Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-01 TranscriptionJune 1, 20]0 City Council Special Work Session Page 1 Council Present: Bailey, Champion, Dickens, Hayek, Mims, Wilburn (arrived at 5:50 P.M.), Wright Staff Present: Helling, Dilkes, Davidson, Fosse, Karr, Howard, Hightshoe, Brotherton, Hargadine, Rackis, Ford, O'Malley Others Present: Higgins, UISG Planning and Zoning Items: Hayek/ Okay, the first bullet point is P&Z items, um, and I was talking to Jeff Davidson. I think what we're going to do, because we need to talk about the Moss Green (noise on mic) briefly during the work session is cover those points, hit the rest of the work session agenda, and if time permits, go back to the remaining Planning and Zoning items, and if time does not permit, we'll take those up during the formal. Jeffrey. ITEM 4. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. f) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 60.32 ACRES OF LAND FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT-RESEARCH PARK (ID-RP), TO OVERLAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE RESEARCH PARK (OPD-ORP); AND APPROXIMATELY 56.48 ACRES OF LAND FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT-RESEARCH PARK (ID-RP) TO OVERLAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PARK (OPD-RDP); AND APPROXIMATELY 24.49 ACRES OF LAND FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT-RESEARCH PARK (ID-RP) TO OVERLAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE (OPD-MU) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERCHANGE OF STATE HIGHWAY 1 WITH INTERSTATE 80. (REZ10-00004) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) g) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MOSS GREEN URBAN VILLAGE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB10-00005) ITEM 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED AND COLLECTED EACH YEAR ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE MOSS GREEN URBAN VILLAGE URBAN RENEWAL AREA, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, STATE OF IOWA, BY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF IOWA, CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, BE PAID TO A SPECIAL FUND FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON LOANS, REBATES, GRANTS, MONIES ADVANCED TO AND INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING BONDS This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 2 ISSUED OR TO BE ISSUED, INCURRED BY SAID CITY IN CONNECTION WITH SAID URBAN RENEWAL REDEVELOPMNENT PROJECT. (PASS AND ADOPT ITEM 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN MOSS GREEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOSS GREEN URBAN VILLAGE Davidson/ Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I will apologize in advance if we're a bit, uh, not our usual organized selves. I've been with the, uh, Fire Department command staff all day, and uh, there have been a couple things come up, uh, in regards to the Moss Green Development Project that we want to highlight for you, uh, first off. On your agenda this evening are four items pertaining to the Moss Green, uh, Urban Village Development project. Under Planning and Zoning items, Item f is second consideration of the zoning. Item g then was the preliminary plat, and you would take that under consideration only if you, as the developer has requested, give expedited consideration to the zoning and approve both the second and third readings, then you would take the plat under consideration. Uh, item 12 is the final reading of the TIF ordinance. This is the ordinance that would allow, uh, TIF to be used as a strategy for the project, and then Item 13 is the development agreement. This is really the final task and a very, um, a very important one in terms of how a TIF agreement would be structured, uh, between the City and the developer. Now what has happened today is we have received information about additional wetlands that have been identified on the property, and some of these are in the area where construction would occur. You will occur that there had been one wetland identified that was in one of the outlots that was not proposed for rezoning or construction, and so we were, uh, indicating to you that Corps of Engineer approval would ultimately be required, but that since that identified wetland was out of the way, we weren't too concerned about it, and we were recommending that you take action, contingent on anything that the Corps of Engineers would, um, would determine. Uh, what we've got is a memorandum that, Karen, did you give them a copy? Okay, so you've received that, and I'm going to ask Karen, since she's been, uh, corresponding on this today to just kind of walk you through where we're at right now, uh, and then when Karen's finished, uh, either she or I will indicate to you then what can and can't be taken under consideration tonight, and/or discussed, and (mumbled) clarify anything that we (mumbled). So, Karen. (laughter) Howard/ Uh, what we had told the developers initially because they were not able to get out there to delineate the wetlands, you know, when the snow was on the ground and there was kind of a late spring and what we had told them is that we'd allow them to continue with their delineation and we...we would accept their plans to go forward, as long as when that final delineation report came in, um, that agreed with what they had on their plan. Unfortunately, um, there have been some additional wetlands identified and...and uh, um...they are on the property that's being rezoned. So, we...suggest that you defer and not... either defer or um, uh, at least not expedite your consideration of the rezoning, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 3 until the Corps of Engineers has determined whether those juris...whether those wetlands are jurisdictional. If they are jurisdictional wetlands, I mean, they're fairly small, um, piece of wetlands. If they determine they are jurisdictional, that will kick in the City's sensitive areas development, um, uh, ordinance and we also regulate the wetlands, as well, which just means that they'll have to identify those on their development plan and um, have to either mitigate for them or change their plans slightly to...to work around them. So that's...that's what's happened right now and so we're suggesting that you either defer, or only take the second vote on the rezoning. Uh, and then defer the preliminary plat and the development agreement, and I think...if I'm...am I correct, Eleanor, in saying that they could go ahead with the TIF ordinance? Dilkes/ Correct. Howard/ Any questions? Champion/ So, Karen, uh, (mumbled) second reading on f, well maybe Jeff's going to discuss this. Davidson/ Yeah, basically what you can take care of tonight if you want to keep things moving is you could take second consideration of the zoning, which is Item 4.£, I believe. Hayek/ Correct. Davidson/ And Item 12, the TIF ordinance, you could get that off your agenda, uh, if you'd like, but Item 4.g. and Item 13, uh, I mean, 4.g. we probably wouldn't suggest that you even discuss that tonight. Eleanor, would you say the preliminary plat. Dilkes/ Well, they can but... Davidson/ You could, okay, you could discuss the preliminary plat, and the development agreement. I mean, the development agreement has been discussed by the Economic Development Committee, uh, Susan and Matt and Regenia, and...and it's kind of a meaty thing. It's got a number of things, and if you'd like to have some discussion of that and maybe get some questions answered, or maybe get some things out of the way, again, that's your choice. You can leave it all for the, hopefully the 15`h, if the wetland issue gets taken care o£ So that's...that's up to you completely, however you'd like to do that. Dilkes/ What I would suggest makes sense is that you...that you have a discussion of the development agreement, if you want to now, or you can let that wait and everything else should just wait until the 15`". I mean, the TIF ordinance you can pass, but in terms of the rezoning and the preliminary plat, you might as well just... Davidson/ And of course we wouldn't discuss the zoning at this meeting anyway. We'd do that during the formal meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 4 Champion/ But if we did only the second reading, that would, um, facilitate the next meeting that we wouldn't have to worry about expediting. Dilkes/ Yes, you can do the second reading. (several agreeing) Hayek/ ...talk about the merits of that now or would you prefer we wait? Dilkes/ I think you should wait till the...the merits of the rezoning until the...formal. Davidson/ So I guess, Mr. Mayor, the question is...is it the pleasure of Council to discuss the development agreement now, and/or we can wait till the formal meeting, if you prefer to do it on camera. Hayek/ What is the pleasure of the Council? Champion/ I don't care. Wright/ Six of one, half dozen of the other. Bailey/ Uh-huh. Mims/ Yeah, I guess I would just say, I think it's worth discussing tonight since it is, there's so much there and that way if there's major questions that people have, we can make sure those are answered, and they have more time to think about `em before we actually vote on it. But I don't care whether it's now or formal. Hayek/ That'd be fine. All right. Why don't we discuss, uh, the development agreement tonight. Davidson/ Okay. Let's, uh, let's do that right now. That was the next item, uh, we were going to hold the remainder of P&Z items to the end of your meeting or else the formal meeting. Um, if I can make a few remarks at the beginning here then to, uh, get the discussion going. Um, as I mentioned, the development agreement is perhaps the meatiest part of, uh, it certainly is the meatiest part of the arrangement between the City and the developer to use TIF funds to make this project happen, and I think in terms of your consideration, that sort of large, global thing needs to be what we keep before us. We are trying to make this development project occur, and in order to do that, we believe it would be necessary to use some of the new property tax increment, which is generated from development that we hope will be created on this site, and that's an important consideration. We are not talking about using any existing tax funds to jumpstart this project. We are talking about using funds that will be created from the development that occurs, after the infrastructure expense is incurred, and we get things ready to allow development. So, that's what we need to keep in front of us when we're considering this. We're trying to make something happen. Now, the question that we have to ask ourselves with any TIF project is would it happen without the use of TIF? That's always the question that we have to ask ourselves, and the Economic Development Committee has already asked themselves that question. Um, as staff, in our long discussions that we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June I, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 5 have had with the developer, we do not believe that the developer will be able to go to the what we estimate now at $13.7 million of expense to extend the street infrastructure, the sanitary sewer infrastructure, the municipal water infrastructure, the storm sewer infrastructure, that we do not believe the developer can incur that expense without the promise of TIF funds to reimburse them, and 1 would like to clarify that. The...one of the media outlots did report that a tax break was being given to the developer. That is not technically correct. Uh, in fact, item, uh, called out in your memo that you received from me, uh, let's see, it's item 4, the developer is required to certify annually that all property taxes have been paid on the property. Okay? All property taxes -that would be the existing approximately $4,000 is essentially what the property taxes are currently, as well as the new property taxes from, uh, development that we hope will occur. Um, let's just quickly step through the...the salient points of the proposed development agreement. Uh, the developer may not seek tax exempt status or locate a tax exempt business, uh, there would be no motivation to do so anyway since we're hoping to generate property taxes. Uh, the developer is required to construct the minimum improvements in accordance with City standards. We are going to try some new and innovative things with this, uh, in the name of environmental sensitivity, but Rick and his department will approve, uh, all of the plans and specifications for the improvements that will be municipal improvements down the line, accepted by the City, uh, and owned...and owned by us, as well as the...the private improvements that occur on the private property. Uh, and...and you can see there's a whole litany of things -streets, street lighting, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, uh, trunk line extensions for the storm sewer, lift stations, uh, forced main extension, water mains, um...everything that's basically required to have development occur on the property. Um, something that, uh, Item 3 is a provision that we negotiated with the developer, uh, we had originally had that the developer was required to construct all the improvements within ten years, and you know, we...we don't know exactly how fast this is going to proceed, and certainly there have been commercial and industrial developments that have taken substantially longer than ten years to...to build out. Uh, what we negotiated was that after ten years, the City will have the option to terminate the agreement, and that would be a determination made at that time based on, um, how much effort we felt the developer was putting into it, uh, if they were dragging their feet, if they were moving ahead in a manner that we felt was satisfactory, or...we will not be able to...to terminate the agreement, if the developer puts up an escrow of 110% plus gives us the property that we need to construct the improvements ourselves. In that case then we are not able to terminate the agreement after ten years. Um, the amount of tax generation, uh, tax increment generated will be certified annually. That's the provision I...I highlighted previously for you. And the developer will provide proof that all property taxes have been paid. It's a...it's a refund of property taxes, not an abatement. The City then will agree to make up to 20 annual grants to the developer, commencing in 2014 and ending in 2033, not to exceed $13.7 million. This is the estimated expense of all the infrastructure improvements that are needed, um, that...that, by the way, we have agreed to. Rick and Ron have reviewed all the public works infrastructure improvements and we have, together, landed on the $13.7 million, and there were by the way some things that we took out, that were initially in there. The geothermal system was determined not to be an appropriate use in terms of being a municipal improvement later, that that's more of a development expense for the...the association that will, uh, be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 6 present here. We also...they had an elaborate street lighting system that we essentially said, you know, we may down the...down the road decide we want to do that, but not initially. That won't be part of the, uh, improvements that are made. The annual grant then that the City will make out of the new tax increment will be 50% of the new taxes generated from the property. The other 50% remain with the City of Iowa City, which we will use to incent businesses that we are trying to get to come here. Um, that will be while the TIF district, the TIF project, is in effect. 100% of that remaining 50% will accrue to the City of Iowa City. 50% go to the developer. Um, Item 7 then is a really important consideration for... for you to make sure we understand thoroughly. What the developer will be paid...according to what's proposed is 20 years of 50% of the tax increment collected, or the actual cost of the minimum improvements, and they'll file an annual report of what those costs are, or the $13.7 million figure. They will receive the lesser of those three things. Certainly also important is Item 8 that grants will be payable only from the Moss Green TIF account. So only from the new property taxes generated from the new development that occurs. The City is not on the hook. The developer is on the hook.. If development doesn't happen and there's not enough money to repay under those provisions that I just gave you, the developer's on the hook -not the City -from any other source of City funds. There are no other City obligations. Now, the final thing I'd like to highlight before you start your discussion is the notion of the 20 year TIF. We have had a 20 year TIF before -the Plaza Towers TIF - uh, it was a very substantial project, and a project we'd never done before, and it came off, I always get (mumbled) Dale, was it eight or 12 years early it came off. I think it came (several talking) Helling/ Yeah, it was... yeah, I... (both talking) Davidson/ So...so that project was so successful in the amount of property taxes that it generated that it's essentially paid off the TIF obligations in eight years rather than 20. Starting in year nine then, the three taxing entities -City, County, and School District -will receive, basically they're going to be splitting up a million dollars annually from that project, almost a million dollars annually from that project. The same type of thing will occur here. Hopefully...according to the developer's projection, the TIF will be paid off in 14 years. But this agreement allows it to take 20 years. Now, the reason we feel, as staff, that a 20 year TIF is agreeable to you, and it was a two to one vote with Susan and Matt voting in the affirm...voting in the affirmative. Regenia in the negative, and they may...may wish to explain that, but my staff is comfortable recommending a 20 year TIF, or because of the following things. One is the scope of the improvements. This is a very large project. $13.7 million. And with the state of the economy, we don't know for sure how quickly this is going to...going to build....build out. The fact that it's just 50% of the increment that we're using, and not 100%, again, we feel that that justifies a little bit longer term and that the 20 years is reasonable. That the majority of the improvements that are being made are public improvements that are eventually going to be the City's, not the developer's. So... so in fact they benefit the City in terms of creating a development project that will allow what will eventually be, according to the projections, I believe it's $9.9 million annually in property taxes...at full build-out. At that year 14, that...that, according to the developer's projections the TIF would come off; $6.6 million annually...in property taxes, according to that projection. Right now it's This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. Lune ], 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 7 $4,000 annually. So that's what we're trying to do, is create the jobs, create the property tax base through the use of this TIF increment. (mumbled) Okay? Any questions for me before you start your discussion? Champion/ Could you explain the (mumbled) Hayek/ A question for you...it may or may not be related to Moss itself, but the...the 50% of the increment that the City keeps and uses to incent new business, if...whatever agreements we would reach by way of incentives, would only, I mean, they would only dip into that pot for that. So the (both talking) Davidson/ Yeah, that'll be...those'll be sub...now your ordinance allows us to develop subsequent TIF agreements with other companies that we're trying to get here that would be approved by all of you on a case-by-case basis. Hayek/ But they would be contingent upon those dollars getting into that account? Davidson/ Absolutely! Hayek/ (mumbled) being there. Thanks, Jeff. Well, maybe we should, uh, as...well...we're going to get into discussion we're just not going to take action so...would it help the balance of the Council to hear from the ED Committee on what we talked about? Wright/ I'd find it useful, yeah. I...I just, specifically I'm curious about Regenia's rationale. Bailey/ And I'd like to speak to that, and um, because I didn't do a very good job of articulating my concerns in the Economic Development Committee meeting, so I apologize to my colleagues, and I apologize to staff for that. So, when I looked at the financial projections I certainly understand the comfort that staff has with the 20 years, um, the scope and um, the state of the economy, but looking at the projections, which are fairly conservative, and as Jeff said, it looks like with conservative projections that they would hit this mark about 13 and a half years, 14 years, um, I was suggesting a 16 year TIF which gives them the buffer (mumbled) with the difficult economy, um...I think that, I believe that we generally in Iowa City sought the shortest possible agreements that can obtain our objectives and this, I think, would...would be in line with what we've done in the past. And I don't really see a downside for the City, or the developer, shortening it. Um, the upside would be that it's more consistent, it sets a precedent of more consistently being a shorter TIF, um, additionally it provides us some projection or some opportunity to look down the road for what increments may be available for incenting other businesses that come to the area. So I'm interested in scaling this back if others are, um, to shorten the length of the TIF. I certainly understand why, um, 20 years might be considered. I think that it could be done with a shorter TIF, and wouldn't disadvantage the...the developer, the development, or the City by doing so. So, that...that's why I initially voted against it. I...didn't have the time to study, or I hadn't seen the projections, and usually I respond to numbers better than words, so that was helpful for me to see that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 8 Mims/ And my thought on it was, and we asked staff this, if there was any...any real negatives to the City in terms of going with the 20 years, and their response really was not, and in fact my understanding is the developer had originally come in suggesting a 10 year TIF with them getting 100% of the TIF money, and staff had actually said, you know, but we might need some TIF money for incentives for businesses that want to locate in your development, and so you know they worked that out and came back...came up with the 20 and...the 20 years and the 50%, and I guess my concern about going shorter than the 20, since the law does allow it, is you know as...the things that Jeff said, I mean, the scope of this project, um, you know the 50%, I'm not really worried about...about Moss Green. I mean, I think with their conservative projections I don't think they're going to have any problem getting their money back for the improvements they're doing, but you know having that whole TIF agreement as...as the 20 years so we've got that money in terms of incentivizing other businesses, um, rather than doing a shorter period, depending on how long it takes that to build out. Bailey/ But we can incentivize...maybe I'm...we can incentivize other businesses with other development agreements from...I mean, that's possible because it is a TIF district. So I don't think that would get in our way. The...what I would suggest that we would look at if we do a 20 year TIF that we are anticipating the availability of funds, I mean, conservatively we should anticipate the availability of the full funds for incentives, um, at 20, even though our projections show potentially they're available at 14. That would be the most conservative estimate for our ability to incent other businesses out there. If we're in...if we are in a contract with Moss Green for 20. That's how I would kind of...tuck it back...in the back of my head. Mims/ Okay, Eleanor, walk me back through this, because I thought I understood it before we started the meeting. Now I'm confused again. Okay.? We've got...we've got the TIF ordinance and we've got Item 13, which is the agreement which we're not talking about, okay. So on the TIF ordinance, that is how long that applies to that whole property, right? And that affects how long we can be collecting both of those 50% pots, one 50% to reimburse Moss Green, the other 50% to incent...to use to incent businesses that might come into that area. Is that correct? Dilkes/ I think the easiest way to look at this is to look at the development agreement as, it doesn't say anything about...the other 50%, and it doesn't say anything about the Moss Green 50%, after you finish paying Moss Green. And, I...I think that's what Regenia's talking about in terms of if it's...if it's a lesser period, you...there may be additional money in terms of... inventing other businesses. Bailey/ Or, on... in our heads we would know that we would have that available, or in the back of... Dilkes/ So instead of looking at it, the agreement...in fact there's a provision in the agreement that says except for the obligations we make to Moss Green hereunder, which is to pay This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 9 them as Jeff has described. This agreement doesn't say anything about the other 50%, or the 50% when you're done paying Moss Green. Mims/ Okay. Dilkes/ Do... Mims/ That makes sense, but let me...still make sure I understand this. We're talking about Item 12, which is the TIF ordinance, correct? Bailey/ No. Dilkes/ No, we're talking about the development agreement, which is Item (several talking) Bailey/ Which we talked about in Economic Development. Mims/ Okay, okay, that's where I'm getting myself confused, all right. Dilkes/ The TIF...because by law with an economic development area, it can only be 20...20 years maximum. And so basically what it...what, all a TIF ordinance does is say you will capture the money for the maximum amount of time and you can use that money to pay whatever obligations you create, in accordance with the law. But, but that's all the TIF ordinance says. Mims/ Okay. Dilkes/ It's the development agreement that sets your obligations to Moss Green for the use of that money. Hayek/ So how...how does shortening it generate or free up more money? Bailey/ In my mind, we're dancing with Moss Green for 20 years versus 16. That's all, in my...in my mind. We're encumbering, potentially encumbering. That's the only way I'm thinking of it. It...it's a framework. Um, it doesn't in my persp...from my perspective, it doesn't...put...it doesn't put the infrastructure project at risk if their projections are suitably conservative. If for whatever reason something would happen, we have extended agreements with developers. That would be a possibility. I'm just simply suggesting that based upon our track record, with the exception of Plaza Towers, which wasn't on Council for, um, of having the shortest possible development agreements to obtain our objectives. And I...personally think that that's a good standard for the City, and I think with it we've all stood up and been proud of what we've done with TIFs. It doesn't suggest that this is a bad agreement. I mean, I'm not suggesting that at all. Hayek/ Yeah, I know, you've been supportive of it all along. It... it, does it change things, um, to have a situation in which, uh, we are getting a public asset in the form of infrastructure? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 10 Um, and essentially agreeing in advance to reimburse the applicant for the expense of that public infrastructure, depending on certain trigger points and over a period of time? Because if that's the case then essentially we are extending the time that the City has to pay back those expenses. And all things equal, you want as much time as possible to pay back those expenses. Am I conceptualizing that...(several talking) Bailey/ ...look at it that way. You can also look at...incenting Moss Green to bring in developers, or development, at a faster rate to make sure that they are paid off quickly, um, because the advantage of working with a developer is if they're going to, um, they're going to bring the people in. If the City, for example, was building the infrastructure, we don't act as our own developer, as other cities and...and some communities do. We rely upon some of our relationships with other economic development organizations, but I believe that Moss Green is the best suited to bring in, and bring in quickly, and we should motivate them to bring in quickly, development that will raise the tax base out there, um, as quickly as projected. Mims/ Yeah. Can you... in preparation for Economic Development I read the agreement, but it doesn't all...hasn't all stuck in my mind. The interest costs that Moss Green is...is bearing and borrowing money, is that part of what's being reimbursed? Davidson/ Yes, that is a reimbursable expenses, yes. Mims/ Okay. Thank you. Champion/ I, uh, don't have any problems with the 20 year, Regenia. For one reason, this developer is going to invest this $13.7 million, and no develop is going to do that a million dollars at a time. They're never going to get anywhere. They...how long do they have to get that done? I' m sorry (mumbled) Mims/ (several talking) ten years. Champion/ Ten years. Davidson/ Ten years to get all the infrastructure built-out. Champion /That's probably not the way they operate, but um, I like the idea of taking the 50%, only giving them 50%, and that just...and that's why there's 20 years instead of ten years. I...I'm sure it'll...I hope it'd be paid off sooner. That would be the ultimate happiness! (laughter) Mims/ Yeah, I ... (both talking) Champion/ I like the option of...who knows what's going to happen in this country economically. It's hard to know. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 11 Mims/ Well, that's one of my big concerns, having watched, you know, what happened in the last couple of years and how credit is froze up. It didn't matter how good the company's credit rating was. It didn't matter what their cash flow was. They could not borrow money, I mean, credit was just frozen. And if we hit another spot like that, you know, their...they're talking with a lot of these companies, they're looking at, you know, they're...a year at least just before they would even break ground in terms of their analysis of moving to Iowa City and, you know, is this where they want to be and...work force and all those kinds of things, and so when you start throwing those timeframes in, and the scope of the project, and I would say still the uncertainty of the economy, I would rather stay with the 20 years. I don't see that it's a real negative for the community in any way, and I think the developer has a lot of incentive to do this already as quickly as possible and get his money back. Bailey/ Are there exceptions in this project that you would go with 20 years for this, and not 20 years for others? I mean, I'm concerned with setting some precedence, because, Connie, you've always been supportive of short TIFs as well, so I mean, are there...is it the infrastructure that's driving this? Is it that it's fundamental infrastructure, or just...help me understand your thinking. Champion/ I think it's important that it's fundamental infrastructure. I think that's very important. It's not going to go away. If the business goes bankrupt, the infrastructure's still going to be there. Bailey/ So can I anticipate though on future development agreements that we probably won't be looking at 20 year TIFs, or I mean, I'm just trying to get a sense of (both talking) Champion/ Regenia, I don't think you can answer that question. I think it's going to depend on the project. For instance, if it was another Plaza Towers... Bailey/ Uh-huh. Champion/ ...um, even though we know this one paid off their TIF in probably much faster than any of us would have anticipated, you don't know if the next one's going to, uh, like when we were first discussing Hieronymus Square. That was another major, major project. And the problem with those major projects, and I consider this a major project, they cost the same as they do probably in New York City or Chicago, and you can't get the same rentals in Iowa City as you can in New York or Chicago. So TIF becomes an even more important tool, if that's the kind of building you're looking at. Um, I agree with you. This could probably be shorter, and I would ordinarily say, well, if they wanted ten years let's give `em ten years, but because we're cutting the amount of...how we're going to pay this TIF back, in half. I also think the economy now is so undependable that I'm willing to go the 20 and...and hope it all kind of works out much more flowery. (laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 20]0 City Council Special Work Session Page 12 Hayek/ Can, um...Jeff, you or anyone else talk to me about the 2.1 million, which is embedded in the 13.7 million for interest on the construction loan, and it shows that there's an assumption of an eight-year return. How is that number arrived at, and... Davidson/ That was the two attorneys talking to each other, Matt (laughter). Uh, Sarah... Sarah Holecek, the First Assistant to Eleanor was the one who negotiated that. I mean, we can...we can find that out before the 15tH Hayek/ I mean, I just...you know, I don't know...I guess the 2.1 I assume is...um, is based on the entirety of the minimum improvements being constructed. Why it's eight years when we're talking about other periods of time, I don't know. Davidson/ We'll find out by the 15tH Hayek/ That' d be helpful. And if that has any bearing on... on... on an advantage or disadvantage to the City in terms of the rate of repayment, or reimbursement, that'd be something I'd want to know about. Davidson/ Yeah. The only thing I can tell you, Matt, is that our Finance Director sat down with the lending institution that the developer's going to be using and came out of that meeting very satisfied with the financing arrangement that had been...we wouldn't have proceeded this far if that was not the case. But we will find out that detail on that 2.1 million and let you know on the 15tH Hayek/ That's what you get when you have a Liberal Arts major trying to look at math! (laughter) Okay. Any other questions on the, uh, development agreement that we can answer tonight or... get on the table? Bailey/ So we're deferring this until the 15tn~ Champion/ Uh-huh. Hayek/ Hearing none...then why don't we, uh, proceed with general agenda items. Agenda Items: ITEM 9. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 9, ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION REGULATIONS," TO REGULATE THE COMMERCIAL USE OF PARKS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Bailey/ I have a question about number 9. Champion/ Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 13 Bailey/ Is this the, um, the parks? Did, um, you all discuss about the, a concept that would be similar to what we do in downtown? Having a certain number of permits for particular parks? Helling/ I don't think it's ever been discussed in terms of a number, a limited number of permits. Um, this is just a correction in the ordinance to, that would...require apermit. Bailey/ Oh, require, okay. Helling/ Same as it does downtown. The only difference that...from my understanding, the only difference would be there's no limit in the parks, and there never has been. This is a practice that we've been doing (mumbled) requiring permits and um, just...this just includes it in the ordinance to make it clear. Dilkes/ L..I think...well, we won't be permitting, we'll probably be contracting with, I mean, we...we have a number of commercial activities that go on in the parks. The way this came up is somebody wanted to, I think, and this has come up a couple times in the last few summers, wanted to ride through the park and sell... Bailey/ That truck, yeah. Dilkes/ ...things, um, and...on the sidewalks and, um, we didn't want to allow that. We wanted the vendors to be at the places where you want vendors to be, like at the, um, concession stands and that kind of thing. So it really was to just, and he's going to...Mike says he's going to formalize those in his rules, um, but...we're not going to be making decisions about this person, you know, this...ice cream vendor can travel through the park and this one can't. I don't think that's his intention. I think his intention is to continue to just do, you know, if it's associated with a sports activity, um, if it's a particular vendor that they...that Parks and Rec thinks is advantageous to their, uh, park activities, that kind of thing, but not...not kind of your open forum permitting of anybody who wants to sell stuff. And we don't...we have, for instance, a provision in the code that limits, uh, prohibits commercial activity on the sidewalks, prohibits commercial activity in the Plaza, except for those things we allow, like mobile vending and that kind of thing, and...but I don't think we're anticipating, or that Mike is anticipating permitting... Bailey/ All right. Dilkes/ ...of...of a variety of commercial activities in the parks. Bailey/ Thanks! Hayek/ What else? Any other agenda items? Hearing none, why don't we move on to the next bullet point, boards and commissions, function, policies, and gender balance...which is IP2 from May 27tH Boards and Commissions -Function, Policies, and Gender Balance: This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 14 Helling/ The information that you received includes, um...basically three things. Your original discussion was going to be around gender balance. That...that's the mandate from the State. Um, also function relates to just, uh, a question that was raised by the Council, and you agreed to put it on for future agenda to talk about whether or not there might be an opportunity to...to consolidate the...the, uh, functions of certain boards and commissions, uh, I think in terms of ultimately reducing the sheer number of boards and commissions that you have. Really wasn't talked about beyond that. So this is just an opportunity to address that as...as you requested. And then third thing came about as a result of the letter that you received, a copy of the letter, from, uh, Rabbi Jeff Hortman, and another gentleman regarding, um, a speaker that was co-sponsored by the Human Rights Commission and....and there was some controversy about that speaker. Um, and so you also asked to have some time to talk about that. So that's...those are the three things that are...(mumbled) Hayek/ Should we take up, uh, oh, we'll just follow the order of Dale's memo. Why don't we talk about gender balance first. Champion/ Well we've always thought gender balance, and now it's going to be mandated, so we're not going to have a choice, although I don't think that's been a problem for us, but what's the...is it three months if you don't get applicant, qualified applicants...for gender balance you can... Karr/ Yes (several responding) Yes. Champion/ And it's qualified though. Karr/ Yes. Champion/ Okay. Hayek/ I think the questions before us are two-fold. Number one, um, in light of the fact that the State has mandated that certain commissions...comply with the new law, um, do we want to do this...do we want to include the commissions that are not required, uh, that...that don't fall under that new law, to...to be consistent with the gender balance State law? That's number one, and number two is, what do we want to do on the timing of implementation of this? Because we can...I think we've got until like January 1 of 2012 to do this. We can move sooner if we want. Champion/ Well, since we always try to do it anyway, I don't see what the problem is with starting it sooner. Bailey /I...I support the staff recommendation of...of using it to be consistent with all (several talking) and commissions. I think it'll just be easier. Wright/ ...it's something we've tried to maintain, uh, operationally anyway. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 15 Bailey/ The one question I did have is, what...what kind of good-faith efforts are we going to be using, I mean, somebody asked me this as I pointed out that we were discussing this tonight. So what would that entail? Our good-faith efforts -it's not defined in the legislation. Karr/ Okay, um, what we intend to do is much the same as what we do currently on the web site, publication of the notice, on your agendas, on bulletin boards. The difference will be we will have a distinction, a designation, on there and so preference. Bailey/ Okay. So we'll indicate what kind of what we're looking for but the advertising outlets, this is what she was asking. Yeah, advertising outlets and the methods that we use will not.. . Karr/ ...be very similar, they will be the same as what we do now. Bailey/ Okay. Wright/ And because of the, um, the three-month time period to find a qualified candidate, I assume we can say this is targeted for a female, this is targeted for a male, but obviously all are welcome to apply. Bailey/ Right. Champion/ Yeah, I don't want to discourage people from applying because of the wrong sex that day. Karr/ No. I think that's important because it will also, at the end of that 90 days, if we didn't get a candidate at all, we'd be behind another 30 days. So we're going to encourage all applicants to apply, but...but knowing that they should know at the front end they may not know for up to three months whether they're going to get it or not because that vacancy may not be...their gender. Bailey/ Right. Wright/ Right. Dilkes/ I mean, it may have the effect of discouraging applicants because it's going to say right there what gender we have to... Bailey/ Oh, I think it will! (several talking) Wright/ I think we have...as long as we get (mumbled). If this target isn't met, you know, it's... Karr/ We're only going to do it in 30 day increments, so that it comes back to you each time, but I think, again as noted, you may see it at the front end of it, and as it gets to that 60 or 90 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 16 days you may see some more movement. But, um, we feel that that would be very discouraging if we did not accept all applications. Wilburn/ Question that I probably should have (mumbled) um...I think, um, I know that, uh, State law, human rights, is inclusive of some groups that are not represented in federal law and perhaps even state code to local, um, what does State law say in terms of the, uh, those that are required by the State, in terms of, uh, gender identity (mumbled) um, transgendered or... Dilkes/ You mean is there a balance requirement for... Wilburn/ How does it add...I mean, if you are...are we going by, um, the gender they're presenting or the (several talking) Karr/ The new application would indicate the gen...they would pick their gender on their application. Wilburn/ So it's self-identified. Karr/ Yes. Wilburn /Okay. All right. Hayek/ My thought is I...I don't have a problem with, uh, syncing this all up. I think it will, uh, discourage, um, a number of applications, but the commissions I was most worried about, um, are already on the required State list. For example, the Airport Commission. We have historically had a hard time, uh, getting females on those commissions. Um, but we don't have a choice in the matter anyway, and I think, uh, I think the...the efficiencies and the avoidance of confusion of doing all, everything under one policy, uh, makes sense. And I don't have a problem moving toward it sooner rather than waiting until the State mandated date. In any event, if we have problems with this (mumbled) to correct that...before this goes into effect. Champion/ Right. That's right. Hayek/ So...sounds like we're supportive of that. Do...do we need to talk about when or just move as... Karr/ We can move as quickly as, yeah, as you indicate. We thought, again, the sooner we start. It's going to be 90 days out. So it's already June. So it'll be July, August, September before we initiate it. We won't go backwards to the current vacancies you have, but any future vacancies. Bailey/ Sure. I think we should start...we'll be in a better position to be in compliance, and then if there are things that need changed along the way, we'll have a greater opportunity to do that, before the law requires. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 17 Hayek/ Is that enough specificity for you? Okay. Wright/ This may even give us the opportunity to present some feedback to the local legislators about how well this is working. Hayek/ Exactly! Okay. Um, do you want to take up the second paragraph of Dale's, uh, memo? This concerns the speaker. Wright/ When I thought about this a little bit...it's...I certainly don't want to be dictating to the Commission what events they may or may not sponsor. But in this particular case, I'm not sure how well they vetted this speaker, and that's a process that we might want to enhance, either by recommendation. It seems pretty clear to me that...they weren't fully aware of some of the views that the speaker had. Bailey/ So are you suggesting vetting to the degree that we're not directing who they can sponsor, but vetting to the degree that they can...better stand behind their sponsorships. Wright/ Yes! Bailey/ Okay. Cause it... in reading the meeting minutes, it does seem that members will bring forth activities and make suggestions for sponsorship, and I don't know to what degree those are explored. They don't seem to be discussed very much within the meeting so...I think that makes sense. Wright/ Before a group is going to put the City's name behind something, I think they need to have a full understanding of who or what, uh, they're sponsoring. And then they could make their decision accordingly. Cause I don't want to be dictating as I said. Hayek/ Well, I...yeah, and...I mean, one of the challenges is, you know, it's an issue of perception, um, among the duties that we now allocate to the Human Rights Commission are plan and conduct programs designed to eliminate racial, religious, cultural, and other inter-group tensions, and educate the public on illegal discrimination. You probably could argue that bringing outspoken speakers to a public forum where they can be questioned directly. I mean, that could cut both ways (several agreeing) the problem. Uh, it could help or hurt. It could ease, uh, eliminate or... or promote tensions. Wright/ Well, and I think...I, you know, if they...if they vetted and they knew exactly who they were bringing in and why, okay. But in this case, I don't think they fully understood. At least not the whole commission. Bailey/ Well, and Ross, maybe you can better speak to this, given... given what you do, but I mean, if you're bringing a...a quite an outspoken speaker, uh, the educational experience is discussing responses, not just hearing the...sort of the outspoken, um, opinions, but it's...it's some kind of debrief or discussion, I would...that would be the educational compon...or part of the educational component, I would think. So...if indeed they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 18 realized that that portion was missing from this program apparently. I don't know. What do you think? Wilburn/ Well, certainly having a...a process in place for, um, deciding...um, speakers or what they hope to accomplish with, uh, with a particular speaker, as well as...as a format for that dialogue or discussion to happen can be helpful. It's not going to eliminate the possibility of, um, either a deliberate statement that someone has made in the past or uh, or an uninformed statement that someone has made in the past. It's not going to eliminate those possibilities, but if you can, uh, set the...through your process and/or how you advertise that speaker, the purpose of this event can at least, uh, oh, what's the disclaimer that appears on certain, uh, educational venues, that the views of this speaker do not (several talking) etc. I think that can help. It's not going to, again, eliminate the possibility of, um, of potentially controversial, and controversial to whom, um, speaker to...to appear, but uh, but at least, uh, as you were saying, informed and gives that committee, commission, the ability, um, and/or the Council that's behind that to say this is the intent and encourage you to get out and...you know, and...and it does invite certain discourse and uh, that's...that's part of this community and in addition to peaceful protest. Wright/ Yeah, and I think inviting controversial speakers is a really great idea. Wilburn/ I wonder...have they ever, um, or has the suggestion ever gone out to, uh, contact the University on how they go about, uh, the group that does the, uh, speakers, to what...what process they might use, um, that might be a direction to give to encourage them to get some information, or if staff can get some information from the University, um... Champion/ I like that idea! I think (both talking) Wilburn/ ...cause there are different groups (mumbled) University that do bring in, uh, speakers (mumbled) Champion/ The other thing is, I mean, we may have found his comment distasteful, and I'm sure my mother would have, but um, you're not always going to be able to control that. It can happen at any event. Wright/ And that's why I'm saying (several talking and laughing) it should happen, because when you get people to think by provoking them to question ideas or saying things that they may find distasteful, but a commission or a board or the Council, whatever it happens to be, has to know in advance exactly who they're bringing in, and what discomfort this speaker might... Bailey/ Or have a sense... Wright/ Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 19 Bailey/ ...of the perspective for sure. I...I think we're asking for a more thorough process, I think. Wright/ Yeah. Not just, oh, okay. Bailey/ And perhaps there is a more thorough process, but I didn't see it outlined here, and I've never seen it in the minutes. So... Helling/ No. I just...from my conversations with Stephanie, I don't think that there was a very thorough process in this particular selection, and a lot of times people just come in and ask, you know, it sounds like okay, it's an issue, uh, yeah, we'll support that and...um, if you, excuse me, if you look at the last paragraph of the, uh, transcripts, Chairman Briggs seems to be kind of summarizing things in terms of yes we'll take a closer look, uh, spend a little more time looking in the future. That's kind of what I read into that. Hayek/ Except it begs the question what if they do do this due diligence? And determine that the speaker is likely to say the things he said. Bailey/ And they sponsor that. Hayek/ Do we want to try to control the content of that, and I...my sense is that we absolutely don't (several responding) but um, so the...so the advance due diligence, I'm not sure what it gets us other than...a...a speakers' bureau that's informed that the person coming to speak is more likely to say incendiary things. Wright/ I think at that point you can bill this as a controversial speaker on issue "X" um..you know, that's (both talking) yeah, this may be controversial. This may cause you to question some...whatever. Hayek/ Well, I think we need to be consistent, and I think the, um, the...distancing the City and the Human Rights Commission from the content of any speech is the most important thing, it seems to me. We don't want to sanction it even...(several talking) Dickens/ Do we have a disclaimer now? At all? Hayek/ I don't know. Do you know if we do? Is there any sort of... Bailey /These are mostly co-sponsorships or sponsorships, so...I mean, or this was a co- sponsorship. Somebody else brought this speaker in, correct? Helling/ Yes. Bailey/ So...disclaimer would go where? Dilkes/ I... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 20 Helling/ Whoever wants to use it. I mean... Bailey/ I mean, on...on the City's, I mean, or the Human Rights Commission basically. Hayek/ Do you want to speak to this, Eleanor? Dilkes/ I think it's really hard to talk about this globally because...there are times when, for instance, the Human Rights Commission in its advocacy position of eliminating discrimination would bring someone in with a particular viewpoint. I mean, I don't think we're..always completely viewpoint neutral. And, nor are we required to be! It's...it's different in a situation like this when we're talking about the...sponsorship...I...Ithfnk part of the issue here was that... it was a peace in Palestine that there was not necessarily a connect between the Human Rights Commission's mission and what they were...between that lack of connect and the lack of vetting, I think things kind of just...didn't go well. Bailey/ That's it's not a particularly local issue is what you're saying? Dilkes/ (both talking) well, possibly. Bailey/ Okay. Hayek/ Which is another issue, uh, on this. Dilkes/ Right, but I don't think you...we can just decide here that we're going to put a disclaimer on every speaker we bring in. Wilburn/ And that's not what I was...go ahead, I'm sorry. Dilkes/ ...so... Wilburn/ I was just saying, that's not what I was suggesting. I...I think, but the process for... setting a... a process to, and part of that process might be that, uh, you know, we challenge, the commission challenges itself to...um, bring in educational speech...speakers that, uh, support our human rights...that might be one route, our human rights ordinance, that might be one route they go, but um...um, but I think also in addition to a process, but determining what is the purpose of this particular speaker would be important for that committee, because it may be, um, if... if an outcome, I mean, I could...in some, uh, venues I've seen, uh, the pro and con of certain posit...controversial issues, purposely brought in to have that, but you know it's understood we're bringing in, uh, you know, Ross versus Regenia, and here's the issue and it's going to be a public forum debate and you decide. Champion/ That would be kind of fun! Bailey/ And I'm wondering what the issue would be, but...(laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 21 Wilburn/ I wasn't certainly suggesting that to you (mumbled) um... Dilkes/ I think this was held at the Senior Center, wasn't it? Helling /I don't recall (several talking) Senior Center was part sponsor. Dilkes/ From the Senior Center, I mean, their position is...if people who objected to him came the next day and wanted to sponsor some, you know, wanted to hold it here, that would be fine too. And I think that's the appropriate response for the Senior Center, but...it's the... so.. . Dickens/ So maybe not a disclaimer. More of a warning, this...this discussion could be...offensive to certain people (laughter) rather than a (several talking) Wilburn/ Another potential parallel out there, maybe this...in addition to checking with some of the University groups, might be checking with, uh, PATV, um, or looking at our own guidelines related to the government channel, um... Dilkes/ And I can tell you what...PATV is completely (both talking) Wilburn/ ...that's effective to (both talking) Dilkes/ ...the analogy is the government channel, but with our government channel, we don't...if we're in a... if we're going to invite speakers I believe under our guidelines we invite speakers of all viewpoints. You know, for instance... Helling/ Yeah, like the video voter that we do... Dilkes/ Right. Helling/ Where we give every candidate the opportunity to have their (several talking) Dilkes/ But that's what I'm talking about, you can't...you can't talk about this globally because the function of the government channel is very different than the function of the Human Rights Commission, or another more advocacy group, so...really depends on what setting you're talking about, or where it's being held. Is it being held in the Plaza, or is it being held in a room in the...in the City...City Hall. It's... Champion/ I... Hayek/ Yeah, you know, we're not...this is far too complex (several talking). We're not going to make progress on it, I don't think. Champion/ And I'm just going to throw something out here. I've been dealing with these commissions for 12 years. We've never had a problem. I mean, I think we're making a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 22 mountain out of I don't know. I just...think this was circumstances that...people didn't anticipate or what, but... Bailey/ Well, I do have a question that Eleanor, I mean, maybe this is a question, maybe it's all fine, um, but...the question Eleanor also mentioned is...is this in line with what the Human Rights Commission...the function of the Human Rights Commission, and...and that was a question that I had to ask myself and reading the by-laws helped a little bit, but...I want to see the linkage a little bit more clearly, I think, when they bring in speakers, but I...I think that this, you're right, this is too big of a discussion for us to even imagine a conclusion. Hayek/ Well, yeah...we've got about 15 minutes left to accomplish a lot, um, unless we want to go past the formal and resume the work session. Is there something we can...either just leave it alone or ask staff to give us some guidance on some portion of this without prolonging the conversation? Wright/ If we want to do anything, I...I'd just be interested in seeing some wording indicating that the commission, just make sure you vet your speakers and you know...you don't have any surprises. Champion/ Regenia, what was that last sentence you used, you wanted some connection between.. . Bailey/ Linkage. Champion/ Linkage. Bailey/ Between their by-laws and, I mean, I want them to be able to articulate simply how this, I mean, obviously a plan and conduct programs designed to eliminate racial, religious, cultural and other inter-group tensions, a statement on how it's achieving that portion of their by-laws, and if they understand that, it seems to...and they understand the linkage of the speaker to that, that may be a step in the right direction, I don't know. Champion/ Yeah, I like that. I think that's a good idea. Bailey/ It would certainly...it would certainly help prevent these difficulties with a commission that's...that'stryfng to do the right thing and...and certainly doesn't want to create kinds of tensions. Wilburn/ I'd like to see some of the, a couple of the University groups that do bring in speakers, I'd like to see their, just what they do, just to...think that that might help trigger some thinking on our part. Um, cause beyond...beyond the commission there are...there are times the commission does invite other entities in town to co-sponsor, uh, speakers and things and I know that the District one, um, when we've partnered with the, uh, City on some of those things, we've taken a look at, uh, the background, the purpose of the...the event, and um, information about the speaker. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 23 Hayek/ Could your office look into this and just give us some information about what's being done elsewhere? Okay. Last paragraph of Dale's memo goes to the commissions and whether we want to make modifications to that. Obviously it's a can of worms we don't want to open tonight. Do we want to schedule something like this for a work session? Bailey/ I would like to review the list, um, I don't want to spend a lot of time, I mean, the State has done this as well as cost associated with maintaining all these commissions. I'm assuming it's mostly staff time. Um, are there any other costs or concerns about that? I don't think that would be a long conversation, but...I would like to discuss it. I think it's a prudent thing to...review on a, every once in a while. Hayek/ Sure, that's fine. Other (several talking) work session? Dickens/ Sure. Mims/ Yeah, I would agree. Affordable Housing Discussion Issues IP3 of 5/27): Hayek/ Okay, let's do that. Okay. Affordable housing discussion issues. There's a memo from Jeff...in the May 27 packet...which I think does a good job of... Davidson/ Yeah, you should have a memorandum from Steve Long and I. Steve's on vacation, so Associate Planner Tracy Hightshoe is here to, uh, assist with any specific questions regarding their program. We also have Steve Rackis the Director of the Iowa City Housing Authority who administers the Section 8 voucher program. Um, I'm...because of the lateness of the hour, I won't take much time here. We're just here to help you frame, uh, your discussion for the 14t", and make sure you have all the materials that you need. You should all have two things that were handed out tonight. One is referred to in the memorandum, and that is, uh, this map here, and if anyone in the audience would like one, we do have, uh, multiple (several talking) um, and this is nothing that you need for this evening, but basically this is the information, uh, that you requested, showing the locations of all publicly subsidized affordable housing in Iowa City, including Section 8 vouchers, with the elementary school district boundaries superimposed, uh, upon it, and I think this is really, you know, if you take a few minutes to study this, I think it's really helpful in terms of the, uh, dots being colored different...the dots being different colors so that you can tell the different programs, uh, and...and um, and basically, you know, I think one thing that's very interesting about this is it does show more of a scattered location of...of the housing than one might think given some of the comments that have been made. Um, you should also have a memorandum, or actually it's just a table I guess that, uh, Tracy put together. A table of income guidelines for the four types of housing that we call out in the memo, um, uh, homeownership, rental, shelter, and transitional housing, uh, basically just explaining what those income guidelines are. So, um, if there's anything else that staff can provide in anticipation of your discussion on the 14tH we would be happy to do that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 24 Wright/ The income guidelines are going to be very helpful, thank you. Davidson/ Yeah, and if there's anything while Tracy's here this evening, if there's anything you'd like her to explain about the CDBG or Home programs, or Steve about the Section 8 voucher program, we would be happy to do that tonight, or we can do that...on the 14tH Hayek/ I think realistically we're looking at the 14tH Davidson/ Okay. Hayek/ For anything `meaty.' Davidson/ That's fine. Champion/ Well, I think some of the questions that need to be answered is, I know, um, we have a lot of scattered different...this kind of housing, and most of us don't object to the scattering of that, um, but what...there is an impact, a concentration of subsidized housing on social service providers. That's something that I think we need to seriously look at. When we concentrate subsidized housing, you need more social work. You have more problems, so that's the question that I think we need to discuss. Hayek/ And that's in, uh, you've already...well, not that's what was forwarded to JCCOG. Champion/ Uh-huh. Hayek/ The question is whether we take that up here. Davidson/ Right, that was one of the questions forwarded to the JCCOG (mumbled) still awaiting the (mumbled) Champion/ Right. Hayek/ When is their meeting in June? Davidson/ I'm not positive. Do you know, Dale? Helling/ No, I don't. Um... Davidson/ If we don't have that in time for the 14t", do you want to push that out until we have that information? Champion/ I think we need that information! Wright/ I think JCCOG was going to try to meet again in June. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 25 Davidson/ Yeah, it is in June. I just don't (several talking) okay, we'll find out for sure and make an adjustment if need be. Hayek/ One question I... Davidson/ Steve thought it might be the third week. Hayek/ Which puts it after the 14tH Wright /I'm fairly sure it's after this. Hayek/ Does that impact what we want to... Champion/ I think it definitely impacts what I want to do. Hayek/ In what way? Champion/ In, I mean, cause my concern is the concentration of low-income, subsidized housing. And whether, what is the impact on... on social services and crime and police and all that. I think...that's the question I want answered! Hightshoe/ When you're looking at that for the programs that my department administers, CDGB and Home, our...we serve a continuum of housing needs, from shelter, which is the... Champion/ I know! Hightshoe/ ...most need, to homeownership. So when I was plotting that, cause when you say 30%, 60%, and 80% of median income, that's really hard to visualize. So I took that income, divided it by the 2080 hours to get a full time equivalent, so you'll see the wage rate for that, for those groups, that's 30, 60 and 80%, and then I took from Iowa Workforce Development, they have occupational, um, employment (mumbled) and you look at the wages. So, who we're assisting are these folks. We're assisting mostly elderly, disabled, and (both talking) Champion/ I'm not arguing that. Hightshoe/ ...huh? Champion/ I'm not arguing that. Hightshoe/ I was just wanting to make sure that when you're looking at it you get an idea of who we're serving with our CDBG and Home programs. Champion/ I know that. I understand. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 26 Hayek/ With the limited time we have, what we want to do is identify the...the questions to be discussed on June 14t" Higgins/ Um, I was actually wondering, um, what the availability was to students. I noticed that there's not a lot of...I'm not sure if it really applies to University students at all, but um, I was just, uh, kind of concerned that there doesn't appear to be very many rental, uh, areas near...the University campus. I don't know if... Hightshoe/ Most of our programs, um, the non-profits that we serve, or the private housing, you probably have to be anon-traditional student (mumbled) child. Most of our programs are not.. . Higgins/Not aimed. Hightshoe/Not aimed at students. Higgins/ Okay. Hayek/ Informationally, one thing that occurred to me is we got, there was that visit to Davenport and we got some materials, and that was with the old Council. Was...was any part of that...is any part of that something that we ought to be looking at before the 14tH of June? I just throw that out there and if...if... Dickens/ (mumbled) landlords' responsibility. Davidson/ Yeah, police and...and Marcia Bollinger from Neighborhood Services were the ones that did that. Hayek/ Yeah. We got a report as I recall back in, last fall or something. Hargadine/ Was that Amy, I think (mumbled) (several talking) Hayek/ Maybe disseminating that to...to Council in advance of the 14tH wouldn't be a bad idea. Because we have two new Members. Bailey/ Well, we also said we were going to go back and review the 2007 market analysis, as part of this discussion, although these questions...don't really necessarily have linkage to that market analysis, but that analysis does make nine recommendations that could be appoint...also a..a stepping off point for discussion but that might be getting broader than some want to go. I don't know. Davidson/ That was broader than we expected the discussion to be. Bailey/ Well, and that's what I was wondering in reviewing that, was that...what were other people's thoughts on the use of that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 27 Hayek/ I would say at a minimum everyone should review that before the 14tH Bailey/ But it is very broad. I mean, it is broader than these questions. The one thing that I will say is we agreed that we would talk about some similar terminology. Do we want to use the definition that that analysis provides for affordable housing, as our definition, I mean, which is kind of...um, detailed but it's like 30% of your gross income if you're renting and 50% I think if you're owner-occupied or...I can't remember exactly what it is, but we did talk about using, being accurate about our terminology (both talking) Champion/ I think that's important. Bailey/ So...when we talk about affordable housing, what definition...are we going to use that definition or...what do you...what do you guys recommend? Hightshoe/ Which type of definitions are you talking about? Bailey/ Well, if you go back to the market analysis, I think it is defined in there, and I think it was...for renters it's using 30% of your gross income, and then there was a different percentage for... Hightshoe/ Yeah, HUD used different terms, like (both talking) Bailey/ Yeah, so it would be helpful if at some point we would define how we're using the term affordable housing, so we're all on the same page. The income helps, the income guidelines help, but... Hightshoe/ The type, the shelter, the transitional, the rental, and the owner-occupied, are four general categories, but also within that rental we also do special needs housing. Bailey/ The word affordable, or the phrase `affordable housing' exactly what...what are we talking about? I mean, I think that that's tossed around in a lot of different ways, and maybe I'm being too picky, but... Mims/ I think you're getting at the point that that one term is not sufficient. I mean, because it is such a big issue. Bailey/ So could we have a...a term sheet, maybe? (several talking) Mims/ Steve did something that they ended up, uh, the Press-Citizen ran an editorial. This was a few months ago. You helped them kind of define some terminology. Maybe if you could pull that back out, and get it to us. Bailey/ I think whatever we're using, and I don't really care if we call it `bananas.' I don't care, as long as it's in front of all of us when we say bananas we all mean the same thing. (several agreeing) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 28 Mims/ That'll be helpful! Champion/ That's always been a problem for me, cause I mean something different. Bailey/ Right, yeah, and... Davidson/ One of the things we want to accomplish at the meeting on the 14t", I mean, for both of us, is that the City is funding certain types of housing programs. There's CDBG and Home, Section 8, and we want...we are under the impression from a couple of recent decisions that have been made in the past months, as well as some general discussion you have had, that there may not be clarity between what staff is funding and what you want to see, in terms of the City's public policy, for these programs, and that's what we would like to have clarified, so that HCDC, the Housing and Community Development Commission, and staff... are basically doing what you want to see done with these programs. Bailey/ So are we only confining our discussion to those forces that we can control? We're not going to talk about market forces that we might want to control that when non-profit, affordable housing developers can build by right, we're not going to... Davidson/ The degree that those non-profit, affordable housing, um, folks are using City funds, are getting funds through Tracy's programs, then that needs to be clarified. Bailey/ I understand that. Davidson/ The degree that they're out there using sources of funds that you don't have any control over I think is less important in terms of our meeting on the 14t" Bailey/ Okay. That's...okay. Hightshoe/ The CDBG and Home programs operate under different rules of the Section 8 program. Bailey/ Right. Hightshoe/ (mumbled) They're bound by different rules for housing, different issues than what (mumbled) um, under CDBG, Home. Bailey/ But on the 14t" we're going to talk about those things that we can control. That is to say we have something to say about the funding. That helps. Davidson/ Yeah, Steve Long or Tracy will make a summary on the 14t", brief, of those two programs and what they do, and at that point then, any guidance you can give us about those, I think, would be very helpful for everyone. Hayek/ Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 29 Helling /Just for clarification, in, um, in terms of the JCCOG discussion, you still want to have your discussion on the 14`"? Even if JCCOG doesn't talk about it before then? Wright/ I think that would be.. . Helling/ Because I don't even know if this'll be on the JCCOG meeting agenda. (both talking) Wright/ I was at the last meeting, and...wasn't fully the direction the conversation went. I think we should go ahead on the 14`" and pick up on whatever JCCOG says in another point. Mims/ I would agree also from the standpoint...I would certainly expect this is a lot more than a one meeting discussion. (several talking) I think Regenia agrees! So we might as well get started. Hayek/ Let's just plunge in! Bailey/ We might be talking about this again, once or twice. Hayek/ Thanks, uh, thanks for that. All right. Let's see if in five minutes we can plow through the balance of this. We may just be able to. Info packet discussion. Hearing none (laughter) no, I'm just kidding! Information Packet Discussion: Bailey/ Oh, that's how it's going to plow! Hayek/ Let's start with, uh, May 13. Anything on that? Okay. May 20`"? (several talking) Anything on the May 20`"? Okay. May 27`"? We touched upon a couple of those items already. Okay. Uh, hearing none, Council time. Council Time: Champion/ I...just wanted to say that tonight's the big night. It is a big night, and I just want to ask Eleanor a question, after reading some of the stuff about, um, Omaha, Nebraska, or Lincoln (mumbled) Lincoln. Can we fine bar owners for having minors in the bar after 10:00? Dilkes/ It's a municipal infraction. It's a civil penalty. Um, and we looked at that today and that's, yes, it's possible, but we are not going to be...but we...it's not like there's going to be a charge against an individual, and then a charge against the bar. It's going to be a much more...cause there are much more difficult issues of proof in the...in the charge against the bar. Or, I mean, just simply, um, if there's a fake I.D. involved, it's (mumbled) so we have the ability under our code, but...um... Hayek/ Okay. (several talking) Any other Council time issues? Okay. Budget? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010. June 1, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Page 30 BUd~et: Helling/Not yet! Hayek/ All right! Summary of pending work session issues. Pretty good list on that already. Anything on that? Upcoming events. Upcoming Events: Hayek/ We've got the I-Jobs folks here tomorrow, uh, so we'll be meeting with them, both staff and...and I and Regenia will be talking to them, uh, in connection with the funds we've gotten for various flood and other projects. So that's good. Anybody have anything else? Champion/ The splash pad dedication's going to be next Tuesday. (several talking) 5:30 (several talking) Hayek/ All right. I can't. I have another obligation. Champion/ They called me and I said (both talking) Hayek/ You can do it? Awesome! Bailey/ Are you going to be the first one to run through it, is that the deal? Champion/ Yes! I can hardly wait! (several talking) Hayek/ Okay, anything else? Discussion of... discussion of meeting schedules. Anything on that? All right. Why don't we, uh, pause and we'll reconvene at 7:00 for the formal. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session meeting of June 1, 2010.