Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-16 TranscriptionPage 1 ITEM 2. OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARDS. - Regina Elementary School Hayek: Good evening, everyone! I'm, uh, the Mayor, and this is the City Council, and we're really glad to hear...have you here tonight. I have to say something before we get started though, uh, Mr. Pugh, I want you to tell your father that he taught me everything I know about football. Mr. Sueppel, I want you to tell your father I taught him everything he knows about basketball (laughter). Anyway, uh, we're honored to have you here tonight, and we're excited to hear from you, so I'll just pass the mic around and each of you can tell us a little bit about yourselves. Pugh: Hi, my name is Tom Pugh and I was nominated by my teacher, Mrs. Carpenter, for this award. I think that I was nominated for this award because I'm very involved in sports, academics, and...and other extracurricular activities. I play numerous sports, including football, baseball, basketball, and golf. This year I have represented my class as Student Council Representative. I have maintained an "A" average this year, including one in pre-Algebra 8. I am motivated by my classmates, teachers, and most importantly - my family. My parents, Mike and Cathy, support me the most. With my dad being a football coach, I have been around sports for all my life. My mom helps me when I need it and is always there for me, just like my dad. I'm the second oldest in my family. I have two little sisters, Mallory and Mary Kate, who I'm often required to babysit. My older brother, Joe, who is an 8th grader, won this award two years ago. I am proud to do the same. Thank you. (applause) Ronnfeldt: Hi, my name is Lauren Ronnfeldt, and I am a sixth grader at Regina Elementary. I am honored to have received the Outstanding Student Citizen Award. I feel I received this award because of my leadership within and outside of Regina. I work very hard in school. I appreciate and respect my teachers, classmates, friends, and family. I am very kind to others and include them. Last year I was a fifth grade Student Council Representative, and this year I am the Student Council Vice-President. Outside of school I play in music group at church, play competitive soccer, violin, and piano. I try my best to set a good example in all that I do. Thank you for listening. (applause) Sueppel: Hi, my name is Michael Sueppel and I am in sixth grade at Regina Elementary. was chosen for the Outstanding Student Citizenship Award by my sixth grade teachers. I believe I received this award because I tutor a student, a third grade student, every morning. I am in Boy Scouts. I am respectful to my teachers and classmates. I turn in assignments on time. I have a good sense of humor, and I want to thank my teachers, Mrs. Vorrick, Mrs. Preston, and Mrs. Carpenter, and I'd like to thank the City Council for letting me speak. Thank you. (applause) Hayek: Very well done all three of you. We have these Citizenship Awards that I will give to each of the three of you, and they read the same, and I'll read them as follows: for his or her outstanding qualities of leadership within Regina This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 2 Elementary, as well as the community, and for his or her sense of responsibility and helpfulness to others, we recognize you as an Outstanding Student Citizen. Your community is proud of you. Presented by the Iowa City City Council. Congratulations! (applause) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 3 ITEM 3. PROCLAMATION. a) Peace Corps Week March 1-7, 2010 Hayek: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is the UI Campus Peace Corps representative, Fran Boyken. (applause) Boyken: Thank you, Mayor Hayek, and thank you to the City of Iowa City for this proclamation, um, from working in water and sanitation projects in Bolivia to teaching English in high schools in the Philippines, Iowans have been involved in the Peace Corps in numerous ways and return volunteers and their families, the people they serve, and all the citizens of Iowa City who support their mission thank you for this proclamation. Hayek: Thank you! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 4 ITEM 4. STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS. Hayek: (reads prepared statement) (applause) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 5 ITEM 6. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Hayek: This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Council regarding issues that are not on our agenda. If you wish to address the Council, please approach the podium, sign in and state your name, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Okay, seeing none we will move on. Oh...yes, sir? Yeah, if you'd state your name, please and... Graber: My name's Jerry Graber, and I wanted to address the Council on, uh, the ticket games that they are saying illegal to redeem beer for now, and I just wondered what the objective was...you were trying to achieve by doing that. Hayek: Well...we're not...this forum does not allow us to...to give you answers and engage in a conversation, but I can tell you that we just, uh, took that issue up preliminarily and we're going to be talking about it in a work session sometime soon. Graber: Okay. So you mean I can't have any input at all? Hayek: You can give us input tonight. We just can't give you feedback. Graber: Oh, you can't comment. Hayek: Correct. Graber: Okay, okay. I guess my thing is, you know, the State of Iowa says they're legal, and I think the way I read that...the ruling on the...the thing was that, uh, you can't give prizes away and give liquor or beer or prizes. That isn't the prize on these ticket games. It's the ticket that's the prize, and you can turn it in for all kinds of different things - T-shirts, pop, candy, or anything. And then besides that, these things are really good for the businesses. You know, maybe a lot of people don't realize that, but it really helps the businesses out having these games. Like, oh, I forgot to tell you that I am a...a...I distribute these games, and since I've done that it's really helped a lot of these businesses out. You know, they're struggling, and this is one of the things that really does help 'em, they're really good for the business. It'd be a shame if we had to take 'em away... and...I guess basically that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Karr: Sir, there is a binder there. Would you like to sign...sign in? Right...yes, so that we'd have your name in case we need to contact you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 6 Yenter: I guess I was unaware that you couldn't bring up anything that's on the agenda for tonight, but, um, I was hoping that I could just put my two cents... Hayek: Could you give us your name first, sir? Yenter: Uh, sure, Keith Yenter, and I live at Oakland Avenue, Iowa City. Um, this has to do with Item #12 on adopting an assessment for property tax... Hayek: Mr. Yenter, actually the...the time to talk to us about that is when we get to agenda 12, so if you could wait until we reach that point. Yenter: Oh, I see. Okay. Hayek: You'll have a chance to talk. Thank you, sir. Wilburn: The reason the Council can't, just for clarity, can't discuss something extensively that's not on the agenda is because we have to give public notice, an opportunity for anyone, uh, that might have wanted to comment on something that is, uh, on the agenda. That's why we have public comment as opposed to a full discussion on an item that is not on the agenda. Hayek: Is there anybody else who would like to address the Council regarding issues not on tonight's agenda? Okay, hearing none, we'll move on to Item 7, which is Planning and Zoning matters. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 7 ITEM 7. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b) AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADJUST THE LONG-RANGE PLANNING GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 132 ACRES OF LAND PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND INTERSTATE 80. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Davidson: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and Members of the City Council. I'm Jeff Davidson, uh, Director of Planning and Community Development, and this is Jerry Nixon, helping to get the computer back up (laughter). We want to be on the Planning Zoning items. Uh, I'll just start the staff report, uh, Mr. Mayor, while we're getting things set up. Item b under Planning and Zoning items this, uh, evening is one of three items you have on your agenda related to the Moss Green Urban Village proposal. And item b is the growth area limit discussion, uh, prior to the annexation, I believe so, yeah...thanks. So, as I was saying, item b is the, uh, discussion of the growth area boundary, uh, related to the Moss Green, uh, proposal. Uh, and this precedes the annexation because it is a factor, and it is an important factor in your consideration of the annexation, and that's why we have it on the agenda, uh, first. The City's annexation policy, uh, includes three provisions that we review to determine if an annexation is favorable, uh, to the City, and one of those is the growth area limit boundary. Uh, the...the entire city includes a line drawn around it that is seen as the eventual approximately 2020 corporate limits, uh, of the city, and it is...it is based on the concept of sanitary sewer service by gravity flow. Um, sanitary sewer is a very, very expensive utility for the City to provide and the way that we can provide that utility, uh, most reasonably is by attempting as much as possible to limit, uh, that service to a gravity flow type system. We...we do have a series of lift stations, uh, that are approved by the City Council as matter of public policy, but in general, we try and limit, uh, as much as we possible, uh, as much as possible sanitary sewer service to, uh, the gravity flow type system, and so the...the line drawn around the city is the area according to the City's watersheds where we can provide that service. There are when we...when we formulated the growth area boundary in 1997, there were several areas of the City, including the one under consideration this evening, where, uh, things just weren't firm enough and finalized enough, uh, for us to with absolute certainty know where, uh, that growth area boundary should be. In this north area, we are in the area of the Rapid Creek watershed, and that is a...that is an area that is very extensive as you proceed north of the City limits, and that we are unable to provide gravity flow service to that entire watershed; however, there is a portion of the area where we had, in 1997, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 8 approximately 700 acres of sewer, sanitary sewer capacity with a series of lift stations that we could serve, uh, with the existing plants -the north plant and the south plant. But because we didn't know exactly how that 700 acres should be allocated, we sort of arbitrarily drew the line...along the Rapid Creek, uh, along Rapid Creek I should say, and so you can see here the existing...uh, line drawn along Rapid Creek, and then the proposed line, which takes in the annexation area that's under consideration in your... in your next item. What we're basically doing is what in 1997 we knew we would eventually be doing, and that is that based on now better information, we can make a recommendation to you about how a portion of that sanitary sewer capacity that is available in this area can be allocated. Um...what we are proposing, excuse me, I guess that's the annexation, um, is to include the annexation of the proposed, uh, Moss Green project and... and basically establish a new growth area limits line according to that, uh, annexation boundary, and this will involve using an existing lift station to sewer the area. There will be a future question for you in terms of serving additional portions of the Rapid Creek watershed, which will eventually become, uh, additional annexation issues, and basically how extensively to take in that watershed, and to possibly go to a new system that would not utilize the existing sewage treatment plants. Avery, very significant public policy issue, uh, that we aren't facing this evening, but that in the future we will bring to you, but we...we are confident that for the annexation area this evening, uh, we are recommending approval of the growth area boundary limit change, which will be a, uh, a...a qualification basically that we have for later the recommended annexation of this property. So, uh, are there any questions about the growth area boundary discussion before you, uh, continue your public hearing? Thank you. Hayek: Anyone else to wish...uh, wishing to address the Council during the public hearing? (bangs gavel) Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Champion: Move the resolution. Bailey: Second. Hayek: Moved by Champion, seconded by Bailey to adopt the resolution. Discussion? Roll call please. Item passes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 9 ITEM 7. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. c) FOR A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 132 ACRES OF LAND NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND INTERSTATE 80. (ANN09-00001) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Hayek: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Davidson: To continue our discussion then. Uh, what I'll do is just present the staff report for both the annexation and rezoning, uh, our policy of late has been to, when we consider an annexation we also do the zoning at the same time, just to accommodate the development process in a little bit more efficient manner. Um, so items c and d then are a request from the Moss Green Development Corporation for a voluntary annexation, and rezoning, uh, of a...an area north of Iowa City, uh, the purpose of the annexation and the rezoning is to facilitate construction of a portion of Oakdale Boulevard, which would provide vehicular access to a future development that is anticipated, but I do want to emphasize tonight that that future development project is not anything on your agenda this evening. Uh, you will see a diagram here, the...the shaded area, uh, shows the area that is proposed for, uh, annexation. Uh, there's the parcels, and you can see then the future extension of Oakdale Boulevard from...uh, an intersection here at Highway I, uh, through the area in order to provide access to a future, uh, commercial subdivision in this area, but the commercial subdivision is not anything under consideration this evening. You did have some correspondence from the developer, uh, it was basically correspondence to staff that was also, uh, copied to the City Council which we very deliberately put in the correspondence section of your, uh, agenda this evening because it does not pertain to the items on...on the agenda, uh, tonight. Uh, briefly then, uh, the...the area under consideration for annexation that you see here includes a parcel, uh, owned by the Moss family, in addition to this parcel, which is already in the city, and then an additional parcel that is not owned by the Moss Green Corporation, but is part of the voluntary annexation, uh, in order to extend Oakdale Boulevard and provide access, uh, to...to the area under consideration. Um, this is the area here where Pearson is located right now, and over the years there has been a lot of discussion about there possibly being access provided through Pearson to this property. There's currently an agricultural access that the Moss family uses for agricultural uses, uh, for their...their property to the west of Pearson; however, after a lot of discussion it has been determined that the way to appropriately provide access to the area, uh, under consideration here, uh, is to extend Oakdale Boulevard through the area from the intersection with Dodge Street. Uh, those of you on JCCOG may recall that there is an existing agreement between Coralville, Johnson County, and Iowa City for the extension of Oakdale Boulevard. This proposal is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 10 consistent with that agreement, which is a 28E agreement. Um, there is a total of 132 acres under consideration. As I mentioned, it is consistent with the JCCOG arterial street plan, uh, something that we'll get into, uh, with...with your discussion of this is that, uh, in order for this property to eventually be developed, uh, infrastructure needs to be extended to it, uh, specifically sanitary sewer service, municipal water, uh, and then street access. And we have emphasized to the, uh, developer that the City does not have any of those three items budgeted, and so we are moving forward, uh, this evening with consideration of the annexation and the rezoning to an interim, uh, interim development classification, which is what we use basically to manage the development process such that we feel there's, uh, a positive aspect to annexing this property, but it's not ready to be developed, uh, because the utility infrastructure and that access is not...is not present yet, and then...and so this is very consistent with that, uh, policy for moving forward. Uh, let's take up the annexation then real briefly first. Uh, the City's annexation policy is...is fairly straight forward. We have three things that we consider when we're considering a voluntary annexation. The first is does the area under consideration fall within the adopted long-range planning boundary, and of course that is the item we've just taken up, and you have amended that so that it is now consistent, uh, with that...with that policy. Um, item number two is, will development in the area proposed for annexation fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. Now the undue burden part comes into the extension of the utility infrastructure and the access. As we've mentioned, that's a very, very substantial, uh, financial commitment, uh, which the developer has indicated that they will take on, and we are in the process of working out the agreement of how, uh, the...the infrastructure and the access would be extended to this area. Uh, that having been said, we do believe it is in the City's best interest to, uh, annex this property. It is for a type of use that is called for in the Comprehensive Plan for this area, the office, uh, research park type use. The eventual development plan, we believe, uh, will include a mix of uses, and the applicant may wish to speak to that tonight, but it is basically consistent with the office research park type of development that you see on the other side of, uh, Dodge Street in the Northgate Corporate Park area. Northgate Corporate Park is not quite built out, but it's getting very close, and so we feel that the annexation and, uh, establishment of what is proposed, uh, for the future is consistent and a good idea. Uh, the third item then is control of the development is in the City's best interest. There was some discussion in your, uh, staff report, uh, that showed two alternatives for the Lewellyn Trust property here, uh, because we were still negotiating whether or not we were going to annex just the area to the south of Oakdale Boulevard, or the entire parcel, and we have been successful, uh, in getting them to agree to a voluntary action, uh, annexation of the entire parcel, which gives us some flexibility then with the design of Oakdale Boulevard. We're going to have to establish where Oakdale Boulevard is going to be, if it was only going to be the property to the south. That's been resolved, so just ignore that other diagram that's in your, uh, materials. Now, the reason that it was important for us to get this entire parcel brought in is that we believe it is definitely in the City's best interest along an arterial street to control both sides of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 11 it. Once that arterial street is built, it will create development pressure, and we want to make sure that that development occurs within the City. This intersection right here will be a very, very attractive intersection for developers. Again, we want to make sure that whatever development occurs there, occurs in the City and is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. So, to conclude with the annexation, we believe the three items -that the area falls within the adopted growth area boundary, uh, that it will fulfill an identified need, and that it...control of the area is in the City's best interest -that those have been met, and we do recommend approval of the annexation. With the rezoning then, uh, we are proposing, uh, the rezoning from the County Ag designation to, uh, in the City, let's see, I can't... oh, here, just for your information. Uh, kind of glossed over the Oakdale Boulevard stuff. This shows, here's Prairie du Chien Road, uh, excuse me, here's Prairie du Chien Road, and here is Highway 1, and so this is the area between Highway 1 and Prairie du Chien Road where Oakdale Boulevard would be extended, and of course we're just talking about the portion to the west boundary of the applicant's property, but we did...we did want to include this. This comes from the...the, uh, JCCOG Arterial Street Plan report for Oakdale Boulevard, and what is proposed, the developer's proposal is consistent with that plan, and we wanted to show you that, uh, of course eventually from the intersection with Prairie du Chien we will extend across the river, over to the intersection with Dubuque Street, which right now in this area, uh, Coralville and the County are working out a project to extend Oakdale Boulevard over to the intersection with Dubuque Street. So this shows the whole, uh, panoramic vision for that arterial street, uh, as these areas to the north, uh, redevelop. Um...in terms of the rezoning then, we...we have determined, after much deliberation, that the interim development classification is appropriate, because the infrastructure and the access are not currently in place, and because of that, even though we know that eventually there's going to be a proposal for some type of mixed use, uh, zoning, uh, with the office research park classification involved some how, uh, for the time being we are, uh, recommending that the interim development designation be used. The developer, once the pieces are in place and an agreement with the City, uh, has been developed and executed by all of you to, uh, have that infrastructure, uh, completed and the access completed by Oakdale Boulevard, at that point then the developer will request a rezoning to accommodate the development project that's anticipated. Um, the only caveat, oh, I also wanted to mention that there are environmentally sensitive areas, uh, here that will need to be dealt with, uh, when the specific site plan is...is considered, um, so there will be more to come on that, as well. So our recommendation then with the rezoning, uh, with the annexation and the rezoning, is...is for approval, subject to the, uh, growth area boundary, uh, item that you've already passed this evening. Uh, any questions? Dickens: Is Highway 1, since it's being upgraded right now, is that going to be affected if the annexation (both talking) Davidson: The intersection will be affected, and when we design that project we will evaluate at that time, Terry, whether or not to add turn lanes to the highway, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 12 possibly, as part of the project. I will say that...we have an access control agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation along that corridor, and this intersection location is consistent with that agreement. So Iowa DOT should be on board. Any other questions? Hayek: Thanks, Jeff. Anyone else wishing to address Council? Pelds: I will real quickly. Uh, Wally Pelds with Pelds Engineering Company and Eco-4 Partners. I represent, uh, Steve Moss and his family, and the development portion, um, we have been working with staff. We are pushing the timelines I know on the City, uh, 'cause we're excited, cause we have a lot of interest in our park, um, for the annexation part, we agree with the annexation and all the recommendations, as well as the zoning, because as individual corporations and companies come in, we would like to zone them properly so we don't zone it something wrong and then ask you to come back and go through it again, so it's been a pleasure to work with staff, um, we're getting through some hurdles, um, and we will, uh, continue to update you, and basically I'm here to answer any questions you might have of me, of the project. Other than that, we're happy that they're recommending approval, so... Champion: And I'm going to be very happy to approve it! Wilburn: I just, uh, throw out there if you're not familiar with our sensitive areas ordinance to, uh, start that process now. Pelds: Uh, we are...we're actually...if you really want to know, we're under way. I have, uh, the bridges being designed crossing Rapid Creek, uh, we have, uh, oh, our soil rig is coming out this week to drill for the piles so we can have all the studies done and give the documentation to the City for the infrastructure. Uh, we've been working with the City Engineering department about the sewer, uh, obviously we had a discussion, it was quite an interesting...I said, well, we can drain 26 square miles into it, I just don't know that you could service it, so um, which we found out that you can't, so...we are working on it! Hayek: Thanks for your comments. Anyone else wishing to address us at the public hearing? Then I will (bangs gavel) close the public hearing. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Bailey: Move the resolution. Mims: Second. Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Mims. Discussion? Roll call. Item passes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 13 ITEM 7. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. d) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 132 ACRES OF LAND FROM COUNTY AGRICULTURAL (C-AG) ZONE TO INTERIM DEVELOPMENT -RESEARCH PARK (ID-ORP) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND INTERSTATE 80. (REZ09-00006) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Hayek: This is a public hearing. Public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is close...oh... Dilkes: Ex parte. Hayek: Ex parte, okay, uh, why don't we ask for any ex parte communications any of you have had, uh, regarding the rezoning of this project, not necessarily the project, but the rezoning. (several responding) Okay, public hearing is closed. (bangs gavel) 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Bailey: Move first consideration. Mims: Second. Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Mims. Discussion? Bailey: Very exciting to move ahead on this, very exciting! So...I'm glad to support it. Hayek: Ditto! Roll call please. Item passes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 14 ITEM 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2010, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, THE PROPOSED THREE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FY2011 2013, AND ALSO THE MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2014. Hayek: This is a public hearing. (bangs gavel) Public hearing is open. Does anyone wish to address the Council on this item? Hearing none I will close (bangs gavel) the public hearing and let the public know that we will be taking up a resolution to adopt, uh, these proposed budgets and plans at our March 2nd meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 15 ITEM 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, ENTITLED "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "TAXICABS," TO PROHIBIT ELECTRONIC SIGNS ON TAXICABS AND TO CLARIFY VEHICLE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Hayek: This is second consideration, and staff has requested expedited action due to the March 1 licensing, uh, deadline. Wilburn: Move that the rule requiring that ordinances be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, that second consideration and vote be waived, and that the ordinance be voted for final passage at this time. Bailey: Second. Hayek: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Bailey to collapse. Discussion? (mumbled) if there are members of the public, I don't know if they wish to address the Council? (Bennett): Hi, um... Hayek: If you would please state your name and sign in. Bennett: My name is Teresa Bennett, and um (mumbled) five minutes (mumbled), um, I just...I just recently heard that we had a Council meeting regarding this issue, um, from Five Stars Taxi, and um, I heard we were voted down. I just feel like...as a city who is struggling with growth and, um, economy that we should maybe look at the options that are available to us, you know, I think this provides, um, an opportunity for our company and local companies to do advertising, and I know that it's been popular in other cities and I have some...pictorial documentation there if you'd like to see that. Um, and while it's true that it could be said of these lights that they are considered flashing lights, um, I know that the lights can be fixed so that they're solid in, um, and if it's a concern of color, I mean, we can change those colors so that they're in line with emergency and um, City vehicles of that nature, um, and I'm grateful that the City is concerned for our company that we would install and...that we would install stuff that, uh, equipment that we wouldn't be able to use, but I would like the City to, and the Council to at least, um, review those options and kind of give us a chance, and take the time to review some of the, um, information that maybe I have here, and uh, reconsider taking a look at that, because I mean, as a local company, we would like to grow our company and we would like to see, uh, and help local companies as well grow. So um, I know that there's a concern that it's a distraction, um, I think that we can work together and figure out a way and come to some kind of conclusion on how that would look for both parties, so that you know it's a safe way to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page I6 advertise and also benefit the City and our company, so, I'd just like to have (mumbled) review that again for us and give us an opportunity to look at the revenue for that, um, I do know that Chicago recently passed where they could, um, advertise, and they've been making pretty good money, um, for their city, and I think they split that money, the company and the city revenue, so it could be beneficial to everyone. So...thanks. Hayek: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Further discussion with Council? Bailey: Well, once again I'm going to support this. I think the issue is primarily with the State and not necessarily with our local ordinance, and if there was clarification on the State level I think then we could re-examine it on the local level and talking about a split for revenue, I'm sure we'd probably, once the State has addressed this issue, would be interested in entertaining that. Given these economic times. Hayek: Sir, please approach the podium. Gaber: Sorry. May I? Hayek: Yes! And state your name if you would. Gaber: Yasser Gaber, Five Star Taxi, uh, the only...the only reason we are here tonight to know what is the difference between Iowa City and any other big city, like New York or Chicago or California? If....if they approve it there, if they let it go there, why not in the small city like Iowa City? I mean, it's...it's more crowded, it's more traffic, it's more people everywhere else than Iowa City. What is the idea, or... or, I'm trying to find a way to look at the digital, when we say it's blinking or it's the color like...like goes with the maybe...excuse me, ambulance or cops, uh, but it's got nothing to do with this. So what's the really idea, I mean, I...I wish, that's the only thing I'm curious to know. If...if it will help all the companies or most of the companies, and it will not affect anybody. It will make the City more pride and more like, uh, so why not? And that's it. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you. Anybody else? Bailey: Once again, I'll reiterate that...Iowa, that's the difference. Um, this is about being in line with what seems to be at the State level, um, concerning a State code that prohibits flashing lights on vehicles, and it doesn't define that term, so in essence, passing this local ordinance helps local businesses not invest in something that will be later perhaps found illegal, um, according to State code. So once again, um, Senator Bolkcom, Representative Mascher, Representative Lensing, Senator Dvorsky, Representative Jacoby, these are the people you need to be talking to. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 17 Hayek: Yeah, and... and to put it another way, we've been informed by the County Attorney, which interprets State law that this would violate State law, and as the City is in the position of having to say whether a cab complies with all applicable laws and regulations, we can't, uh, we can't approve that when we have knowledge from the County Attorney's office which provides, uh, recommendations to us that...that it would violate State law. So it is a mat...the difference is that we believe this would violate State law. That's why we can't do it. So, and I'm sorry to report that to you. If you would like to address us, go ahead please. Moustafa: Hatem Moustafa, Five Star Taxi also. (unable to understand) like a flashlight, right? But if you look at the State code, like she considered (unable to understand) like a flashlight, but also I (unable to understand) but I (unable to understand) Champion: It was the County Attorney who determined that this was against State law, not the City Attorney. It was the County Attorney, the District Attorney. Moustafa: Uh-huh. Champion: Who interprets State law. Moustafa: I don't know, but... it's everywhere. I don't know what's wrong, but.. . Mims: I think we're a11...I think we're all frustrated with this, in that, I mean, I think we're at least...I think most people, we're at least willing to talk about it and look at it and consider it, but the problem is we've got a State issue that, you know, we're being told by the County Attorney that, who, as you say, interprets State law for us here, that this would be illegal, and so we're kind of caught in the middle of that opinion, regardless of what our interests might be in trying to work with you in pursuing it. Hayek: Eleanor? Dilkes: I.. . Hayek: Hold on a second. We're talking up here. Dilkes: I just want to make sure you're clear about what this ordinance does though. It takes care of the State law issue, but it also prohibits electronic signs and animated signs. As I understand it, that's a recommendation that comes from the Police department and the, um, equipment folks who do our inspections. So, if you simply want to leave this as a matter of State law, and if State law changes such that these signs are allowed, or that the opinion of the County Attorney changes, then you want to adopt only...the first paragraph of the amendment and not the second one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 18 Bailey: I'm comfortable with the ordinance as it is at this time. Dilkes: But I...I want to make that clear, because we're emphasizing the State law issue, and this ordinance does two things. Wright: We go above what the State is recommending, basically. Bailey: Or what the State, perhaps...yeah. Dilkes: Well, I...I think... Karr: There are two issues. Two issues, one dealing with the State interpretation. The other one then dealing with our interpretation of signage. Bailey: Right! I'm comfortable with it. Wright: So we're really talking about...all electronic signs, not just a flashing light being prohibited. Dilkes: I think the way to look at this is that if you pass this ordinance, if tomorrow the County Attorney says, it's not a flashing sign, I'm okay with it from a State law perspective, you will still have then a local ordinance that will not allow it. Wright: We're kind of talking out of both sides of our mouth. Dilkes: You're talking about two different things here. Wright: Yeah. Yeah, and that's precisely the reason I have not supported this before. I think it's totally restrictive in terms of the State law. Dickens: I have to agree with (both talking) Mims: I agree. I agree. I don't want to go beyond what the State law is doing at this point. Karr: Again, I just want to clarify there are two issues. One if the interpretation of the State code. The other one are other issues that have been addressed by staff. (several responding) Bailey: I remain comfortable with this ordinance, I mean, some apparently are not, even though...we've talked about this. Hayek: Okay. Any further discussion? There's a motion, it's been seconded to collapse. Further discussion? Roll call. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 19 Karr: So it's...4 to 3? (several talking) We can't collapse. Then we can give it second consideration. Bailey: Move second consideration. Wilburn: Second. Hayek: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Wilburn. Further discussion? Roll call please. Passes. Okay. Uh, we will...there will be a third consideration...at an upcoming meeting, and you'll have another chance to address us, and if you wish to present materials to us in advance of that, I encourage you to do so. Wright: That'd be a good idea! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 20 ITEM 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE OF UNPAID MOWING, CLEAN-UP OF PROPERTY, SNOW REMOVAL, SIDEWALK REPAIR, AND STOP BOX REPAIR CHARGES AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY TREASURER FOR COLLECTION IN THE SAME MANNER AS PROPERTY TAXES. Wright: Move adoption. Dickens: Second. Hayek: Moved by Wright, seconded by Dickens. Uh, discussion, and I think what we'll do is there are clearly people here this evening who wish to address us. If you would, uh, get in line or wait your turn, uh, and we can hear from you, and I just want to let the Council know we've got, uh, several dozen names on here, and what I would recommend is...is after we hear from individuals tonight, if anyone wishes to get a report from staff in response to their position, that we remove that item from tonight resolution, because staff is not prepared to answer the 80-plus items on the list, and so we would take those up at a subsequent meeting. So if you're from the public and you wish to address us regarding a proposed assessment, you can approach the podium. Yenter: Well, like I was saying earlier, this has to do with... Karr: Could you state your name please? Yenter: Oh, Keith Yenter, live here in Iowa City on Oakland Avenue. Um, what had happened is after the tornado there was a lot of nice, uh, or a lot of really good historic details that was on buildings that was destroyed and was being removed, and um, what was on its way to the Landfill when I was assisting with helping clean up the town, I brought some things home to rework it into my fence that I'm building, and it's just about complete now, and a garden shed and a few items like that, but unfortunately while you're doing this work and getting ready, um, one person in the home inspecting area consider that as just garbage or junk or whatever, even though they knew that there was changing quite often to...into something, and anyway, so it kind of got to be... got really carried away and now I've got a $2,400 assessment (mumbled) they're wanting to put on my taxes, which would be really almost impossible for me to cover right now because of our economic situation and me being self-employed, as a home restoration and remodeler, so it would put me in real dire straits. So all I'm asking is that maybe to talk with one person on the Council, or all of you at some point, to let you know exactly know what happened and then you guys could decide (mumbled) at least on my behalf. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 21 Champion: What was your address? Yenter: Uh, 734 Oakland Avenue. Hayek: Eleanor, you had mentioned, uh, a couple of properties, this may be one of them that you wanted to talk about. Dilkes: It is, and I'll just...I'll put these in the record. The two biggest ones on the assessment schedule, which are 734 Oakland, Mr. Yenter's property, and 829 Kirkwood Avenue, the Wang property, result from municipal infractions that we filed with the Court, um, and orders that we received from the Court authorizing the City to clean up the property and assess, uh, the cost of abatement to the property. Um...so those are actually result from court orders. Hayek: Okay, you can proceed. Yenter: Um, like with the court order though, I did comply with everything that I...I needed to do that was against rules, like you know, so much of that stuff that I was restoring did get took out of the site of, you know, to public. This area that they ended up cleaning up actually, um, half of... of this stuff cleaned up on my bill was not even on my property. The neighbor's fence was like...they must not have known where the property line was 20-some years ago. I've been here since 2000, in this particular property. They must have...20-some years ago they must not have known where the property line was, and so their fence...on Oakland Avenue, our lots go like this instead of, you know, uh, straight and square on all corners, and so they put their fence up as if it was going like this, see, so there's a big area that they thought was theirs, and then a big area that...on the other end of course that they didn't think was theirs, because this is the way the property line was, and so what they did, uh, on my bill, using my, you know, the people cleaning up then and consider me the problem is they also took out their fence. Those people were there. They knew that that was their fence and their situation, but they didn't say anything. Um, so their fence was removed on my dime so to speak, and uh, a lot of the stuff that they was hauling off wasn't even on my property. Um, and then, but the main thing is, is I had put up, uh, a cedar fence around the back part of my garage, and on the end that goes along the alley, and there was none of this area, this contained very clean good lumber and historic details of Iowa City, was um, totally out of the sight of public. I'm not, uh, exactly sure how the code reads, but I think it has...states that as long as what you are storing is out of the sight of all public, you know, in your neighborhood or whatever, going through an alley or wherever they might be viewing this area, as long as it's not in view, and that's exactly the way it was. Um, a lot of the stuff also tooken was, uh, things that were screwed in, like lumber racks, that was on the back of the garage, that they're not supposed to be able to attach...if it's fastened. Alls they can take is like what they consider debris or trash, and uh, one of the things was like a, uh, like with your gas grill and stuff, it's a cart that's allowed in Iowa City, um, it's...what it is is kind of like a big box that would be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 22 like your kitchen counter that you can put away when the weather's bad, but you can bring out in your outdoor kitchen during the summer time. Uh, and when the weather's nice. Um (mumbled) girlfriend had said to one of the home inspector people that that should be legal, it says right here in the paperwork you know that we had, our set of codes too, and he goes, it's only commercial that it's legal for. But I got out the codes and after that hectic day and read it and it is also for residential so...that was something else that was removed that shouldn't have been. Hayek: Sorry to interrupt. Did...did you make these points during the court case? Yenter: Uh, I tried to, uh, get, um, I had Lewis for the judge and it just didn't seem like she was picking up anything that I was talking about then. Hayek: Are the things you're telling us tonight things you told the judge? Yenter: Right, and um, she didn't even, uh, there was so much, you see what she declared that I had to do I did comply with. But um, once they I guess they removed that fence, I guess then of course it was in view, but it was...it was that cleanup people that the City uses for these kinds of things, is uh, to also the ones that removed that fence, and um, so of course then it was exposed. But that was that very day, while this was being done, and like I say, that was...I was paying for...to have that fence removed and hauled away, um, part of that bill is, um, $270 for Landfill costs. I went to the Landfill personally, talked to a really... really good lady there that really knew what she was talking about, uh, that's in the office there, and I asked her how much weight of lumber and what not that would have had to been to cost $270 and it was like quite a few tons, and there's just no way that even if it was just packed solid that it could have been that much weight. So, one thing I request too would be to have the tickets to show that that's how much weight they were bringing in that particular morning of April 15th, I believe it was, or May 15th. Cause it was...that's just an incredible amount of weight for $270. Hayek: Okay. Bailey: I have a question for Eleanor. Um, can you walk us through the process for a court ordered situation. I mean, what has to happen, what kind of warnings go out, what's the timeline? Dilkes: Well, I can't speak to the specifics of... Bailey: Right, I'm not asking (both talking) the general... Dilkes: Generally there's a notice of violation given... Bailey: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 23 Dilkes: ...before there's even a municipal infraction, which is just a citation with the Court that the code is being violated. Bailey: Uh-huh. Dilkes: Um, and uh, then there's a hearing if it's contested, um, and the Court issues an order. The Court has different relief available to it. There can be a fine, there can simply be an order that it be cleaned up. This was an order granting an application for additional relief, which makes me think that there hadn't been a cleanup as ordered by the Court, so the Court was allowing the City...the City to do it. I...I also want to note that the order for relief, which was filed on May 8th of 2009 gave Mr. Yenter until May 26th to do what it authorized the City to do if he didn't. So he had several weeks to do it himself. Yenter: And I did take care of the things that they had the problem with. This particular area that was only thing left was, uh, like I say, out of sight, and not even an issue. I was never even told to do anything with this particular area, but like I say that morning, the first thing they did was went into the neighbor's yard and started taking out their fence that went along the backside of my garage, as well, and this fence had always been there. My garage was built there in 2001, leaving this about six foot space, three feet of it being my property, um, to not get any sun, be a hard place to grow anything, to really use for anything, uh, but you know, you have that three-foot setback so I had to up that property line. Um... Hayek: I'm going to interrupt you here, sir, and I don't mean to shut you off, but...but this is a more unique situation on this list because it...it results from a court order after I assume a hearing and a... an opportunity to be heard. Yenter: Did take care of what they wanted me too at that time. Hayek: I think what we...you know, we don't have someone here from staff who can talk about the specifics of your property and what happened or didn't happen, um, and I think what this Council needs to decide is whether this particular item, we want to remove from the list and take up at the next meeting, and give staff an opportunity to tell us what happened. Yenter: Yeah, cause I do have video of what was going on, what things looked like and lots of pictures, just you know to kind of document things, so...they...that's all I ask of folks is that...look a little closer at this particular one, because that would be a real hardship to pay the taxes that are owed right now, plus...a $2,400 additional dollars put on it. I don't know when that tax would be put on, but I know that would really...it's really been kind of a struggle to get through month to month with this latest situation of our economy lately anyway, so... Hayek: Thank you, Mr. Yenter. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 24 Yenter: Okay. Thank you, and I'll just sign this book? Hayek: Yes, please! Wright: I'd like to take a closer look at this one. Hayek: Okay. Bailey: Do we want to do those all at once or do we want to do them case-by...I mean...do we want to just have a motion to remove when we...how do you want to do this? Hayek: Want to, uh, why don't you just create a pending list and we'll...we'll get through this and see how many we want to remove. So...so we're going to decide after a few more folks come up and talk to us what we want to do about your property. Thank you, sir. You can go next, ma'am. Sullivan: I apologize for my voice! My name is Sara Sullivan and I live at 1555 Tracy Lane. And um, can I just stick this sticker in (mumbled) um, and I'm here because of a notice that we got in August of 2009, and the violation just states, um, that tall grass and weeds along...our house backs up to Sycamore, where, uh, the cul-de-sac of Tracy Lane, and um, it just says mow tall grass and weeds along Sycamore, and there's a strip of land and then a sidewalk, and it was grandfathered in so it's not like six feet away or anything, just a small strip, and then our backyard, our back land. And uh, when we got this notice, what we did was we took care of the, um, I have a picture too if you'd like to see that, but um, we took care of the, not only the strip that backed directly up to Sycamore, we also took care of our embankment, as well. We cut like two to three inches out of our ground cover, and um, it is a hill and it does erode if there is not ground cover there. Um, and so when we got this notice we called, and my husband talked to, um, Jann...Jann Ream, and came out and looked at our property, and she said it was obvious that it had been mowed along Sycamore, and it was obvious that it had been taken care of along the sidewalk, but what they were talking about was something completely different. So what happened was after they came by and they saw that only a certain part of it had been mowed, they sent Mall Service along and killed all of the ground cover on our back hill, which when it rains causes a huge problem and causes a huge mess on that back sidewalk, that we then again have to clean up. So when she came out and she talked to my husband, she...sorry, I need to refer to the notes. Um, it was apparent where the weeds had been cut down that were growing through the ground cover. So she told us right there that she knew that we had taken care of what we assumed from mow tall grass and weeds along Sycamore. She also went on to state that the directions were a little vague. So what she decided to do was waive the administration fee, and then cut in half whatever Mall Service decided to charge, which I think is $87.50. Now, my situation is not the same as the $2,400 bill; however, $87.50 is still $87.50 out of my family's pocket that I do not feel that we should have to pay This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 25 as she admitted that it was vague. When my husband said, what of these is the problem, she said that there was one place where thistles were growing up on the hill. Now, we've lived at our property for five years. We've had this same kind of ground cover for five years, and this is the first time anybody's ever told us that one thistle plant was the reason that we needed to cut down our ground cover. So after she told us that we did, again, take care of it, but still got presented with an $87.50 bill. So what I'm asking is, um, and she also talked about how we needed to put a retaining wall up to...to take care of the erosion. Well, first we have to take care of the fact that $87.50 bill, then she's asking us to build a wall there so it doesn't erode, then Mall Service comes down and cuts down the things that we do have to try and prevent a bigger problem than just weeds. So I'm kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, um, it is our fault that we got the notice to take care of it in the first place; however, um, I really...I would like you to consider taking a look at this picture and um, this spot where she said the thistle was growing, and the notes, so that we, um, can be exempt from paying this $87.50. Hayek: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Sullivan? (several talking) Sullivan: (away from mic) passing the picture around, I think it's pretty obvious what I'm talking about, the way I described it, where the sidewalk lies and then the three inches above and then the, um, the line between Sycamore and the back. Bailey: What is the ground cover that you have growing? Sullivan: Oh, she...she called it...she called it, um...we just call it ground cover, but she called it... crown vetch is what she called it. Bailey: Oh, okay. Sullivan: I'm not good at horticulture, but for what it's worth, my brother-in-law is and we had him come look at it too to make sure that it wasn't weeds. I know how some people can get confused with weeds, because half the time I (both talking) Bailey: That's why I asked, yeah. Sullivan: ...yeah, so I did double check. I also have any of the, um the notes and the citation, if you'd like to see those as well. Hayek: Okay. Any other questions for Ms. Sullivan? Champion: Well, my question is, um, the people that the City used to take care of this, they actually killed the plants? Sullivan: Yes. They killed our whole back, well, the Mall Service did. The...all the ground cover that you see in that picture was gone. And it cut off on our property This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 26 line, which the same...this is the other thing, the same ground cover covers that part of our neighbor's yard, and that wasn't killed! Champion: And this is on a slope? Sullivan: It is on a slope. There are a lot of things wrong with our house, but... Champion: There are a lot of things wrong with my house too. Sullivan: I can honestly say it just takes one thing at a time -we're working on it! Hayek: Okay. Thank you. Sullivan: I appreciate your time. Hayek: Anyone else wish to address the Council on the proposed assessments? Okay. Well, we've heard from two individuals. Wright: Can we remove both of those for some further investigation? Bailey: I would like some further information about both. That would be great. Mims: I agree. Champion: And I would like to know if the current policy is to kill whatever's on a slope. I mean, that seems amazing to me. Hayek: Okay, so what we need, uh... Karr: Motion by Wright and a second by... Bailey: I seconded. Karr: ...by Bailey. Bailey: Yes. Karr: ...to remove both properties. Bailey: Yes. Hayek: And to take them up on March 2nd. Would that be correct? Okay. Further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries unanimously. We'll take the Sullivan issue and the Yenter issue up on March 2nd, and uh, staff will be here and provide us with their side of the story, as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 27 Karr: Could I have a motion to accept the court orders and the picture? Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence. Wright: Second. Hayek: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright to accept correspondence. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries. Okay. Now (person speaking away from mic) you're going to have to approach the podium, ma'am, if you'd like to talk to us. Rochart: My name's Helen Rochart and uh, for... for both of them, um, if they do have more information that they can present to you before this, the meeting on the 2nd... Champion: That would be helpful. Rochart: Okay. Great. Hayek: And you can direct that to the City Clerk's office. Rochart: To the City Clerk's, okay. Karr: And if we can have it before Thursday morning, cause it'll go out in the packet the following week so...the Thursday. Hayek: Meaning the Thursday before...before Thursday before March 2nd. Karr: It'd be the 20... if we can have it before the packet printing. Rochart: All right. That'd be great. Thank you. Hayek: Thank you. Sullivan: Sorry, that's the only photograph I have, so if I might be able to take it and make a coy and I'll send you a packet. Karr: Um, I can make a copy cause we've accepted it into the record already, so I can make a copy for you this evening, or it will be in the record. Sullivan: Okay. Cool. Karr: Okay. Sullivan: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 28 Hayek: Thank you. Okay, so, uh, as to the balance of it, we have a motion that's been seconded to adopt assessments for the remaining items on the list. Further discussion on that? Roll call please. Item carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 29 ITEM 21. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Hayek: Okay, going to City Council information. Why don't we start... Susan with you. Mims: Uh, be going to Des Moines tomorrow to, in Matt's place basically, to I guess put my John Hancock on the, uh, Six Greatest Places document with the Governor, so I'll be representing the City and the Council over there. Hayek: Thank you! Connie? Mr. Wright? Wright: Just a reminder for the Book Sale for Shelter House on February 27th at Hope United Methodist Church. It's for a good cause, and you can get some good reading! Hayek: Thank you. Wilburn: Nothing. Hayek: Ms. Bailey? Bailey: Um, I just want to mention some things that have happened with the City of Literature that you mentioned in the State of the City address, and that might be of interest to as you go to the Great Places signing. As you call know we've hired an Executive Director, Janet Pilak. She comes to us from California and actually visited Iowa in the winter and was willing, she's a Midwesterner, so she's willing to come back. She should be on board April 1st and she has a vast amount of experience. I think she'll be a good first leader for this organization. Additionally, there's a... additional, uh, summer festival, the book festival that the University of Iowa started last year and will expand this year, the weekend of July 16th, so put that on your calendars. The book festival involves a book sales, author readings, they're moving it also on Saturday, um, into the downtown area, and involving some local businesses, so I think that there is some wonderful opportunities for expansion of this festival and a focus on the City of Literature, um, we're eager to have potentially the First Lady come and visit our City of Literature, and hope that she would, um, come at the book festival time. And there's another thing in the works the day of the book on April 23rd, this is an interesting, um, tradition, I guess, in Spain because it's St. Georges Day that I think we're considering adopting for UNESCO City of Literature. Apparently, um, women get roses, men get books, um, on St. Georges Day in Spain, and we were thinking of doing something for Day of the Book here, where everybody gets books, which I think is probably a nice thing. So look for some information about that, um, I'm really excited to see the City of Literature moving forward and I think that as, um, the Mayor indicated in the State of the City address, the...the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 30 potential for economic development through this designation is amazing, and I'm glad to see that we're coming together, um, to move it forward. Hayek: Thanks. Wilburn: ...I do have something, Mr. Mayor, uh, just wanted to once again thank Trinity Episcopal Church for their, uh, commitment, recommitment, to staying in downtown Iowa City, um, they also with the redesign of their building have, uh, believe they have, uh, achieved LEED certification. Might be the first church in the.. . Bailey: I'm not sure. Wilburn: ...possibly the first church in the state, um, Connie came to the ceremony, uh, I wasn't sure I was going to make it, but got snowed in to Iowa City apparently, but uh, just (mumbled) some of the, um, when they raised the building, um, some of the supports, uh, the foundation were wood that they estimate by looking at the rings was, um, probably trees, um, about the time of the American Revolution, maybe a little bit before, and they made some mementos of the, for the church after that and gave those out, so, but, uh, thank them for their, uh, recommitment to, uh, the city and to an environmentally friendly building. Hayek: Thanks, Ross. Champion: Gotten a lot of use out of that small (several talking) Dickens: I've got a bunch for once! Hayek: All right! Dickens: First I'd like to commend the, uh, University of Iowa Obermann Center Graduate, uh, I attended their public poster session on Friday. They had some really great ideas, uh, how they could benefit the city, the schools, and the environment, and it was well worth taking the time to go visit with all of them. Uh, remind everybody to vote for the, uh, Iowa Children's Museum in the Refresh Pepsi project. They're up fora $250,000 grant from Pepsi by...by your votes. You can vote now through the end of the month. And thank Matt for a wonderful State of the City, uh, address, and to thank staff for putting up with all my questions. Hayek: Wonderful, uh, just to let the Council know I met today with the Provost and others relating to the partnership for alcohol safety at the University, uh, we enacted part of that organization going forward, um, I think they want to get some things accomplished. I'll keep you apprised of developments that we're having in that regard. And then, uh, Thursday night, uh, I'm going to be addressing the Chamber, um, repeating some of the things that were said tonight, uh, with some additional comments for the benefit of that audience. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010. Page 31 Champion: I hope you make it a little humorous. (laughter) Hayek: I'll try! I may have to bring you along. Champion: I'm going to be there! Hayek: Are you? All right! I may call out for a court jester. Dickens: Heckling section! Hayek: Yeah (several talking and laughing). Okay! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the regular formal Iowa City City Council meeting of February 16, 2010.