HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-18 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present: Botchway, Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton
Staff Present: Fruin, Andrew, Dilkes, Hightshoe, Karr, Yapp, Knoche, Havel, Jordan,
O'Brien, Bockenstedt, Seydell-Johnson, Boothroy, Rummel
Others Present: Simpson, Neal (UISG)
Lacina Meadows Water Supply:
Throgmorton/ Okay, let's, uh, convene the Iowa City City Council work session for Tuesday,
October the 18th, 2016. First topic on the agenda is Lacina Meadows water supply and I
think Ron Knoche is gonna tell us all about it. Good evening, Ron!
Knoche/ Good afternoon! Ron Knoche, uh, Public Works Director. Um ... kind of...kind of two
discussions. You know, one is, um, City services outside of City limits and then along
with that it kind of rolls into a current, uh, rural subdivision that's having issues with their
water supply, and that is the Lacina Meadows public water supply. Um, currently our
policy has been, um, if you want City services you have to be within the City limits. So
you'd have to annex, um, to be able to get those services. Um, but we do have some
sections in our code that allow for extension by contract. So we could negotiate an
extension with another ent... another entity, whether it be a .... a .... a public water supply or
it would be another community, um, and so that is allowed for in our curd ... our code
currently. Um, so what you see up on the .... up on the screen is, um, the blue lines are
current City limits, and the yellow lines are current, um ... uh.....uh.... are .... are current,
urn .... growth area. Yeah, sorry! Lost track! Um, so .... so basically, uh, as we go
through our planning process, we have, um, that area identified as area that we could
currently service, uh, with sewer and .... mainly sewer, but with sewer and water. So ... so
that's kinda where we're at, uh, in regards to our current, um, area to service. Um, so, uh,
in the past history, since I've been here with the City, uh, when we have had areas that
have asked us to, um, provide water to them or provide sanitary sewer service to them,
um, some of those areas on the east side of town, uh, with the .... the mobile home parks
that are there along Scott Boulevard, uh, we have also had folks along Dane Road, uh,
south of the Airport, and uh, the, uh, Lake Ridge Mobile Home Park has also asked, at
times, for us to provide services them .... to them, and .... and in this case, um, you know,
they are within our growth area. So, um, basically we have asked for annexation to
occur, uh, with those. Urn ... uh, with the Lacina Meadows subdivision, this is south of
Iowa City. Um, this is Naples. Uh, if you continue to go north on this road, you end up at
Menard's. Um, this is, uh, 218, uh, the Fairgrounds, uh, and then, um, County materials
has a .... a plant on the .... on the east side of 218. So that's kinda the area that we're
talking about there. Um....
Throgmorton/ Ron, how far south is that of the City limits?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 2
Knoche/ It's, um, right around a mile ... is roughly where we're at. Um, the .... it's like 4,500 feet,
I believe is the ... is the exact number. Um .... you know, Lacina Meadows is a 23 -lot, uh,
rural subdivision, um, construction in this area started in 2003. Um .... the homeowner's
association does operate the public water supply. So they have a permit with the DNR,
um, to operate their system. Uh, system has two wells, um .... and what they've
encountered is, uh, some radium issues and, uh, gross alpha, uh, max (mumbled)
contaminate limits. So in 2008 they hired MMS to start looking at this issue and try to
come up with solutions to the problem, and .... uh.... so, you know, we've been looking
at .... so this ... this issue's been out there for eight years, you know, so it's .... it's not a, not
something that, uh... um, it .... there's really not an easy solution to the problem.
Um .... with the Flint, Michigan, issues that have arisen with the lead, um, and the
corrosive water that they've had there, um, EPA and DNR is starting to look more
seriously at these problems, um, and the Lacina Meadows is on the top, one of the top,
uh, issues that the State of Iowa's looking at in regards to .... to water quality. Um, with,
uh, the preliminary engineering report that MMS put together, uh, they've revised that
recently and they've basically come up with two feasible alternatives for this subdivision.
Um, ion exchange, um, basically it's water softening. They have a .... they .... they soften
the water at the wells, um, the .... the backwash that's there then is ... in this instance would
be collected and they would haul that to our waste water plant for disposal. Um, or
basically connection to the City water main .... water system. Um, you know the .... they
both have their .... their positives and their negatives. Um, for the ion exchange, um, for
the homeowner's association it's a cheaper up -front cost for them, uh, but then over the
years it is, uh, a .... a more .... it .... the annual upkeep of that is .... is larger, um, and they're
going to rely on somebody else to dispose the.....basically the, um .... backwash water
too. Um, the connection to City water system, obviously, it's a much higher up -front cost
for them, um, but in this case it would actually address the issue long-term for this
subdivision. Um, so you know, basically what they'd be doing is they would... our.... our
water main, um, is on Naples currently. They would extend the water main down and tie
into their subdivision, uh, and....and run it through, um.....as.... as you saw back there,
that's roughly a $725,000 project for them. Um .... and they would up -front all that cost.
There'd be no City contribution, as ... as far as we look at it currently. Um .... and this is
just to highlight, you know, kind of where we're at with our .... our growth area. Um, the
current City limits, and really the .... the limiting factor in regards to growth area in this
area is, um, it's in the Old Man Creek's watershed and it's not an area that we've looked
at as an area that we would ever sewer, um, with the way our current configuration is.
So, um, we would not imagine that we would bring this into City limits in the future for
us. Um, the .... as .... as .... we've thought a lot about this and ... and, you know, at this point
I think we would like to be able to up .... update the policy to allow for the services
outside of the City limits, um, kind of in ... in two situations. One is .... with these two
caveats. One is that it is a public health issue, um, the .... the radium and the high -alpha
gross issues are both cancer-causing carcinogens, so it is a .... a health concern, and then,
um, the development that we'd be looking at servicing would be outside of our growth
area. So that's kinda what our recommendation is as we move forward, um, in .... in
discussions with the Lacina Meadows subdivision.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 3
Fruin/ Can I add a .... a coupla things to that. Um, one, Ron mentioned the Flint, Michigan,
situation. That certainly has .... we .... we have seen a lot more pressure from the State and
feds on water supplies, and there's a lot of discussion, uh, across the country about some
of the rural water supplies and what the best long-term solution is. Ron .... Ron presented
the two scenarios, um, really the options that the Lacina Meadows subdivision has and
it's .... it sounds like, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but the State has acknowledged that
both of those would probably work. Um .... but I think it's clear that long-term, the City
is much better able to keep up with, uh, the ever -tightening regulations on water quality
than, uh, they would be, so while they may have a solution that works that's cheaper for
them up -front, they still have that unknown of, um, what future regulations may be and
what cost of compliance with those future regulations may be, which is why .... I think
that they're interested in the more expensive, uh, option, which would be connecting to
the City's supply. So, urn .... we still think it's important that if you're within the growth,
uh, boundary that .... that you work towards annexation. Um, but in this case, um, again,
staff is proceeding down a path and they're just looking for some initial feedback from
you, concerns, uh, that you may have or questions. Um, we're proceeding down the path
that if it's outside of the growth area and there is a ... a public health issue, that we would
have at least the discretion to step in and, uh, serve those areas. Um, one thing, um, Ron
mentioned was the, uh, expectation that the private development would pay 100% of the
costs, and we would also, uh, come back to you at some point and recommend a, um, out
of community rate, basically a non -Iowa City rate. So we would expect that they would
pay higher, um .... uh, consumption rate for that water and right now, uh, those
discussions have been about one and a half times our water rate, and that increased,
um .... rates would, uh, you know, just basically add to our ability to maintain that because
once this is built, it will become our responsibility and, uh.... uh, although, you know, a
new water main, you don't expect a .... a whole lot of issues from a maintenance side,
over the years we will have water main breaks and then there will be other issues that
require our maintenance and so .... uh, we are looking at a .... a higher rate as well.
Mims/ Geoff, is there a way to structure this so that they do have some responsibility for repairs.
I mean I guess part of my concern is.....even at that 1.5 times ... you take a .... I think it was
a 23 hou.... houses in that development, is that right? I mean, their consumption .... I just,
I guess just my question is, even at one and a half times, if ...and I realize with a new
water main we shouldn't have breaks for 15 or 20 or 25 years, what are we setting the
City up for in 20 or 30 or 40 years if we have the full responsibility of maintaining and/or
rebuilding .... I would prefer to see .... I'd prefer even to see that they didn't pay as much
of a premium but that they still had the full responsibility for the maintenance and
rebuilding, if that's possible.
Fruin/ Yeah, I don't know. Do you have a reaction to that, Ron? My quick reaction is in our
current rate structure is set to that .... where we, you know, anticipate a number of main
breaks per year and that's.... basically, uh, enough funding to cover that and then, you
know, on occasion we'll bond for extensions or repairs, but we're pretty comfortable with
our current rate structure and the adjustments that we make that it gives us the ability to
serve that. I think this is just an added cushion. Ron, I don't know if you've got anything
else.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 4
Knoche/ I would agree with that. Um, the only other thing that I would add is, you know, as we
negotiate, um, the agreement to be able to service these folks, um, you know, when we do
have a new subdivision that comes into .... to our community or .... urn, we have a water
main extension fee that we .... we do have as a part of a per -acre fee. Um, and that
currently is $335 ... or $435 per acre. Um, when we've had in -fill development, um,
we've basically just had .... a charge one acre per tap. Um, you know, so if we would ... if
we would look at structuring it in that manner, it would be kind of a $10,000 up -front
cost that would go into that extension, um, basically ..... uh, helps us to maintain the
system, per se, and .... and I think I would rather structure it that way, and really still have
the City bear .... bear the maintenance of it because the issue at hand is, um, if. ... if you
rely on folks to try .... to have to maintain the system themselves, it .... they will struggle to
do that and ... and in the end we will end up, you know, having to help them in that .... in
that manner on those main breaks.
Dilkes/ Yeah, I think it's just a .... an enforcement issue. I mean you can .... you can place that
obligation on them but then you have to get the money out of them when .... when that
maintenance is required and it's a .... it's going to be very difficult to guarantee that.
Cole/ Ron, how unique is this particular location in terms of this type of problem? Um, you'd
mentioned the contaminants. Is this something that we're likely to see in a lot of
different areas or is there something geographically unique that we're not anticipating
that this will set a precedent for future requests.
Knoche/ I think that, you know, in this part of...of the county, I think this is not a unique
situation. Uh, I think the .... the situation at hand for .... for this group is that they
are .... they have a public water supply and they are working with the DNR as an entity,
similar to the way we do with our water system, and so .... uh, I.....there is the potential,
um, of the, uh, subdivision that's actually across the road from them. Let me go back.
Urn ... so ... so there is a subdivision that's actually on the east side of Dane Road that ... that
may face similar situation for, um, in ... in this same issue with their water supply permit.
Um, they're not there yet but, uh, from what we're seeing, uh, in the reports that they've
been submitting, they're.....they're going down the same road that Lacina Meadows did.
Um, so I ... I don't think, I mean, I .... this is not unique to this ... to this subdivision. Um,
but I think that what we .... I think as we move forward with this, you know, if...if we do
this by agreement, it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to service everybody that
comes to us, and we wouldn't have to service every new subdivision that's .... that pops
up in this area because there is a City water supply (both talking)
Cole/ Because this looks like a compelling public health issue and I obviously support that. The
only concern I have is that if this then sets a precedent for future annexation requests, we
could find ourself where people will request this solution as opposed to annexation. I
don't know if...if that's a valid concern or if. ... where that (both talking)
Fruin/ Any time annexation is on the table, and so it really looks at our growth boundaries, and
we do have a couple of, um, developments within our growth boundaries that have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 5
approached us with similar issues, be it water or sewer issues, and .... and in those cases
we've said annexation's the appropriate step to take. We wouldn't .... we wouldn't look
for a contract service under those circumstances. This is unique because it's outside of
our growth area. Really little to no ability to sewer it and..... um.....don't.... don't think
annexation's going to be on the table any time soon.
Dickens/ Will we run into this on the east side of town, the same type of thing with the new
school going up, and Taft being the end of our growth in City limits. Is that....
Knoche/ I .... I think there's that potential. We had, you know, with the public water supply
systems that are on that side, we haven't.....we haven't experienced these types of
concerns, um, they have not been brought up yet.
Frain/ Just big picture, you know, one of the things to think about — as soon as you.... and.... as
soon as you drop that water main down, um ..... uh, what's the .... what's the road there?
I'm drawing a blank on.
Dickens/ Naples.
Frain/ Naples, thank you. Uh, Naples, certainly the properties that (both talking)
Dickens/ Become more valuable.
Frain/ Become more valuable, and .... and you're going to .... you're probably going to see some
more speculation for more rural subdivisions out there, so there is this kind of sprawl
element to it, but as Ron mentioned, you know, we have the discretion to allow people to
tap into our main or to not tap into our main, so we don't have to allow those folks access
to water, and in the same vein, the County has the, you know, the ability to approve those
subdivisions. So it's not like there's no control, and there's going to be rampant sprawl,
but it is a consideration.
Knoche/ And one thing I do want to point out, um, the .... the existing main that we have along,
uh, old highway 218 is ... is a dead-end main. So that basically we've extended a main
down to County materials and, um, one of the possibilities that this main would allow us
to actually loop that across 218 and so actually loop that area and really benefit the City
and ... and current City, um, citizens or community members, um, with .... with the loop of
that system in the future.
Throgmorton/ Ron, I have heard that, uh, in ... sometime in the past couple years, at least one
developer has approached the City about developing I think this land immediately to the
north of...of this, uh, subdivision. Or .... across highway 218 in any event. Uh, and so...
you know, I worry about this in the sense that, uh.... uh, some future Council, I don't
know, 10 years from now, might, uh, get a number of requests to build on that .... that
property, uh, and if, uh, the lines there, uh, why not let `em do it, you know. I can see a
future Council kind of thinking that way. Uh, so....
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 6
Mims/ Well, and along with that, Jim, what concerns (both talking) yeah what concerns me is....
you know, if we sit here and are compelled to do it today, and... and the City is bearing to
me the risk in the future in terms of the maintenance, etc., um, and you've got this
undeveloped land, you know, as Geoff s just said, it's going to be kind of incentive to
build some more out there and ... and while yes we're not required to ta... to let them tap in,
but if they go ahead and have their own water supply for five years, let's say, and then all
of a sudden they've got the same health issues, how is the Council going to sit here, or
staff sit here, and say we let Lacina Meadows tap in because it was a health issue and
now .... what are we going to do with this new one. So I .... I don't know. I'm not .... I'm
not totally comfortable with this.
Throgmorton/ Does anybody else have questions or....
Thomas/ Ron, this is just for the water service?
Knoche/ Correct.
Thomas/ Not the roads.
Knoche/ Correct. It would just be for the water supply.
Thomas/ And .... and the sewer, did you mention the sewer? (both talking)
Knoche/ They're on septic systems (both talking)
Thomas/ Well .... Geoff anticipated my concern that yes, there's .... the upfront cost is being
covered but .... what about the operational and maintenance costs, and um .... so that ... that
seems to be addressed. Uh.... so .... (laughs) I .... I would be concerned as a homeowner—
homeowner out there about the roadway expenses down the .... down the road, pardon the
pun, but uh, you know, those are going to be significant as well.....to that .... to those
homeowners.
Fruin/ Well I hope ... our hope tonight wasn't to necessarily get you to commit yes or not, but to
just understand some of the concerns and we can continue to work through those with
the .... with the folks in the subdivision and I ... I have initiated the conversation with the
County as well, so that they know that, um, this is being discussed and I expect that we'll
get some feedback from them. It's my understand that Lacina Meadows may want to
start, if ...if we do give them a green light, as early as February or March of next year.
Knoche/They..... you know, they .... they have a number of, um, days that they need to meet with
the DNR and, um, so they .... they have, um, got a .... an initial commitment from the DNR
for some SRF funding, so .... for forgivable loans, um, for them to be able to build this.
Um, their goal was to start in February of next year and I .... I think the.....(mumbled) the
DNR last week, uh, that timeline may be a little, um, ambitious, um, but
uh..... (mumbled) they would like to move on sooner, uh, than later. (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 7
Cole/ I share Susan's concern on this, but I think if we could have very clear language to ensure
that this exception doesn't then swallow the rule, I think my concerns would be
addressed, for what it's worth. Um, but I think we do have a .... a precedent concern, is
sort of what my.....my concern is. So.....
Throgmorton/ On that point, Geoff, could you revisit how you answered, uh, the question about
the area east of Taft Boulevard, uh, are there similar subdivisions there now that may or
may not in the future have some kind of water .... (both talking)
Fruin/ I'm not familiar with the rural developments, uh, that would be east of Taft. I don't know
if, Ron, if you are. Doug or John may .... may know of some that are out there but we
haven't heard concerns on water supply out there.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, so it's basically the .... the precedent question — are there other subdivisions
that might in the foreseeable future come (both talking)
Fruin/ Potentially yes! Um, now I would say without State funding, it .... it's unlikely that Lacina
Meadows would pursue this option. I think the State and ... and the .... in the form of the
for... forgivable loan, the State may be paying 70, 80% of these costs. I mean that's how
much of a concern this is to the ... to the State. Um, I don't know of any other
subdivisions around Iowa City that are in that situation. Um (clears throat) and if it's not
on a cop of the State's list, I don't think that they would .... they would be pushing for it,
because this is a very .... very expensive solution, uh, for a 23 -lot subdivision.
Throgmorton/ It's making me wonder what questions we haven't asked or what concerns we
haven't expressed that we really should. Um ..... uh, do ... do any of you have any further
(both talking)
Taylor/ I just have... great health concerns about the whole issue and the water and what's in the
water and, uh, have they addressed like even the soil and .... and the condition of that, but
just really concerns me (both talking)
Knoche/ Yeah, I mean it's ... it's with their ground water is .... is where the, this .... it's natural... it's
a natural occurrence, so it's not, uh, you know, a brownfield's issue. It's just, ub... um, a
natural occurrence in the water that they're.... they actually have there and you know,
the .... the other options that they looked at was, you know, drilling new wells and doing
some of those things but there.....there's no guarantee that by doing that, um, they will
solve the issue. So, those were options that they did look at that they .... they took off the
table almost immediately because of the concern that you just don't get to a different
water source.
Fruin/ Um, we are....we are looking, Ron and his staff have, um .... checked policies in other
cities. This isn't groundbreaking that a city would.... would, uh, extend the utility service
outside their borders, and there's others in Iowa and .... and really throughout the country
that do it. So we are.....as we.....as we think about developing a policy or any code
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 8
changes to present to you, we are looking at how other cities are .... are handling those as
well.
Throgmorton/ From the point of view from Public Works, I ... am I right in assuming that, uh,
adding this line and servicing those 23 households would not pose any significant
challenges in terms of the water supply system?
Knoche/ That's correct, and our .... our current plant, um, has a design capacity of 16.7 million
gallons per day. So we have a .... we have a large capacity, um, our average daily is about
5 1/2 million gallons. So we're about a third of the capacity that our plant has, although,
um, with the way our water sources are all connected right now, um, between 10 and 12
million gallons per day is kind of our comfort level, where we don't have to really push
things and really mess with the chemistry. Um, the .... the Lacing Meadows is .... is about
17,000 gallons per day would be their needs. So they're .017 mgd. So it's a pretty
minimal amount of. ... of capacity that would take from our system.
Throgmorton/ And there wouldn't be any, I don't know, pressure problem?
Knoche/ No.
Throgmorton/ Okay.
Knoche/ No. Now according to the way it's modeled today, there isn't an issue. Um, the ... the,
kind of the concern that the DNR has right now just in regards to things is our .... our
minimum main size is 8 -inch main is what we require in subdivisions in our community.
Um, that's not typically the size of main that they serve ... that they would build, um,
through an SRF loan just because the ... the capacity that that services is quite a bit more
than the need is for this type of...of.... so that's one of the issues right now that the DNR
is trying to work through and figure out how, um, either they, you know, pay for
whatever the minimum main size that they would pay for and then the development pays
for the above, or .... or exactly how that works, but, yeah, as far as the capacity,
there's.... there's no issue, um, for us from a water supply issue.
Thomas/ And this ... this is, Ron, just one line going down to the .... entry drive? (both talking)
Knoche/ That's correct (both talking)
Thomas/ ....limit of our .... (both talking)
Knoche/ Yeah, so it would be....it would actually, um, go down, um, Naples and then run
through the subdivision to Dane Road. So it actually hooks all the way through and then
each.... each house would have its own meter, same as the way, uh.... uh, a resident works
in Iowa City. Um, and so we would meter and build `em individually is the way that we
would anticipate this working.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 9
Botchway/ Geoff, can you say again what exactly you're wanting from Council right now. I
mean you (both talking)
Fruin/ We just wanted to identify any concerns out there and, you know, we heard long-term
maintenance and... and uh, really precedent and, you know, what this may do with future
development along Naples. Um, we'll continue to work on those. Uh, we'll bring it
back, um.....we'll.....we'll continue to, you know, tell the developer you need to .... you
need a good plan B and, you know, there's no guarantee at this point, but we'll try to
package this up and .... present it to you with some final recommendations
and .... um .... see where we go from there, but sounds like there's still some discussions
with the State and the subdivision that need to take place, and again, I started a dialog
with the County and we need to continue that before we get too much further along.
Throgmorton/ Well it also gives me some enjoyable homework to do. I've never been in that
subdivision (laughter) Never driven along Naples. So....XII do that! (laughter)
Thanks, Ron!
Knoche/ Thank you!
Discuss future actions concerning downtown development flate handouts]:
Throgmorton/ Okay, so I guess we can move on to the next topic .... which was a late addition. I
apologize to you about that, but uh.... things won't become very complicated, I don't
think. So the next topic is, uh, to discuss future actions concerning downtown
development and there was, uh, a memo from me, I think dated October the 14th, in the
late handout. So let me say a few words about it and then .... uh, just basically ask you
one question. So, in the ... the memo I distributed to you a couple months ago, I proposed
several possible actions concerning downtown development and my intent was to provide
a starting point for resolving disagreements or .... con, uh, concerns about future
development of our downtown. The first major item on that list was to review the
downtown portion of the downtown and Riverfront Crossings plan, and if necessary to
consider amending it. So the memo in the late handout reports two .... I think two relevant
actions that have occurred over the past two months. The first that I've had, many
conversations with a wide range of key stakeholders, uh, quite a variety of stakeholders.
I've learned a lot during these discussions. It's really been very helpful to me, uh.... one
of the things I learned is the .... that several key stakeholders, uh, had not read the
downtown plan and have been surprised to discover that it calls for. The second is that
the Downtown District's board, I notice that, uh, Bill and Nancy are in the room, has
recently recommended that we review the downtown part of the plan and if necessary,
consider amending it. That's a correct statement, isn't it, Nancy? Yeah. Thanks. So
these two facts lead me now to suggest that we schedule a special two-hour work session
focusing on the downtown plan. Ub, the memo I circulated to you also proposed a
possible procedure that we could follow when conducting that special work session. I'd
rather we not get hung up on it right now, on that .... that proposal. It was really me just
kind of gettin' something out there as a possibility. There are many possibilities. What l
really ask you to consider tonight is whether, uh, whether you .... you support the idea of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 10
scheduling a special two-hour work session. If you do, we can set aside time in our next
work session to discuss how it should be designed. That's my thinking. So, uh.... uh,
your feedback? Uh, I look forward to hearing it.
Mims/ Well I guess I'll just start. I mean I think tome one of the big reasons that .... that we're at
this point .... quite frankly was the voting down of Kevin Munson's project by this
Council. I mean to me that sent, and I've .... heard this from many, many people across
the community in a lot of different positions, from .... bankers to attorneys to developers,
that that set ... that was the first big vote by this new Council in terms of downtown
development. And .... with a project like that, which met the zoning. It was not a zoning
issue. Uh, that was CB -10. That .... urn, was not a parking issue because that was going
before the Board of Adjustment. That was not before the Council that night. That
required an absolute minimum amount of money by the City, $72,000 to leverage maybe
a million dollars or so in workforce housing tax credits. Really sent a message to the
development community, um, they reinforced some of their concerns before the election
about the attitude of the new majority towards development in the community, and
particularly development downtown. And .... and I think really that's why we're here now
is because, I mean, I've sat in the focus group for the Economic Development Committee
with developers who either have used TIF or have applied for and been awarded, maybe
they haven't used it, and there's a 100% clear message, uh, from that group that they see
development in downtown, and particularly, um, anything large, um, anything... that is
high because they feel like this Council doesn't want anything high downtown, won't
come before this Council because they're not going to put 200,000 to $300,000 on the
table with the odds being that it won't be approved, particularly after seeing Kevin
Munson's, um, voted down, which met the zoning requirements and wasn't even asking
for TIF. So, you know, I guess there are certainly some concerns, and I know the
Downtown District has expressed some concerns of ...of, urn .... either contradiction or
different interpretation between that downtown plan and the zoning, um, but I'm ... I'm
just very concerned and very cautious, um, that plan was developed over many, many
months, if not over a year, with .... dozens if not hundreds of people involved, uh, we talk
about public input and how important that is. Um, this Council certainly has .... has
stressed that significantly during, um, the campaigns last fall and .... and since the new
Members have been on, and so I'm really concerned that we not take a plan that was
developed with that kind of significant public input and start looking at changing it based
on, uh, the views of a much, much smaller number of people. Urn .... I'm not saying I'm
against this, but I'm just very, very concerned if we do move forward that we've got
some pretty, um, strict parameters on how we do it and what's open for discussion.
Botchway/ (several talking) Yeah, so as far as kind of how you frame the question, I'm
supportive, um ... uh.....we talked about having a more clear conversation. Um, and
getting, you know, interested parties in the room, and having kind of this special work
session, how you kind of, I mean, I know you're not talking about the actual process of it
at this .... this moment but .... seems like a great facilitation process and so I'd be
supportive of just, you know, have that conversation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page I1
Cole/ I'm supportive as well because I think one of the key things we need to do, as Susan
mentions, is signal our clear intent as to the direction of the downtown. I think we do that
by what the Comp Plan states. Um, so I am .... uh, welcoming. In fact this is what I
called for a month and a half ago, that I felt to the extent that there were concerns about
that, we do need to look at modifying that, because if you look at that direction, that does
not call for the types of vertical developments, uh, that are being proposed. Now, that
said, if we get and go through this process and we have that community input, and there
is overwhelming support for some of these sorts of developments and it's in the Comp
Plan, uh, my view on that well could change. Um, but for us, we do disagree on that, and
I think that's why we need to have this Comp Plan discussion, and as I understand what
you're saying, Jim, we may after the work session say, we don't want to change it. (both
talking) And so I ... I support that. (clears throat)
Thomas/ Well my .... my point when we ..... had a discussion about the downtown plan was that,
and this may be just a wording issue, but .... that, um, as Susan said, and I would .... I
would agree, there was an enormous amount of work that went into the Comprehensive
Plan. I mean years of work, um .... I spent more time than I would like to admit looking at
not only the Comprehensive Plan but .... the 20 years of planning in the downtown that
culminated in the downtown Riverfront plan. There was a really great consistency, I
found, in those 20 years of discussion, the near south downtown plan, a whole series of
documents that were quite consistent in ... in their formulation about the downtown and
how it should expand and so forth, that were consistent with the downtown, Riverfront
Crossings plan. There's very explicit language in that plan with respect to development.
So, Susan, when you say .... that you support that plan, you know, there .... this language
is .... was quite clear and, um .... you know, it ... it, with respect to the proposal on Linn
Street, you know, would say that it's not consistent with the design guidelines of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mims/ I would disagree.
Thomas/ You're free to disagree (laughs) but there was pretty clear language in there about
where taller buildings should be placed.
Mims/ And I think `should' is a key word. I think aspirational versus.... codified is significant
between a Comp Plan and zoning.
Thomas/ Well, typically Comprehensive Plans are couched in those language, you know, the
language of `should' and `encourage,' uh.... and, you know, I .... I took the words on
their .... on their face value in terms of, um.....you know, the direction that.... Council
would consider, and I would further say that, uh, there's .... I think everyone should
understand that that plan was based on market analysis of development potential, not only
in the downtown but in the, uh, Riverfront Crossing area. So it's not some .... sort of
aesthetic concept at work there. It was a concept that was based on the .... that
development potential and how through a form -based code to distribute it over a very
large area. So, you know, I .... I support having the .... the conversation, um, I am
concerned, you know, as Jim noted in his October 14`h memo that there are some people
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 12
who are deeply concerned about the downtown and hadn't read the downtown plan! Um
...there's a lot of documentation there that people need to be familiar with, uh, you know,
if we're gonna have a two-hour discussion with what a .... a brief presentation by staff,
how do we encapsulate that history that goes into the downtown discussion is
challenging, I would say. And.... again, there are hundreds of people, uh, thousands of
hours of everyone's participation that went into developing the downtown, Riverfront
Crossings plan. So .... I'm willing to .... to do it. I just am .... I'm concerned that, uh, you
know, there is a lot of weight that that plan has and .... I ..... I appreciate the idea that, you
know, there is a certain openendedness that's inevitable with the Comprehensive Plan
and how we can translate that spirit, uh, into a codification is the challenge. How do we
take that plan and articulate it in a way which, um, has application to the zoning code.
Throgmorton/ So if I could say just a couple words here. I'm really happy to have an
opportunity to disagree with both Susan and John. (laughter) Uh, because the two of you
agree about, uh, all the work that went into the Comp .... uh, the downtown and Riverfront
Crossings plan, all the citizen participation time that was committed, all the staff time.
Uh, we were on the Council at the same time, so we went through that whole process and
have a pretty clear idea of how much, uh, commitment of time and energy went into it.
But I've heard from several people that .... in their view, all that attention was focused on
the area south of Burlington Street. Not on the downtown. So I've heard that people
really didn't pay any attention, really, to the downtown part of the plan. So .... maybe that
would explain why I've heard, uh, we need .... that other people agree, we need to revisit
the downtown part of the plan. Uh, that said, you know, I have no idea how that
process.... what the outcome of that process would be. I just think we owe it to the
people of this city to construct a process that enables us to make sure that plan is
consistent with our understanding of, uh, the public's views and which also gives a pretty
clear signal to the development community about what we .... what our vision is for the
downtown, so that we can then set other things in motion, if appropriate. So, uh.... you
know, so that's part of my reasoning anyhow. I don't know, Terry, I don't know if you
and Pauline have things you want to say.
Taylor/ Well LA agree that I think we ... could use a work session to talk about it because I'm
very much concerned about the comments that are being made about Council Members
that, uh, it's implying that we're anti -development and that couldn't be further from the
truth, if people had paid attention. Uh, we're very much for continuing to have a vibrant
community would include development, but sensible development. Uh, I don't believe,
uh, the Munson project we were approving or disapproving. There were many aspects
about that building that were very favorable, I thought. Uh, but I believe we were, uh,
voting on, um, approving some funds so they could apply for some State assistance, uh,
for the workforce housing, but.....so.... so that just really concerns me, and I think that we
do need to get stakeholders together and get back on the same boat, on the same track, so
that we can move in a positive direction as far as development of downtown.
Dickens/ I guess I'd .... I'm right in the middle here. I do think that, uh.... you know, our
Comprehensive Plan was including the downtown. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but I
think that it was... encompassing of all that, and with the number of people that were
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 13
involved, the fact that you're hearing from a couple people that they didn't think the
downtown was in there, well that's.... that's more of opinion. I think we really have
to .... I'm .... I'm fine with doing a couple hours. I don't think that's enough. I think if
you're gonna start talking about redoing the whole downtown, it's not going to be two
hour meeting here. I think it's going to be a year or two process. I ... I don't think you can
narrow it down that much when we're talking about we've got a lot of, uh, property
owners. Lot of `em don't live in Iowa City. So you're gonna make decisions for them.
They're gonna have to work at trying to get back here or .... or send a representative to
look at their interests. So .... uh.....I don't have a problem with doing a meeting but I .... I
would be very careful on how it was set up and I don't think that you can make a decision
after a two-hour meeting.
Botchway/ One quick, um, kind of comment in somewhat relation to that is, again, I'm not
saying that we shouldn't have the conversation but one of the things that I .... I did want to
put, or I had in my notes, is you know, and you've already talked about we're not gonna
focus on the process and I don't think we should. I'm not gonna get too much into that
piece, but .... I'm actually thinking that there may be a need for a couple of meetings, even
before we get to this particular meeting, and the reason why I say that is I'm very
interested in the stakeholder piece. Because I think the community's going to be very
interested in the stakeholder piece, and so who gets the invite to....to have the
conversation about this downtown plan I think is going to be very.....very interesting and
kind of to Susan's, um, first point, urn .... you know, it ..... it, how we construct it would be
something that people may feel is, urn .... I'm trying to look at the word. It is, um .... I
wouldn't say problematic, but.... conducive to how we want it to be viewed. I mean I'm
just thinking of some of the problematic things that I would.....as I think about some of
the community stakeholder things that I've put together, of ensuring that we have
multiple interests, um and so to do that I don't think we necessarily can do that through
the process of by which, um, I think about the, um, Charter Review Committee and how
we, you know, did it in a similar process that we did the, um, we do the.....committees
for all the other things we do, and so .... so there's a stakeholder piece that I have
questions about, but like I said, won't have the conversation, but I think, again,
everybody's going to be watching who is a stakeholder and paying attention to that piece
and so .... there's a couple of things that I think we need to flesh out from that perspective.
Dilkes/ I ... go ahead.
Fruin/ I would say as you .... as you head into your work session to discuss this at your next
meeting, you really need to be thinkin' about what your.... what your end game is here for
Council in terms of, urn .... what your.....what you're hoping to accomplish. Two hours
isn't going to solve all the land -use questions and issues that you have out there. As
some of you have noted, that's a .... that's a much longer process, um, and we've got a
pretty good history of, you know, going through Comp Plans and.... and..... and doing
that, and that can be done, but .... I think you really have, as I see it, four options and
ultimately I think what you need to get out of the work session is which of these four
options are you going to pursue, and there may be others that .... that you .... that you think
of, but .... one is to follow the recommendation of the existing Comp Plan, which
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 14
rep .... calls for a form -based code of downtown, and you can initiate that process and
that's a very, uh.... uh, intensive public process as well, and .... and we're, you know,
gearing up to do that in the Northside Market Place area, the ... the near north
neighborhoods and .... uh, southeast sides of...of Iowa City, so you could.....you could go
that route and .... and look for the form -based code solution to, um .... I won't say resolve
but to facilitate the discussions you're hopin' to have on land use and ultimately make
some decisions on that. You can go back and... and um, if you know specifically what
you'd like to .... to change about the current CB -10 zoning, you can amend our .... our
code, uh, in a way that you feel is consistent with the, urn.... Comprehensive Plan. If you
want to completely redo the Comprehensive Plan, there is a .... a process in place, and
Council can initiate Comp Plan changes, um, there is a .... a.....a code provision to allow
you to do that, but there's also an expectation in this community on what a Comp Plan
planning process looks like, and it's .... it's very intensive and ... and many of you have
participated in those, be it neighborhoods or downtown or Riverfront Crossings, but I
think that we need to probably look to how we've done those in the past and commit
ourselves to a multi-year process, to really do a .... a downtown Comprehensive Plan, and
of course the fourth option then would be to ..... to do nothing and, urn .... kind of
recognize that the Comp Plan is a general guide and that the Council does have, uh, some
discretion within that Comp Plan when it comes to individual projects that may be before
them. So, form -based code, CB -10 changes, Comp Plan .... status quo, I think, are your
options, and I think that's what you need to be thinking, that whatever... whatever this
work session becomes, you're gonna want to get out of that, urn ... the information that
you need to pursue one of those options.
Cole/ Geoff, what about just the modification and clarification piece, um, you know, cause I
guess is what I understand you're calling for, Jim, is you're not necessarily calling for
totally reimagining every aspect of the downtown Comp Plan. It would seem to me that
if we were to have a meeting now, there'd probably be 80 to 85% of those parts where
there'd be a lot of agreement on, at least what I'm hoping we accomplish is figure out
who we want to engage on that 15 to 20% and whether that modification process would
be as time -intensive as starting from scratch. Um....
Fruin/ Doesn't have to be (both talking)
Cole/ Cause that's sorta what I'm thinking, I don't want to start from scratch. I think there's a
lot of consensus already on probably 80 to 85% of it, is my sense. It's just those (both
talking)
Fruin/ In my view that's a political consideration.
Cole/ Yeah (both talking)
Fruin/ ...you can initiate a Comp Plan change, um, you just .... I think you just have to be
cognizant of the .... uh, the multitude of people, particularly in .... with the downtown plan
that would want to weigh in, and it's going to extend well beyond any groups that you
would invite as stakeholders. The stakeholders are .... are just much broader than, um,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 15
you would say if we were tweaking a neighborhood Comp Plan. You know, those are
very focused efforts. This is .... this is a tricky one. It's going to be hard .... hard to get
your arms around, I think, um .... very narrow tweaks to a Comp Plan.
Throgmorton/ Geoff, would you, uh, please.....uh, craft a memo kind of summarizing what you
just said about the four choices you think we have before us.
Dilkes/ I just want to say some.... something here (several talking) cause, I mean, I have legal
concerns that echo Geoff s more political, practical concerns. I mean if you look at
the .... the process for, under the State code and the City code for Comp Plan amendments,
while the Council can initiate that, basically what then happens is the whole public
process. And that of course is .... has, we have public hearings that we have to go
through, and in our town we have done that public planning process, and so .... I have
concern when you're talking about identifying stakeholders, certain stakeholders, that are
going to have a seat at the table in talking to Council about what Comp Plan changes
we're going to make. Because that's not the process that's envisioned. It's a public
process like the ones that we've gone through before, and if indeed as you say, Jim, there
wasn't focus on the downtown part of the plan, then ... the remedy to that is to focus to do
that planning process for the.....the downtown, not to identify specific stakeholders, if
what you're talking about is a Comp Plan amendment. Now if you want to do a form -
based code process like Geoff has talked about, then it .... you know, you can go through
that process, but .... but the whole stakeholder thing, the Comp Plan amendment is .... does
not, it's not consistent to me with the code.
Throgmorton/ I'm a little puzzled about part of what you say, Eleanor. Uh.... uh, though it's
clear that that process you described is what usually is done, but with regard .... we often
are presented with proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan. And ... those proposed
changes do go through Planning and Zoning, and so there are public hearings at that
level.
Dilkes/ They do!
Throgmorton/ But beyond that, it's not an incredibly long, complicated process, not a one or
two-year process. So .... so I (both talking)
Dilkes/ But you're talking about the downtown. You're talking about initiating a discussion
about the downtown.
Throgmorton/ Yeah.
Dilkes/ A big area with no .... you know, you're.....you're not.....you're not suggesting that there
be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in a certain respect. You .... you're talking
about a whole area of town.
Fruin/ Yeah, typically when we do Comp Plan amendments and they, uh, accompany a rezoning,
it's focused on one specific development or .... or, um, parcel that ... that, um .... you know,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 16
there's a different concept for and staff is recommending that we tweak the Comp Plan to
reflect this.... this new idea that comes up. If you can narrowly tailor what you want to
do, then ... then maybe you can, you know, do that Comp Plan amendment. I think, um...
just knowing that the community interest in the downtown, I'm a little skeptical to think
that, you know, a .... a short-term, couple month amendment will work, but urn ..... perhaps
it will (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Well let me say a word about what my underlying thinking was, and then, uh, I
suppose we could, uh, since we've agreed to hold a two-hour work session, we could do
that, uh, and .... but there are other things to consider, as Eleanor and Geoff have .... have
brought up. But the .... the things that, uh, were on my mind as I crafted this, uh, proposal
are, first, right now we have people talking past one another. Hear somebody make a
statement that does not take into account what other people have already said in other
parts of the community. They're talking past one another. That's not good for us .... as a
community .... or as a Council. So three principles guided my own thinking when I was,
uh, crafting this proposal. First that we enable a diverse mix of stakeholders, people who
have clear, strong stakes in the downtown. To engage in face-to-face discussions with
one another about how to resolve our shared problem. We have a shared problem, and
it's one that involves this talking past one another. The second principle that was on my
mind is that we identify a good, neutral person to facilitate that discussion. So that
they're actually engaging one another in conversation, and hearing one another, and third,
that we Council Members simply listen and take notes. So that we can hear.... fruitful
inter.... hopefully, fruitful interaction among these diverse people. It doesn't mean that's
the end of the process. But it does mean it....it would provide us with basic information
that would help us .... potentially propose some changes to the Comp Plan and then get it
in the process. That's what I was thinking, and I .... you know, if that is, you know,
deficient legally, I need to hear that or if it's, uh.... deficient in some other way, I need to
hear that, but that's (both talking)
Mims/ I think it comes back .... really critically to how, you know, and I hadn't thought of it in
exactly the same perspective as .... as Eleanor just put it, but .... and Kingsley kind of
mentioned it before is, you know, how do you select the people for this meeting. Um ... I
think that's, I mean, I think that's.... really huge in terms of, you know, what .... what
Council gets out of that meeting is going to be entirely dependent upon who is asked to
participate in that meeting. And I think that's .... uh.... I think that can be very, very
problematic in terms of trying to make those selections. And .... you know, you talk about
people, and I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but you talk about people
talking past each other. I wasn't going to say anything more, but I am going to go back
just real quickly to Pauline's comments about the vote on the Munson project because I
would agree that yes, technically what this Council was voting on, what was technically
before us, was money, but there was .... I don't .... I'd have to go back and listen to the tape
of the meeting, but my recollection is, there was virtually no discussion of the money. It
was not an issue of the money that night. It was an issue of the height of the building. It
was an issue of who might live in the building, and it was an issue of the parking. None
of which probably legally or technically should have been taken into account by this
Council on that vote. We were voting on the money. I don't recall a single Council
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 17
Member saying, oh, this is not a good investment of $72,000 to get a million dollar return
in workforce housing tax credits. It was about the size, the height of it — even though it
was a CB10 zone, it was, uh, a little bit about the location next to the Yacht Club, it was
about students might live in the building, and it was about parking, which was supposed
to go before Board of Adjustment. So .... you can talk about people talking past each
other, and people on this Council saying, oh, we're pro -development, we're never, you
know, never been anti -development. That's not what was said, you know, regarding TIF
and other things during the campaign, and this was the first big economic development
project for this Council to vote on, and it got voted down and whether you agree with it
or not, that is .... a significant message that has been sent to the development, banking
community in this town.
Botchway/ So I mean .... Jim, your proposal is changing process, I mean the way I see it, um,
from kind of a .... a collaborative issue based kind of discussion standpoint is, um, you
know, you get interested stakeholders, um, in a group, um, you have some type of small
group discussion, and again, you're not even asking about what the pro .... you're not even
talking about what the process would be, but, um ... you know, again, I think we ... I think
we can move forward, um, and do some type of work session, kind of shore up some of
the elements as far as what exactly that process would be, but, um, I think that everybody
here wants a conversation. I agree with some of the concerns that are mentioned here as
far as exactly what that conversation will ultimately lead to, and I think in the interim as
we're scheduling that special work session, we're going to need to think about that and
have that conversation, but .... um, but yeah. I think that we .... we need to talk, in some
way, shape or form, um, from a variety of different elements. Um, but I think we should
just move forward.
Throgmorton/ Okay, I think we're agreed that we want to schedule a special two-hour work
session and we don't know what will happen after that, but we want that, Geoff, a memo
please. Uh, Eleanor, if you think that it would be fruitful, helpful for us, uh, to get some
legal insight, please do write something on that. And then we'll have to find .... we'll
have to schedule a date. We don't need to do it right now I don't think.
Karr/ Why don't I send an email to all of you and see what .... we've got some (both talking)
Botchway/ Wait a minute, let's take into account the holiday season. (several talking)
Mims/ The first thing we gotta do, are we going to try to put it on next session's work agenda
to .... just even talk, I mean, I don't see how we can even schedule the special work
session until we've talked about how we're gonna even figure out who we're inviting to
the meeting, so....
Throgmorton/ Yeah, Susan's right about that. So, uh, it just needs .... that part of it needs to be on
our next work session agenda. Okay! Thank you. Which leads us to a new item on our
work session agenda, cause, uh, for those of you who don't know, we have restructured
our work sessions so the new item is titled `clarification of agenda items,' which I think
means not going into great detail, asking all sorts of questions that could have been asked
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 18
of the staff ahead of time, but instead just asking any questions to clarify some aspect of
any particular agenda item. Manan, is that the way you understood (both talking)
Kan/ That's correct.
Throgmorton/ Thank you. Okay, so.....any items... anybody wants to bring up?
Clarification of Agenda Items:
ITEM 4d(1) ASPHALT RESURFACING PROJECT 2015 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING
THE WORK FOR THE ASPHALT RESURFACING PROJECT 2015
ITEM 4e(1) SIGN CODE — MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
NOVEMBER 1 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE SECTION
14-5B, SIGN REGULATIONS; SECTION 14-3C, DESIGN REVIEW; AND
SECTION 14-9C, SIGN DEFINITIONS
Kan/ I'd just like to note the revision you have this evening before you for 4d(1), the revised
resolution, uh, showing you revised project annual costs on the asphalt resurfacing
project. Again, it remains in the Consent Calendar. It's just a revised actual cost. And
then also you have, um, just noting a revision to a motion you're setting a public hearing
on for the sign ordinance. Again, you're just setting the public hearing, but the notice
will show, um, a revised item and comment.
ITEM 4f(7) Kyle Sieck, Iowa City Mobile Vending Association: Temporary Pilot Program
for licensed food trucks
Throgmorton/ Right. Okay. Thank you. So, uh.... does anyone want to seek some clarification
on any agenda item? How bout Item 411(7), the Mobile Vending Association's request for
a temporary pilot program for licensed food trucks? Geoff, have you had conversations
with Kyle Sieck or Anthony Brown or any of the other folks who made that submission,
or proposed that.... possibility?
Fruin/ Kyle approached me about a week and a half ago or so, and I meet with him. He gave me
a preliminary copy of this, urn .... of the memo that's in your .... in your packet. Um, and
um, I ... I haven't, um, obviously, uh, forwarded anything on to you. Um, I knew .... Kyle,
I think, will be here during public comment to, uh, address you verbally. Um, they are
seeking a pilot project in downtown to serve the late night bar crowd and .... uh, current
code prohibits service downtown, so in order to do .... allow any service downtown, you'd
have to direct staff to do a code amendment.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, I was wondering about that, Eleanor. So, uh, from a legal point of view, it
would take us, I don't know, at least six weeks or something like that to move our way
through a code amendment, would .... would it not?
Dilkes/ Well, I mean it takes two readings essentially. I mean (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 19
Throgmorton/ We'd have to schedule a public hearing.
Dilkes/ No, there wouldn't be a public hearing required (both talking) so you could do it in two
meetings. You could (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Okay, so four weeks anyhow, I guess, unless we have a special meeting.
Fruin/ I think .... I think we, you know, if. ... if it's a simple code amendment, um, we could bring
it to you November 15' and you could collapse readings on November 15a . I think that'd
be about the soonest we could .... we could present somethin'.
Dickens/ That would be for the pilot project or for ... the whole amendment of (both talking)
Fruin/ Either one, I mean we could amend the code to allow for a pilot project is probably what
we would do, whether that's giving me discretion to allow a pilot project or specifically,
um .... contemplating this pilot project that's being proposed.
Cole/ I guess I would like to put that on our agenda for November 155. I ... I, Jim, was going to
bring that up during Council time, um, and was going to actually propose a work session,
uh, so we could get some memos from staff and downtown and the pilot .... and the food
truck folks, as well. I'm still willing to do that if people still have concerns about that.
Uh, but my preference is the November 155, but if people don't want to do that, at least if
we could do a short work session to give sort of our point of view. I also prefer that
too,so... but I was going to bring that up during Council time.
Taylor/ I would like the November 15', November 15'" time line also cause as was mentioned in
the letter as far as we're gettin' into the, you know, colder winter season and, uh, it
would .... might affect their .... their sales or selling of food downtown, so I think the
sooner the better.
Botchway/ One thing (several talking) well one thing, um .... uh, I will say that I was in
agreement with Rockne's kind of proposal around the work session because there are
considerable concerns, and um, from, you know, and then necessarily how Kyle's gone
about it, I think he's done a wonderful job as far as reaching out to folks and trying to get
some information and putting it out there, but, um, you know, my thought was at least
initial meeting with, um, a sit-down with .... Nancy's in the audience, Downtown District
folk, um, interested restaurants because I've .... I've known about this for a little bit of
time because I'm a self-proclaimed food truck king and um, I .... I worry about .... I worry
about the interests, uh, the problematic interest with the brick and mortar restaurants and
the food truck business, that I don't want us to rush to something that would cause either,
and I'm actually more worried about Kyle, um .... to have some problematic .... to have
some problem situations with this, and so I was going to say schedule it for the work
session. I'm not saying that we don't move on it quickly, but I do want to hear some
considerable feedback from both, uh, in regards to this, and again, I just .... I talked to
Kyle today and talked to him about, you know, this is what I was going to mention as
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 20
well, just again, at least having some type of meeting interim where, again, interested
stakeholders, cause again, we know....as a Council, things don't hit until, you know, it's
on the particular agenda for us to make a vote, um, and then people are going to come out
from all sides and I don't want it to get to that point just yet. I'd rather them have some
meetings set up first, talk about it amongst themselves, hopefully maybe some facilitation
from the Downtown District, and then presumably from that have a proposal that would,
you know, talk about some of the pieces that I think Kyle.....Kyle's memo mentions, but
even him and I talked about, you know, considerations as far as location's concerned,
some additional considerations I think can clearly be vet .... vetted through that meeting.
Mims/ Yeah, I think it needs to .... I'm not, I certainly would not support it...be supportive if it
came to us for a vote on November I". I think .... I think staff and the Downtown District
spent a lot of time in developing the first ordinance in terms of the vending, and simply
because we get a request where maybe .... maybe it's a very reasonable request, I don't
know, but .... I'm not willing to just vote on it because we've got a proposal for a pilot,
and as you said, Kingsley, there's been lots of concerns before, and I think we have to
take that time to have that discussion to really vet what those various concerns are from
both sides before we would, uh, entertain voting on any kind of ordinance.
Cole/ Do we have support for a work session on November I"?
Botchway/ I don't know what's on November 151 work session. I guess I should know but
(several talking)
Cole/ I'm not thinking it's going to be that .... I mean it's going to be .... famous last words, but 10
or 15 minutes. Um, you'd make a proposal (both talking)
Fruin/ Yeah, I wouldn't underestimate the interest in this item. Um, there's significant interest
from some of the restaurants. Um, there's significant interest from the food truck
vendors. You know, the City, uh, licenses mobile vending food carts on the ped mall.
That group is very interested in this item. Um, I think what might be helpful, um ... is
for ... for staff to present to you, uh, an overview of how we kind of got to where we are
today because we went through a good year and a half process of pilot projects and
research on other communities to develop the current ordinance that we have. This is the
really the second food vending, uh, mobile .... I'm sorry, food truck vending year, permit
year, we've had, and I think it'd be good for everybody to catch up to speed on that.
Cole/ Can we get that at the work session though? I mean (both talking)
Fruin/ Yeah, we could present that at the work session, um, I'm just .... I'm just cautioning before
decisions are made, there's a lot of people that would like to talk to you, uh, I would
imagine, about this.
Dickens/ And can we get from the Downtown District how many restaurants are open after
10:00? I mean (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 21
From/ We can try!
Dickens/ ....get that kind of information, cause I think.... talking to Kyle that it was mainly
coming in after a lot of the restaurants have closed their kitchens. I know there's some
that stay open late, but.... that's.... that's the dialog I had with Kyle was mainly coming in
when there is fewer places open after .... after 10:00.
Fruin/ We can try to (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Eleanor, I'm wondering if we're now being too substantive about this and maybe
it would be better to pull this item from the Consent Calendar and discuss it, during the
formal meeting, or.....
Dilkes/ I think you're okay.
Throgmorton/ You think we're okay.
Dilkes/ ...the Consent Calendar, yeah.
Throgmorton/ Okay. Okay. Uh.... well I .... I don't mind discussing it in, you know, a work
session but I'd like to have, uh, that kind of background information that Geoff was
referring to. (several talking)
Botchway/ ...signal to, you know, the Downtown District that, you know, this is a .... this is going
to be a hot button item. Hopefully we can have facilitation at that meeting, relatively
quickly.
Mims/ When we're talking about this, just real quickly, brings up something I was going to say
last time just on Council procedure that I think we always used to do and I think we've
gotten from a little bit, and I think it's important in terms of staff time that .... I think if
we're gonna ask staff to do something for us or get information from us, that we really
ought to have a majority of Council to direct staff, and .... (several talking) No, we
have .... no we have not done that (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ....tell me an instance or two?
Mims/ I would say in our very last meeting, and I don't mean to pick on you, Rockne, but it was
asking for the, um, municipal rates for utilities. I didn't hear anybody else asking for
that. And I think there's been a couple other times too (both talking)
Dickens/ ....used to ... had to have at least (both talking)
Mims/ At least three, I think, and I just ... I mean I just.....and.... and again, I just think ... we have
to be cognizant of what we're asking staff to do so that no one .... Council Member, any
one of us, me or anybody else included, is putting .... is overly burdening staff by asking
for things, and so I think I would like to see us, from a procedural standpoint, make sure
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 22
that we are getting at least three Council Members if we're asking them to do stuff, and
it's going to be up to .... assuming we all agree on that, it's up to Geoff to kind of. ... if he
gets something from one Council Member, if it's pretty minor, to say fine and if not then
say well we really need to have support of Council.
Fruin/ I .... I typically screen that, I mean a lot of requests would come in outside of meetings, and
I .... I've had to use judgment to screen those and say, sure we can get that to you or why
don't we talk about it at a work session (both talking)
Cole/ ....let us know if that's a problem.
Throgmorton/ All right. Any other clarification items with regard to the agenda?
Cole/ So we will have that November Is' then, on the work session (several talking)
Botchway/ November 1 s' work session.
Dickens/ Be a six -hour one! (laughs)
Information Packet Discussion [October 6, 131:
Throgmorton/ I doubt it! So, uh, any other items though .... for clarification? Uh, I'm not hearing
any. Let's go to the Info Packet discussion, October 6a' packet. I'm not hearing any.
Let's go to the October 13th packet.
Botchway/ IP4.
Karr/ KXIC show.
Throgmorton/ (mumbled)
Botchway/ Can do....
Dickens/ November 2ad
Karr/ November 2nd is Terry. (laughter and several talking)
Mims/ I'll take the 9th.
Karr/ 9a' is Susan.
Throgmorton/ The only other dates I could do are November 30'h and December the 7th.
Karr/ Back-to-back?
Throgmorton/ No, just one of `em. I don't care which one. So let's say November 30th.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 23
Karr/ Okay.
Botchway/ 40h and 18th.
Karr/ I'm sorry?
Botchway/ 4th and 18th, November.
Karr/ 4h and 19th?
Botchway/ 18th!
Karr/ Back... okay. 4th and 18th Botchway.
Taylor/ Is the 16th open?
Karr/ 16th is still open.
Taylor/ I'll do 160i.
Karr/ 16th (mumbled) 23`a 7t 2 a, and 16th, and 26. (several talking) 23°a is Thomas.
Cole/ What's the next one?
Karr/ I have October 50i, December (several talking)
Mims/ I'll take the 26th.
Karr/ 260' is Mims. (several talking and laughing) I'm sorry, Rockne?
Cole/ What's the next one?
Karr/ Ub, December 7b, December 2ad , December 16`h.
Cole/ I'll do December 2aa
Karr/ December 2"a
Dickens/ I can do December 16th cause that's my birthday and (several talking) tell everybody
(several talking and laughing)
Karr/ December 7th is the only one I think I have left.
Throgmorton/ Well I chose (several talking) two days after my birthday!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 24
Botchway/ Pauline, did you want to do it or .... (several talking)
Karr/ December 7d. We have Throgmorton the 30a'.
Botchway/ I can do the 7a', unless anybody else wants it.
Mims/ I can take it too. I don't care. (several talking)
Karr/ Kingsley?
Botchway/ I'll do it.
Karr/ Okay. I'll revise it and get it out in the packet.
Botchway/ Oh, real quick! John, the ... and I think, cause that's around Thanksgiving. They still
do the, um, cause this is our first time coining on a major holiday right? They do the
tape....
Karr/ I have asked that. I will double-check that (both talking)
Botchway/ It doesn't have to be on the 23d, you can do a session (both talking)
Karr/ ....ask that (several talking)
Mims/ So did you get all of them, Marian?
Karr/ I believe so!
Throgmorton/ Good deal! Okay, any other items from the October 13a' Information Packet?
Botchway/ I had a question. I guess I should have asked this ahead of time, and I just see it in
my notes here. Why aren't the rest of the officers in the training? I mean, I'm sure this is
a scheduling issue. I'm looking at, sorry, IP, uh.....IP5. And it focuses on the memo
from, uh, Bill, or Officer, excuse me, Interim Police Chief Campbell.
Fruin/ The cultural competency training?
Botchway/ Yeah.
Fruin/ Yeah, you know, to do an all -staff training is pretty tough, um, but .... (mumbled) track
those throughout the year and ... and the next time it's offered, you know, we'd send new
people through that.
Botchway/ Okay. That's what I want to make sure.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.
Page 25
Fruin/ We did do an all -City employee, including all Police Department, um. .... training last fall,
um, with Dr. Eddie Moore and Diane Finnerty, um, that's... that's quite an undertaking, so
in, you know, in between those instances where we do all -staff trainings, it's .... you
know, small groups.
Throgmorton/ Okay, anything else .... on that Info Packet? I don't hear anything. So according
to our work session agenda, we're now done with it, and all the Council time kind of stuff
we used to do during work session will happen at the end of our regular formal meeting,
right? Okay, good deal! We're done for now! Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of October 18, 2016.