passes 6 -1, Throgmorton (both talking) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Hayek: ... in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 57 Payne: So moved. Dobyns: Second. Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by Dobyns. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 58 ITEM 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, FINANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3, POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE, SECTION 4, WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS USER CHARGES, AND SECTION 5, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, TO INCREASE THE DEPOSIT FOR UTILITY ACCOUNTS; AMENDING TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 5, ESTABLISHING CITY UTILITY ACCOUNTS; DEPOSITS REQUIRED, TO HOLD DEPOSITS UNTIL ACCOUNTS ARE CLOSED; AND AMENDING TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 6, BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, TO ENSURE THE IMPOSITION OF LIENS CONFORMS TO STATE CODE. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Payne: Move second consideration. Dobyns: Second. Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by Dobyns. Mims: Are you out of breath yet? Hayek: (laughter) Shakespeare would turn over in his grave! (laughter) Champion: I mean, I understand this and don't ... but my ... my only objection to it is how long do you hold on to these deposits? If you live here 30 years you still hold on to their desposits? Mims: Yes. Champion: I mean, that seems kind of illogical to me. Payne: I've lived here several and they still have mine! (laughter) Champion: I have all mine back! (laughter) Payne: more than several! Hayek You must know somebody! (laughter) Payne: Who did you ask? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 59 Champion: I mean, I don't know. I mean, it just seems to me if you've lived here for 20 years and you've paid your water bill or electric bill or whatever kind of bill it is, you should get your deposit back! I mean, what we're really interested in is short- term people (several talking) Dilkes: No, we're talking about residential tenant accounts only. Okay? Champion: Oh. Thank you! Dilkes: And ... yeah. (several talking) Champion: Okay. I'll be quiet. Hayek: Further discussion? Roll call, please. Second consideration passes 7 -0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 60 ITEM 13. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL USE OF SIDEWALKS," SECTION 5, ENTITLED, "USE BY MOBILE VENDORS," TO CHANGE THE DURATION OF A MOBILE VENDING PERMIT FROM ONE YEAR TO THREE YEARS AND TO LIMIT THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST TO THREE CARTS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Payne: Move second consideration. Dickens: Second. Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? Would anyone from the audience who is here to weigh in on this issue? Okay. Council discussion? Roll call, please. Second consideration passes... Karr: Motion to consider... Hayek: 7 -0. Karr: ...to accept correspondence. Dobyns: So moved. Mims: Second. Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Mims. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 61 ITEM 14. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED AND COLLECTED EACH YEAR ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THAT AREA ADDED TO THE CITY - UNIVERSITY PROJECT 1 URBAN RENEWAL AREA PURSUANT TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT THERETO IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, STATE OF IOWA, BY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF IOWA, CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, BE PAID TO A SPECIAL FUND FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON LOANS, REBATES, GRANTS, MONIES ADVANCED TO AND INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING BONDS ISSUED OR TO BE ISSUED, INCURRED BY SAID CITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY - UNIVERSITY PROJECT 1 URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Dobyns: Move first consideration. Payne: Second. Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Payne. Discussion? Throgmorton: Wonder if staff could explain this for us? Dilkes: Um, sure. As you... all know we recently amended the City/University, um, Urban Renewal Plan, which we all kind of think of as the downtown urban renewal plan, to include what we ... uh, called the Riverfront Crossings area. Um, so what this ordinance does is it authorizes the creation of a special fund, uh, in which to place the incremental tax ... taxes that accrue in that area, for the payment of projects that the City might subsequently approve. Uh, on December 1St of each year, we certify debt, um, for those projects that the Council has approved and when we do that, we capture the money that would have been set aside in this fund. If that ... if we don't approve any projects and we don't certify any debt, the money is simply released to the other jurisdictions. The second thing this ordinance does is it sets the base value, um, for determining what the incremental value is with respect to what money goes into that, um, that, uh, special fund. And, uh, by adopting this ordinance now, the base value for that new area will be set at January 1St of 2011. Payne: And is it 2011 because we're ... we pay 2011 taxes this year... Dilkes: It's ... it's 2011 because that's what the code says. Payne: Oh, okay (laughs) pretty simple! Dilkes: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 62 Throgmorton: So on a project -by- project basis, we will decide whether to provide, um, TIF support for those projects and then... Dilkes: You have a ... you actually have a good example of that on your agenda tonight. Um, the, uh ... urn ... your Consent Calendar included, uh, certification of debt. Um, one ... for, urn ... for the December 1St certification that we'll make, and one of those debt certifications is for the, um, new, uh, tower that you approved in the recent development agreement and for which we recently sold bonds. Throgmorton: Okay. Thanks! Hayek: Glad you brought that up, Jim. Further discussion? Roll call, please. First consideration passes 7 -0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 63 ITEM 15. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, ENTITLED "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 1, ENTITLED "GENERAL LICENSING PROVISIONS" AND CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "TAXICABS" TO REQUIRE A DISTINCTIVE COLOR SCHEME FOR ALL VEHICLES DRIVEN BY A COMPANY; REQUIRE LOCATION OF A DISPATCH OFFICE TO BE IN IOWA CITY OR CORALVILLE CITY LIMITS AND ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR DISPATCHING FROM THE OFFICE; RESTRICT NEW COMPANIES TO STARTING JUNE 1 OF EACH YEAR; CLARIFY LANGUAGE RE VEHICLE LETTERING, AND REQUIRE DRIVER IDENTIFICATION TO BE POSTED IN THE VEHICLE FACING THE PASSENGERS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Mims: Move first consideration. Payne: Second. Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion? Um, if there are people in the audience who, uh, want to weigh in on this, now would be the appropriate time to come forward. If not... okay! Doderer: Hello everybody, uh, my name is Dennis Doderer. I drive for Redline Cab, but I'm an owner- operator of my own vehicle. Uh, there are a small majority of people in my situation in Iowa City. Uh, we have our own clientele. We are mostly ... we are rarely dispatched by a dispatcher. You'll notice I'm wearing a Bluetooth, and I have a smart phone, which I think is smarter than a lot of the cab drivers in Iowa City, and I'm able to meet the marketplace in a way that I don't think people who are dispatched and who drive from some of the larger companies are able to do. It's my great concern that the law as written to this point has not done anything to protect our rights, and certainly doesn't do anything to protect the rights of workers. Cab drivers for any company in this Iowa City, uh, my concern is that the amendments to the legislation as proposed have not been thought out thoroughly enough that in pure economic terms, it's only going to increase the concentration of the two major companies in the marketplace, and I would contend that this is what's wrong with the economy in the United States, that the means of ownership and the means of production are in two few hands. Uh, this is going to create two even larger companies which unfortunate in the end are going to be too big to fail, and we've all been through that before in the banking industry. Um, when I walked into the room tonight, um, I saw this picture, this gentleman in the middle right next to the lady. That's my dad, he was mayor in the 1960s. During his tenure there was mostly progressive legislation. There was urban renewal. He created a retirement plan, uh, for the police and fire — they didn't have one to that point. My mother, when she was in the Legislature, was the biggest proponent for equal rights in the history of this state. The only reason Iowa has an equal rights amendment, uh, to protect women is because of my mother. Uh, she created women's sports in the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 64 Iowa City high school system. Uh, everything that they've done, everything that I've been taught is to expand the blessings of liberty and ... I really fear that this legislation goes in the opposite direction. It's anti - progressive, and Iowa City has a reputation of being a very livable space. I don't think the City Council is aware that a lot of the guys who drive cabs in Iowa City are working 60 to 80 hours a week. And more in some cases. I've heard of 90 hours a week. Uh, at Yellow, for example, they're required to be so- called independent contractors. But if they would like to be independent enough to own their vehicles, their ... uh, their contracts are terminated. I want to make sure that the rights of the owner- operators like myself. There's a guy... Chris isn't here. These gentlemen here, Joe ... Joe Cab and uh, a guy named Al who does Relax -a -Taxi, we meet a particular segment of the market. Uh, they call us up directly. Bing, bang, boom — we know everything we need to know about `em, uh, and we find that people like to go to a cab where somebody knows their name, and I think we do a real good job of that. What my concern is is that the ... that the tenets of this bill, the consistent cab colors, consistent signage, the dispatcher — they don't do anything to solve the problem. The problem is price gouging. Uh, if I gouge, I don't get any repeat customers. It's that simple. I bust my butt to make sure people are satisfied with what I do. I bring a lot of different perspectives to the job. I never thought at 63- years -old I would be driving a cab. But, I had a financial mishap and a health mishap. I happen to have fourth stage kidney disease, and when I needed to go back to work, I called every cab company in town, and I told `em, look, I have kidney disease. It's a disability. I can't work 60 to 90 hours a week. Only Dave from, uh ... uh, Big Ten and Haney, who I work with and for now returned my calls. Nobody else wanted to deal with me. That's a violation of federal law, uh, you know, dissing somebody with a handicap. So ... you know, adding $400 or $500 to the operation of each individual cab for a paint job and probably another $100 or $150 for consistent signage, and adding $8,000 to $10,000 a month to, uh, cab companies like, uh, Redline and, uh, Big Ten is only going to be in strict economic turns, uh, terms a limitation to entry into the marketplace. It's going to put people out of work. It's going to ... if you want to talk about a job killing job, uh, and it's going to put people like me, uh, I won't have any place to work. Now if the, if you're willing to consider an option that would protect independent people, you know, a public option as it were, uh, I would go along with that but... have... have any of you met with an ... with an owner- operator- driver like myself so far? Can I see a raise... Hayek: We're not set up for a back and forth, uh, with you on ... on this... Doderer: Okay, well I ... I would contend that nobody has talked to me, and I'm willing to talk to each of you as individuals because it's my fear that this legislation is going to move forward without any input from people like myself. Uh (laughs) I remember my parents, I remember my dad literally having hundreds of meetings with, uh, I remember the police when they came to him and they, and my dad was the assistant personnel director at the University, and he said, look, if the University police have a retirement program, it's only fair that the City police and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 65 the City firemen have a retirement fund. So my concern is that this legislation is not fair. It's not fair to owner- operators. Uh, there's nothing to protect the wages, hours, and working conditions of the drivers. Drivers are working 80 hours a week, which I contend is a dangerous situation. Uh, when you have a dispatcher, you are at the beck and call of the dispatcher. You don't ... you only need to watch a couple reruns of Taxi to see that. They tend to play favorites, uh ... I play favorites (laughs) with my people and they contact me directly. Um... Hayek: Mr. Doderer, we're going to need you to wrap up your comments. You've been going for well over five minutes and that's generally the limit. Doderer: All right. I just (both talking) Okay. I just want to say that I don't think this legislation is fair and I don't think it ... I'm going to leave it at that. Thank you very much. Hayek: Thank you, and this ... this is, um, first consideration. There are two subsequent votes that have to occur, so that you have an opportunity to ... to communicate directly to the Council via email or in person or... Doderer: I'm probably going to be calling you. Hayek: ... encourage you to that. Doderer: Thank you very much. Hayek: Thank you. Karr: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to note that the current ordinance in effect, not with the amendments, regulates taxi companies with four or more vehicles. It does not address at all owner- occupied. So all of these are company ... um, initiatives, and a company to pick up, uh, passengers within Iowa City must be licensed and must have four vehicles. Those are the companies we're talking about with these amendments. Hayek: Thank you. Throgmorton: Independent owner- operators would not be affected by this, is that what you're saying? (unable to hear person away from mic) Hayek: Okay, we're ... we're going to have... we're ... if...if there's going to be commentary, it needs to be through a microphone. Um (unable to hear person speaking away from mic) okay, sorry about that. Karr: We have ... our ordinance restricts the pick-up ... of passengers within Iowa city to licensed cab companies and /or chartered transportation. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 66 Hayek: Okay. Is there, uh, any additional comment from the audience? Hamza: Um, hi, my name is Hany Hamza. Um, I live at, uh, 1034 Westside Drive, and uh, I only have, uh, want to talk about one issue about the, uh, all the ordinance are okay for us except the, uh, dispatching from an office. Um (mumbled) the, um, the cost of hiring a dispatcher from an office, uh, to have a dispatcher in the day shift and night shift, talking about $5,000, $200 a month. That's the minimum wage to hire someone for 12 hours in a day and 12 hours at nighttime. That'll be like, uh, approximate $5,200 a month. So for, uh, small businesses and for cabs that have, for companies they have, uh, six vehicles or less, they're not going to be able to have this kind of expenses, plus the insurance and overhead. Uh, maybe the big companies, they like whatever, uh, 18, 20 cab companies, they can be affording so that's all the, uh, 16 or 18 cab companies in town, urn ... they could be able to, they're not going to be able to afford the, uh, this kind of expenses, plus the insurance, and the plus the other expenses. So, uh ... it will be very hard for the ... for the people working in Iowa City for, as drivers or as the, uh, business owners to keeping the business as, uh, calculating that much of expenses plus the overhead, that will be kind of big budget and uh, if you guys can consider that at this point. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you, sir. Wilberg: My name is Lee Willberg. I live at 1115 ... St. Clements Alley, Iowa City. Uh, I work for Big Ten Advark, um, I wanted to comment on the four cab, independent driver thing real quick. I believe you can't run a cab company under four cars, so you couldn't be an independent contractor. You'd be eliminated and illegally running. Throgmorton: Could you speak up? I ... I can't hear you. Willberg: Sorry! You'd be, uh ... uh, outside of your legal bounds to run a company under four cabs. Uh ... sorry, I'm a little nervous. Uh, I wanted to... Throgmorton: That's okay. Hayek: Don't sweat it! (laughter) Willberg: ...I read the article, uh, and this is sort of what brought me here. I wasn't really compelled beforehand from what I've been told, but ... but uh, the thing that got to me was, uh, the Mayor's quote, uh, wanting to guard against changes suggested by cab industry that, uh, give them an unfair advantage over newcomers and outside providers. Um, I think some of the previous comments talk about that. I'll just try to keep this quick. The reintat ... reinstating color schemes would be a large cost for several companies, at least 50% I would say of the cab companies out there would have to repaint or vinylize their vehicles, at somewhere between $500 to $1,000 a vehicle. Um, and this also seems to serve the interest of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 67 larger corporations who have already done this. Uh, dispatches ... uh, same, uh, also I'm having a hard time understanding why it would be wrong to run that business from your home, uh, the rental costs are another cost that would be on top of the $5,000 to pay the dispatcher. So you'd be paying for the, uh, office and the dispatcher. Um, the, uh, new companies, yearly license — I'm not exactly sure what the ideas behind that are. I'd like to know. Uh, the lettering and phone number consistency, seemed to be, uh, there already. I don't know a lot of...or any to be exact in the last two years unlabeled cabs, in Iowa City. They seem to all be running with, uh, consistent lettering. There are some a little off, but they all have at least the same color or font. Uh ... driver identification, my identification's already up front. I have no problem with that. I think that the passenger should be able to see the identification. You turn the dome light on at the end of every run. So it should be clear, as long as there's a large card in front. Uh ... I don't know anything about the feedback form. Um, and the inspections. Uh, the other issues I saw in the paper ... uh, alternate parking. Seems like a... the police force in Iowa City is doing a fine job of keeping us from double - parking. We're not, uh, I don't know exactly where you would put cabs, uh, and, uh, there'd have to be several positions, uh, to, uh, have regular parking, uh, I also feel that most cab customers call and ask to be picked up from a certain place, so they won't... it would be hard to get them all to funnel and do small areas, uh, but again, I'm not against that. Uh, mostly just the ideals, uh, I guess the real issue is, uh, the cab industry in Iowa City is becoming pretty competitive, uh, there seems to be a dwindling amount of customers over the past few years. Uh, we've been trying to clean up our downtown, if you will, and this has caused ... uh... confrontation between the cab companies for customers and I feel that a lot of these regulations, uh, will incur a cost on the smaller businesses and make it harder for them to compete with the larger businesses. I think that's all I have. Thank you! Hayek: Thank you. Appreciate your comments! Stonebreaker: Council, my name is Stephen Stonebreaker. I live at 937 Springridge Drive. First off I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, what I have to say is that, uh, competition is, uh, one of the defining things of capitalism, which makes this country great. On the same hand if competition, uh, we have rules and regulations, but rules and regulations are only as good as they are enforced, and they're only as sound as those who abide by them. One of the things... things that, um, I want to bring to attention is that in the City of Iowa City and corridor area of North Liberty, Iowa City, and Coralville, there are I believe and I maybe not quite right on this so I do apologize if my numbers are incorrect, but I believe that there are 19 cab companies in the area, um, up to 21, with three additional cab companies in the, uh, Cedar Rapids' area with jurisdiction to come down here and drive during football weekends. That is far more comparable to, uh, Des Moines, which is, uh, twice than double our population and with that said, um, really what I want to focus on right now is if these rules and regulations do pass through and are um, and you guys vote yes on this that, uh, that the ... the, really This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 68 the issue is not so much them passing as them being enforced. There have been other rules and regulations that have been, um, put into, uh, effect but I don't feel as a driver or as a passenger that these have been, uh, abided by. Not only by ... by the companies, but also by the law system as well. And I say this, um, as I have, uh, complained about this, I have, um, called a few ... on a few different occasions, um, and seen some, uh, regulations that were being, uh, severely abused and I don't feel that it was, um, sought after as much as it should have been. Um, I'm sorry if I'm out of line by saying that. I do apologize, but also feel it's my right as a citizen to say what I see being abused. Thank you ... very much. Hayek: thank you for your comments. Bradley: My name is Roger Bradley. I'm the manager of Yellow Cab of Iowa City. Um, I'll try to be as brief as possible. Um, there are many good, uh, changes proposed. Um, as your, you know, your packet probably indicates there was a meeting on Halloween Day, um, in which a number of cab companies were represented, um, and a lot of ideas and problem - solving were thrown right into the mix and, uh, we actually had a pretty good discussion, um, in general I ... I favor a lot of this. There's a couple of things I then ... think need a little tweaking. Um, you know, we're ... we're for the color schemes, um, you know, we ... we think that's a great idea. Uh, primarily, uh, we think that ... you know, part of the problem might be the cab companies, or you know, who decide to start late in the game, come in, do a couple month's worth of work, grab as much money as possible, and then disappear. Um ... and right now it's very easy to do that. I think there's no secret, if you look at the numbers, the minute football season starts, there's a lot more cabs, and more cab companies, and then I think you're going to find here in the next few weeks it's going to drop off. Um, the problem we've had, not this year, but this has been going on for ... a couple years now, um, there is a lot of overcharging and that sort of thing, um ... we think that anything that we can do to make the cab company more professional and more worried about their behavior and how it's going to affect their business, and the entire industry in town, in general, you know, would ... would be good. Um, so the color scheme, yes it does cost money, but uh, we think that, you know, if it's part of that whole package that makes the companies more professional, I ... you know, we're all for it. Um, as far as the dispatch office, um, you know, proposal here, I would like to remind Council that presently, at present, cab companies are required to have 24 -hour dispatching from a central location. Central dispatching office. Um, some people will say we're not going to be able to afford this. Uh, I do not like the tense of that. They're... supposedly affording it already and have been. Um, because it's been on the books. Actually to tell you the truth this requirement, I don't think, needs, uh, flexibility. I think it needs enforcement. Um, I'll bet you if the... resources would, you know, were put toward enforcing this, you would find on any given night there's probably just a few cab companies that actually have a dispatcher on duty. Um, we believe there's a lot of dispatching being done from the taxi cab itself, um, I ... you know, on my driving staff alone, I have several drivers, who used to work at other companies, um, and they have all told me, um, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 69 that at one time or another they were told you have to take the phone tonight ... when you go out, meaning you're not only driving the cab, you're answering the phone and dispatching to other cabs ... in the fleet. Um, we think it's incredibly dangerous. Um, we don't see, you know, we're amazed that it hasn't cost a ... caused a real accident so far. So I ... we don't really think that there's even from midnight to 6:00, we think that's just another opportunity for someone to, you know, just simply not follow the rules. Um, so I would actually suggest that you just simply remove that flexibility and keep the ... the ordinance as it is, in regards to the central dispatching office. Um, obviously with the law in place already, um, you would think theoretically everyone's affording it. Um ... the reason for the new cab companies starting, um, beginning a license year only, at this meeting on Halloween we kinda felt like that was an idea that maybe would keep, you know, the people who come in just for two months and don't care about customer service, don't care whether they get repeat customers. That is in fact how you build a business, but if you know you're only going to be in business for two or three months for the football games, you're really not concerned about that. Um, the, you know, the, uh, we're all for consistent lettering on the vehicles, and ... and phone numbers. I believe that the uh, that problem was brought up because there was one cab company that had numerous, meaning you know more than a dozen vehicles out there and there were several different phone numbers. One had this phone number, one had that phone number, another one had this phone number, and it was believed that you're actually calling the cell phone in that cab. You're not calling a, you know, you're obviously not calling a central dispatch office where there's some... some... somebody has, you know, 15 phones in front of `em. Um, the reason for the annual license change, um, right now it's March Ist. In February, everybody has to get their vehicles reinspected. It is a very busy time of year. Uh, snow starts to melt, people want to get out a little more, you really want your whole fleet out there, instead of holding it back because you gotta take it into the garage to the City to get it inspected. Um, I would actually prefer if that were July 1St. Um, simply because we, Yellow Cab is now being licensed in two different markets and one of `em is in Cedar Rapids and they're license year starts July Is'. You know, would it make it easier on us? Sure it would. Um, but that is just, you know, that's... just ... you know, but even at June 1St it still would do good because, you know, you're not forcing us to, you know, during our busy time to worry about relicensing. Um, I was ... I think I was the one who proposed the ... the driver I.D. badge replacement on the dashboard. Um, certainly you want it to be seen so someone could, you know, make a proper complaint. Um, the only problem I had with that is the size. Um, the size as the code, as the proposal is, is a half a sheet of paper. We already have a rate card on the dashboard that is equal to this. My problem with the size of both on the dashboard is you are running out of space to put `em in. Unless you put it over a vent or something. Um, I'm all for having something big enough to be read, um, we simply go to Office Depot and get these laminated things and stick the badge in there and, you know, I make the text big enough that I ... I feel it could be read from the ... from the backseat. So um ... you know, I'm just worried about the size and the feasibility of actually This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 70 getting it on the dash. Um, uh, the feedback form, uh, you know, I don't know much about. I ... I wonder about where we're going to place that. The only problem I have with that proposal is .... is that you are, um ... it says that, uh, each taxi cab must prominently display this, uh, feedback form and return any completed cards to the City Clerk. I doubt you'll see a single one from any cab company that says something bad about `em. And so (laughs) I ... I ... I think that the idea is good. Might need to be a little retooled. Um ... um, and that's about it. Um, so in general, I like a lot of these changes. Little tweaking here and there, but that's all I have for you. Hayek: Thank you. Bradley: thanks. Hayek: Okay, I ... oops! How `bout one more? Kennen: Hi, I'm Samuel Kennen. I represent Pink's Taxi. I think as a business owner it's my responsibility if there is a challenge that I should face it, and I should be the one responsible for providing my customers for doing more for them. For being more for them. For changing my business as the market changes. I think that more legislation provides more burden on the City and I don't have a problem with the legislation that's coming. I don't have a problem with the legislation that exists, but I think that we're probably going to be back here in another two years doing this again. And I think it was two years before that this happened, as well. So, I don't want to be one of the people that bothers you guys with something that's existing in the market. I want to be the one to solve it. And I don't think that's your responsibility. I think it's mine. That's all I have to say. Hayek: Thank you. Okay. Council discussion? Champion: Too tired. Hayek: Yeah! We've been going for five and a half hours. Um ... I guess ... I guess what I would say is ... is that, uh, I don't think you can please every... everybody, uh, in this process and I have faith in the process that we do follow, which involves the City Clerk's office in ... in an ongoing dialog with ... with the industry to try to come up with best practices, uh, improvements on what we do, modifications on, uh, on ... on where those are required, um, and ... and my sense is that, uh, the ... the items that we're voting on go to either safety issues or administrative efficiency issues, uh, I think the thing that the council decided against adopting was ... was the cap on how quickly you can expand, um, which I think we felt was anti- competitive and ... and, uh, and unfair. Um, and there were a couple of things that staff's continuing to look at, but what's on the table for discussion is ... is that efficiency and ... and safety. So ... and ... and we'll continue to tweak this with time. There's no doubt about it. I think the process in place is... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 71 Mims: yeah, I would agree and I, I mean, this is the first reading tonight and I would encourage, um, you know, people who are in the industry who are, you know, maybe seeing some of this for the first time, who have concerns, um, you know, to let us know. We've got time if we feel that we need to make some changes before we, you know, get through the third reading, but I'm certainly going to support it as a starting point tonight. Throgmorton: I think we need to be a little more proactive, um, for me this is new information. Maybe it's not for other people, but it is for me. And I don't know how to process it partly because I'm too tired, right? Uh, so I ... I think it would be wise for us to, uh, ask the staff to contact and directly speak with the individuals who have made presentations to us tonight and hear what they have to say, uh, clarify any misunderstandings, see if there's ways to amend what's been proposed. Um, we're not in a position to do that but I ... I don't feel comfortable, uh, approving the policy presented to us tonight, given what I've just heard, because it's new information, all right? I want to say one other thing, uh, to Mr. Doderer. I'll be very quick about this. I didn't know your father but I did know your mother, uh, she was a great lady. Hayek: So, uh, Jim, I ... I guess I would say in response to your ... your suggestion, I mean, I feel like that process already occurred. We ... we ... we, uh, the City Clerk's office, which has jurisdiction over the taxi cab industry and has ongoing contact throughout the year with ... with the entities and the individuals involved set up a meeting to discuss, um, legislation and changes in the industry and ... and needs that weren't being met, etc., and had that conversation, and... and the consensus reached at that meeting was it resulted in the proposals that came before Council. Um, and I'm not sure what else we can do. I mean, the line of communication is always open. Um, and there will be future such meetings, I'm sure, but uh, I think what's before us is in fact the product of that kind of direct outreach. Champion: Exactly! Throgmorton: Well I think that's clearly true, and that's why I was going to come in here and vote on it, but what I hear from the, uh, the owners of Yellow Cab is that ... the end product is not what he actually was expecting or heard being discussed, uh, in the meeting, although there's a lot of overlap, I mean, that clearly is the case. So I ... I ... so I just hear that and it... Dobyns: Well I'd like to hear from the City Clerk if any of the information indeed was, I think October 31" meeting? If any of the information is substantively new or different. Karr: No, none of it is. Dobyns: Okay. So what is all ... everyone had an opportunity to (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 72 Karr: Everyone had an opportunity. You received that summary. It was mentioned, um, June ... a June 1 date was mentioned. July 1 date was mentioned. Staff looked at it. We considered the June 1 date better than the July one in figuring that 30 days would still be acceptable to the City of Cedar Rapids on their renewal. So that it would still allow us, uh, a taxi company to go through the same steps simultaneously rather than March and July. If they wished to be licensed, so we ... we took that into consideration. Um ... the current ordinance does require a business... location, a dispatch office. Does not say it cannot be in your home. Each taxi company can decide a dispatch office. We do look at the zoning. Dispatching is fine from a residential. Storage of vehicles is not. So if all you're doing is dispatching and not storing any vehicles, residential home would be fine. We're not requiring a commercial business office. That is not a new requirement. We responded on October 31" to the concern regarding some flexibility in the use of the office hours, and dispatching. For the very reasons cited. Um, we certainly can take that off the table, but it would be more restrictive than less restrictive. It would go back to requiring then the dispatch office to be open 24/7. We have heightened as a result of the meeting, as well, we've asked, they've asked for heightened enforcement. We have heightened Police Department stings and we've located a number of companies and cited them, and I think that is what you're also experiencing now is they may not have been doing some of the requirements, and now they're being cited for them. These are not new requirements — the color schemes are. But certainly the dispatch office, the 24/7 are not. Dobyns: And as much as (mumbled) can even work right now. I think everything that was mentioned was, um, communicated, um, and deliberated upon... Karr: I think Roger's point of (both talking) uh -huh, of the dashboard, we certainly can take a look at even removing that. We can just say a visible 8 %2 x 11, you know, we could remove that and I'll be happy to take a look at that. And I'll be happy to talk, any of the gentlemen certainly know where I work and they've been in several times and we certainly can take a look at it before you have second consideration. And see if that ... but you are correct, it will be impossible to ... present to you an ordinance that will be acceptable to all the companies. Dobyns: And I'm not of a mind to change anything. I just wanted to speak to the fact that an opportunity has already occurred. Payne: Not all legislation is going to be what everybody wants it to be. It has to be what's going to work ... the best for the city and for the people working in the city. (both talking) Karr: I encourage... Payne: ...we're not catering. We're doing ... we're doing a job! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 73 Karr: Yeah. I'll certainly take a look at all the remarks, but I encourage, as usual, we had invited all the companies to the meeting, we sent the summary two weeks ago that we sent to you, to the cab companies, all of them. We also sent the ordinance when it went out to you in the packet, so they've all been kept apprised of it and um, certainly I'll take a look at all the comments and come back to you with any suggestions, and I encourage them as they think it through tonight, to contact me, because our next meeting is December 4 , so it'll be ... it'll be going out for second consideration very quickly. Throgmorton: And then two weeks after that we... Karr: December 18th is what we'd like to adopt it, that's correct. (several responding) Throgmorton: Yeah, so there's, um... Dickens: Three weeks. Throgmorton: Three weeks, uh, in which they could get back to you, and then hence to us about it. Karr: Sure. Yeah. Throgmorton: Yeah, I'd encourage you all to do that. Hayek: Further Council discussion? Roll call, please. First consideration passes 7 -0. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Mims: So moved. Dickens: Second. Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012. Page 74 ITEM 19. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Hayek: We'll start down with the good doctor. Dobyns: I would recommend voice rest for the Mayor. Other than that I have nothing to say. (laughter) Payne: Me either. Dickens: Uh, Snowflake Walk Friday night if anybody's still awake watching, watches us before then. Uh, celebrate the seasons on Saturday, and I have the pleasure of talking to a Boy Scout troop tomorrow night, uh, at the Mormon Church on Mercer Drive and just discussing Boy Scouts and the City Council. Payne: What time is the Snowflake Walk, do you know? Dickens: It starts at 5:30 to 7:30. Payne: Okay. Champion: What if there aren't any snowflakes? Dickens: Not yet! Mims: Nothing. Champion: Nothing. I thought we all did a great job tonight (mumbled, noises on mic) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council formal meeting of November 27, 2012.