HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-27 TranscriptionJuly 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 1
Council Present: Botchway (arrived 5:20), Dickens, Dobyns (arrived 6:00), Hayek, Mims,
Payne, Throgmorton
Staff Present: Fruin, Hart, Boothroy, Morris, Justason, Andrew, Bockenstedt, Moran,
Yapp, Schwindt, Dilkes, Clow, Ralston, Karr, Hargadine, Havel,
Hightshoe, Kelsey, O'Brien, Ford, Bowers
Others Present: Neal (UISG)
Questions from Council re: Agenda Items:
Hayek/ So at this time we will start up our City Council work session for, uh, July 27th. I want to
welcome everyone to a partially remodeled Harvat Hall. A lot of stuff... hammers and
saws behind us about 15 minutes ago that go cleared out just in the nick of time.
Throgmorton/ Where'd all the mayors go?
Hayek/ (laughs) Yeah! (mumbled) parade! Um ... okay, so the first ... we've already dealt with the
City Conference Board meeting. Uh, Council Member Dobyns will be here at some
point. He's driving back from out of state. Uh, he'll get here prior to the formal, I
believe. So the first, uh, bullet point is questions concerning agenda items.
ITEM 3d(4) IOWA CITY GATEWAY — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY GATEWAY PROJECT (HDP -
3715(652) --71-52)
Throgmorton/ Matt, with regard to 3d(4), which is about property acquisition concerning the
Gateway project. (mumbled) only one question. Have affected property owners been
notified yet or is that forthcoming?
Dilkes/ Of the actual property that's needed?
Throgmorton/ Yeah!
Dilkes/ My office would send out an initial offer letter that would include a plat designating that
property. I assume there's been other discussions not about compensation to date.
Throgmorton/ Well, I only ask because I talked with one ... one property owner who ... sort of
learned that property would be acquired or purchased. Uh, but had not been notified that
such action would actually be taking place, so...
Dilkes/ The State law provides that until we get this resolution authorizing acquisition we cannot
have those negotiations.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 2
Throgmorton/ Okay.
ITEM 3f(8) Tabitha Wiggins: Testimony for City Council Meeting — Black Kids
Play Too [Staff memo included]
ITEM 3f(9) Petition signed by 100 people: End Discrimination against black youth
in Iowa City and its public spaces [See staff memo from previous item]
Hayek/ And after tonight, assuming we adopt the Consent Calendar, that authorization's there
and the process will commence. Okay. Uh, I have one and this .... this regards, um ... the,
uh, what we anticipate will be community input on the ... on the Rec Center and Police,
and ... and race issues. Urn ... uh, Items, uh, 3f(8) and (9) are the two places in our Consent
Calendar where communication to the Council is located, um, and what I think we should
do is, um, at the front end of our meeting adopt the Consent Calendar as we always
do ... separating out those two items for separate consideration by the Council, so that we
can ... and I'll tell the crowd this when ... when we start the formal meeting, but urn ... so that
we adopt our Consent Calendar and then we get on the floor 3f(8) and (9), which are the
communications. Um, get it on the floor and then, uh, invite public, uh, comment, um,
and then go through however many people want to address the Council on those issues
and close it down, and that'll give the Council a chance to talk and then we can vote on
that. So...
Mims/ And then we'll have the regular open comment after (both talking)
Hayek/ (both talking) yeah, but ... but those issues technically are on the agenda (both talking) part
of our Consent Calendar, so (both talking) wants to come and talk to us about Frisbees,
um, they ... they can do so during community comment. So, you guys okay with that?
(several responding)
ITEM 3f(1) Nancy Bird: Support requested to improve Downtown alleys [Staff
response included]
Mims/ Um, I would just comment on 3 f(1) glad to see, uh, the request from the Downtown
District and the City staff s, uh, cooperation, which is nothing less than I would expect
(laughs) in looking at the alleys, um, and trying to improve those downtown, so ... get rid
of some of the dumpsters and consolidate and ... it's more efficient and cleaner. So,
looking forward to that!
Throgmorton/ Yeah, I completely agree!
ITEM 3d(12) FIRST AVENUE LANE CONVERSION — RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST
THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT
(2016 -TS -009) FOR THE CONVERSION OF FIRST AVENUE FROM A FOUR
LANE TO A THREE LANE ROADWAY.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 3
ITEM 3d(13) MORMON TREK BOULEVARD CONVERSION - RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST
THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AGREEMENT
(2016 -TS -015) FOR THE CONVERSION OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD
FROM A FOUR LANE TO A THREE LANE ROADWAY.
Dickens/ I just have some questions on 3d(12) and 3d(13) the conversion of First Avenue and
Mormon Trek to three -lanes. Is this a done deal or ... is this something that we discuss
or ... cause I've had several people ask me about First Avenue, especially converting it to a
three -lane.
Fruin/ Jason Havel can come up and talk about those projects. My understanding is the First
Avenue project, that was included in the plans and specs that ... that has already gone
through for that, uh, that project, which is underway. The Mormon Trek plans and specs
have not been prepared. Is that correct, Jason?
Havel/ Correct! Yeah, at this point where things stand, the ... uh, the funding for the First Avenue
would be lumped into the grade separation project at this point, and then it would then
also include extending the three -lane section, essentially from Mall Drive down to
Highway 6. And then Mormon Trek, it ... we're preparing an RFP at this point to go out
for design services for that section.
Dickens/ Thank you.
Throgmorton/ Uh, I suppose, Terry, if...if you want a discussion about it, we could pull those two
items.
Dickens/I just had some people ask, and this is the first that I heard about it was here, but I don't
remember seeing it in the plans before that it was three lanes. I always thought it was,
you know, the four...
Havel/ For the grade separation or...
Dickens/ No, for the (both talking) all of First Avenue would be four. I don't remember seeing it
as a three -lane.
Havel/ I ... I think in the, uh, probably through most of the design process it was a three -lane
section...
Dickens/ (both talking) and I just missed that. Thank you.
Havel/ Okay.
Fruin/ We have had some questions, um, from people wanting to know what the traffic
implications are, particularly for, uh, auto and ... if the Council wants we can have that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 4
discussion, either tonight or at a later date, on ... on how those road diets typically impact
vehicular traffic going from four to three, because there is a lot of traffic engineering and
analysis that goes into that in determining which are good candidates and what impacts
may be.
Payne/ I can just say that on Lower Muscatine Road, when they ... when we did that ... (noises in
background)
Hayek/ Can you pull your mic down?
Payne/ Sorry! Um ... (noises in background) it...it greatly improved the traffic flow ... from First
Avenue up to at least Sycamore Street.
Throgmorton/ So on Item M(3), Matt.
Hayek/ Uh huh!
ITEM 3f(3) Linda Quinn: Proposal to ban plastic bags
Throgmorton/ Uh, which is actually an email from Linda Quinn, uh, on behalf of 100 Grannies,
and she just asked, uh, asked us to respond to their May 19th proposed resolution
indicating the City's intent to eliminate single -use plastic bag use by April 22, 2016. Uh,
so they've made the request. I don't know what the Council as a whole thinks about the
request, but seems to me we should respond in some fashion. So ... maybe we don't need
to work through it tonight, but we should figure out a way to respond.
Hayek/ Yeah, I mean I don't think we can work through it tonight.
Throgmorton/ Uh huh.
Hayek/ It's not an agenda item, but ... but you know, and we ... we have looked at this before
and ... and reached some conclusions as a city council before, um, and so we could send a
staff memo or letter, you know, sort of reiterating what that process looked like, or... you
know if you want to try to put it back on as a work session, uh... uh, agenda item, you
know, you could do that.
Throgmorton/ Maybe Geoff could, uh, or staff, could put together a memo for us, cause... about
a year's passed since we had that previous discussion and (both talking)
Fruin/ We ... we can certainly ... I think, um, if you recall, this was, uh, directed to the MPO. There
was an MPO discussion, and then it came back to Council, as ... as well as the councils in
the neighboring cities, and the conclusion there was to focus on education and ... and
perhaps some incentives, um ... uh, but there was no direction to pursue a ban at any point
in the future. We can submit that information back into the packet. I'm not sure there's
anything new to offer, but if you'd like to see that again, be happy to put that in.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 5
Throgmorton/ Yeah, I just think a response is appropriate. That's all.
Fruin/ Okay.
Hayek/ Thanks, Geoff.
ITEM 8. UNIVERCITY SALE, 1111 EAST BURLINGTON — RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
LOCATED AT 1111 EAST BURLINGTON STREET AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 14-262.
Payne/ I have a comment on Item 8, University sale, 1111 E. Burlington. Urn ... I think $199,000
is excessive for income -eligible buyers, and I'm going to say that every time (laughs)
when it's a high price for income -eligible buyers. I think the program's a great program,
but ... $199,000 is a lot of money!
Throgmorton/ I'm really happy to see the one on ... what is it, South Lucas, uh, just south of
Burlington Street. Really happy to see that go for $135,000 or whatever it was. Uh, I've
been in it, you know, and it's a cute little house and has a great yard, so I'm really happy
to see it, um, make its way through this program.
Payne/ And $135,000's a little easier to swallow!
Throgmorton/ I understand!
Hayek/ So we ... we've got a pretty packed work session. Do we ... as it relates to the, um,
Court/Linn development agreement, do we want to just take that up at the formal?
Fruin/ We'll have a pretty extensive presentation for you. So I think that's probably the best.
Council Appointments (Agenda #15):
Hayek/ Okay! Any other agenda items? Okay, Council appointments. Um, we have three
commissions... to discuss tonight. First is, uh, CPRB.
Mims/ My recommendation on the CPRB is ... um, we've got a gender requirement on there, and
the one, uh, individual who would meet that, urn ... has been on there for fi... he's not on
currently but has been on previously for like five and a half years, I think, according to
his application, and I think that's one that is really, really important to get, um, people
kind of rotating through and get, um, a variety of perspectives on there. I would be
inclined to not appoint anybody and readvertise that, um, that would put us back to when,
like October or...
Karr/ Well, if we readvertise, typically we would readvertise for another 30 days. It doesn't
generate another 90, unless Council wishes to...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 6
Mims/ Okay.
Karr/ ...do so. Um ... the gender balance would be waived in September, middle of September, as
noted on the cover sheet.
Mims/ Okay.
Karr/ So we certainly could advertise ... uh... until your ... October meeting. Then you've... you've
taken care of both the readvertisement and the gender balance issue. If you wish to do
that. Cause your last meeting in Sep ... in September's the 15`1i, with won't ... which won't
waive the gender balance.
Mims/ Okay. Do they have a work load at this point that you're aware of that that would create a
(both talking)
Karr/ ...small board or a commission, as you know. It's only five members. So, um ... certainly
one absence is a ... is a critical one and this would delay it, uh, probably... well, at least two
months.
Hayek/ (several talking) I'm okay with that, Susan, but we just need to be cognizant of the
distinct possibility that over the next three month we won't .... three months we will not
have quo ... quorum for these meetings. We have five members — one is (both talking)
now gone and there are another two whose attendance is very spotty. Um, and so at any
given meeting we may not hit three. Um, so if...if we're comfortable with that, and
maybe the work load, uh, dictates things to some extent (both talking)
Karr/ What about ... what about if we readvertise it 30 days. It doesn't allow you to waive the
gender balance, but it does allow should another applicant come in, who would meet the
gender balance. It does allow you to adver... it does allow you to appoint as early as
August 18th. If not we just readvertise again.
Mims/ Let's do that!
Hayek/ Okay (several talking)
Throgmorton/ I agree.
Karr/ Okay? (several responding)
Hayek/ Do we need to take action on that or will you just do it? Good! Readvertise then!
(laughter)
Karr/ Um, when we go through the appointments, the other ones, I think we'll just note that we'll
ad ... we'll readvertise that one 30 days.
Hayek/ Okay!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 7
Karr/ Just to clarify that.
Hayek/ So tie a string around your finger so you mention that, please (laughter) Okay! Uh...
next is Housing and Community Development Commission. Uh, three spots, five names.
Mims/ In looking through the applications, I thought the ... the three strongest ones ... either with
relevant experience and/or familiarity with what the commission does were, uh, Mark
Signs, Emily Seiple.... Seeple, I'm not sure ... and uh, Syndey Conger.
Dickens/ I would go with that too.
Throgmorton/ I'm good with that.
Hayek/ Fine with me!
Payne/ Wow, we all agree!
Hayek/ Uh, Mark, Syndey, and Emily. Okay. And then last, uh, Parks and Rec Commission one
vacancy, one application. And I don't think there's any impediment to it.
Mims/ No!
Hayek/ Everybody alright with Paul Roesler? (several responding) Okay! Next item is
discussion, uh, plan ... planning and redevelopment of City -owned surface parking lots.
Discuss Planning and Redevelopment of City Owned Surface Parking Lots [IP4]
Fruin/ John Yapp's going to come forward and ... and walk you through the memo that's IP4 in
your, uh, Info Packet, but what we're seeking here tonight is really direction from the
City Council on two downtown properties that are designated public in our Comp Plan,
and they currently serve as surface parking lots for municipal facilities. Um, so the key
question before you, or the ... the informal feedback we want tonight is whether we should
initiate a Comp Plan amendment for the three -block area that would designate, um,
the ... the two properties that we're talking about, uh... uh, commercial in the Comp Plan, as
opposed to public which they are now. And the two properties which John'll talk about
are the surface parking lot adjacent to the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center and a concept,
a mixed-use concept was presented, uh, publicly a couple of years ago that would have a
parking structure and ... and, uh, mixed-use development on both College and Burlington,
and then the second property is the City Hall parking lot here, and I think you're all very
familiar with the Unitarian Church, um, decision to move, uh, from that property
and ... and, uh, the developer that has a purchase agreement with the Church is here to
walk you through the concept there. So ... with that I'll turn it over to John.
Hayek/ Hey, John, before you start up, I just ... I want to mention, uh, I have previously, um,
avoided, uh, involvement in discussions at the Council level regarding the Unitarian
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 8
Church, uh, and I had ... had done so, uh, because of, uh, my past membership in that
church and my past financial support to the church, and my family's history with it, and at
the time, if you go back, I don't know, six months or however long this has been going
on, you know there was ... there was, uh, there were suggestions coming, uh, to the City
that ... that the City, uh, acquire the property or impose a ... a landmark status. We were
getting, uh, some pressure from the community on that and ... and to the extent that was,
uh, ever before the City, I ... I didn't want to be involved with ... with that, uh, for ... for clear
reasons. I've talked to Eleanor about this item, um, and because it relates to the ... the
entire campus, both up on the north end and then down there by ... by the Rec Center, uh,
and because it does not involve, at least as far as I understand it, City acquisition of
the ... the church or ... or imposition of a, um, a ... a landmark -type status, you know, uh... um,
forcibly, I guess, um, I'm okay with participating in this, um, and will do so, but I just
want to clear the air on that and tell you why I'm listening in on and participating in this.
So, with that ... John!
Yapp/ Uh, thank you. John Yapp, uh, Development Services. Uh, as Geoff noted, uh, staff has
been approached by developers interested in developing two City -owned surface parking
lots. Uh, one north of City Hall and east of the Unitarian Church parcel, and the other
one on the east side of the Recreation Center. Uh, both of these parcels are part of this
three -block area, uh, we've come to call the civic district. Uh, prior to staff engaging
in ... in any more serious discussions with these developers, we wanted to broach this
topic, uh, with the City Council. Uh, both of these properties are zoned public. Uh,
they're owned by the public, and they're shown as public in the Comprehensive Plan. Uh,
after I get done with my talk, uh, we've also asked the perspective developer of the, uh,
Unitarian Church parcel to come up and present a concept to you, uh, to get your reaction
to it. Uh, regarding these properties and their current use, for private property in the
downtown area, our zoning code restricts the use of surface parking lots. Uh the goal is
for mixed-use development, commercial office, and residential, uh, to occupy downtown
properties, uh, not surface parking lots. Uh, that's similar to many downtowns. It creates
a more vibrant downtown. Uh, more pedestrian -oriented downtown. Uh... and we note
that these two surface parking lots are on the edge of the CB -10 part of downtown. Uh,
surface parking lots are under-utilized, uh, both financially ... and I think more
importantly, in terms of activity and in vibrancy. Uh, by their nature they're designed for
storage of cars. Uh, they are not designed for people, like a mixed-use development is.
Uh, as has been reported in the media, uh, the Unitarian Church congregation has
purchased land, uh, in Coralville with the intent of reconstructing, uh, a new church. Uh,
and they have put their current property up for sale. Uh, the church property is currently
zoned CB -5, which is a Central Business District, uh, zoning designation. Uh, the church
itself, at least the older, uh, part of the church ... uh, would qualify as a historic landmark.
However, it is not currently designated, uh, as a historic landmark. The office addition
on the south side of the church, uh, would not likely qualify, uh, as a historic landmark.
Uh, in discussions with the, uh, perspective, uh, developer, one of the goals, uh, staff has
reiterated is preservation of the church, and seeing if there was a scenario, uh, where the
church structure could be preserved. Uh, some other goals would be, uh, in such a
public/private partnership, would be to ... see if there were any, uh, enhancements to public
facilities that could be part of any potential redevelopment, uh, on the block north of City
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 9
Hall. Uh, for example, uh, pull-through bays for the Fire Department, uh, has long been a
desire of the Fire Department, uh, so they no longer have to back, uh, off of Gilbert Street
into ... into their bays. Uh... while we won't be discussing the property next to the Rec
Center in a lot of detail tonight, uh, a potential development was proposed there several
years ago. Uh, it's in a very similar situation, in that it's zoned public and identified as
public in the Comprehensive Plan. And again, before proceeding with more serious
discussions with that developer, we wanted to get an indication from the City Council if
a, uh, Comprehensive Plan amendment for these properties should be pursued. Uh, as
you listen to the presentation from the, uh, developer's team tonight, uh, and staff and the
developer would be happy to answer any questions, ultimately we would like, uh, some
direction from you on whether or not to proceed with a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Uh, any questions for me?
Payne/ Did you already bring a Comprehensive Plan amendment to us for this section?
Yapp/ We did...
Payne/ And it failed?
Yapp/ It failed. It was supported by a majority of the City Council, but not a super majority of
the City Council. Uh... and a, uh, a super majority, uh, vote was required due to the
Planning and Zoning Commission not recommending approval of the proposal for these
three blocks.
Throgmorton/ John, on that point, what I recall is that the ... the earlier proposed amendment to
the Comp Plan pertained to the entire three -block district.
Yapp/ That's correct (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ...all that which is surrounded in blue or whatever that color is.
Yapp/ That's correct.
Throgmorton/ Do I understand correctly that what you're proposing right now just pertains to the
property at that northwest corner, the UU area, and the property in the, basically the
southeast corner where the parking lot for the Rec Center is.
Yapp/ Well I think that's ... a good question, and to be honest we haven't gotten that far into it to
be able to answer that question. But I think some direction from Council on that ... on that,
uh, topic would be appreciated.
Fruin/ I think what's changed since the last Comprehensive Plan amendment has gone through,
there's some clarity to what's happening with the Unitarian Church, and ... and we ... we
have a ... a developer that has a purchase agreement, uh, for that site, with specific
timelines related, uh, to the development of that site and ... we think that there's an
opportunity to move forward and achieve some community goals, but in order to do so
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 10
we need to move quick, and so normally we probably wouldn't bring something like this
back so quickly to ... to the City Council or to Planning and Zoning Commission, but in
this case we think that there's some real community objectives that can be achieved and
we want to discuss those (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Yeah, speaking only for myself, I can say that I came in tonight's meeting
prepared to discuss the two sites, not the whole three -block area. So I'm fully prepared to
discuss those two sites.
Hayekf Well I ... I -mean I think they want, staff is going to ... hopes to walk out of this -room with
direction as to, you know, whether they should... proceed with what they're intending,
because they don't want to initiate that process without at least a sense that we ... in
general, and without seeing many specifics (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ...applied to the two sites. That ... that's what I'm getting at.
Hayek/ Okay. Well, let's ... go ahead.
Payne/ Aren't we here to provide direction, I mean ... we can provide direction on everything
inside the blue or just the two sites. Correct?
Hayek/ Yeah! Why don't we go through the presentation and then see how the....
Yapp/ With that I'd like to introduce Dave Zahradnik from Neumann Monson Architects.
Zahradnik/ Good evening. Dave Zahradnik with Neumann Monson Architects, uh, 221 E.
College Street. I don't know if you're supposed to give your address on these or not, but
(laughs) um, what I want to just kind of warn you a little bit what we're showing you
tonight is going to be very conceptual. This is not the fancy, pretty architecture that you
saw when we presented the, uh, lower site, the one by the Rec Center ... bout two years
ago it was first presented. So, um, these are very conceptual, just some big ideas on what
could possibly happen there, and I'll kind of talk to you about some of the goals we had
when we were trying to get through this, but this'll just kind of get you familiar with the
site itself. I'm just going to kind of walk through the Unitarian site. So this is the
Unitarian's Church, the one that is possibly viable for historic landmark status. And then
this is an addition, an office addition that would most likely not be eligible for historic
landmark, and so we'd be looking to still let the church tear that portion down. That is
one of the agreements of the sale, that the church would level the site. So, as we're
looking forward to the ... looking forward in the designing of this, part of what we're trying
to do is see if there's an opportunity to save the historic structure. Um, right now, like
John said, it is zoned CB -5, so we have looked at some options on what could be done on
that site, but our first option would be to try to save this church if we could. Uh, this line
here represents where the 500 -year flood plain is along here. The 100 -year flood plain
kind of drifts off to this side a little bit, so still maintains most of this parking area in the
flood plain. So that does promote some kind of a development challenge in that area, but
it's something that we feel like we're ready to address. Our idea for trying to look at
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 11
saving this historic structure, which is identified right here, is to take a look at a
combination of a structured parking with, uh, mid -rise, uh, housing ringing it, that would
have, uh, kind of a townhome effect to it, almost acting as a transitional out onto Iowa
Avenue, a little bit lower scale than what a CB -5 would ... would allow, and then, um,
providing somewhat of a commercial development with residential above that kind of
goes out over the parking area. Within that lower level of commercial area down here.
You kind of see a little bit of the pink. We have some 3-D images that'll kind of show it
a little bit better as we go forward. Uh, we'd be proposing to house the Fire Station. We
heard that there was a need for those pull-through, uh, bays for the fire trucks. So that
did put some restrictions of, uh, higher ceilings on those parking decks and things like
that that are kind of adversely affecting, you know, the design but still things we feel like
we can tackle. Um, so the ... the idea is that the parking would all be hidden by the
residential that's ringing it. We would have commercial or Fire Station on the first floor.
The ability for two floors of commercial, and then, uh, up to four floors of residential,
um, above that. And I'll take a quick look through what some of those images might look
like. This is looking at it from the ... uh, looking towards the southeast, with this being the
church structure, this being the Fire Station, the two floors of commercial, and then this
all residential up above, and then starting to represent the articulation of the townhome-
type, uh, residential units that would ring the structured parking. This is kind of taking a
look at it, uh, view of the southwest of that development. And then what it would look
like from the northwest. Again, I just want to caution you, these are kind of crude
looking development ideas, but it kind of gets the sense for just what the scale of things
would be and how that development might go. So that really is just a brief presentation.
I guess I would open it up for more questions, uh, Joe Holland's here too to help answer
any of the other types of questions that might arise.
Throgmorton/ Could you go back a couple of slides?
Zahradnik/ Sure!
Throgmorton/ Well that one! That one's ... well that's good enough right there.
Zahradnik/ Oh, oops!
Throgmorton/ If you would just one more back. (both talking) Yeah, that one! So, I know these
are crude images so I don't want to put too much weight on 'em, but just to look at them,
they look .... what you've called, uh, the modest scale townhomes on the Iowa Avenue
side look pretty tall (laughs) so is ... you have that in mind or ... I mean it looks like five
stories (both talking)
Zahradnik/ No, they would not be five stories. We'd try to stay well under the, uh, CB -5 zoning.
CB -5 zoning would allow you to go up to 75. We're thinking more in the 50 foot range.
Throgmorton/ Good, I'm glad to hear that because the image was leading me to think something
else.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 12
Dickens/ What's the parking loss versus parking gain with the...
Zahradnik/ Currently your surface lot out there has about 100 stalls on it. We'd be looking at, uh,
somewhere in the neighborhood about 220, 225.
Throgmorton/ Actually gain.
Zahradnik/ So it would be a net gain, um, that would allow for the current, uh, fire truck, or uh,
fire and uh, police vehicles that could park there. Um, also allow for all the parking that
would be required for the residents on site, and still have a ... roughly about another 50
stalls.
Botchway/ What about the parking, uh, in the Chauncey Swan ramp? For the ... police? That was
a point of contention (mumbled) as far as the first ... or I can't remember what floors, but
maybe the ... one of the floors being that, uh, there's not enough parking for... whichever
church is right there.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, first floor there at the, uh, College Street entrance.
Botchway/ Yeah.
Fruin/ So we haven't ... (both talking) got into those details, but I think if you had a structured
parking, you know, on this lot, we would look ... at least examine the possibility of
bringing those police vehicles and the storage unit over to this lot, which would be less
serving of the general public than Chauncey Swan. So, those are the types of details we'd
explore as we got further down the path.
Mims/ So the fire trucks coming in off of Van Buren and going all the way through the parking
structure to the orange part or...
Zahradnik/ Yes, they would go right through here, and if I go to the next one ... they would drive,
be driving underneath part of that structure, straight through into the...
Mims/ Okay.
Zahradnik/ ...Gilbert Street. So they'd always be facing out towards Gilbert Street.
Mims/ Okay. Thank you.
Throgmorton/ ...make the Chief happy. (laughs)
Hayek/ Block long dedication of a pass-through. That's a lot of (several laughing and talking)
Zahradnik/ Yeah!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 13
Mims/ So the ... the middle part that is higher, the residential part in the middle, how high is
that... proposed to be?
Zahradnik/ Uh, we want to stay in the mid -rise construction, so, um, in order to stay away from
high-rise, our upper floor has to be 75 feet or less.
Mims/ So we're (both talking) staying CB -5?
Fruin/ Yeah, that would be the CB -5 height maximum.
Mims/ Okay.
Zahradnik/ Well we do understand there's some exceptions for historical preservations that
would allow the actual building height to be slightly above the 75, so we might be
looking to pursue some of that.
Mims/ Okay. Thank you.
Hayek/ Any other questions for the developer? We understand this is all very conceptual. But
this is helpful! Thank you!
Mims/ Thank you.
Throgmorton/ Well, I'd just say I'm happy to see some creativity being displayed here in trying to
figure out how to ... do something with this site, uh, while also preserving the UU Church.
So, I'm really happy about that.
Fruin/ And I want to be clear on ... on the ... the number of legislative steps that's going to be
necessary to see this through. The Comp Plan is just the first step, and it's an essential
step. If we can't get through the Comp Plan, none of these other steps are ... are really
relevant. Um, but we ... we're gonna also have to look at a ... a rezoning. Um, we're gonna
have to look at, um, there's likely to be a need for tax increment financing, which would
mean you're probably looking at amending your.... extending and amending an urban
renewal area. Um, we're probably going to look at some ... and we're ... we were planning
to do this anyway, some, uh, text amendments to the CB -5 zoning so that commercial is
not required on the first floor, and that they could do residential on the first floor,
potentially along Iowa and Van Buren, and that's something we're looking at already, uh,
related to some other, uh, CB -5 properties in town. So, that's just a ... a, kind of a
sampling of the process that's ahead, but again, that first step is the Comp Plan and um,
that's what we need to get moving on here pretty quick if we're going to go down this
path.
Throgmorton/ Geoff, your ... your comments address what I was most, uh, had ... had put most
thought into, I mean, I really like the creativity here, uh, and I ... I support any proposal
that incrementally thickens and improves the existing, uh, built-up part of the city, and I
think this would ... would certainly move in that direction. But the unknowns for me based
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 14
on the memo we got from John anyhow had to do with CB -5 or CB -10, what about
building height and mass. Uh, what about density bonuses and TIF. You know, so you
touched on all that.
Fruin/ We ... we have to go through those as staff and we have concerns and I'm sure the
developer and his team have concerns too. They ... they need to make sure that, um, as
they get deeper into the process that they're achieving what they need to achieve too. So,
um, it ... there's still a lot of work to be done on ... and both sides have a long ways to go
until we're comfortable, but we think it's workable and we'd like to explore it.
Hayek/ Okay!
Holland/ I'd just like to amplify a bit what Geoff said. I'm Joe Holland. I represent developer,
potential developer of this project. What we're really looking for tonight is as firm a
commitment we can get from the Council, recognizing it's not a vote on anything. It's
just a statement of, uh... how the Council Members feel about this and the direction it
could go. Um, there are some very serious time constraints in this. We need to move on
the developer (mumbled) very quickly, which means in turn the City needs to move very
quickly. Um, it's, uh, an expensive project, even to get to the point of these concept
drawings is many thousands of dollars of investigation and generating the drawings, and,
uh ... developers can be forced with ... making some decisions involving a leap of faith
because we're not gonna know with any certainty what's going to happen. So what we're
really looking for tonight is just an expression from the Council that this is a project the
City has interest in, enough interest that the developer should proceed and make that leap
of faith, which is going to have to be some time this fall when some of the contingencies
of the purchase agreement with Unitarian Church start to come around. So, uh, if I can
answer any questions the Council may have, I'd be happy to.
Hayek/ Appreciate that, Joe!
Holland/ Thank you.
Mims/ I'm very supportive of moving forward and I understand we, you know, we've got a lot of
unknowns in front of us, um, but still I think to make, uh, more use of what is now a very
unutilized piece of property, to get the opportunity to save the church, uh, to increase
density downtown, to get, uh, the drive-through that the Fire Department would want.
Think there's a lot of posit... potential positives here. Obviously a lot of unknowns and
details that, you know, we have to work out both in City side and the, uh, developer's
but ... um, given that I ... I would like to see us move forward.
Payne/ I agree, Susan. I think it is, as Jim said, very creative use of the property and quite
interesting.
Botchway/ My only caveat is kind of what ... it's kind of in between what you were saying and
Jim was saying, and I think there's still questions out there and I think that you addressed
those Geoff.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 15
Mims/ Oh yeah!
Botchway/ I guess my ... I mean, I know that we get through ... we start on the process, you know,
as far as the Comp Plan and rezoning and other things, but I guess you know the TIF
comes back at like $15 million or $20 million or something along those lines, and I think
that's a little egregious amount but speaking kind of. just hypothetical, be less inclined
to, you know, be interested (both talking)
Mims/ Oh yeah!
Botchway/ ...um, and I hope that ... maybe that information ... (mumbled) developer's sake come a
little bit beforehand, just from ... so we're not ... so that developer's not wasting a lot of
money from that standpoint as well.
Hayek/ Yeah (both talking)
Botchway/ If possible!
Hayek/ ...right, and ... I mean, I ... but we should define the scope of the direction (mumbled) first
on your issue, Jim, on how much of the ... the civic district to ... to include in this, but
secondly, what exactly the ... the direction we're providing is, I mean, as I read it it's ... it's
to move forward with a Comp Plan amendment, um, and an understanding that ... that
those other things that Geoff mentioned will follow, whether they would be on terms
acceptable to us or not is yet to be determined. And to your point, it ... it's entirely
possible that when we get to that juncture and ... not see eye -to -eye...
Botchway/ Right, I just want to make sure (both talking)
Hayek/ ...but by then we would have, I guess, the Comp Plan completed, right?
Fruin/ Correct, yes.
Hayek/ And ... and potentially the rezoning, I mean, I don't know what else.
Mims/ Well but I think to Kingsley's point, the... the... the more that the City and the potential
developer can work together as we're moving through the Comp Plan and rezoning
process, to get some of those other details figured out, then the sooner everybody can
know if it looks like there's such a roadblock that we couldn't come to an agreement.
And again, save the developer time and money, um...
Fruin/ Yeah. I .... I'd love to be able to tell ya what that TIF would be, but the fact is ... it's going to
take a lot of investment on the developer's part to build out the plans to a point where he
can have cost opinions, and we can sort through all of that. So, that's... that's probably the
last piece of the puzzle, unfortunately, and that's just the nature of the work and that's
where, uh... uh, Mr. Holland says it's going to require a leap of faith because we can all
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 16
stand up here and be supportive of the concept, but until those dollar numbers are known,
we can't firmly say yes, we're on board, but hopefully we can express our commitment to
the concept right now.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, with regard to this specific site, I support the concept as has been presented
to us. Uh, I ... I don't want to write a blank check (several talking) something kind of like
what Kingsley said just a minute ago. But, general direction — yeah! I'm on board with
that. For this part, uh, so to Matt's point, uh, my sense is we're not talking about the
whole three -block stretch. My sense is we're talking about the northern part of the three
blocks and then that southeastern strip, so...
Hayek/ Can staff speak to that?
Fruin/ Well I think that ... that really just leaves the Chaun ... Chauncey Swan Park and the
Chauncey Swan parking deck itself, and ... and that's kind of the last piece in this no -man's
land where it doesn't belong to a district plan. So from my standpoint, I ... I don't see why
we wouldn't incorporate the Chauncey Swan parking ramp and Chauncey Swan Park into
it, um ... uh, I don't, you know, those are gonna remain public through this process. Um,
and ... otherwise they're gonna remain in limbo and ... you know, maybe there's no harm to
that, but it seems cleanest just to put those into one of the sub plans.
Throgmorton/ You may well be right, so I could be persuaded to go in that direction, Geoff, but I
guess what I ... what I ... personally don't want to, uh, open the door toward is,
um ... changing the Comp Plan in such a way for ... that would permit construction of some
structures that are really very much out of scale with the adjacent properties, uh, meaning
to the east. Uh, that ... that's my big concern. This concept that we've been presented with
seems to me to be, uh, a pretty appropriate transitional scale. So that's why I'm okay with
it. But, I don't want to open the door, you know.
Dickens/ Have we heard any more from ... the builders that wanted to take over that surface lot by
the Rec Center? Has there been any...
Yapp/ Uh, we've had some recent communications with them, uh, just regarding the fact that,
again, before we can get into serious detail with them, the Comprehensive Plan would
need to be amended and a rezoning application would have to be applied for.
Fruin/ Now on that particular piece of property, we are farther along on those discussions. I
mean we've had ongoing discussions for ... for a couple of years. So you would see likely
that come back quicker in terms of the financial gap analysis and ... and uh, those items,
but as John mentioned, the Comp Plan is a critical piece.
Hayek/ Well is there a reason to exclude ... or to ... to prescribe exactly which portion of that
rectangle we're moving forward with, versus the entirety of the rectangle, which
practically speaking would therefore include the Rec Center, Chauncey Swan parking
ramp, and where we are right now?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 17
Yapp/ You know we've not had significant discussions at the staff level on this, but my
inclination... would be to address the entire three -block area, but for those, uh, portions of
the area that are, uh... uh, used by public facilities and ... and for the foreseeable future will
remain public facilities should continue to be shown as public on the Comprehensive
Plan.
Throgmorton/ I'm okay with that.
Hayek/ Maybe that's what (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ...in the previous version, basically, the Lee Recreation Center was (both talking)
Yapp/ That ... that's correct, and although there were no plans at the time to, uh, change the
Recreation Center, uh, facility, we were ... at that time we were looking at the long-range
future, but I think for this, uh, at this stage, we would look at the foreseeable future, and
the existing public facilities, such as the parking ramp, the Recreation Center, City Hall,
etc., uh, those will remain public facilities, for the foreseeable future.
Hayek/ Okay! So what I see is ... the six of us supporting the general indication you're looking for
to move forward with the Comp Plan, analysis, and ... and ... (several talking) Okay!
Thank you! Next item is board and commission applicationrocess. This is the next
item in the, I think, July 16`h Info Packet. I'm sorry, July 23r Info Packet.
Board and Commission Application Process (IP5):
Karr/ This is IP5 of the 7/23 packet.
Hayek/ Okay.
Karr/ Um, this review of the application process was undertaken for two -fold reasons. One, we
wanted to take a look at possibility of, um, on-line applications with our new web site,
and secondly, we were responding also to some concerns about, uh, some of the
questions and, uh, promoting, uh, additional diversity and interest in our boards and
commissions. Having done that, um, we provide you the memo with a little bit of
background. Um ... Stefanie Bowers, our Equity Director, uh, and I worked up scenarios.
We worked with the City Attorney's office, um, and uh, reviewed the process. We did do
some tweaking to the application itself. Um ... but what we're asking you tonight to
consider is three recommendations. One of them is adopting a ... a new resolution
adopting a formal policy that re -defines and expands the, uh, prohibitive relationships,
consistent with our current personnel manual. Um, the 1985 resolution that you have
attached to the memo is a little outdated, and we believe the consistency would be helpful
in that respect. Uh, in addition to that we are ta... talking about a new formal policy that
addresses the re -appointment process. That seems to be one that's a little bit confusing,
not only to Council Members on an ongoing process but even people applying and
applicants wondering if they can re -apply, as well as staff when they have people wanting
an interest on re -applying or what the procedure is. Um, and that recommendation is that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 18
you would consider, uh, your initial appointment, plus one re -appointment, um, that
would again promote more ... more, uh, availability and diversity on our boards and
commissions, and then finally our recommendation is, um, if you're interested we
attached a list of certain boards and commissions. Um, we list ... we attached a list of all
boards and commissions. Certain ones are established by State code. Some of those
established by a State code also establish the length of the term. Some do not. Some are
just established by our local, um ... ordinance or resolution. So one thing we are
recommending is you take a look at shorter terms and that possibility could be three
years, and the three years was simply something we looked at ... we took an average. Most
of them were three years, very few that are greater than three. We also talked to a
number of staff who felt that less than three would not provide enough continuity and
familiarity with difficult decisions that some of these boards and commissions do need to
make. So that's our recommendations. Stefanie is here, as well. Um, and as I said,
Eleanor has reviewed it, as well as the City Manager's office.
Payne/ So I have a question on ... if you don't apply ... if you're applying for a vacant term...
Karr/ An unexpired term.
Payne/ And ... yes! So that means that, let's just say it is a three-year term, but you're only going
to be on it for a year, you could only be appointed to one more ... three-year term.
Karr/ That would be the possibility. We did talk about that, and we ... we wrestled with that one
back and forth and did a number of scenarios with it, and we ... we came back with that
answer. It's certainly not something we took lightly. Our concern was that ... if a person
wanted to do an unexpired term and then there was another unexpired term, and then
another reappointment to an unexpired term, then in reality it would be tough — that
person could serve potentially eight years. Ten years. You could have an unexpired term
plus two full terms.
Payne/ Uh huh.
Karr/ So we thought it was easier defined in this way. We certainly can consider some other
language if Council's so inclined.
Payne/ I guess I'm just thinking I was on Planning and Zoning Commission and it's ... it took the
whole first term to figure out what was going on. (both talking)
Karr/ You don't need to do it all or nothing either. Certainly in with this ... we gave you a list of
all boards and commissions. Certainly from a staff perspective, the continuity, the
consistency, the explanation you give does not infer that one board or commission is
necessarily more important or less important than the other one. That's where we came
down on one recommendation across the board. Certainly you have the prerogative to
say Planning and Zoning, for instance, is one that takes a little bit longer, and you
certainly could but we did have some concerns about that. I know Stefanie could answer
that too.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 19
Bowers/ Well I just wanted to comment on the, um ... kind of the informal policy of reappointing
an incumbent. Um, one of the Council, uh, part of your strategic goals is to increase the,
uh, diversity on boards and commissions, and so one of the things I would like to point
out if the Council is heading towards a policy that would automatically reappoint say an
incumbent is ... um, considering that goal. Um, I ... I guess ... I know I'm doing presentations
to various boards and commissions, trying to encourage them to really advertise when
they have vacancies and so it makes it, I think, hard for staff to ... encourage people to
apply if they know that their application is not going to be given the same weight as an
incumbent. Um, and then to ... to add it on that we'll try again next year — we'll have three
more openings. But then again, I still have three people who would be incumbents, you
know, um, and so.. -.and when we're talking about diversity, I'm not just speaking about,
uh, persons of color or persons from under -represented groups. I mean, if you look at the
equity report from last year, the majority of people serving on City boards are, um, over
the age of 65. They have an annual household income of over $100,000. Um, more
males than females, Um, tend to identify as heterosexual and so we ... we don't really have
a lot of diversity in general on City boards. Um, and ... and so this is just kind of one of
those policies that if we keep doing things the way that we're doing them, the question is
are we going to really see any change, and I'm not sure that we would.
Karr/ And you noted in response... also you noted that we allowed for the current boards and
commission members to fulfill their terms so that it would take a period of time to even
address what Stefanie just brought out, in and of itself.
Hayek/ This is a ... uh, it is a two -fold change to the policy in that not only would there be no
consideration for incumbency but in addition you'd be limited, in terms of how many
reappointments you could get as a sitting, uh, commission member.
Throgmorton/ Well it's not quite true that there'd be no consideration given to incumbency.
Hayek/ It wouldn't be ... (both talking) soft policy. The ... the, yeah, exactly! This informal policy
we've had to give deference to the incumbency, at least for a first-time... renewal. For
lack of a better word. But that would go away, and there would be a cap on number of
terms.
Karr/ That's correct.
Hayek/ Is that ... does that address our concerns? Does it go too far ... you know...
Throgmorton/ I think in general it's a ... it'd be a good move. And we hadn't, I guess, addressed
the first part of it, which has to do with family relationships. I think that's a (both talking)
Hayek/ I don't ... think we (both talking)
Payne/ We're just expanding it. I mean ... the...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 20
Karr/ We're expanding it and we're also (several talking) with the personnel manual.
Payne/ Which makes sense!
Throgmorton/ But I did want to ask ... sort of echo something that Michelle said, uh, if...if I
understand correctly there are five commissions that would be affected by the second
change, uh...(mumbled) The Library Board I think the terms are six years. P&Z five-
year terms. Board of Appeals, five-year terms. Parks and Rec, four and the Community
uh... uh, Police Relations, uh...
Mims/ CPRB.
Throgmorton/ CPRB, uh, that's four-year terms, as well. So part of what I thought when I was
considering this is that I personally would like to see us get some ... some advice from the
commissions themselves, because I know I've talked to lots of Planning and Zoning
commissioners over the years (laughs) two of 'em right here, um, about how ... how much
time it takes to get up to speed. So I'm a little concerned about going to three years for
the, uh, Planning and Zoning Commission. Maybe from one or two ... maybe for the
Library Board too — I don't know, but ... uh, so you know, I'm inclined to think like four
years for P&Z but you know I'm just kind of opening up that...
Hayek/ Yeah, no I ... (both talking) glad you did, although I have to say among the most appealing
of these recommendations is the shortened term of service. I think you lose (both talking)
Throgmorton/ I want to see us shorten terms, yeah.
Hayek/ I like ... I think it was a mistake when the State Legislature made school boards four-year
terms. I think you lost a lot of, um, a lot of potential candidates, quite frankly, who just
can't commit that much time, that ... that many years. So I guess I ... I ... the idea of a three-
year term is appealing to me. There is a learning curve.
Botchway/ Are you saying it's not enough thought? With ... with the three-year term? Are you
saying there needs to be...it needs to be shortened even more?
Hayek/ No! No, I would not go shorter than three years. I think three is a digestible number for
someone thinking about applying for a commission.
Dickens/ But maybe pull out Planning and Zoning because it does take so long to ... to get up to
speed on that. It does take at least a year or two. Well, at least two years.
Hayek/ Five!
Payne/ Five! (laughs)
Throgmorton/ Well I ... I ... with regard to P&Z, I like the idea of shortening the terms. For me the
only question is shorten it to three or four.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 21
Mims/ I think in general three. Unless there's something that has a real learning curve to it.
I ... plus that way if you do reappoint somebody, you're talking six years versus eight, you
know, with ... if you do make that decision for reappointment.
Throgmorton/ Yeah. So, uh... (both talking)
Botchway/ So are we saying that we're going to make an exception for the one ... for the
commissions we deem more ... I wouldn't say more work. I would just say more of a
learning curve?
Mims/ That's the way I would look at it, I think.
Hayek/ So a handful of these are dictated by the State. Five ... years.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, so that's why I mentioned the five commissions that ... and tell me if I'm
wrong about this, but the only five boards or commissions that we actually can change
the terms for, and...
Karr/ And are mandated by State code. Yes.
Throgmorton/ That are not mandated.
Hayek/ So we could go with three year term as to ... as to all of the commissions over which we
have discretion. We could go a three-year term for all of them or carve out P&Z. Or
some other approach.
Throgmorton/ Well, what would you think, you know collectively, about asking the Library
Board members, Planning and Zoning Commission members, and the Board of Appeals
members... whether they think going to a three-year term would be problematic because
of the nature, the work they have to do?
Botchway/ Didn't you talk to the commissions?
Karr/ I talked with some staff. I did not talk to the commissions.
Botchway/ Oh, okay. Then I would be inclined to (both talking)
Karr/ Why would we ask just those commissions?
Payne/ And I'm think ... I mean, I think you would ask staff because staff is who has to explain
over and over and over again, or get people up to speed over and over and over again,
after these short terms. I (several talking)
Dobyns/ Staff knows how slow we are! (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 22
Dilkes/ Well and presumably if you ask commission members, you're asking people who have
found it palatable to apply for such a lengthy term.
Hayek/ Yeah, your (several talking)
Botchway/ I mean but then that would beg the question also why would we have... arbitrarily just,
you know, decide that we would want to have exceptions for some, not others (mumbled)
Payne/ Make them all three.
Hayek/ Make them all three!
Botchway/ (mumbled) doesn't work out, blame Matt! (laughter)
Hayek/ Yeah, that's fine (laughter)
Throgmorton/ Why is the Library Board six years? Do you know?
Karr/ I did not res ... I researched the terms and how they got there, but I did not research
the ... history of the six. We could...
Botchway/ There's one ... oh, go ahead.
Karr/ No, go ahead!
Botchway/ Well there's one element now that Rick stepped'in the room reminded me of was that
if we're limiting, you know, the individuals that can be on Council, or be on boards and
commissions from a relative or immediate family standpoint, is it currently in that City
Council Members can't be on boards and commissions as well? So I don't know why we
wouldn't make that determination as well. I just think it's weird to have that...
Karr/ No, it's ... it's in Resolution 85.
Botchway/ Oh, okay.
Karr/ The resolution that was attached indicated that. (both talking) Yeah. So therefore we
would be amending that resolution to update the relationship but not taking out any other
restrictions that were in it, and that was one of 'em.
Botchway/ Okay.
Mims/ I mean, when I look at these, I'm comfortable with taking all of them to three years,
except P&Z. I ... I think that is ... such an incredibly, incredibly important commission
when you look at economic development and, you know, just the whole development of
our city and where we do subdivisions and how we do subdivisions and all those kinds of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 23
things, and the complexity of it and the learning curve, urn ... that I would ... if we reduce
that at all, I would say they go from five to four, not all the way from five down to three.
Botchway/ Susan, I don't disagree with you, I just...I just would feel, um ... I mean as a ... another
commission member that City Council would be saying that the work of the P&Z
Commission could be viewed as more important (both talking)
Mims/ No, I would say it's more complex. I ... I think that's a huge distinction and if we have to
make that clear in our communication (both talking)
Botchway/ As long as ... yeah, we can have that conversation (both talking)
Mims/ I think the complexity of what they do and how much we rely on their deci... their
research, I mean, you look at their minutes and the hours they spend and the questions
they ask and ... the research that staff has to do to get them to that point of a decision, um, I
think the time and the complexity that they put in ... really warrants, and ... and because that
complexity, I think, a four-year term versus going to a three.
Hayek/ Yeah, and you can already make that allegation, you know, why is the Library Board six
years versus (several talking)
Dobyns/ Marian, what's the rough percentage of members of Planning and Zoning who are doing
their first stint, who go on to do or want to do a second stint? Is it the majority that go on
to a second four years?
Karr/ I think yes, it is a majority.
Dobyns/ I would suggest (several talking) Five years. I ... I...
Karr/ ...10 total.
Dobyns/ I'm ... you know, thinking about what Kingsley said. You may not come up to speed in
one or two years. But if you haven't come up to speed in one or two years, maybe we
shouldn't reappoint you to Planning and Zoning.
Payne/ I would totally disagree with that being on Planning and Zoning Commission (laughter)
Dobyns/ Are you thinking about yourself who is wise beyond your years and can memorize large
texts, um,or are you thinking about everybody, Michelle?
Payne/ I'm thinking about everybody. It takes more than two years to come up to speed on
Planning and Zoning.
Dobyns/ No, I would agree it takes up more than two years, but I think by the third year you'd
know if you hadn't come up to speed. I would like to have the ability to consider
perhaps ... you know, if staff thinks someone after three years hasn't come up to speed,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 24
maybe there should be an opportunity for them to go off. I'm just looking at it from a
different point of view.
Botchway/ I'm confused. In what way are you (both talking)
Dobyns/ Well, if by year three, Kingsley, you aren't up to speed, I think it's because you're
discrepant or uninterested and perhaps you should not be reappointed. I mean, or ... or go
forward for a fourth year. I mean I think it's a safety mechanism. I'm not making any
sense. Okay, but... (several talking)
Mims/ No, I hear what you're saying but I (both talking)
Dobyns/ You may not agree with it but you understand what I'm saying. Okay!
Mims/ Yeah, I ... I understand what you're saying but I ... I still think I'd be inclined to go with four
years on P&Z.
Botchway/ (mumbled) player option or a team option for the fourth year or something like that
(both talking)
Dobyns/ You know, shoot me whatever metaphor! I got my head around it that way! (laughter)
Throgmorton/ I like the idea of reducing the terms to three years in general. I like the ... I do not
like the idea of reducing Planning and Zoning to three years. I think it needs to be a
minimum of four, and I don't want to go to five. I'd like to see us ... (both talking)
Mims/ (mumbled)
Throgmorton/ ...but I'm very concerned about the Library Board, only because the number six. I
mean, I ... I don't know how changing ... uh, the length of terms on the Library Board
would ... would work within, uh (both talking)
Payne/ ...lot more turnover (laughs)
Throgmorton/ Well yeah, you know, I don't know how they function, so I don't know if this
would really kind of undermine the quality of their work in general or not. So it just ... I'd
like to have their advice, but ... there ya go!
Hayek/ Well this ... this is a work session item and I think we're giving general direction, and
should our direction be have Marian, um, and Stefanie talk to ... commissions or at least
the staff that serves the commissions. And maybe the commissions themselves, I don't
know! But to say here's where we're thinking of going, three across the board except four
P&Z... and ... and bring us some feedback.
Botchway/ (mumbled) I would agree, Jim, but I think it goes back to maybe what Eleanor said,
and even what Stefanie said, I mean, presumably the question is, I mean, diversity if
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 25
that's our goal, I mean, if I was on the board right now to advocate for staying on I mean I
wouldn't necessarily get the feedback, and maybe I'm wrong and so maybe we should,
but ... I mean honestly I'm inclined to just go with the recommendation and then
(mumbled) tweak it a little bit to have the four years, um, for the Planning and Zoning
(both talking)
Mims/ ...four on P&Z (both talking) I mean ... that's what I would like to see and obviously if
Council ... or if staff brings us back a resolution for that, you know, and/or some
significant recommendations from other staff, like the Library Director, whatever, say
wait a minute, time out! You weren't looking ... you didn't have all the information you
needed, you know, for that one, then because they are six years, we can certainly consider
it at that time. But at least that gives staff direction to keep us (several talking)
Karr/ yeah, I can pursue that and I'll go back to staff initially and see if staff wishes to pursue it
with their boards and commissions. And then finally I wanted to (mumbled) I just
looked at that ... that, and Eleanor as well, just looked at that resolution 85-354, and that's
the policy on spouses and relatives of Council Members. It's silent on Council Members.
It deals with ... a current member of a City board or commission, and joint membership in
County ones, but is silent on Council Members serving.
Hayek/ I would just put Rick Dobyns in there (mumbled)
Karr/ You have the Dobyns' clause?
Throgmorton/ Yeah, but you know that was an ad hoc committee, which is not the same as
boards and commissions (several talking)
Botchway/ Well are they governed by the same...
Mims/ No!
Botchway/ They're not governed by the same guidelines?
Dilkes/ I think what... what... when you look at this resolution, there is no written policy or
resolution about ... when a Council Member can or cannot serve.
Botchway/ Well I guess to that point, if it's an ad hoc and ad hoc's could be different, then in this
resolution why not add Council Members as not being able to do it as well, cause
presumably in the future, not saying anybody here would do it. Somebody could be on
Planning and Zoning and on City Council.
Mims/ I would agree. I think that's kind of (several talking) double-dipping in terms of the
influence.
Payne/ And I thought 1, I mean ... I thought it was just a given that I resign from Planning and
Zoning when I got elected to Council.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 26
Dilkes/ I mean it's kind of a ... (several talking) solution looking for a problem (both talking) I
don't think we've had a lot of Council Members applying for seats on our advisory
boards. Um...
Mims/ (mumbled)
Hayek/ Is that ... is that issue (several talking) is that issue not addressed in the second paragraph
of the ... of the old resolution? The following persons shall not be eligible for appointment
to boards and commissions of the City. Number two, a current member of a City board
or commission. Oh, I see, it's not a Council Member (both talking) unless (mumbled) the
language that I like says, '...unless dual or joint memberships are provided for in the
resolution ordinance or statute that creates it.' So if we had an ad hoc council and we
wanted a, um, a Council Member on it, the resolution creating it can specify (several
talking)
Fruin/ You also have the ... the second 'whereas' of that resolution where it says 'it is desirable that
the members of each board or commission be independent of the City Council.' I think
the intent is being expressed there.
Dilkes/ Well when we did the ad hoc for the Senior Center, there was nothing prohibiting
Council from putting a Member of the Council on the, um, ad ... ad hoc commission, and
that remains the case today.
Hayek/ I guess what I would say, let's (coughing, difficult to hear speaker) it's a solution in
search of a problem, but is there a reason not to add that for Council Members, but
provide that if we establish a specific resolution as to a specific, for example ad hoc
committee, we could do that. But it would then prevent Jim from serving on P&Z in
addition to Council.
Dilkes/ You can certainly add it that way. Yeah.
Botchway/ We're all saying but you know, maybe some future Councils might do some freaky
things (laughter and several talking)
Throgmorton/ (mumbled)
Hayek/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ ...bring up a related topic.
Hayek/ But before we move on though, uh, what about the, um ... uh... uh, no special regard for
incumbency and term limits.
Mims/ I agree.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 27
Hayek/ Sorry, I'm going to call it that cause that's what it is.
Karr/ I know! I so discretely tried not to...
Botchway/ Yeah I think (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Yeah, I've been very leery of reappointing and reappointing and reappointing
members and, you know, there have been just a few exceptions where individuals have
been around a long time and served well (mumbled) We need to open that up.
Mims/ Does some language need to be added in there when you actually draft this in terms of,
you know, after somebody has been off for a certain period of time ... then they could...
Dilkes/ We ... we (both talking)
Mims/ Either reapply to that same one or (both talking)
Karr/ We talked about in response to Michelle's, um, question, Stefanie and I went through a
couple of scenarios and one was a person cannot be, um ... reappointed, and by the
reappointment process we go through an appointment process before the term if
ex ... done, cause you have an overlap. You don't have a break. If...if by chance no one
applied, if...if I, my term was up and I had had the reappointment, no one applied. We
had to readvertise. It would be no longer my term because it had expired. So then the
person would be eligible for ... for appointment. Again, it would not be reappointment.
(several talking) It would be a new appointment.
Mims/ So theoretically they could have one month or two month gap.
Karr/ Theoretically.
Payne/ But my thought was putting a ... year limit, saying no person can serve any more than nine
years on one commission or some (both talking)
Karr/ We ... we did talk about that and the only concern we had was one of..if by any chance you
had no applications and you had a board or commission that was into a problem with the
quorum, you have just taken somebody who is trained, ready to go and said no way a
year.
Hayek/ I'm not prepared to go that far, and I mean, we do have some commissions, I mean, our
Airport is ... you know...
Payne/ Historic Preservation!
Hayek/ Yeah, we haven't had a Jefferson Street representative since (several talking) Jefferson
Street was constructed! Um (laughter) and uh, actually that's a true statement! (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 28
Um ... but there ... there are some, uh, commissions where the bandwidth of interest is pretty
narrow. And while (both talking)
Karr/ Or specific qualifications that make it very narrow (several talking)
Payne/ So we're playing with words here! Reappointment versus appointment. Somebody could
be appointed 10 times, as long as they had a gap of a month in between.
Karr/ Theoretically if no one else applied and they met the gender balance and...
Mims/ And we as a Council ... (both talking)
Karr/ And you as a Council wished ... I mean just this evening you discussed someone who was
reapplying, but you weren't inclined to make that appointment.
Payne/ Yep!
Throgmorton/ So ... my sense about this is we can't plan out for all possibilities, you know, so ... we
have a general direction that we're agree upon.
Mims/ Yeah.
Karr/ And it's a resolution. We can try it. If we find ... the resolution is ... is one thing. When we
go through the bylaws, uh... uh, we're gonna have to change some, obviously some
(mumbled) terms and things like that. We'll be back in touch with you (mumbled) look at
each individual one.
Mims/ Okay. Sounds good.
Throgmorton/ So, Matt, if I could, still on this topic. I note that our prior list of work session
topics included a discussion of performance expectations for boards and commissions.
But that seems to have been replaced by this discussion of the application process. And
my recollection, maybe I'm wrong, my recollection is we got this on the work session
agenda because there were some disagreements about when to not reappoint somebody
because, uh...uh, because there were...
Mims/ (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ...perceptions about, you know, lack of performance, lack of attendance, whatever
the features might be. So somehow that seems to have dropped out.
Botchway/ Maybe just add it to the policy and make sure that we (mumbled) feel that, um,
individual members ... or members of a particular group or board or commission aren't
fulfilling their duties in some way (mumbled)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 29
Dilkes/ Well you just eliminated the preference for incumbency (mumbled) it was the preference
for incumbency that led to that issue.
Karr/ And staff didn't feel... qualified to deal with those type of criteria without... further direction
from ... from Council on what that criteria might be. Many of the bylaws deal with
absences and things of that nature that ... are taken care of and a procedure established.
Um, I think it ... it's much more to the political nature of the appointment.
Hayek/ Yeah, I think you remove... the... the incumbency thing is, you know, removed and I think
that will resolve a lot of those issues. I would be hesitant to tie the hands of future
Councils. Um, there may be any number of reasons why you would or would not
reappoint someone, whether it's attendance or otherwise, and I think it's ... it's ultimately a
political decision the Council makes and ... and would determine by the then Council.
Throgmorton/ I think it's clearly true that ultimately... it is ultimately, it is a political decision that
the sitting Council makes but I do think certain criteria could be identified as criteria that
should be considered, such as, uh... missing meetings (mumbled) example. Uh, otherwise
you know we run ... any Council runs a risk of being, um ... what's the right word?
Um ... (several talking and laughing) well, no that's not the right...
Payne/ Running amok?
Throgmorton/ Arbitrary! Just completely arbitrary about ... not reappointing somebody, just the
first time.
Mims/ I think ... I think by making incumbency... basically irrelevant, if you will, in ... in our
appointments versus reappointment, whatever, I think what that does is it puts back on
the Council, individual Council Members, you know, that responsibility to kind of do our
own research, you know, calling people, some people call us, um ... you know, talking
with staff, whatever, in terms of, you know, looking at the minutes. Is ... is this person
engaged? Are they contributing to that board or commission in terms of conversation and
dialogue? Are they attending regularly? If you see they're not attending regularly, you
know, can you find out if there's some justifiable reason, an illness or something like that.
So I think it really can take care of itself. I think it just puts the responsibility on
individual Council Members to, you know, to do a little bit of that research as we always
should be doing as we're getting ready to make appointments.
Information Packets:
Hayek/ Okay! Eleanor and Stefanie, do you have the direction you were looking for from us?
Okay. Thank you. Uh, next is, uh, the various Info Packets we've had. Urn ... take them
in the order in which they were published. The first one is June 18''.
Throgmorton/ Who can remember that far back? (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 30
Mims/ That's why I reviewed and made notes! (laughs) Um, I would just want to comment, um,
appreciate staff including at IP3 the TIF presentation that was made to the U Heights
Council. I think it was Peter Fisher who did that presentation. Um, some good graphs
and charts and a good, just general information on TIF that was in there for people. So...
Botchway/ The only thing I made note of was the, um...just the response on Wetherby Park,
since you're here, Sam, or Chief Hargadine. Just really appreciate the, um ... (mumbled) of
communication back and forth, but just kind of looking at the situation and handle it
different and maybe, and you know other police departments have, so that's.. just good
job!
Hayek/ Have to say it's still a little odd to be receiving communications from a former mayor
who is now associated with the City of Ames (laughter) Have to work session that on
(several talking and laughing)
Throgmorton/ So, I think IP 11 (both talking)
Hayek/ (mumbled) Go ahead!
Throgmorton/ Didn't mean to cut you off! Uh, I think IPI I in that packet, uh, concerns the
launching of the new web site. Uh, so I don't' know about y'all, but I find it vastly easier
to use.
Botchway/ (mumbled)
Throgmorton/ See a weird look from that end of the table but uh... but uh it's worked really well
for me, so...
Mims/ I found it difficult at times, beginning to find packets but it's getting better, I think.
Karr/ I think it will be better once we don't have six packets to look at and they'll drop off that
list. I think the timing for the packets (both talking)
Mims/ And I'll have to be honest, I haven't spent that much time on it it other than to ... get our
information packets and agendas.
Hayek/ There's a lot of content!
Payne/ And I don't know if it's just because it's different, but I've actually had two people call me
and complain about it, that it's awful! (laughs) But you know people have a hard time
with change!
Botchway/ It's more intuitive, I mean...
Payne/ They actually thought it was way less than intuitive. So ... I guess it's all perception
(several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 31
Fruin/ What we would appreciate is you passing along those comments and even if it's just one-
on-one meetings or a phone call to us, and the approach we're taking, we're not making
drastic changes. We ... we've received a lot of feedback, by and large mostly positive, but
we're trying to save it up, give people time to learn the new system, and probably another
three or four months down the road, we'll make a round of changes with the University
that we think are ... are making sense, but I'll tell ya what we tried to do. Our ... our last
web site was structured such, I think for ... for more of the internal customer or somebody
that is familiar with City government and how City government is organized. And while
we still have -that City government look -up feature, we tried to -place the -emphasis more
on how does the person who knows nothing about local government going to find some t
things,and so there's some other navigation paths that ... that hopefully people are finding
easier and we've really tried to work with the University to make our search function
usable. The ... the search function we had on our old web site was ... was useless, and
so ... we encourage people start with the search button and go there but ... if you're getting
feedback, we'd love to hear it — positive or negative!
Payne/ I can ... I, uh, after I got the negative feedback, I needed to send Marian an email so I went
through the web site to ... I mean obviously I know her email address, but I went through
the web site to try and find it. It took me like 15 minutes to find your email address.
Now, it could be just change, you know, people don't like change, so...
Karr/ And I can tell you some of those things, as Geoff has said, we ... we share with our
Communication team too and they are... digesting that, taking a look at some other
options and ... and we will take a look at it.
Payne/ But I didn't try the search function cause I didn't expect it to work. (laughter)
Karr/ Maybe that was your mistake! (laughter)
Hayek/ Well it did take her five years to figure out Planning and Zoning! (several talking and
laughing)
Dobyns/ Geoff what's (several talking) what's the meter of a good web site? The ... you want to
be able to use the search, uh, area more or use it less?
Fruin/ I would ... I would say most folks, if they know that the search function is reliable, are
going to start right there, and ... and go there, but you have to learn to trust it and ... and
that's going to take a while, given our old (both talking)
Dobyns/ I went into the schematic, you know, the outline and I got discombobulated a couple
times, and I went to search and it worked really well and I thought maybe that was a bad
thing. (laughter) Um, but ... the search feature worked well. I put in obscure sorts of
things and I got to it. Um, but when I tried to use the outline and my brain was wired in a
different way (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 32
Hayek/ Okay. Uh, June 25th packet. Appreciated the explanation on ... on CDBG Home, TIF.
Very helpful (several talking) Anything else? July 2na
Mims/ Just draw attention to IP3 was the Strategic Plan Updates of people ... in our lack of
meetings haven't gone through all those. I think that was really helpful to have, urn ... IP6
I thought the article on Ann Arbor and their office space and ... and rental issues was very
interesting in terms of the ... the low rents were causing them not to have offices built
downtown was kind of interesting. Um, and then the article from the City Manager on
affordable housing and the Supreme Court decision and ... and ... it was a really
interesting... this was from the New York Times, and I think it was really interesting
because part of it went back through really the history of housing in this country, um,
from covenants to red -lining, etc., that uh... I think a lot of people don't really realize some
of the issues and how ... and actually how some of them are still continuing, so I thought
(several talking) yeah, it was a really ... I thought it was really, really good to kind of
(mumbled) condensed history of some of those issues and um, how much some of those
are still in place today. So that was (both talking)
Throgmorton/ One of, uh, one of the major Supreme Court decisions comes from 1916 and has
to do with my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky and there the ... west of like 26th Street
was excluded by zoning, uh, for black people. They could not, uh, live west of that, uh,
west of that street. In fact the street names changed there so that everybody would know
which was the white part, which was the black part, and the Supreme Court back then
said that's unconstitutional, but they, you know, maintain a whole bunch of other stuff
(mumbled)
Hayek/ Anything else from that one? July 9th. July ... I6th.
Throgmorton/ ...listening posts coming up, Wednesday. (several talking)
Hayek/ Oh, on ... on the 9th9 Yes! (several talking)
Throgmorton/ So is it clear who's doing that?
Botchway/ Who is doing that? (several talking) It's on my schedule. I just wanted to make sure
I was...
Karr/ And Council Member Dickens. We don't .... we don't typically (several talking) we don't
typically advertise who's doing it to allow flexibility and so that it doesn't (mumbled)
coverage of two people.
Throgmorton/ So a question for the Council Members. Uh, would anybody object if I went to
that listening post and sat in the back and did not speak, but just listened?
Dickens/ Well absolutely! (laughter)
Throgmorton/ I don't want to get in the way of you and Kingsley, Terry, so...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 33
Mims/ I think that sets a bad precedent, I mean ... if...(several talking)
Dickens/ I don't think it matters. If somebody wants to come and sit (several talking) stay very
quiet. It's a listening post, and we're supposed to report back to the Council what we find
out, but ... I mean it's a public meeting.
Karr/ No it isn't a public (both talking)
Dickens/ I mean it's ... it's not a public meeting. It's (several talking) it's an open public meeting
that somebody could come (both talking)
Mims/ See I ... the problem I have with it is the minute one Council Member wants to do that,
besides the two that are actually participating in it, then that immediately excludes any
other Council Member from doing it, because now you have four there and we have
(mumbled) so the two that are the listening post shouldn't say anything; they should just
be listening, and certainly from the listening post that Matt and I did, people expect you
to engage them in conversation, and we did. And so I guess ... from my perspective the
idea that a third person going and that excludes anyone else from going, I think we
should keep it simply to the two that are actually participating (mumbled)
Dobyns/ I would agree. To me it suggests that the ability to report by the two is questioned.
Botchway/ Well if the thought is that it would be engaged ... so you said that on your listening
post there was some engagement between (both talking)
Mims/ Oh, heavens, yes! Oh it was back and forth (both talking)
Botchway/ I think I would be inclined to agree, if the thought is that there's still some ... there's
engagement on the part of the two there.
Mims/ Yeah, it was total ... I mean, there were people who went on and on, but they were
expecting a response from us, very definitely.
Hayek/ It was more of a conversation.
Mims/ Yeah.
Botchway/ I think people are looking for that (several talking) but I think people are wanting
(several talking)
Dobyns/ It seemed kind of weird, who's that person in the back who's not saying anything cause
the rest of us are talking in an animated sort of way. It'd seem a little (several talking)
Throgmorton/ Okay, that's why I asked (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 34
Mims/ Yeah!
Hayek/ Okay, uh, July 23rd packet. We've covered a lot of that (both talking)
Botchway/ Oh, wait, I got one! One, two, three...
Hayek/ On which one?
Botchway/ 23rd
Hayek/ Okay.
Botchway/ So ... IP9. Was that kind of a recommendation that we can do something? That's what
I took from (both talking)
Dilkes/ The wage theft one?
Botchway/ Yeah.
Dilkes/ It wasn't a recommendation. It was a conclusion that legally you could do an ordinance
similar to what they did in Cook County.
Botchway/ Okay, so basically, um, based on IP9, I'd like to ... I'd like to do something like that. I
think it's ... to me it's a no-brainer, um, from that standpoint that we'd want to have
something on the books that would make sure that ... make sure I'm saying it correctly, and
that in a sense the City isn't engaged in any activity, businesswise, with individuals that
wouldn't be paying their employees, and I just think it's weird.
Hayek/ I interpreted the conclusion to be, uh... less than the ... issue. Less than what was done in
the (several talking)
Dilkes/The only difference is the business licenses issue. Um, that ... because we don't ... we don't
give business licenses. Cook County does lots of them so...
Botchway/ Let me restate, I'm not saying ... yeah, we couldn't do ... we can't do what we can't do.
I'm just saying that up ... up until what we could do, we should do.
Dilkes/ Well, just to restate the conclusion, my conclusion was that ... you are legally able to pass
an ordinance that would ... such as Cook County has done, that says that um ... the City will
not enter into contracts with an entity or a person who has intentionally or repeatedly
violated the wage theft laws. Um, and you could ... enact a policy that said that you would
not, um, provide tax incentives to these ... to the extent that you had, um, discretion to do
that, to such persons.
Hayek/ What's the standard, would it have to be an adjudication of wage theft?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 35
Dikes/ It would have to be an admission or an adjudication. If...if you're following... that's why I
attached the Cook County ordinance, because that's what the Cook County ordinance
does. I mean, to be ... and the way they enforce it is, there's ... they require that each... each,
you know, in the submission of a, uh, response to a request for proposal or in the
contracting process, um, there would have to be an affidavit submitted that they had not
done so. Um, so it's not a huge administrative burden. Obviously if information came to
light that that wasn't the case, that would be a grounds for default finding. Um, you
know, I ... I wanted to review the ... the concerns that people have had about Iowa's,
um ... uh, wage payment statute and the efforts to change that. I mean I don't think you're
going to find a lot of such adjudications or admissions of guilt in Iowa.
Hayek/ Well should we ... if there's interest, should we work session it?
Throgmorton/ I'm interested.
Mims/ I am. I guess. Do we need to do more in a work session or is...
Hayek/ I don't know.
Mims/ ...or is there consensus that we want staff to go ahead and draft something?
Botchway/ I would go ahead and draft it. (several talking)
Fruin/ I don't think we need further direction (several_ talking)
Dilkes/ I mean if you ... if you want to proceed with that.
Hayek/ Why don't you use ... if there's some threshold under which it doesn't make sense to do
this (mumbled) to buy a $104 worth of Post -It notes, you know, do we ...does that level
of administrative scrutiny need to occur. I mean if there are some discretionary (both
talking)
Dilkes/ We can work through that as, you know, as I'm drafting the ordinance.
Botchway/ (several talking) as far as you know whether or not there's some type of adjudication
and just, um (several talking)
Dilkes/ Right!
Hayek/ Okay. Anything else on the 23`d?
Payne/ Yes! IP 13, uh, WestRock. Do we know how many employees that will affect?
Karr/ 50.
Hayek/ 50.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 36
Payne/ 50?
Karr/ Five zero.
Payne/ Are they moving that ... do you know if they're moving it somewhere else or they're
just ... or is what's in there what you know?
Fruin/ I think this is what we have right now.
Payne/ Okay. Thank you.
Hayek/ Okay.
Botchway/ I have a question for actually IP 15. I have a question for you, uh, Chief Hargadine.
Um, based on some communication from my other job, come to find out that the ... there's
a lack of a panel discussion because of, um, the Police Department's not being a part of
the panel anymore, or not being a part of the discussion. I guess my question is is why,
and then ... well, I guess I will ... I'll ask the question why first.
Hargadine/ I had a discussion, well, I left a phone message for, uh, Latasha (mumbled). She
made that assumption. Uh, we are considering not being there. We are getting
information that there will be people present that are, uh, plants and ... and plan on
bringing up, uh, discussions, uh, similar to the, uh, protest that's going on outside there.
also had a conversation with Coralville Chief who was, um, he's been preoccupied with
RAGBRAI and prior commitments prior to that, so they're not ready either. So as far as,
uh... um, our response, we would like to see it postponed, um, for at least a couple of
weeks, until, uh, some of the other issues are resolved.
Botchway/' Okay. I mean again, it was my ... I guess that explains the why so I'll go into why a
little bit more. From my understanding, just based on my part in it, um, there wasn't
going to be any conversation outside of the questions that were provided. So I don't ... I
didn't assume there to be any dialogue between, um, the public that would ... that would
warrant, and I'm not sure why ... your presence, not your but the Police Department's
presence in and of itself would move the panel, but I guess I just thought it would be,
one, informational, strictly from, you know, all the different entities being able to present
that information, but two, in light of different things and uh, local context, um, it looks
bad. I mean for lack of a better word, or lack of a better phrase, just looks bad and I...
just, yeah, just don't want it to look bad. (mumbled)
Hargadine/ And we considered that. There are, uh... most of the people that sit on that panel
know exactly what our, uh... our ... our level of involvement has been. It's ... they know
exactly what, uh, our ... our efforts have been for the last couple of years, yet when we're
under attack, you know, they continue to remain silent and you know there's times when,
um, we'd like a little assistance with the fact that the Police Department does care. Your
Police Department is ... is very involved, yet um ... there's never ... anyone that says that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 37
And ... urn ... it's the same people that, uh... uh, that are ... that are organizing the
demonstration that are planning the event on Wednesday.
Botchway/ Okay!
Hayek/ Okay. Thank you, Chief. Urn ... I think that's it for Info Packets. Council time.
Council Time:
Botchway/ I won't say it publicly, but um, I will say since Councilors are here that Randy Larson
actually described last Sunday as being the first time he saw a Council Member jump so
high in a basketball game (laughter) and um, I was part of that as well (several talking
and laughing) but there is a final game, um, on Thursday at 7:00. So if (several talking)
well I was hoping to get a City Council cheering section, and everybody'd be there
(several) but anyway (several talking) for those Councilors or staff...
Hayek/ Gotta wash my hair that night, Kingsley (laughter)
Botchway/ Anyways, that's going on! I mean, in all seriousness there's a ... it's a pretty good
game. It's always packed with a bunch of people, but if people want to come (several
talking) good time!
Hayek/ Other Council time? All right. Meeting schedule.
Meeting Schedule:
Mims/ Jim, are you on KXIC tomorrow morning? Did you...
Throgmorton/ Tomorrow morning?
Payne/ Yeah, Wednesday (both talking)
Mims/ We had talked about that (several talking) substitution and I wasn't sure that you got it
that night when we talked about it and Marian put you down for the 29th, and I've got you
down. Can you go it or not?
Throgmorton/ I didn't know about it. I have to be on a phone meeting with the, uh, Iowa Work
CEO Board.
Mims/ Okay, that's fine. (both talking)
Karr/ So do you want...
Mims/ I'll do it!
Karr/ On the 29th?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.
July 27, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 38
Mims/ That's... that's not tomorrow, it's Wednesday (several talking) I'm used to meeting on
Tuesday (both talking)
Karr/ I did ... I did switch it based on that discussion that was (both talking)
Mims/ Yeah, that's Wednesday, not tomorrow. No, I ... I meant to call you or send you an email
cause I had a feeling that we weren't all clear (mumbled) so...
Karr/ I'll notify Jay too.
Hayek/ Okay, anything else?
Botchway/ Are we going to hash that out or just send an email based on what you have here?
Karr/ Um, if there's any other discrepancies to the KXIC show, let me know!
Botchway/ No, I'm talking about adding on for the ... for the open slots.
Hayek/ Oh, you know what, it's already 20 of (several talking)
Karr/ If there's any interest in the open slots, please get a hold of me and I'll pop it in.
Botchway/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ Can we .... I personally would like to observe some of this demonstration outside.
I think it's important.
Pending Work Session Topics:
Hayek/ We can probably get through the remaining two bullet points in about 30 seconds. Any
pending, uh, work session topics? All right. Upcoming events, Council invites? Okay!
(laughter) 6:38, we'll end the work (RECORDING ENDS)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of July 27, 2015.