HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-16 TranscriptionPage 1
ITEM 2. PROCLAMATIONS
ITEM 2a Peace Day — September 21
Hayek: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Brian Grassi representing Friends of Words of
Peace. (applause)
Hayek: (both talking off mic) ... absolutely! Thank you for being here!
Grassi: The proclamation pretty much says it all, so thank you very much for your
support and uh, there will be a one -hour video on Channel 18 called
"Peacemakers," encouraging the words of, er ... Peace Day. So, please enjoy!
Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you! Uh, there was another proclamation, uh, proclaiming September 27th
as National Public Land Day, but there's no one here this evening to pick up the,
uh, proclamation. So we'll put it in the packet and mail it out.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 2
ITEM 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Hayek: Item 3 is consider adoption of the Consent Calendar, uh, with removal of Item
3d(2) for separate consideration and removal of Item 3d(8), uh, with no action to
be taken on that at this time.
Throgmorton: So move approval of the Consent Calendar with, uh, those exceptions.
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Throgmorton, seconded by Botchway. Discussion? Jim, you wanted
to ... raise a, uh...
Throgmorton: Yeah, um...
Hayek: ... a letter.
ITEM 3f(5) David Noerper: Wedge Closure
Throgmorton: I do. I gotta get my notes (mumbled) in a place where I can read `em! Uh, let's
see. Sorry, I'm getting myself a little bit confused... because of the sequence of
things. So, uh ... there've been recent announcements about, uh, the closure of
The Wedge on ped ... on the pedestrian mall, and various people I've talked to
have expressed con... some concern about that, and... one of, um, one of the items
in our Consent Calendar is Item 3f(5), which is an email from David Noerper, uh,
a gentleman who I don't think I've met but ... but, uh, so it's a long, thoughtful
email and... and it made me think that it would be helpful if we could ask Geoff
Fruin to, uh, help us understand the ... the negotiation process that has been
conducted with the owner of The Wedge about, uh, The Wedge's lease in that, uh,
space on the ped mall, and there were a couple other specific questions that, uh,
Mr., uh, Noerper raised that, uh, I'd as ... I would ask Geoff to address. One is,
um ... the ... the claim that the City is driving the owners' business out of that
location in order to make room for a new retailer of some kind. Uh, and ... and the
other is ... uh, an observation that I think is correct but, uh, he ma ... Mr. Noerper
(mumbled) that The Wedge performs a very valuable service for families with
children by providing space and inexpensive food for... for them, uh, especially
when their kids can play right outdoors in that play area that ... on the ped mall.
So maybe Geoff could address that too, but Geoff and I communicated by email
about this earlier in the day, so he knows I was going to raise these ... this
question. So, Geoff, I wonder if you could address that for us.
Fruin: Sure, and I ... I appreciate the heads up, um ... I think in order to really understand
the negotiations that have taken place you have to recall, um, how we arrived at
the first lease with ... with The Wedge, and that was, uh, in April of last year. Uh,
you may recall the ... the previous business that we leased with was Capanna, uh, a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 3
coffee shop there. Um, due to failure to pay, uh, rent and other financial
obligations, we unfortunately had to evict Capanna from the space. Uh, now The
Wedge was operating during that time; however, they subleased space from
Capanna. So we were, uh ... uh, caught in a situation where we needed to move
quickly, uh, to evict Capanna, uh, to protect the financial interest of the City, but
also, uh, to make sure that The Wedge can continue to operate, uh, in that space.
So what we did is we worked with The Wedge and both parties agreed to a three -
year lease of the entire space. So in April of last year, April of 2013, The Wedge
signed a three -year lease with the City for the entire space, uh, and that, uh,
carries them through April of 2016. Uh, with that three -year lease, um, in hand,
uh, The Wedge ownership approached, uh, me early in 2014, earlier this year, and
asked, uh, to be, uh, asked for a long -term lease extension to that space. Um, I
responded that I felt that, uh, we ... the City staff would support some lease
extension and uh ... urn ... through working with him I offered him a two -year lease
extension. So, that would have gone through, uh, April 2018. So, um ... to
summarize that, we started with a three -year lease with The Led ... with The
Wedge when they approached us. A year had passed on their lease and I offered a
two -year. So it would of in effect been moving them from a three -year lease to a
four -year lease. Uh, at that time after ... after making that offer to The Wedge
ownership I didn't hear back, uh, directly from them. Uh, certainly heard plenty
of rumors come back to me through other sources, but never ... never had a formal
response from The Wedge after that two -year offer, um, and just recently in
August of this year, uh, The Wedge ownership came back and ... and told me that
they were no longer looking for a long -term, uh, lease in that space and that they
would, uh, like to negotiate an exit with the City. Again, The Wedge is
financially obligated, uh, to that space through 2016. Um, but I do feel it's in the
best interest of...of not only the City, uh, but The Wedge to negotiate an exit to
their lease, um ... uh, specifically considering the information that I understand
from the ownership is that they're... they're very shortly going to have a difficult
time meeting their financial obligations to ... to us, uh, for that space. So, uh,
that's where we sit with the negotiations. Um, Eleanor's office is handling the,
uh, negotiation of an exit, uh ... uh, of the current lease obligations and ... and that
will have to come back to you. So I ... I would expect, if we can reach a mutual
agreement with The Wedge that may be at your next meeting, or perhaps the
second meeting in October. Uh, the official request that we've received is that
they are, uh, allowed to leave the space as of November Ist. So they ... they would
like to move quickly. Um ... uh, your other two questions, uh, the City... regarding
the City driving them out to, uh, make room for a new retailer. Uh, a... again, um,
our offer was to extend their lease, not to force them out and uh, I'll remind the
Council that we have a financial interest at stake in seeing The Wedge succeed.
We have a CDBG loan that we gave to them, uh, some years ago that's not repaid
right now. So, uh, we do have an interest to see them succeed, and certainly
would like to see them continue to succeed. We do not have a retail tenant
waiting to, um, take over the space. We don't have any tenant, uh, waiting to take
over the space, and matter of fact if you chose to, uh, release The Wedge from,
uh, the lease obligations, it's likely that the space will sit vacant while we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 4
determine, uh, other potential tenants, and certainly when it's vacant, the City will
be incurring financial loss, or at least a loss in potential revenue for that space.
So, that's how I'd address the question number one. Uh, regarding whether The
Wedge, uh, provides a... a valuable service to the community, particularly
families, uh, I ... I would agree with that. I think that they do have a... a valuable
business. I heard a number of people, uh, express support for The Wedge. Um,
having young kids myself, I've been at the playground and stopped in The Wedge
for... for food and drink, as well, so, um, I certainly would have no disagreement
with that.
Throgmorton: Well thanks, Geoff, uh, I ... I think that's very, very helpful to hear, and I'd just
like to say that, you know, as you know, I've had several conversations with the
owner and, uh, have heard his perspective, but you and I have also communicated,
so I certainly understand the City's perspective on this. I ... I think he's a terrific
guy. I think it's ... he ... he's been very successful and I've eaten a thousand pizzas
(laughs) through The Wedge and I hope he succeed... continues to succeed. I
wish we'd been able to work out something with them, but it seems like it...it just
can't happen, and ... but I wanted the public to be ... to be able to hear what the
situation was and why things have come to this ... to where we are now. So,
thanks for elaborating on that.
ITEM 3d(2) PROCUREMENT OF BODY WORN DIGITAL CAMERA
SYSTEM AND STORAGE SOLUTION - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE PROCUREMENT OF BODY -WORN DIGITAL CAMERA SYSTEM
AND STORAGE SOLUTION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Hayek: Further discussion on the, uh, Consent? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0. So now we
will take up, um, Item 3d(2). There may be some people from the audience who
want to address us. Uh, Item 3d(2) is procurement, or is a ... a resolution
authorizing the procur ... procurement of Body Worn Digital Camera System and
Storage Solution for the Police Department.
Mims: Move approval.
Throgmorton: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Throgmorton. Discussion? Is there anyone from
the public who wishes to address us? Um, and maybe we should have staff
introduce this first (both talking)
Throgmorton: Yeah, and then (both talking) I can pose the questions a ... after...
Hayek: Yeah!
Hart: Hi! I'm Doug Hart with the Iowa City Police Department, and uh, I'm here to
talk about, uh, our procurement of the Body Worn cameras. Uh, Mr.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 5
Throgmorton, you ... in the work session had asked three questions of us: how
will the images be used, what's the access, and how long will they be stored?
Um, so our ... we use our images for several reasons. Uh, the first and primarily
the biggest reason is for evidence. While we also use them, uh, supervisors
routinely review an officer's performance and use the videos for that. They're
required to do that by policy. Any time there's a use of force that is used, uh,
supervisors use the video to, uh, review, to see if the policies and procedures were
followed during that use of a force. Uh, we also use the video to, uh ... uh,
respond to citizens' complaints of off ..officers' actions. Um, and officers also
use their ... the videos for completion of their written reports and for court
preparation. As far as access goes, um, primarily they're for court proceedings.
So it would be ... being used in a criminal or civil process. We also make them
available to the Citizens Police Review Board. Um, they are, uh, by code public
record, if there's no active investigation. Uh, for storage, currently we're storing
them for three years and we ... we intend to continue to do that.
Throgmorton: Thanks, that's pretty helpful. I ... I guess I have a couple ques ... follow up
questions...
Hart: Yes!
Throgmorton: ... surely other people would want to ask ... ask questions too. (clears throat)
Excuse me, my voice is shot. I was ... I'm kind of wrecked from a long train ride
yesterday and (laughs) It's hard to keep my brain focused and my voice active.
Anyhow, uh, with ... with regard to, um ... um, the ... the use of the body cameras.
How ... how can we ... how can the public be sure that they'll ... they will actually
be always turned on and ... and that if something happens we won't, uh, find
ourselves in a situation where the camera's accidentally been turned off.
Hart: Our current policy for in -car recording devices and for the body cameras that we
have, which are only 11 at this time, uh, in... indicate that an officer shall turn
them on, or activate them, when they initiate activity. Uh, I can tell you that, uh,
practical perspective of that is if you are in a, uh, a critical incident, in a short
amount of time, that that is where you, uh, that is where you see that drop off, that
activation drop off. Um, that is a training issue and that is something that we, uh,
continue to work on, but that is something that is very difficult to overcome. Um,
what we try to train officers to do, or what we're training officers to do, is to
activate that as soon as they make contact with somebody so it's ... it's a ... it's
done deal.
Throgmorton: Okay (both talking)
Hart: ...and I'm sorry, as far as our in -car cameras, those activate automatically with,
uh, when you initiate, uh, the ... the top lights.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 6
Throgmorton: Thanks. Um, one other question with regard to access, uh, access to the video
image. So, uh, if a member of the public wants to have access to the, uh, to the
video, would that member of the public be able to obtain access?
Hart: If there's no active investigation. So basically what you're ... I think what you're
asking if there's a public record's request for a video, uh, those come into our
department on a fairly routine basis, and when we receive those requests we, uh...
uh, coordinate with the City Attor... City Attorney's office for a response.
Throgmorton: Thank you.
Dobyns: Doug, when there's a concern from the citizens regarding a, um, interaction with
an officer of the Police force, um, can you describe, um, the utility of the cameras
to the (mumbled) ... in the ... in due process and evaluation.
Hart: Yeah, um ... one of the benefits of, uh ... uh, recording devices is it offers an
unbiased account of what occurred. There are some field of vision, or field of
view, uh, issues, uh, but for the most part, uh, the audio parts, uh ... uh,
very ... done very well, especially with the body cameras. Not so much for in -car,
if you remove yourself from the vehicle. Um, so the... utilization of video review
for the reconciling of complaints against officers has been very helpful in
minimizing our time, uh, because you can readily look at the video to determine if
there was a policy violation or not. Um, we also can show that video to the, uh,
person who has the concern about the officer and, uh, have them help us, illustrate
to us what their concern is and maybe explain to ... to us, so it's become a very
time - efficient, very time - saving, uh, device for us also, and I think the, uh ... the...
the, community members that have come to us and, uh, realize that we had the
body cameras as a tool that we were using, uh, actually I think were very
appreciative of that.
Botchway: So (both talking)
Hayek: Go ahead, Kingsley!
Botchway: One of the questions I had was, you know, your point about ... in a situation where
there's a, you know, a critical situation happens. I feel like, you know, um, you
know, from my understanding and from, you know, talking to some people from
community, that's by and large where the cameras are, you know, um, probably
more likely to want to be used. Um, is there any way to have a situation where
they just turn on automatically, um, you know, again my biggest fear, um, and it
goes to transparency as well, and ... and that's why I like this and I think this is a
great opportunity, but um ... is there any way that there ... there can just be a
situation where we can automatically, you know, get these on at any particular
time, because you're right, you know! For us to ... for us to make the assumption
that an officer, um, you know, running out of a car to figure out a situation is
going to remember to turn that on is ... is ... is tough, and so I applaud your
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 7
training, you know, up until now, but I guess my ... my concern is that, you know,
people that are in those situations on the opposite side, you know, are pretty upset
when, you know, the camera's not on, or you know, why can't we have that
dialogue about... let's... let's go back to the cameras, but not having that there to
look at. So I guess ... and I understand training and wanting to do a better job of
training, but what can we do, you know, past that?
Hart: That ... that's a great question and it's, uh, something that, uh, we were able to
overcome with the in -car cameras with the activation of the top lights. Not so
much with the body cameras. I'm just not aware of there being a technology out
there, having gone through the RFP, uh, process myself, uh, of that being out
there. Um, so that would be something that we would ... could maybe explore in
the future but, uh, right now we have to rely on our officer's training to, uh ... uh,
readily activate that, which is very difficult to do in a rapidly evolving situation.
Botchway: Is there data tracked when, uh, you have a situation like that, when it's on and
when it's not? Like do you have, you know, do you keep a record of, oh, I forgot
to turn that on or oh, there was a situation where I couldn't turn that on, it's like,
you know, on and off, you know?
Hart: Yeah, well ... well, as you ... as ... as I stated earlier there were several occasions
when a supervisor would have, uh ... uh, a reason to review an officer's video, and
if an officer... if... if during that review process an officer's video is not on, uh,
that supervisor would, um (mumbled) issue that's called a Report of Inquiry with
that officer to determine why that video was not activated, as it is a violation of
our departmental policy.
Botchway: Now ... again, not knowing too much about it. This isn't like a wireless camera.
This is in a situation where ... is there technology where you could know if it's not
turned on? I mean, currently I'm looking at, you know, things in an office where
we would know if a particular precinct or polling place isn't turned on, based on
the fact that it's wireless and it's uploading into our computer. Is there any way
of, you now, somebody being able to do that as well, if...if they know they're
going into heightened situation based on it going through, you know, the
communication and sending somebody out that ... that the officer's, um, video
isn't turned on when they're, you know, um...
Hart: I'm not sure I'm understanding. So ... so could a supervisor be able to monitor
that remotely to make sure that that's occurring, or can we (both talking)
Botchway: Not necessarily the video itself, but just the fact that it's turned on.
Hart: Um, not in real -time, no.
Botchway: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 8
Dobyns: You could have it attached to the officer's heart rate, Kingsley (laughter) When it
goes over 100 turn the camera on!
Botchway: Yeah! (laughs)
Dickens: Thank you, Doctor! (laughs)
Hayek: Yeah (laughter)
Botchway: The other question I had was, uh, and this is just for transparency, again, because
I ... I think that for the biggest thing it ... I think the public just really wants to
know, not only the process with video cameras, but just the Police Department in
general, but for my ... my question is, when an officer uses the video for review,
and this just came up from what you were talking about. You know, the officer
can use it for written court reports or court preparation. There's no ability to
change or alter that video.
Hart: That's correct, and part of our proposal with the, uh, with the body cameras, uh,
includes several security devices where it would, uh, where ... where an officer
would be unable to, uh, alter or, uh, delete, uh, function from the camera itself, or
from the storage, uh, system that we'll have in place at the time. And you'll also
be able to document who accesses those videos. You can provide... it'll provide a
written record of that.
Hayek: Thank you. There may be some more questions, but I think what I'll do at this
point is see if there's anyone from the audience who wishes to address Council on
this item and then we'll close it down for Council deliberation.
Sullivan: Hi, my name is Adam Sullivan. I live here in Iowa City. Urn ... I don't oppose the
use of this technology, but I would ask you to vote no on this purchase tonight.
Um, I share a lot of the concerns that Councilman Botchway, uh, just voiced.
Um, I do appreciate Captain Hart's explanation about the, uh, process in which
these are used, the rules which govern them, um, but I do have worries about, um,
those situations where they're not turned on, um, and as Captain Hart said, the
technology isn't there right now, um, as far as the police department knows to...
to implement that kind of system where, um, you know, once active... activity
does take place, the camera switches on, um, and if the technology's not there, I
think we need to hold off. I think we need to wait until the technology gets there.
Um, this is clearly the way police departments are going. This will be standard,
um, equipment, um, if it's not already it will be standard equipment very shortly,
but along with that the technology is likely to, uh, to, um, to grow along with that,
and I think if we ... if we wait on this, um, take some more time to vet the process,
make clear rules, uh, for how these are used, I think we'll have, uh, much better,
um ... a much better system. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 9
Gravitt: My name is Mary Gravitt and I think the body cameras, this is a time for it. We
had Ferguson and we had the other case (mumbled) happened in Ohio. So to keep
the noise down, to keep the riots down, we need this. This is something we
desperately need in Iowa City because of the relationships that go on here,
everybody has their little problems. I have no problem with the Iowa City Police,
but a lot of people don't like the Iowa City Police. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you for your comments.
Curdin: Hi, Council! Um, I wanted to come and speak with you guys tonight, uh, in
reference to an incident that happened about 10 days ago.
Hayek:
Could you give us your name first, please?
/din:
Sean �n. Uh, in reference to an incident that happened about 10 days ago at
40 S. Johnson Street. Uh, my friend Robert Smith uploaded a clip of a police raid
(�
on a party, which has sun... since got about 15,000 views, and so... you know, the
/0
problem is on that night it is irrefutable one of your officers, Officer 97,
l/
specifically targeted him for assault, uh, for him exercising his First Amendment
right to record the police. It's very clear on the video that my friend, Robert, was
recording the police when an officer ... when he announced it, an officer noticed
him. He advanced on him, raised his hand, and attempted to strike the cell phone
camera out of his hand, which is a violation of his First Amendment right to
record the police, documented in multiple, uh, federal court cases, and so ... you
know, his rights were violated by one of your officers under the color of law.
And so here's the problem: that night one of the officers there was part of your
trial program for body cameras, and a body camera was worn. Now the body
camera didn't do anything to stop Mr .... from the, to stop the attempted assault on
Mr. Smith. Furthermore, these body cameras are officer - controlled; the default
position is off. Uh, in a high stress situation where the footage might be helpful,
there's a good likelihood that it won't be recorded, and then also when we ... when
we have a situation that is an ongoing matter, that's where the footage is of most
interest, but then again it won't be released until months and months later after the
outcry has died down. So in the meantime these cameras will be used, uh, to
present evidence against citizens by the prosecution, by the State, uh, but they
have no effect on the police's behavior. And that's what this is all about. In
closing I'll tell you, your downtown officer Dave Schwent, he is really something
this community can be really, really proud of. Now Officer 97 was seen directly
targeting Robert Smith for assault while he was holding his camera. He raised his
hand and attempted to strike Mr. Smith. There was a body camera there that
night, and it did nothing to stop that, and if we had more officers like Officer
Dave Schwent from the downtown patrol, and less officers like Officer 97, I don't
think we'd be talking about spending nearly $2,000 per camera, flushing the
money down the drain. I would urge you to vote no. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 10
Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else from the audience? Okay,
we'll ... yeah! Captain.
Hart: I'm sorry, urn ... the (mumbled) for the, uh ... uh, amount due, the dollar amount
that it takes to purchase these requires City Council approval, um, by City policy.
Uh, I ... I do want to tell you the Chief is attending a conference, uh, next month
and uh, with the ... with the intent to approach a vendor to see about new
technologies. Um, so if...if there's a new product out there, that's something that
we're interested in and will be looking for. Um, right now our turnaround time, if
we were to order with this particular vendor would be about three months. So,
um, we don't see a ... the harm in making the appro ... the request for the approval,
the ... the funding, um, and if something comes up we can approach the Council
later ... at a later time. Um ... regarding the incident that the, uh, I forget the
gentleman's name, um, that ... that is being reviewed by our command staff, uh, to
determine if there was any policy or procedure violations in and if there were we
will address those internally, and that is where you find, uh, the ... the increased
per ... the improved performance and improved professionalism when
those ... when those, that monitoring when those reviews occur.
Hayek: Thank you. Okay. Uh, let's shut this down for Council discussion.
Mims: Well I will be supporting, um, the purchase of the body cameras. Um, this is
something actually that came up in a conversation between, uh, myself and the
City Manager, Tom Markus, back in the spring when we were talking about
money that, uh... Police department had and some potential options for that, and
we got into the discussion and ... and agreed, and I think that's maybe part of help
...what pushed this forward, and I know Chief Hargadine was looking at it, you
know, at that time, but I certainly encouraged, um, them to move forward with it
and ... and we brought it back to Council. The reason that I support it is I think in
Iowa City, like many communities, you have issues between the police and
citizens at various times, and many of these situations we have in this ... right now,
we have no evidence to support, or at least not enough evidence, of whether the
citizens is correct and accurate in their description of the events, or whether the
police officer is accurate and honest in their description of the events, and I think
to get body cameras on our officers, um, and obviously policies and procedures
have to be put in place, they have to be enforced, there has to be consequences for
officers if they do not have their body cameras turned on when they're supposed
to, um, all those things have to be worked out. Um, and I have confidence that
our Police department and our ... and the rest of the City staff will make sure that
those things happen, those policies and procedures are put in place, but to defer
action on this, to wait to get those in place, and particularly now hearing, you
know, the potential time lapse before we would actually get cameras, you know,
that makes no sense to me, and I think it helps in terms of protection of our
citizens. I help ... think it helps in terms of im ... improved professionalism on the
off ...on the part of our officers, um, and I think when we look at what's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 11
happening across the country, there's absolutely no reason not to go ahead and do
this, so I will strongly support it.
Hayek: Yeah. I ... I will too. (mumbled) This is kind of one of those `damned if you do,
damned if you don't' situations. You know, if we ... if we proceed, which I'm
supportive of doing, uh, you know, I've heard from some corners concerns about
privacy, um, I ... I don't share that. There are concerns as expressed this evening
about the state of technology and the training. Um, you know, those may be
limitations, but I think those can be overcome, uh, and ... and the benefits of
pursuing this now outweigh, uh, the negatives, and we'll have to work through
this as ... as we deploy it, and the Police department implements these, uh,
practices. If we ... if we don't do this or if we de ... delay doing it, I think it gives
rise to, um, you know, a suggestion I think would be unfounded but that, you
know, we've got something to hide or the ... the Police are trying to ... to ... to, uh,
delay implementation of something that can serve both the community, uh, and...
and the Police department. So, I think this is worth doing. It's capital outlay.
Uh, but, uh, I think it will implu ... improve, uh ... uh, relations, and ... and I would
...as a final comment I'll just say, I want to remind our community that Iowa City
is the only community in the state of Iowa that has a Citizen Police Review
Board. Urn ... uh, and that is a mechanism of civilian oversight and uh ... and
further would add that ... that we've changed our policy so that the ... the City
Manager has to sit in on, urn ... uh, hearings, um, and I think it's a good
mechanism. I think it's one we take for granted in Iowa City. Um, but we do
have it, and that makes us unique in the state.
Botchway: I guess, you know, my ... my comments, you know, I don't necessarily disagree, I
mean, uh, I ... I ... from reading it, you know, I was all for it even ... um, initially,
but now... if... if, um, Chief s going... and maybe you can come back up here,
Doug. If he's ... if you're going to a meeting next week, I don't see why we
couldn't delay it for... and... and you're looking at new technologies, delay it for
one more meeting. Um, and I don't ... I can't remember exactly what you said
about that meeting, Doug, but if you could ... help me out a little bit because ... if
there's a potential to get even a better product, I'd rather just ... wait ... (both
talking)
Hart: Sorry! The conference is ... is next month, in October.
Botchway: Oh, next month. Okay.
Hart: The, uh ... timeline that this particular vendor gave us was three- months. Um, so
we're proceeding under the auspice that, uh, the revenue would be available to us,
uh, with the City Council approval no mat ... no matter if we had to change or
came up with a change anyway. So, and ... and maybe if...if there is a better
product out there we'd have to start the RFP process over again. Um, but, uh,
with the specific technology that we're talking about tonight, where it,
uh ... activates on a body camera, I ... I just don't see that being out there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 12
Botchway: Well another question I had in regards to that, um, and again, not to ... I don't want
to delve into the details too much cause that's, I mean, that's your job, um, but
uh ... what about having the cameras on at all times? I ... I, and the reason why I
say it is ... cause I currently work in an office that the camera's on me at all times,
I mean, the public doesn't necessarily know that at all times, but you know it is
public record that you can pull the video and you could find out, you know, the
fact that I eat oatmeal and drink my orange juice first thing that I get there and
that information is available, and so, I mean, can we have that video on at all
times?
Hart: That's... that's certainly a ... a possibility that we can, uh, talk about at a staff level.
Uh, the... the... the biggest thing that jumps out, to me, for that is the storage and
the amount of money it will cost to store that. Uh, bas... the... the number that we
have for storage, I think, is like $25,000 for the ... what we intend to purchase, and
uh, I think we're estimating about 32,000 hours worth of video, which about...
which basically I think we arrived at that number by doubling what we do now
with our in -cars, uh ... uh, and uh, a lot of departments laughed at us when we said
we were wantin' to retain videos for three years. They said you'd never be able to
do it, but uh ... we're ... we're intent on trying to stick to that. So...
Botchway: Thank you!
Throgmorton: So, Matt, my general inclination is to support the purchase of these cameras, but
I'm also aware that ... uh, this topic was on the Consent Calendar, and I suspect
there are lots of people in this city who have no idea that we were going to be
discussing it tonight. And that we might approve purchase of...of the cameras.
And ... I have no idea whether there's any kind of strong sentiment for or against
the purchase of these kinds of body cameras. So, you know, what I often do in
our meetings is suggest that we defer for, you know, to the next meeting on a... on
a particular topic to give the public a chance to speak out, if in fact they want to.
Uh, and I think we ... we should do that in this instance. But again, it's not
because I have ... feel some strong opposition to the idea of purchasing the
cameras. I just want to make sure that if the ... if a substantial number of,
percentage of the public... resists the idea, I want to ... I want them to have a
chance to say so.
Mims: Well, and my only response to that would be it was on the agenda, and whether
it's on the Consent agenda or on an actionable item outside of the Consent
agenda, it's on the agenda, and so, I mean, if people want to speak out about
issues that we're talking about, they either have to talk to other people or take the
initiative to read our agendas all the way through.
Throgmorton: That's a ... pretty high bar, Susan. Pretty high bar. I don't know anybody, really,
in the ordinary public who reads our agendas.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 13
Mims: Then how are we supposed to expect people to come and talk to us if they aren't
either reading something in the newspaper or reading the agendas, I mean, that's
like we need to spend every meeting talking about what we're going to talk about
at the next meeting to give people warning to come to the next meeting, and that
assumes they're going to watch our meeting to know what we're going to talk
about at the next meeting.
Throgmorton: I think the fact that we're having this discussion gives people notice that in fact
there's (both talking)
Mims: That assumes ... that assumes they're either watching the meeting and /or they're
going to read the newspaper tomorrow.
Throgmorton: Yeah, yeah.
Dickens: Was ... there was an article in the Press that was discussing that we would be
talking about it at this meeting, so...
Mims: I just think you have to put a certain amount of responsibility on people to ... pay
attention to what we're talking about if they want to come and comment.
Botchway: Well I guess ... okay. So I guess ... I ... I see what both of you are saying
(mumbled) regard but my issue is, is if we are going to go ahead and support this,
and I want to be clear — I do support the use of body cameras and I think, um, this
will be a great opportunity not only for, uh, the citizens, but also for the police as
well, um, to, you know, know that they're protected and you know that they have
that video on them, but I ... I don't want this to turn into a bad situation, because I
could see a situation where we get all these body cameras. I think Sean came up
and, you know, gave an example where ... and not saying that's the case but, um,
Sean came up and gave an example where, um, if that actually happened, a body
camera was not used and it should have been used. I mean, we get that
information from an officer that, you know, I think is important. I think helps
with all the things that I think Doug brought up, um, about, you know, all the
evidence it brings, you know, court preparations, written reports, so I think it's
really important, but I want to make sure that, um, and I guess I'm speaking to
you, Chief, that this doesn't go awry. You know, we don't then, you know, fund
the money and then all of a sudden we have multiple complaints about, you know,
I asked for a request of the video, but the video wasn't turned on, and that's my...
that's my biggest fear.
Mims: But I don't see how delaying our approval is going to change that possibility. I
mean, I think it's absolutely imperative for our police department to do the
absolute best job they can in training all of our officers and ingraining in them the
absolute importance that these cameras are turned on when they're supposed to be
turned on, because I entirely agree that if we have a bad incident and there's no
camera on when it should have been on, that is going to look absolutely terrible
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 14
for that officer, for our police department, and for the city as a whole. And ... but I
think you ... you've always are going to have some sort of a learning curve.
You ... you always have to do implementation over time, and so delaying this isn't
going to change that process at all.
Botchway: Well and my delay wasn't necessarily based on, you know, more people being
able to come to the meeting or, you know, sound off about it. My delay was in
the sense that I thought it was a week but you told me it was a month, that they're
going to be going, or Chief's going to go to a conference where there's going to
be new technologies, and so if this is going to change, you know, the possible
process and the fact that we're funding it, and if we find something better we
could still purchase it, I'm okay with it. Again, I'm just ... I'm trying to make sure
that it's, you know, very clear, um, that, you know, I ... I don't want to run into
that situation because I think a lot of people, um, would be upset, and rightfully
so. Um ... and but ... but again, I support, you know, the use of body cameras and I
think it's going to be a ... a great thing to have, you know, uh, the majority of
officers wearing them.
Hayek: Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 15
ITEM 4. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). [UNTIL 8
PM]
Hayek: This is the, uh, point at each City Council meeting, uh, where the public has an
opportunity to address the Council. If there's something you'd like to bring to our
attention that is not on the agenda, we invite you to come forward. We ask that
you sign in, uh, verbally give us your name, and to keep your comments to five
minutes or less.
Gravitt: How do I get my video to play?
Hayek: Uh, Miss Gravitt, we'll have someone come out there. (several talking away from
mic)
Gravitt: (mumbled; away from mic) (noises in background) This'll make you see why
cameras are valuable things. I'm for ya, brother, with those cameras. (away from
mic) (video begins) Now I'm here to request from the City Council that Dr.
Dobyns (both talking)
Hayek: Just a second. We've got video playing and you're speaking, Miss Gravitt.
Gravitt: But I (mumbled) my five minutes. You'll be telling me to be quiet. (both talking)
This is ... this is the City, from February 18, 2014. (video playing) And I'm here,
I'll speak over it. I'm here to request that Dr. Dobyns be removed from the Ad
Hoc Committee. (video playing) Because he wants to dictate the final document
and I feel that the civil rights of the ... of the membership of the Senior Center has
been violated by you assigning him, because you see that various members knew
this was unethical, because you knew on his part what he ... what he was going to
do. (video playing) Now, maybe it was lawful for you to put him on, but it was
not ethical, that we're having problems with him. Now... as you can see, because
I ... I guess I should speed it up. There were several objections to him being
appointed, and there's still objections to be ... him being appointed and that, uh,
you know, if I'm wrong, that he's vi ... that our civil rights have been violated, you
should take that up with the Justice Department, but I'm saying ... now we have
the argument that he shouldn't be on there, and he shouldn't be on there! (video
playing in background) And I didn't come that night because that was ... the ice
storm night, but Mr. Throgmorton, Mr. Botchway argued, and I think Mr. Dickens
argued that it was wrong to have this man on that committee, when you knew how
he felt in the beginning. So if you need some evidence, February 18th, 2014, is
why and how our civil rights down at the Senior Center was violated, because this
is not 1957. This is how the southern juries used to do the black people down
south. And civil rights, you made the same mistake about civil rights that most
people do. The majority of white people don't understand that they have civil
rights, but the Bill of Rights was there before Martin Luther King. They always
like to shove it on the black people's back about civil rights. But, the senior
citizens down at the Senior Center, 97% white! (video playing in background)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 16
And they have civil rights, and that's the worst kind of racism, that you should
violate our civil rights just because you don't see a lot of black people who go
down there and complain like me. I know I have civil rights and that's why I com
...I'm complaining! It's not fair and it's not legal as far as I'm concerned. (video
playing in background) And I've been complaining. I can see the arguments
going back and forth. (video playing in background)
Hayek: Miss Gravitt, you're up on your five minutes.
Gravitt: Well I'm up on my five minutes, but I want to see ... say that it's illegal, it should
be illegal! Should ... it's immoral! It's about ethics, for you to have this person
and he's very disruptive, and he wants to dictate the final document that you will
vote on (video playing in background)
Hayek: And I understand your arguments but you're talking about fairness and one of the
things we do is we're fair to everybody who comes up, and there's a five- minute
limitation. So I ... I'd ask you to wrap up.
Gravitt: Okay. Well my wrap up is this — if I'm wrong, I come before this committee for
blame. The Justice Department wouldn't have come here last time, cause I've
been telling you about the sidewalks and all the other safety things, but now
(video playing in background) I am determined. He has to go! Because he is
against us! Thank you! (video continues to play in background)
Hayek: Thank you for your comments.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Mims: So moved.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? All those in favor say aye.
Botchway: Is there any way to (both talking)
Hayek: Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. (mumbled)
Botchway: If there's any way to like dub my voice, like Denzel Washington or something
like that (laughter) was really not cool there (mumbled) (laughter)
Hayek: We'll get you a voice coach! (laughter and several talking) Next.
Schaffer: My name is Joshua Schaffer. I live at 61 West Side Drive, although apparently
there's some debate as to how to spell it. The signs say West space Drive, but the
Post Office recognizes it as one word. Regardless, um (laughs) I'm here today to,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 17
um, favor the cameras on the bodies of police officers. Um, Mr. Mayor, and
Members of Council, the other day I saw a police officer stop on the side of the
road with a pickup truck, quickly scoop up a homeless man's possessions, and
then quickly leave. The, uh, the policies of the Iowa City Police Department, they
do not deter crime. Um, as a matter of fact we must start to establish new
priorities for our Police department. Every week dozens of arrests for underage
drinking destroy the lives of our children who are only 18 and the only mistake
they've made is they make a poor choice, something that we've all done. At 18
the frontal lobe of the human brain, the part that decides rational and irrational, is
not fully developed until you're about your mid -20s. And yet we are destroying
the lives of our children by creating criminal records, by affecting their financial
aid, and by affecting their education. These young men and women are trying to
make themselves better, and we need to make it easier for them to make their
lives better, not put them in jail. Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, the City
has purchased more than three times the amount of riot gear, um, per officer than
it needs for riots that don't even exist! We must reform our Police department
and I feel that body cameras is a good way to do so. The City is not deterring
crime by arresting children and destroying their lives. Crime is not deterred by
stealing a man's property, the only property that he has. Stealing his property
because supposedly he abandoned it, while he went to use the lavatory. We are
not deterring crime by officers running red lights and by them making illegal u-
turns. The City must decide our priorities. Let's get rid of the unnecessary riot
gear and use the money for community- oriented policing services. (clears throat)
Let's take the money that we spend arresting our children and destroying their
lives and let's put that towards reinvestment in drug and alcohol education, which
is cheaper. It's more effective, and it's better at making our children better
members and more productive members of our society and of our community. As
a progressive community, we must do more progressive policing, um, and that,
my friends, that is how we deter crime. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you for the comments. Is there anyone else during community comment?
Okay, we'll move on.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 18
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
ITEM 5a REZONING DUBUQUE / BENTON (TATE ARMS) —
REZONING APPROXIMATELY .54 -ACRES FROM INTENSIVE
COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE TO RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS —
CENTRAL CROSSINGS (RFC -CX) ZONE AT 201 E. BENTON STREET
AND 912 -914 S. DUBUQUE STREET AND DESIGNATION OF 914 S.
DUBUQUE STREET AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ14- 00011)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Any ex parte
communications to disclose? Bob!
Miklo: Bob Miklo, uh, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services. There
are, uh, two parts to this application. The, uh, first is to rezone the three
properties at the corner of Benton and Dubuque Street from our Intensive
Commercial zone to our newly adopted Riverfront, uh, Crossings' zone. Um, this
new zone will allow these properties to develop with a variety of uses, including
commercial, residential, or ... or a mix of the two. The, uh, second aspect of the
application is to designate the property at 912 S. Dubuque Street, the ... the most
southern lot, uh, all ... the property's also known as Tate Arms, um, the application
is to designate that as a Iowa City historic landmark. Uh ... the landmark
designation will provide for Historic Pres ... Preservation Commission review of
any significant changes to the exterior of... of the building. It will also provide for
zoning incentives, which will allow the transfer of development rights, uh, to the
remainder of the ... of the properties. Um, and it also provides for a reduction of,
uh, parking requirements, uh, in order to preserve the Tate Arms' building. The
Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the landmark status and found
that it meets the criteria for designation. Uh, primarily for its association with
Junias and Elizabeth Tate. Um, the Tates operated the Tate Arms' rooming house
for African American students here at this location between 1939 and 1963. Uh,
prior to 1946, uh, African American students were not accepted into university
dormitories, so Tate Arms was one of their few housing options here ... here in
Iowa City. The Planning and Zoning Commission has also reviewed the, uh, the
application for the rezoning and the landmark status, and it found that it...it does
comply ... both aspects comply with the Comprehensive Plan and have
recommended approval. Uh, staff also recommends approval. Be happy to try to
answer any questions.
Hayek: Questions for Bob? This is a public hearing. Anyone from the audience can
address the Council.
Baldridge: My name is Tom Baldridge and I'm a Member of the, uh, Board of Directors of
the Friends of Historic Preservation, and I'm here to endorse the, uh, designation
of 914, um, South Dubuque Street. Um ... I think those of us who are aware of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 19
early Iowa history are ... tend to look upon the decision of the State Supreme Court
in 1858,1 think it was, refusing to return a ... uh, African American to the owner in
Missouri who claimed that he, I don't know. There're two different stories of
whether he actually sent him up here to earn money to buy his freedom, or
whether he (mumbled) left, escaped and ... and came here, and the owner in
Missouri discovered where he was and uh, sent ... people to the, uh, County Seat
(mumbled) send him back. It went through the judicial system, as you probably
are aware, and when it got to the Supreme Court they said, no, no! We don't
recognize that. Um ... fast forward a few years and uh, we discover that there is a
good deal of, uh, bias in the housing of, uh, African American students here. Um
... if you didn't play on the football ... I don't know what they did with Ozzie
when ... where he lived, but in any event, um ... this is a significant, um ... part of
our history and I think it ... the architecture of the building itself is ... is interesting,
and I think the use is ... makes it even ... ever more important to our, uh,
background and I ... I'm very pleased on behalf of...on the part of, urn ... Friends
of Historic Preservation to endorse your designation of this building, and I'm very
happy to also honor the, uh ... maintenance, uh, by Dick and Mary Davin over the
years and the Clark family who have recently acquired that property, um, assured
us that they are going to maintain it as a historic site. Thank you!
Hayek: Thank you for the comments.
Clark: Hi, I'm Jeff Clark, representing the SJ23 LLC applicants. Um, I've worked, uh,
with Erica Blair from Friends of Historic Preservation on this, uh, staff, and uh, I
guess overall I think it'll be a ... a really good project when we get all said and
done. Um, I guess I'm here to answer any questions if anybody has any, so...
Hayek: Thank you, Jeff. Any questions?
Throgmorton: Uh, I think I do actually have a couple questions... not... not about Tate Arms.
I'm really thrilled that, uh, you're proposing this historic landmark designation
and congratulate you for doing that actually. Uh, but I'm wondering about the
building that you intend to construct on the adjacent site. Uh, and I'm really
wondering about the first floor. Uh ... uh, will the entire first floor ... the entire first
floor be dedicated to parking?
Clark: Yeah, the entire first floor falls in the flood plain so (both talking)
Throgmorton: Yeah, because it's in the flood plain. So then I'm ... I guess I'm wondering about
the, um, what our new form -based code ... maybe Bob needs to respond to this.
What our new form -based code says ... with regard to the streetscape of the first
floor of that building. In other words, is there anything in the code that says it's
okay to have only parking on the first floor of new buildings (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 20
Miklo: Yes, there ... there is a provision in the code recognizing that there ... there are
several properties in this neighborhood that are in the flood plain, and there are
guidelines on how to accomplish that and still create a ... a pleasant streetscape.
Throgmorton: Okay. So I'm wondering about what's going to happen there, because ... I mean, I
was conscious it was in the flood plain and... in fact my car got stuck in the flood
plain right down there once, back in 1993, but that's ... we don't need to talk about
that (laughs) uh ... uh, but I'm ... you know, one of the objectives of the form -based
code is to enhance the walkable character of the neighborhood. So if we have a
substantial number of buildings that have parking only on the first floor, that will
undermine the objectives of the form -based code. So ... what are we doing? How
are you working with Jeff to make sure that we don't undermine that, uh, that
objective of the form -based code?
Miklo: Um, although there isn't a, uh, an approved plan for the adjacent properties, it will
go through the requirements of the form -based code, and that, uh, one of the
requirements is that there be some sort of lobby or entrance, uh, at the street level,
and the concepts that we've planned accomplish that, yet still raise the bulk of the
building out of the flood plain. The ... the portion, the lobby that will be at the
street level that people will see on the sidewalk, um, that will be designed so that
it ... that it will be ... any flood damage will be minimized.
Throgmorton: Okay, so ... thanks. This is probably an important test case for us about (both
talking)
Hayek: Legitimate question. Jeff.
Clark: Any other questions or...
Throgmorton: No, not for me.
Clark: Thank you.
Hayek: No. Thanks! Anyone else before I close the public hearing? Before I do so I
need to take the temperature of Council. Are we inclined to go with the P &Z
recommendation? (several responding) Seeing nodding heads. Okay, I'll close
the public hearing at this time. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Mims: Move first consideration.
Dobyns: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dobyns. Discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 21
Mims: Well I would just echo Jim's comments. I'm really pleased to see the historical
designation of the Tate Arms' building. I think it's a really critical piece of Iowa
City's history, um, and looking forward to seeing development in the Riverfront
Crossings!
Hayek: Roll call, please. First consideration passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 22
ITEM 5b REZONING RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS - REZONING
APPROXIMATELY 25.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY TO RIVERFRONT
CROSSINGS — SOUTH DOWNTOWN (RFC -SD) ZONE AND
RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS — CENTRAL CROSSINGS (RFC -CX) ZONE
LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET IN THE RIVERFRONT
CROSSINGS DISTRICT. (REZ14- 00013)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Any ex parte ... to
disclose? Okay. John!
Yapp: John Yapp, Development Services. (clears throat) After the, uh, form -based code
was adopted earlier in June, the City Council directed staff to initiate a, uh, City -
initiated rezoning of a... a large part of the Riverfront Crossings district in the
south downtown, and a portion of the Central Crossings district. This is an area
where we have had significant development interests, uh, hence the desire to
initiate a rezoning of that area. Uh, the proposed zoning designations are
consistent with the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, which has established
subdistrict boundaries and appropriate zoning, uh, for every property in the
district. Uh, this rezoning effects the south downtown subdistrict and a small area
of the Central Crossings district, uh, where Midwest One Bank is, uh, doing a
development currently. The ... uh, form -based code allows for and encourages a
broad mix of commercial and residential uses in these properties, and mixed -use
buildings. Uh, the form -based zoning dictates an urban form, with buildings
located close to the street, uh, pedestrian- oriented streetscapes, and parking
located behind, uh, the active uses of the buildings. Uh, staff held a, uh, notified
all property owners in the district and ... and held a `good neighbor' meeting
several months ago. Had several property owners, uh, come to that meeting and
ask questions. Uh, but to date we have received no objections. Uh, both Planning
and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval. I'd be glad to take any
questions.
Hayek: Want to describe the process by which you established the ... the footprint of this?
Yapp: Sure! Uh ... primarily, uh, we targeted most of the, oops, excuse me. The south
downtown district where we have, uh, interest in redevelopment, uh, by talking to
property owners and developers, and then the, uh, the piece of the Central
Crossings district, because we have the Midwest One Bank, uh, project.
Hayek: Thanks, John!
Throgmorton: Could I ask John a question?
Yapp: Sure!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 23
Throgmorton: You say you talk with, uh, property owners. I ... I, in some parts of the ... the
Riverfront Crossings district, there are businesses located in property they do not
own. And, um, I'm conscious that some of them are ... uh, concerned about the...
our recent adoption of the form -based code. Some of `em didn't even know what
we were doing. Uh, and ... with ... I don't ... I don't know if any of them are located
within this particular area that's proposed for rezoning, but I'm wondering
whether you made, uh, any efforts to contact, uh, businesses that are located in
properties they don't own, but which are located in ... uh, the...
Yapp: In this particular...
Throgmorton: ... the areas designated for rezoning.
Yapp: Uh, our focus was contacting the property owners. Uh ... however, that said ... the
City will not require redevelopment of any of these properties. That is a ... a
property owner decision whether to redevelop or not.
Throgmorton: Right. Okay. Thanks.
Hayek: Anyone from the audience during this public hearing? Okay, before I close it, uh,
are we inclined to go along with the P &Z recommendation? (several responding)
Looks like so. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Mims: Move first consideration.
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway. Discussion?
Throgmorton: I ... I think in the future when, uh, we're on the verge of, uh, considering a
rezoning in the Riverfront Crossings district, uh, we should try to be more...
expansive in our efforts to connect with people who would be affected by,
potentially affected by the rezoning. So I ... I'm going to vote for this particular
one, cause I...I don't think there are any ... well, I don't know. I'll leave it at that.
I'll vote for this one, but in the future I think we should be ... try to be more
expansive. And so I would urge the staff to do that.
Hayek: 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 September 16, 2014.
Page 24
ITEM 5c. EVAN HEIGHTS — RESOLUTION APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR EVAN HEIGHTS. (SUB14- 00015)
Mims: Move the resolution.
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway. Discussion? We have a presentation
from staff and then I assume there are people in the audience who want to address
us afterwards.
Yapp: Uh, Evan Heights is located on the, uh, east side of First Avenue, north of
Hickory Trail. You saw a, uh, planned development proposal, uh, last month for
this property. Uh, it is currently zoned RS -5, single family residential. Uh, this is
an aerial view of the property. Uh, and this is an image of the proposed
subdivision. Uh, water main currently exists, uh, in the First Avenue right -of -way
and sewer mains currently exist along the east property line and in the First
Avenue, uh, right -of -way. No new public streets or utility mains are proposed.
Uh, storm water management is accommodated in the regional storm water
facility in Hickory Hill Park. Uh, the applicant, Allen Homes, has submitted an
application for preliminary plat approval. Uh, and to be exempted from certain
requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance. The sensitive areas ordinance
exempts development activity, specifically grading, clearing, and other physical
changes to the land, uh, exempts those activities for single- family and two - family,
uh, facilities. Excuse me, structures, uh, where no common facilities or
infrastructure are proposed. Uh, the applicant has delineated the ... a construction
limits line, which is the, uh, dashed line along the west side of the stream corridor
and wetland, uh, ensuring that the stream corridor and wetland will be protected,
uh, during construction of the single- family homes. Uh, Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended against approval of this subdivision on a 1 to 5 vote.
Uh, in the minutes, preliminary minutes from that meeting have been, uh, placed
in your Information Packet. Uh, based on disagreeing with the City Attorney's
office and the Planning staff on the application of the sensitive areas ordinance in
this case. Uh, and we have had some discussion with Planning and Zoning
Commission about amending, uh, the ordinance and that discussion came up at
your work session earlier tonight. Uh, staff finds that the subdivision meets all
the requirements of the RS -5 single - family zone and recommends approval. Be
glad to take any questions.
Botchway: So, just so I'm clear ... and I guess I ... I guess I wasn't sure about it during the
work session. So, urn ... they didn't approve 1 -5, but we can't not ... we have to
vote approval ... if it's about that particular issue that we were discussing? I'm
just confused. I guess my point is is that normally we always... always, you
know, if the Planning and Zoning Commission gives a recommendation, um...
normally we ... I think the, I wouldn't say normally but you know in most cases
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 25
we'd go with it, but now ... we can't go with it if it speaks to that particular
provision in the sensitive ordinance?
Hayek: Do you want to answer that, Eleanor?
Dilkes: I think the City Council is obligated to apply the ordinances in the City Code. My
reading of those ordinances as set forth in, um... Sarah Hecktone's memo is that
this property is entitled to an exemption under the sensitive areas ordinance,
conditional upon the construction limits that keep it off of the wetland and off of
the stream corridor. The Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory body
that ... nothing really happens when they vote. Um ... so they have a little more
discretion than you do in terms of how they chose, um, to vote. It would be my
preference that they would ... vote in accordance with what I think the Code says,
but I think you're obligated to do that. Um ... and I think there are consequences
for not doing that.
Throgmorton: In the past, we've had situations where, uh, the Commission has made a
recommendation to approve something and we have signaled that we do not want
to approve what they've recommended, and therefore we've had to have a joint
meeting, a consultation meeting with them. Would we not have to do that in this
instance if we decide we want (both talking)
Dilkes: No, because it's a subdivision and not a rezoning.
Throgmorton: Okay. All right.
Hayek: Yeah, the ... the consultation is ... is, uh, a creature of the zoning...
Throgmorton: Okay!
Hayek: ...law, which (both talking)
Dilkes: And as Sarah also points out in her memer ... in her memo, you know, the Council,
just as a general rule, has considerably less discretion when it comes to approval
of the subdivision plat as opposed to a rezoning.
Throgmorton: I ... I would like to ask Eleanor some other questions, but do you want to hear from
the public first or ... what do you want to do?
Hayek: Well as long as they're questions I don't really care about the order. I mean, if
you've got questions now, why don't you ask them. Uh, we'll get that out and
then the public will have the benefit of your questions before they (both talking)
Throgmorton: Right, so it seems like a lot rides on the definition of a common facility. So we
talked about that briefly in the work session and I asked some questions and you
answered `em so I'm not going to follow ... not going to ask them again. But I do
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 26
find myself wondering about electric power lines and natural gas lines. Will, uh
...uh, any of those be, uh, commonly shared, and if so, why would they not fall
under the definition of a common facility?
Dilkes: I don't know the answer to that, whether there are electric facilities that would be
commonly shared, I ... I expect so, but I think when you look at ... that what the
definition says about attractive land ... let ... let me get it in front of me here.
Throgmorton: You probably need to be clear about that, because we got several emails that I
think do not fully understand how the Code reads on that particular point.
Dilkes: Tract is defined as an abutting group of lots developed for a use or uses which
share common facilities, e.g., for example off - street parking, loading, and
driveways.
Throgmorton: For example. So that means there probably are others.
Dilkes: There may be.
Throgmorton: Yeah. (both talking)
Dilkes: In the context of the sensitive areas ordinance, I think the clear implication is that
we're talking... because what the sensitive areas ordinance regulates is
development activity, which is not a subdivision, which is actual movement of
dirt, grading, etc., as John pointed out, that it would not apply to example for a
shared mailbox. It would app ... it would ... what is contemplated is ... a ... piece of
infrastructure that is going to disturb the entire property on what... on what, where
the subdivision is to occur. And that's not occurring here.
Throgmorton: But this ... this provision of the Code has to apply, has to be brought to bear,
whenever a tract... exceeds 20,000 square feet, is that right? Or ... or (both talking)
Dilkes: There's a 20,000 po ... per tract exemption.
Throgmorton: Right, okay. Per tract. So ... in this case...
Dilkes: Each lot is (both talking)
Throgmorton: ... tract in each ... so therefore each one of `ems less than 20,000 square feet, right?
Okay! So that ... that's why I'm saying it seems to me this definition of `common
facility,' commonly shared facility, is ... becomes crucial. So I don't understand,
based on what you've said so far, why... if... if it's true that, uh, there are natural
gas lines or electric power lines underground, that are shared, in some fashion by
the 10 or so units on this site, that that would not constitute a commonly shared
facility.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 27
Dilkes: To (both talking) to my knowledge, there is not a ... common facility which is
going to require the grading or development activity on the entire tract of land.
That's my understanding.
Botchway: I guess my question is do we, I mean, do we know that for sure?
Dilkes: If somebody wants to speak to that, they certainly can.
Holland: My name's Joe Holland, here on behalf of the applicant. The short answer is the
only disturbance is going to be the excavation of foundation for houses and the
installation of service utility lines. This subdivision was developed in 1986. The
whole First and Rochester subdivision, all of the utilities are in place — sewer,
water, gas, electrical — all the utilities are already in place. There'll be no
disturbance for any installation of any of those. It'll just simply be for
construction of single- family residences as ... as they are constructed on the
properties.
Throgmorton: Joe, the ... the lines that are already in place, they run parallel to the road, I guess,
to First Avenue?
Holland: Parallel to the road or they're actually in the roadway, depending on which utility
you're talking about.
Throgmorton: Right, and then so ... smaller lines would have to be extended to each of the
houses, right?
Holland: Service lines, yes.
Throgmorton: Service lines, yeah.
Hayek: Jim, while you're thinking about that, cause I know you're... you're struggling
with that. Why don't we open it up to general input, uh, during this public
hearing. So, if the applicant, uh, wishes to address us, or anyone, uh, from the
audience, I would invite that at this time.
Synan: Thank you. I'm Bill Synan. I live at 833 Cypress Court. (clears throat) And I
happen to read the minutes of the August 21 ", uh, meeting, and I think the main
area of concern here is the interpretation of the sensitive area ordinance. So the
question is, is the area, uh, which is to be disturbed less than 20,000 square feet of
the 3.59 acre plat, or is it 20,000 square feet of an individual proposed lot in the
subdivision. If it's for individual lots then all the developer has to do is make
individual lots less than .46 acres. Then they can be exempt from the ordinance,
provided the infrastructure is in place. So I think this is why, uh, the Planning and
Zoning Commission wanted further investigation in ... into the wording and
interpretation. Uh, I don't know if you need a legal scholar to (laughs) to review
this, uh, but it does seem like a loophole, uh, in the ordinance. Potentially! Um,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 28
in my interpretation, I ... I thought of a tract of land, tract of land was a piece of
land ... that is planned to be divided into individual lots, not the individual lot
itself. That was my understanding of what a, uh, tract of land is. Not what
they're saying. Uh ... I mean, I think this is up for legal debate.
Hayek: Thank you for the comments.
Holland: As the Council knows, this is not the first time that the project proposal for this,
uh, site has come before the Council, or it was on its way. There was a proposal
for multi - family residential on this property, which the ... the Council indicated
was not going to receive the super- majority vote. So that application was
withdrawn. Um ... I think there's a... a strong sentiment, strong benefit for in -fill
development, which is what this is. These lots have, uh, or this property has sat
since 1986 when the ... larger subdivision was developed. Uh, it's time for
something to happen on this site, uh, so that it's useable for the citizens of the
community. I think this is a reasonable approach given that the Council's
expressed an indication that, uh, there's not that super- majority for multi - family
housing. Meetings like this are not really very ... uh, good places to argue legal
nuances. Um ... this isn't a really interesting legal question. Eleanor and I have
not discussed this question. We've had lots of discussions about legal questions
over the years. The end result of those is always that ... the applicant or the citizen
and the City need to follow the City Code and City rules and regulations, and...
obviously some of those are not very clear. You actually several years ago added
on staff a regulation specialist because even your City staff couldn't understand
parts of the regulations. I think the Council's discretion in approving a plat is
pretty limited when it meets the technical requirements of the ordinance. And I
think that is sort of what Eleanor has said and her staff has said. I had an email
exchange with, uh... Sarah Hecktone about whether the City Attorney's position
had changed on the interpretation of the ordinance and ... and it's not. They've
revisited the issue, and rethought this, and they don't make these sorts of
interpretations lightly, and I think, uh, the Council should follow their guidance in
terms of the applicability of the sensitive areas ordinance and I've read the
minutes of the ... Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and I've talked with
City staff and from what I understand, the sole reason that Planning and Zoning
voted against this particular application was they don't like the interpretation of
the sensitive areas ordinance. They don't agree with the interpretation. The
remedy for that is not to reject this application. The remedy for that is if there's
a... a flaw, or you could call it a loophole, uh, people don't like the way the
ordinance is applied, to talk about changing the ordinance itself. Um, but I hope
that, um, you will approve this proposal. I'm not sure if you deny this proposal
what happens to this piece of property? Uh, if you can't put single - family on it,
and you can't put multi - family on it, um... it really takes away a lot of the
usability of the property. So I ... I hope that, uh ... you will follow the
recommendation of City staff, and City staff is unanimous on this. It's not just
the City Attorney's office. The, uh, other City departments are in agreement that,
uh, the ... the subdivision meets the Code requirements, and they've all
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 29
recommended approval of the application, and I hope that's what you'll do
tonight. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you.
Schaffer: Uh, hello again. I, um (both talking)
Hayek: Give us your name (both talking)
Schaffer: I'm sorry?
Hayek: Could you just give us your name for the record?
Schaffer: Oh yeah, um, Joshua Schaffer, 61 West Side Drive. I don't know why I had to
look at the thing, but um (laughs) I would agree with Mr. um ... I'm sorry, I don't
know how to pronounce your last name. Jim. Um...
Throgmorton: Mr. Jim!
Schaffer: Mr. Jim sounds great. Uh, I definitely agree that it sounds like there are some
shared facilities, and that concerns me. I'm also concerned about the
environmental impact of building so close to the wetlands. Um, multiple EPA
studies have found that building on wetlands or on rivers, or even within several
hundred feet of them, um, it increases flooding, and as we know, Iowa City and
...and Coralville and this whole area have a particularly, um, rough, you know,
time with flooding. So I would just be concerned very much about the
environmental impact, and also about the run -off of yard waste, pet waste, and
whatnot into the ... the wetlands as well.
Hayek: Thank you.
Synan: Hi, um, I'm Ann Synan. I live at 833 Cypress Court. I have just a very short
statement and that is to say that, uh, my husband and I and many of our neighbors
are actually very pleased that, um, the development has gone in the direction of
following the RS -5 zoning, and I just wanted to say our main concern is really just
about that lot #1 down there, uh, near the creek, and just how that encroaches on
the sensitive area, and that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.
Hayek: Thank you.
McDonald: Hi, Jennifer McDonald at 855 Cypress. And to answer one of the questions, what
else could be put on this lot. When we had the friendly neighborhood meeting, he
said single - family would not work. Um, duplex, triplex, or a multi - family would.
And now Allen's going back and saying single - family, which it's zoned and we
understand, but we're mostly concerned about the sensitive areas and the
flooding, and um ... you don't have to max out the lot to make it beneficial. He...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 30
he wanted to add 11 units cause it could handle 11 units. If you do duplex and
triplex, he had made a comment that you can only get six or seven units, which
there are duplex and triplex in that area, and to us that seems like the logical
choice, and if you really want to do single - family, maybe limit it a little bit so it's,
um, not so overbearing on that, um, development property, so there's not so much
runoff and digging and stuff like that. So just something to think about. Thank
you.
Hayek: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay I'm going to close this down for (both talking)
Throgmorton: ... ask Jesse Allen a question.
Hayek: Okay!
Throgmorton: Jesse! I wonder if you could come up. I'd like to ask you basically one question.
How you doing?
Allen: Good! How are you, Jim?
Throgmorton: All right! So ... I understand that you have a legal right to do certain things. It's
the RS -5 zone, you know, and the Code says you can do this and so on. Uh, so
you've presented a proposal to us. And it has some complications. We're trying
to figure it out. But what ... what I'm really wondering, and I know you have...
the right as a landowner to make this kind of decision. I ... I'm wondering why
you've chosen to ... to go with 10 single - family structures instead of say five
duplexes, which would only have five driveways instead of 10 driveways, uh, and
soon. So, why ... why did you chose to do that?
Allen: Yeah, sure I guess the ... the closest answer is there was a petition enacted and
we ... we tried really strong when we presented the first time to kind of cluster the
dwelling units. I believe we were showing 11 single - family units on our ... on our
first take. So we were doing 11 single - family version versus clustering them
together with an OPD zone and in one building we were trying to, you know,
protect a lot of the areas, and there was kind of an outcry from the neighbors with
the, uh, petition, and we got a lot of pushback and you know ... so the logical
choice is to do the single - family and we feel that that'll best suit the surrounding
neighbors and I feel it'll blend naturally into the terrain with the less disturbance
of the area. I mean, all of our infrastructure's in place as staff has already, you
know, talked about and it's the less impact on the environment. Um, it'll be
neighbors living on the property, just like there is on the other side of the hill.
Um, we have some very nice attractive views there that we're going to still take
advantage of. So ... hopefully that answers your question.
Throgmorton: Well you know you ... you sort of didn't answer it. (laughs) Uh, I mean I
understand the ... how you got from the original proposal, uh, and I understand
why you presented that idea to us. Uh, I understand how you got from that to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 31
what we have before us now. But what I asked about was duplexes. You know,
you could have... possibly at least, say five duplexes instead of 10 single - family
units facing on to First Avenue. So that's what I'm wondering about. The ... the
choice between duplex and single - family. Both of which are authorized in an RS-
5 zone.
Allen: So you're asking, uh, basically we took our second best option. Duplexes may
have been my third. Tri ... triplex may have been my fourth. You know, we
wanted to put the best project on the table. We feel that this is the best project for
the city, and developing the project.
Throgmorton: Okay. I can see John wants to (both talking)
Yapp: Just one thing I'd like to add is, uh, duplexes or triplexes or anything other than
single - family would have required another rezoning. Uh, the property is currently
zoned RS -5 single - family residential. A duplex or a zero -lot, uh, unit in this zone
is only permitted on the corner.
Throgmorton: Boy when we went through this, uh ... the previous meeting, that's not what I
understood at all. I don't know. So maybe I just completely misunderstood, but
that's not what I understood. Okay! Sorry for that, Jesse!
Hayek: Let's, uh, close down for Council discussion.
Dobyns: Well I intend to, uh, support, um, the consideration. I ... I guess I wanted to give
Mr. Allen as developer, uh, a lot of credit in hanging in there. It's very clear to
me that there's a significant amount of the neighborhood that really wants nothing
built in this area, um, and the use of, uh, various laws and ordinances to keep that
from happening. First I really thought the best option, myself, was the first
option, uh, which was defeated by the super - majority rule. I think it, um, had the
least impact on the arterial road. It was aesthetically the most pleasing and it
certainly did not come anywhere close to, I think, threatening the sensitive areas
act. Um, this unfortunately does come closer to threatening it, but um, I agree
with the City Attorney, it does not threaten it by what I understand the law to be.
Um, and so I think that, uh ... um, you know, congratulations on putting something
that squeezes in the ... in the law and I'm very enthusiastic to support it.
Dickens: I know we talked quite a bit at the work session about looking into changing the
sensitive or ... ord ... uh, sensitive area ordinance, the fact that there is this little
glitch in it. It does need to be taken care of, and we've already discussed that
we're going to look into it, but in this particular case this meets all the
requirements and we're ... we're somewhat bound by the requirements that we
have in place right now, so I ... I will be supporting it as well.
Hayek: Um, I'll support it. I ... I don't know if there's a glitch or ... or not. I'm always
willing to look at a policy matter, um ... uh, which I think we'll be doing, if there's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 32
concern on the ... at the Council level, but um, I'll support this. Single - family's
clearly called for in... in RS -5, uh, and... and I ... I recall from our conversations
when this was presented to us as a multi - family dwelling, um ... uh, what RS -5
means and does not mean, and... and it... and I recall looking at something very
similar to that as to, uh... in terms of what's on the wall... as... as to what could be
done by rights under the current zoning, RS -5, um, so to see this does not surprise
me. I think it's a ... a response to, uh, the... the... the dead -end that the applicant
ran into, uh, with the first round. Um ... and the fact is, this is in technical
compliance with existing, uh, City ordinance. Uh, it does not encroach the
wetlands, um, and uh, I ... I greatly respect the ... the advice we're getting from
our... our staff on this, uh, which apparently they doubled back and... and
reviewed, uh, a second time and ... and didn't change their, uh, their take on it. So,
um, I ... I think it would be a mistake for this Council to not approve this.
Mims: I'll approve it also. Um, you know, in an ideal world this might not be what we
had in front of us. Um, I ... I would respectfully disagree that the first proposal
was the most aesthetically pleasing, but that's why Councils don't get into ... get
involved in aesthetics (laughs) as much as we can avoid it, cause everybody has a
different opinion on what's aesthetically pleasing. Um ... you know, in an ideal
world I would see, you know, two or three triplexes or something kind of, you
know, stepping down the hill, but I ... I certainly respect the developer's right to
come back, um, and propose something that fits within the current zoning and
given the super- majority that he faced with the first rezoning attempt, to not
necessarily go through all the time and money of putting another proposal in place
that he, you know, didn't know if he would get through as well. Um, I'm, you
know, I'm concerned about the sensitive areas ordinance. I do think that warrants
our looking at it. I don't know if... if it, uh, if we will find that we need to make
changes, if there are any significant glitches or loopholes, but I think this is a
development that I think has ... has raised a lot of concern because of some
technicalities, and so I think it certainly always then is worth our going back and
taking another look at some of those, um, regulations. Um, it fits within, you
know, as the Mayor said, fits within the ... the technicalities of the law and um,
with the current zoning and so I will be supporting it.
Throgmorton: Yeah, well, I need to go back and reread, uh, whatever it was that I... convinced
me that, uh, duplexes are permitted in RS -5 zones, cause I read something, I don't
know what, and... and... apparently I misread it. So I'll find out what that was.
The ... the core problem for me is that when I look at that map, I see a tract. I see
one 3- point- whatever acre, whatever (laughs) tract, but ... I totally hear what
Eleanor has been telling us about how it does not technically fit the legal
definition of a tract and therefore all the other elements, such as common facilities
and so on come into play. I mean I get it! But boy if...you know, just from a...
layperson's point of view, it's ... it clearly is a single tract. But ... I ... I'll vote for it
because I don't feel like, uh, it would be appropriate to do otherwise.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 33
Botchway: And I want to concur with Jim as well. Um ... especially with that last statement.
I think this kind of goes back to what, uh, I brought up in the last, uh, maybe it
was work session. I think I sent an email to Jeff, uh, today about it, you know, it
being, um, somewhat confusing. I mean, and again, I'm new to the Council, and
looking at this you know, again, it seems like some type of medical terminology
to me. Um, and understanding it, and so if we're going to use these particular
interpretations, um, to do something or do something, um, within an ordinance,
whatever the case may be, I think it needs to be clear, and I think, you know, uh, I
would hope that in whatever we do, um, the community would be on board with
it, as well. Um ... uh, but like I said, I ... I concur with what Jim said. Um, but you
know, this is ... I definitely think it's obviously something we talked about, about
looking at, and so we should, but I ... I also think we should just look at, you
know, how we ... I don't know. Just ... just different policies and how we, um,
present things to the public, because if it's ... if it's tough to understand and if
we're, um, we're sitting here debating, um ... uh, issues as far as how, you know,
words (mumbled) particularly to find, then something's wrong with our
communication, and so, um ... I think we just need to do something about that.
Hayek: Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Mims: So moved.
Dobyns: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, 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 September 16, 2014.
Page 34
ITEM 5d. ST. ANDREW CHURCH — CONDITIONALLY REZONING
APPROXIMATELY 33.37 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF CAMP CARDINAL ROAD NORTH OF CAMP
CARDINAL BOULEVARD FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (ID -RS) TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL. (RS -5) (REZ- 00012) (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Mims: Move second consideration.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? Any ex parte from the last
reading? Anyone from the audience? Further Council discussion? Roll call,
please. Passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 35
ITEM 6. UNIVERCITY SALE, 1111 EAST BURLINGTON - RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
LOCATED AT 1111 EAST BURLINGTON STREET.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Uh, this is another,
uh, UniverCity, uh, program success. Anyone from the audience? Public hearing
is closed. (bangs gavel)
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Dobyns: Move the resolution.
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Botchway. Discussion?
Throgmorton: I ... you know, I wonder if there's some staff member I could ask a question of
I ... I don't see Steve Long out there. So I don't know, maybe John.
Hayek: Bob.
Throgmorton: Bob, I don't know. Um, anyhow, I'm going to ask a Michelle -kind of question. I
was looking at the price, and I noticed that the sales price will be I think $233,000
for this, and I ... that's pushing upwards. I'm right about the price, aren't I?
Hayek: Yep.
Throgmorton: I just made a mistake (mumbled) (laughing) (several talking)
Dilkes: I was just confirming that, yes! (laughs)
Throgmorton: Yeah, so uh, you know, that's pushing the limit, it seems to me, and I ... I would
hope that ... I ... I don't know if we're at the end now of the UniverCity partnership
effort. I don't think we are. I think there's still more to come, but I would hope
that they would not, uh, go above the $200,000 limit, or not the limit, I mean, that
seems like an appropriate level, but I'm not trying to define what the limit should
be.
Yapp: I'm not able to speak to the particular price on this property. Uh, I think we are
nearing the end of the, uh, UniverCity program. Of course subject to budget
deliberations and ... and future seed money, uh, that would be determined by you.
Geoff: Jim, there ... there is an upper limit to this ... the program. I just don't have that
information in front of me, but...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 36
Throgmorton: You mean for total number of houses or...
Geoff: No, on ... on sales price. Um, and ... and that's... that's been dictated from the start
of the program. We can, um, either come back to you at another meeting or ... or
probably even better would just to put a memo in the ... in the, uh, future Info
Packet about, uh, what those parameters are.
Hayek: Further discussion?
Payne: Jim, I'm glad you asked that question, because I also had a question on what
income eligible means, um, for a clarification, so maybe just that could be added
to the packet al ... to the memo also.
Geoff: Yes, we can certainly do that.
Hayek: Further discussion? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 37
ITEM 7. RIVERSIDE DRIVE AMENDMENT TO URBAN RENEWAL PLAN -
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE RIVERSIDE
DRIVE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN TO ADD PROPOSED URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECTS.
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Mims: Move the resolution.
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway. Discussion?
Throgmorton: I think I'd like to ask a couple questions about this too. Bob, are you going to
speak to this?
Miklo: No, I'm just getting the slides ready for the next (both talking)
Throgmorton: I see Jeff coming up, so ... Jeff can! Uh, I want to ask a naive question so that
maybe ... uh, I don't know. Just help me understand! So, the text of, uh, the staff
memo or whatever that accompanies this says it ... the new value will produce the
tax increment required to provide the financing for ... uh, the two infrastructure
projects and for the... building, uh, that would be authorized by a ... approval of
this, uh, resolution. Uh, so what I'm wondering is, can you clarify what new
value will be producing the tax increment that would be used to ... pay for the
infrastructure projects and... and... and help the ... the particular developer on that
project.
Davidson: Sure. There, for example, has been a significant project in the area, since the base
was set of the Hampton Hotel, and we could capture the increment from the
Hampton Hotel project for the two infrastructure projects, the pedestrian tunnel
and the streetscape elements. That's an example of a new development project
that went through our process of the developer needing to justify financial
assistance, uh, to show a gap on the project; was unable to do so; built the project,
uh, without TIF assistance; and so the entire increment is there for us to ... to draw
on. We do anticipate that there could be other projects, as well, uh, that ... that
could be tapped into for that... that... that purpose. A lot of people forget that the
original TIF statute at the State level was to do public infrastructure projects and
so we certainly intend to, uh, do that, with your approval.
Throgmorton: Right, okay! That's helpful. Thanks! I didn't ... I didn't realize the Hampton had
gone through that (both talking)
Davidson: I would point out, the City assisted with the project, uh, a property sale that was
necessary, uh, but ... so we did assist with the project, but not with TIF.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 38
Throgmorton: Yeah, okay... than ... thank you. That's helpful (both talking)
Hayek: Council discussion?
Throgmorton: Well, I ... I do have one concern that really doesn't... well, it's indirectly related to
what I just mentioned, or the question I just asked. One of...the private project
that is included in this amendment, and would be ... eligible for, uh, certain kinds
of tax, uh, tax assistance, probably tax increment financing assistance in the
future, uh, is, uh ... uh, it's indicated in ... in the report or wherever that that project
might be eligible for as much as $2 million in assistance. And... that... that dollar
amount, uh, concerns me. I see everybody looking. I'm sure I saw that.
Mims: Yeah, it's there. It's ... it's in the ... but I think all that does, Jim, is at least it gets it
in there for our approval, in terms of it could go up to that much. We would still
have to go through all of the regular procedures in terms of, you know, the gap
financing, the analysis, using National Development Council, going through the
Economic Development Committee, coming back to the Council for approval, so
I mean ... you know, maybe Jeff can answer this. I'm assuming some number had
to be put in there so we wouldn't have to come back and redo this again.
Davidson: Exactly, that's what I was going to say, Susan (several talking) And, Jim, we try
and put the maximum number in there because then we won't have to go back and
amend it if it comes in less than that.
Throgmorton: Yeah, I figured that was the case, and I thank you, Susan, for, you know, kind of
clarifying all that, but I ... I just wanted to kind of get it on the record that if...if, if
a proposal for that dollar amount came my way ... much as I want that project to
be built ... I ... I couldn't go there (laughs)
Mims: Well but before it...
Throgmorton: But we'll ... we'll deal with that when it comes.
Mims: Yeah, but I would encourage you before you make a comment like that ... that you
don't have any of the facts in front of you yet to make a decision. I mean, you
might ... a ... potentially a project could come back on that property that would
have features and things that we wanted in the community that maybe $2 million
is warranted, and you might even think $2 million (both talking)
Throgmorton: Possibly.
Mims: ...okay, so I (both talking)
Throgmorton: ... we'll see...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 39
Mims: ...yeah, I think we have to see all the ... all the details before any of us rush to
judgment. That's all I'm saying.
Throgmorton: The dollar amount got my attention.
Mims: Uh huh.
Throgmorton: Yeah. Thanks, Jeff!
Hayek: Yeah, I was just going to add to what Susan said. You know, this ... this identifies
this and... and renders it eligible for consideration but it's in no way a... an
indication from Council that we will or... support anything.
Mims: Right!
Hayek: Um, it goes through the normal process, um, and it remains to be seen whether
something like that would gain any traction with Council, let alone what the
amount would be. So ... further discussion? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 40
ITEM 8. MITIGATION ON DEMOLITION OF HENRY SABIN SCHOOL -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) WITH THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA), THE STATE
HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA (SHSI), IOWA HOMELAND
SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
(IHSEMD), THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA (UNIVERSITY), THE OFFICE
OF THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGIST OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
(OSA), AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY (CITY) REGARDING THE
RELOCATION OF THE UNIVERSITY'S SCHOOL OF MUSIC
(UNDERTAKING), RESULTING IN DEMOLITION OF THE FORMER
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE BUILDING, FORMERLY THE HENRY SABIN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL ( SABIN SCHOOL), LOCATED AT 509 SOUTH DUBUQUE
STREET, IOWA CITY.
Mims: Move the resolution.
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway. Discussion?
Mims: Could you have any more parties to the agreement? (laughter)
Hayek: (several talking) ...want the acronyms? (laughter)
Throgmorton: What a complicated (several talking)
Mims: Yeah, very complicated!
Miklo: Well we've been asked to participate in this agreement by FEMA, the Federal, uh,
Emergency Management Agency, urn ... as a result of the proposed demolition of
the Sabin School. Because the ... the building is eligible for the National Register,
and because there are federal funds involved, or a federal project involved, uh,
FEMA is required to go through the Section 106 Review Process of the National
Historic Preservation Act, and this memorandum, uh, agreement will fulfill a part
of that requirement. Uh, FEMA has made it clear that the decision is to ... to
remove the building has already been made and the City is not purview to ... to
that decision or that decision is not ... is not in the City's purview. Uh, the
Historic Preservation Commission was specifically asked by FEMA, uh, to make
suggestions on how to mitigate the loss of the building for the community. The
Commission held two public meetings and out of the input from those meetings
made several suggestions to FEMA as to what might be...be done, uh, to
compensate the community. Uh, based on the Commission's suggestions, uh, the
agreement provides for the salvaging of the limestone archways and other
decorative elements of the, um, Sabin School building for possible, uh, relocation
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 41
and ... and reinstallation in the future Riverfront Crossings Park. Uh, although the
limestone will be provided to the City at no cost, there may be some ... or there
will definitely be some expense to putting them back together in a form that
would be useful for the park. Um, we've asked the park consultants who are
working on the park plan to take that into account and to, uh ... uh ... uh, come up
with a design to reuse the arches. Uh, I would note that, um, we ... we will not be
required to reuse the arch, uh, the archways or the limestone, but it's ... it's
something that the Historic Preservation Commission, uh, recommends. Um, the
agreement also provides for a study of the other properties surrounding the Sabin
School, to determine if any of those are eligible for the National Register. Uh, the
results of that study will be provided to the City, uh, at...at no cost to the City
and ... and that study is one of the goals in our preservation plan, so it is something
that the Historic Preservation Commission, uh, would like to have done. Uh, the
resolution before you authorize the Mayor to sign the, uh, the agreement on behalf
of the City. Uh, the Historic Preservation Commission and staff, uh ... uh,
recommend approval of ... of the memorandum (mumbled) as proposed. Be happy
to try to answer any questions.
Hayek: Thanks, Bob! Anyone from the audience? Council discussion.
Throgmorton: I hate to see the Sabin building come down, but we've talked about this a few
times in the past ... and it seems like there's nothing else that can be done, but
there are good strategies for, uh ... trying to ameliorate the affects.
Mims: I would agree, Jim, and I think it's important to reiterate Bob's comments that this
decision was not something that was, um, made by the City. It was by outside
entities.
Hayek: Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 42
ITEM 9. PROHIBITING E- CIGARETTES ON PROPERTY OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY THE CITY - RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE
USE OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS AND VAPOR
PRODUCTS ON PROPERTY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY ON WHICH SMOKING IS CURRENTLY
PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW OR CITY CODE
Mims: Move the resolution.
Botchway: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway. Discussion? Is there anyone from the
audience on this? Council.
Throgmorton: I was on an Amtrak train just a few days ago when I learned that Amtrak prohibits
vaping, smoking of e- cigarettes, uh, on the train, or within 10 -feet of the doorway
to the train. That was a surprise! I didn't know that.
Dickens: Downtown restaurants in Chicago (mumbled) was there this weekend and they
already have `em posted at a lot of private restaurants, as well, so it's ... it's
something that's coming.
Hayek: Further discussion? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 43
ITEM 12. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Hayek: Kingsley, why don't we start down on your end.
Botchway: Soul Fest, um, coming up this weekend, I think. Terry, I'm looking at you
(mumbled)
Dickens: Friday, Saturday, and...
Botchway: Sunday!
Dickens: ...gospel brunch...
Botchway: ... on Sunday.
Dickens: That's the only ticketed thing (both talking)
Botchway: Right, and I think there's still tickets available, so look on the web site and
purchase!
Throgmorton: Guess I'm next! So, on ... on Sunday, September 21St, there will be a Great March
for Climate Action in New York City. It will be attended by tens of thousands of
people. On that same day, beginning at 2:00 P.M., uh, there will be a parallel, or
a companion march here in Iowa City. It's gonna begin on the ped mall in front
of Representative, uh, Dave Loebsack's office and then go to several public
buildings in the city. So, some people might want to attend; some people might
not, but it'll be happening.
Mims: Um, last night the U.S. Corps of Engineers did a presentation at the Iowa City
Public Library on the ... the water management program for the Coralville Dam
and thought it was very interesting, um, beneficial for people to have some public
input, and hear exactly what their restrictions are. I know that was, uh, they taped
an hour of that, of the presentations and some of the questions. I'm assuming
that'll be on ... the Iowa City channel, so would encourage people to look for that,
uh, help get some ... some information.
Dickens: Nothing.
Hayek: Council Member Payne!
Payne: I just wanted to mention that before we have our next meeting the Iowa City Book
Festival will be happening. It's on October 1St, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, um ... so
everybody that wishes to attend, please attend!
Hayek: Thanks for that. Uh, congrats to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Uh, the
Herky on Parade, Take 2 effort this year, uh, has resulted in about $110,000 going
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 44
to the United Way of Johnson and Washington counties. Um, so huge event, uh,
kudos to the organization and everybody involved with it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.
Page 45
ITEM 13. REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF.
a) City Manager.
Hayek: City Manager's office.
Fruin: Uh, two quick updates. I just want to inform the Council of two, uh, staff
resignations that we received last week and we're sorry to see these two
individuals go. One is, uh, our Animal Services Supervisor, Misha Goodman.
She's been with us 21 years and has taken a... a position in New Mexico. Uh, so
there's a ... a reception for her Friday here. Uh, the second, uh ... uh, notice we
received last week was from Steve Long, another 21 -year employee of the City.
He's currently our Neighborhood Services Director, and Steve will be with us
through the end of this month and has taken a position with a local consulting
firm. So, uh, we thank both Misha and Steve for their, um, 21 years of service
each and they'll both be greatly missed here at the City.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of September 16, 2014.