Get documents about "ITEM NO. 2a SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Document Sample
#2a Page 1
ITEM NO. 2a SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Iowa City Police Department Accreditation
Lehman: Item 2 are special presentations. The first is a presentation to the Iowa
City Police Department and for that I would like to ask R.J.
Winkelhake, Chief of the Iowa City Police Department to come
forward.
R.J. Winkelhake: Mayor, members of Council what we’re here for tonight is to present a
certificate from the accreditation of law enforcement agency. It’s
something that was given to the Police Department, but it’s not really
ours. I think it belongs to all the citizens of Iowa City. And to give
you a little background of what we did and how we got to where we
are and I would like to introduce somebody from the Commission to
make the special presentation. The law enforcement accreditation
requires…there are 443 standards. There are 41 different chapters,
nine different headings and groups that you have to comply with and
the Police Department was actually recognized in March of 2002 as
having met these standards that we had to comply with. It’s a very
strenuous procedure to go through and we were very fortunate to have
support of City Council to support us on the cost that was involved.
And also a major step forward to this was the appointing of a training
sergeant. At that point we were able to devote more time to actually
doing the accreditation. And that was through your good graces there.
What we did actually in 1998 Captain Widmer and Sergeant – at that
time officer Hurd had attended an accreditation conference which they
found out what they had to do in order to become accredited. In 1999
is when Sergeant Hurd was appointed Sergeant and he began a full
time training sergeant’s position with accreditation manager. He
was…he is the department’s accreditation manager. In June 2000 we
signed documents going actually into the formal process. In June
2001, one year later, we had a mock assessment. People came in.
They reviewed what we did and decided whether or not it was a good
idea to go ahead and finish up what we were doing. And basically
they were very kind in their assessment of what we had done. And
there was one accomplishment that happened in this going through the
process. We found that the State law in regards to property – found
property – was really outdated. It went back well over 100 years. And
in our process in trying to meet the accreditation standards Captain
Widmer dealt with some of our State legislators to get that law
changed. So as a direct result of the accreditation process for Iowa
City there’s a law that’s been changed to be able to make dealing with
found property much more expeditious and easier for everybody that’s
involved. In August of last year we had on-site review. Assessors
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#2a Page 2
came here and they reviewed every policy. They were here for a
number of days. They went out and talked to officers – rode with
them. Went through…pulled cases to see once how they were handled
and the steps that were necessary in order to meet these accreditation
standards. In December we were told that we had passed that and we
would receive notification that we would receive the official vote in
March of 2002. That was in Jacksonville, Florida. Sergeant Hurd and
I attended that meeting. The assessors or accreditation commissioners
had an opportunity to question us, talk to us about what we had done
and how we had done it. And they voted at a full meeting of the
commission to go ahead and award accreditation to the Iowa City
Police Department. April of this year, obviously after we had received
the accreditation, we began the next step and that’s the documentation
that’s necessary to continue the accreditation for review in another
three years. To give you some idea as to what this means as far as the
State of Iowa, there are six police departments that are accredited in
the State of Iowa. There are two Sheriff’s Departments. One is
headed by the commissioner that will be here. And one university
public safety and I’m sorry to say that it’s not Iowa, it’s Iowa State.
Out of all the police departments and law enforcement agencies in
Iowa if you look at the national directory of law enforcement
administrators it lists an excess of 21,600 law enforcement agencies.
The accreditation or the accreditation process has taken 552 police
departments that are accredited. You do the math 552 out of 21,000.
What I’d like to do is introduce one of the commissioners from the
commission on accreditation of law enforcement agencies who will
make a presentation to the City of the plaque that we have here in front
of us. Sheriff Ted Kamatchus is a sheriff in Marshall County, Iowa.
He was appointed to the commission some time ago and actually in
1999. He began his career in 1976 in law enforcement in the state of
Minnesota. He then went in the ‘80’s to Marshall Town. And in 1988
he was appointed Sheriff. Since that time he has been re-elected in
’92, ’96 and 2000. I said a little bit earlier he became a member of the
commission in 1999. He has been a great advocate of getting
involved. He serves on a number of boards, commissions and he also
is very much involved with reserve law enforcement officers here in
Iowa. In 2000 he was elected President of the Iowa State Sheriffs and
Deputies Association and he also serves as Sergeant of Arms at their
National Association. He is currently the fifth vice president of the
executive board of the National Sheriff’s Association. And I’d like to
introduce to you Commissioner Kamatchus.
Ted Kamatchus: Thank you Chief and thank you everybody for being here too because
I hope that it’s on behalf of this because it’s that great of an
accomplishment. Chief Winkelhake touched briefly and very
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#2a Page 3
eloquently on the importance and the magical accomplishment of
accreditation. And I say magical because I’ll tell you what out of
22,000 agencies in this country a lot of agencies have just not proven
their salt. Now let’s get something straight here that doesn’t mean
they’re not good agencies. That doesn’t mean they’re not capable and
that doesn’t mean they’re not professional. But there’s one thing that
sets your Police Department here out from the other police
departments they can absolutely without a doubt prove it. Because
they’ve accomplished a set of standards that are internationally
acclaimed. It’s a living document. Breathing document. Back 25
years ago when they started accreditation there were over 900
standards. And somewhere along the line about 10 years ago they
realized that was just a little over kill. It was unnecessary. They were
burying everybody in paperwork and scarring people off. Well I want
you know that when your Chief was awarded your Police Department
was awarded you the City Council and the citizens of Iowa City were
awarded this. It was a great accomplishment on their part. And I want
to go ahead and I want to challenge here. It’s true that there’s only
552, I think it is, agencies. The big test the big key is three years from
now to maintain the accreditation. And it’s not just a burden that’s
placed on his shoulders or his staff’s shoulders. But, it’s placed on
your shoulders too to support it and to maintain the professionalism
that that little award right there that beautiful plaque really that honor
that is brings to your City. So, on behalf of the Commission of
Accreditation for Law Enforcement all the commissioners there were
550 agencies and counting and growing I want to present to the City
Council, the City Administrator, and the Chief Winkelhake this
beautiful award.
Lehman: Well, R.J. I’m sure I speak for the Council and hopefully for the
people in the community we have always been proud of this police
department and we’ve always felt that you are as good as you now
have proven that you are. And you know when we started this process
I believe there were four police departments accredited in the State.
We’re the sixth one and you know you don’t always like to be first in
line, but this is one that we’re very proud of being one of the very first
in the State and obviously one of the few elite in the entire country.
So, congratulations.
Winkelhake: I’d be remiss if I didn’t introduce somebody to you. And you started
talking and that reminded me I had to do that. I would like Sergeant
Hurd (can’t hear). Sergeant Hurd is the one that’s primarily
responsible for all the paperwork. He’s our accreditation manager and
if it wasn’t for the work that he did it would not have been as easy to
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#2a Page 4
accomplish this as it was. So I want to recognize the work that he did
and tell you that he did an excellent job.
Lehman: Thank you very much.
Hurd: Let me take 30 seconds real quick. One thing that the Commissioner
touched on real briefly, but I don’t think a lot of people recognize on
accreditation it is reflective on the City. When the commissioner came
in they talked to people at Finance, the assessor that was reviewing the
finance and the counting methods here said he just did a cursory
glance on it because by looking at it he could tell everything that
Kevin and Kevin and his staff was doing over there, there’s not going
to be…it was a non issue. Human resources, Silvia and her people
over there they breezed right through that. They explained the
process, explained the state laws. It was a non issue. Eleanor and her
staff there were absolutely invaluable in reviewing all of our policies
and procedures that we developed and that we formally recorded in it.
Fire Department provided documentation and training for us. Jim
Golin down in Oc Health provided information for us. City Clerk’s
office provided the data and statistics for us. So while this is in the
name of the Police Department it really does reflect on the City and
the City Administration as a whole. So, I just wanted to make that
clear to everybody.
Lehman: Thank you. Just one final comment. Obviously City Council
approved accreditation process and Steve I don’t recall it but at the
time I believe the cost of this was in the neighborhood of $65,000 plus
one officer’s time for a period for three or four years. So this was not
something that was a freebie. This wasn’t something that the Council
took lightly because this was a matter of some expense to the City.
And the Council obviously recognized the value and so I think we can
congratulate ourselves on that.
Champion: Oh good.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#2b Page 5
ITEM NO. 2b SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
Lehman: Item number b is a certificate of achievement for excellence in
financial reporting and I’m going to ask Mr. Atkins to present this.
Atkins: Well, members of Council this is sort of a night feeling pretty good
about ourselves. I don’t mean that egotistically. Kevin if you could
come up to the podium. You all know in your public policy process
that one of the things you need to be assured of is that we have a sound
financial condition for the City as well as the spirit of full disclosure.
Well for the 17th year the City’s Department of Finance, Accounting
Division in particular has been recognized with a certificate of
achievement for excellence in financial reporting. And to give you
some idea as to the rarified atmosphere for the folks that receive this
recognition and that I would note to you 17 years in a row every
county, city, school district and special district is eligible so generally
speaking we could probably say there are about 1200 units of local
government in Iowa that could receive this recognition, approximately
40 have. Simple taken Kevin and his staff should be commended.
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States
and Canada have recognized Iowa City and its Finance Department for
excellence in its financial recording and a good bit of that has to do
with Kevin and his staff.
O’Malley: Thanks for those kind words. Steve and honorable Mayor and the City
Council and I would also like to recognize the individuals that do all
the work behind me because as you know nothing in the City works
without some teamwork. And I would like to mention my assistant
Erin Herting, Ann Maurer, Linda Kron, Pam Thodos, Jan Burr. We
had some accounting interns this time that helped us out. It was Nick
Kaeding and David Stanley. I also would like to recognize – make a
special recognition for Regina Schreiber. She’s our assistant
controller. This last audit was a very tough audit. We had several key
players had family illnesses or illnesses themselves and she put in an
enormous amount of effort to get this down. And I’d also like to invite
you to her retirement party. She’s given the City over 33 years of
excellent service and her party is on July 9th, Tuesday from 1:00 here
at Harvard Hall and I know she’d appreciate you coming. I also want
to thank my colleagues, the Department directors, the Division
managers and their staff for their adherence to our internal control
policies which we try to maintain. I’d also want to thank you for the
time and the respect that you give the Finance Department. Thank
you.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#2b Page 6
Champion: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Kevin.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#3 Page 7
ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED
Lehman: (reads item).
Champion: Move adoption.
O’Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O’Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: I had a couple questions I didn’t get to ask yesterday. We have in our
resolution a partial release for storm water facility for W.B.
development that’s number f (5) and I was wondering Steve if there is
anyone here that could speak to that?
Atkins: Thank you knowing that I don’t understand the technicalities. Is Rick
in the audience? I think he’s going to be here for another item later in
the evening if you would like to pull that off and consider it separately.
Kanner: It’s all right. It’s just…I’m sure it’s okay. I’ll ask him later just to
confirm.
Atkins: Okay. Rick has to authorize these things as you know.
Kanner: If you can remind me?
Atkins: Yes I will.
Kanner: And the other thing is we are renting space in the Capital Street garage
and that’s item number 9 in resolutions f(9) in the consent. It’s Nextel
WIP. Could you explain a little bit about that project and how we
arrived at the lease payments they’re going to be getting free parking
spaces essentially building a structure and then putting up an antennae
apparently? And that’s going up at a rate of 3% every year.
Atkins: Let me summarize it for you because this resolution sets the public
hearing. What we have is Nextel is proposing to lease some space
within the Capital Street ramp. They would construct a building
approximately 16 by 20 for their equipment on the penthouse on the
top of the ramp they would be permitted to install antennas. In return
we have a five year lease agreement and I believe it’s $1700 a month.
This requires a public hearing and it’s set for the 16th. We plan to
prepare a more detailed memo for you in anticipation for that meeting.
But generally that’s…does that summarize it?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#3 Page 8
Dilkes: We’ll be getting photos of the little antennae as well.
Atkins: Okay. That’s correct. One of the things…this is Joe Fowler’s project.
Joe asked that company do a computerized rendering of sorts to see
how it looks within the ramp and we’ll have that in time for the
meeting.
Kanner: Is this a radio station? How does this fit…or is this someone who is
going to lease out space on their band width? And how does this fit in
to our working with the County to coordinate placement of towers
for…?
Atkins: You do that one.
Kanner: …different broadcasts.
Dilkes: I think those are two different issues. These antenna…I mean don’t
even rise above the highest point of the building.
Kanner: What are they going to do…what are they doing?
Champion: We’ll get this information.
Atkins: I’m assuming Nextel is a…
Dilkes: I think it’s a self…
Atkins: It is a self owned company. I guess that’s the easiest way to describe
it.
Lehman: We’ll have this information at the public hearing next two weeks.
Atkins: Yes we will and we’ll have…
Champion: We’re just setting the public hearing now.
Kanner: Intent to approve a lease is what the resolution reads.
Atkins: That’s the purpose of the hearing.
Kanner: Okay.
Dilkes: But, you’re not bound by this resolution.
Atkins: You are not bound by that so you understand that.
Kanner: Okay.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#3 Page 9
Atkins: The intent to approve a lease that’s the purpose of the hearing. Have
the public hearing, close the hearing. Then it’s up to…it’s strictly at
your discretion whether…what you choose to do. But, I will get that
prepared in writing for you.
Kanner: Okay. We did get a handout on it.
Atkins: Yep.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Atkins: Irvin had a question.
Pfab: Okay. Is there…is this a real time sensitive issue?
Lehman: Well the hearing is in two weeks so it can’t…
Atkins: It’s not time sensitive other than it just seemed that it was expeditious
just to put it on for hearing. If we don’t receive the information we’ve
asked for in the form of the renderings and other information I suspect
we’d go to the hearing and probably ask that you open and close it.
Pfab: Well, okay my question is was if it’s not a sensitive I think it would be
nice if after the public hearing we had a space in between in case the
public had any…
Atkins: Oh, I’m fine with that.
Dilkes: You could always defer the resolution.
Atkins: Sure.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: There’s not a problem.
Pfab: I mean you know if it’s…
Atkins: If there’s something that occurs at the meeting that you wish to
postpone your discussion and the final vote I can’t imagine why
there’d be a problem.
Lehman: Number 6 on the consent calendar. Actually it is f(6) and I would just
like to point out it approves an agreement between the City of Iowa
City and the Iowa State Department of Economic Development for
emergency shelter grants for the amount of $105,630 which is
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#3 Page 10
included in the consent calendar. Other discussion? Roll call.
[Motion carries]
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#4 Page 11
ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Lehman: Item number four is public discussion. This is the time reserved on the
agenda for the public to address the Council on items that otherwise do
not appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council please
sign in, give your name, address and limit your comments to five
minutes.
Deborah Schoenfelder: Good evening. My name is Deborah Schoenfelder and I’m here
to report on behalf of the Senior Commission - and this was the June
18th meeting. Regarding the county funding of the Senior Center our
chair has sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting a public
hearing on the matter. We’re awaiting to hear back from them how
that will be handled. The landscaping project is progressing. We
voted to accept the low bid that was given by Iowa City Landscaping
for the materials. The Commission approved the appointment of Mary
Grace Mauer to the program advisory committee to replace a vacancy
that we had. The nutrition program lease agreement is nearing
completion. I believe you heard on that last month as well.
Ownership of some of the pieces of kitchen equipment needs to be
established. There’s just a few pieces they need to take care of. The
remainder of the lease is acceptable to all parties involved. And also
in regard to the nutrition program a written survey is being planned to
obtain opinions from participants about the senior dining program.
During budget discussion it was announced that the restaurant Tai
Flavors will donate 20% of its proceeds on July 16th to the Senior
Center. So if you know that restaurant and would like to eat there we
would encourage you to do that on July 16th. It’s on Burlington Street.
It’s near the corner - I drove by it today -it’s near the corner of
Burlington and Gilbert Street. And then just a couple of other pieces.
Linda Kopping reported the doors on the north side of the building are
going to be replaced soon. As usual we have many senior programs
going on that Julie - in July – that Julie Seal highlighted. And Susan
Rogusky reported that the first proposed course by the Center for
Learning in Retirement is scheduled for September 18th thru
November 13th of this year. That was a brief meeting that we had and
that’s the end of my report.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Debra, quick question. We had asked if Senior Center would talk to
Senior Dining about payment for lease for the space to help make up
for the loss from the Johnson County which used to run the Senior
Dining and could you tell me what’s been happening in that regard?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#4 Page 12
Schoenfelder: If we discussed that I don’t remember. Somebody may have asked
about that and I’m sure that Linda would know. I could find that out
for you.
Kanner: Well, yeah. I think it’s very important before any lease is approved
that that’s a major component that you talk about that. And I think all
the other stuff looks great, but I think a key component is going to be
recovering some of that $40,000 plus from Elderly Services in lease
payments. I think that’s a good way to go about it.
Schoenfelder: Okay. I can ask about that. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Zeke Palnick: I take this is the time for items not on you agenda?
Lehman: Right.
Palnick: My name is Zeke Palnick. I live at 833 Longfellow Place. I’m retired
and moved to Iowa City because our daughter and son-in-law both
work for the University and I have enjoyed living here up until a
sudden threat to change our neighborhood. The…it has come to my
attention today in a letter giving us only two days notice that the
property surrounding our home has been sold to an out of state
developer and that their plans are to make their money through selling
tax credits for low income housing to investors elsewhere. And I
would ask the City Council not to hasty in approving any such
development because if you go to housing that people rent for…they
have to rent for 15 years before they could own it that changes the
character of the neighborhood considerably. And in a city which is
full of student rental housing it raises the question of some of the
issues you’ve been concerned with. You seem to have more DWI’s
than any other crime and things like that that is to be expected from a
rental population. So, my sole purpose in coming before you tonight is
to ask you to go slow. Check with the other residents of the
Longfellow neighborhood. The people who live on Oakland. The
people who live on Summit. It’s a whole neighborhood which can
have its character changed for monetary reasons. For pecuniary
purposes. And that’s what I wish to say. Please go slow on letting
people make money out of changing our neighborhood. Thank you.
Lehman: Well, I don’t know that this is an item. I think it is an agenda item.
Atkins: Well the project to which he refers is one of the issues involved in
number 6.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#4 Page 13
Lehman: So, it will come up later on the agenda.
Jim Walters: I’m Jim Walters. I live at 1033 East Washington Street in Iowa City.
I hope that all of you had a chance to see the opinion piece that
appeared in today’s Iowa City Gazette. This was an opinion piece by
Byron Ross and Richard Larew that dealt with the disposition of
64(1)a and the proposed Moen Plaza Tower project in downtown Iowa
City. I think this article raised a number of significant questions which
certainly we all need to answer and if you haven’t seen it I hope you
find it. I’ve certainly been aware of the run up to the decision making
in this project and I was assured more than a few years ago by a
number of you on this Council – more than one of you on this Council
that the disposition of 64-1a would be a very profitable situation for
the City of Iowa City. That we could anticipate a huge amount of net
income to the City in disposing of this property. So, it’s come as a bit
of a surprise to more than a few people to discover that now the market
valuation of this project is essentially negative and that we are going to
be giving it for a very fire sale price to the developers. I can certainly
understand some of that and the nuances and the expectations that
down the road the City will recoup its expenditures and recoup the
concessions that it’s making. But, I think in doing so we need to
approach this with the utmost candor and honesty and make sure that
all the cards are on the table and that everybody knows clearly what
we’re talking about. And I’m particularly concerned with the issue of
the grocery store. Grocery stores don’t come out of thin air. You
don’t…somebody just doesn’t decide to open a grocery store and put it
on a street. These are highly capitalized businesses that you don’t just
create like a bar and a restaurant or something like that. I think that if
the developers of 64-1a are telling City Staff and City Council that
they have a grocery store that will be occupying the ground floor of
this property that it is incumbent on City Staff and City Council and
possibly the community as a whole to know who these…who this
enterprise belongs to and who’s behind it. I would hate to think that
we would go all the way through with this project and then be told that
well, market situation being what it was we really couldn’t come up
with a grocery store. I would think that if you are accepting that this
proposal is of whole cloth that you know - that City Staff at a
minimum should know – who we’re talking about is going to be
opening this grocery store. And I would simply say in closing that if
this is not the case – if the developers do not know where their grocery
store is coming from then I would say that it approaches fraud and if
City Staff does not know who the grocery store is or who is
responsible for this then is approaches malfeasance. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Jim. Any other public discussion on non-agenda items?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 14
ITEM NO. 5h PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE
ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION, RNC-20, TO SENSITIVE AREAS
OVERLAY NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, SAO-RNC-
20, FOR A 0.41-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 341 N.
RIVERSIDE DRIVE. (REZ02-00004)
Lehman: (Reads item). The public hearing is open. I think before we start the
hearing, Karin are you – I see you here. Would you explain just a little
bit about what we’re doing and what the application of the sensitive
areas ordinance…I’m sorry I surprised you and I didn’t ask if you
would do this earlier.
Karin Franklin: That’s okay. I like surprises.
Lehman: I think we need to understand just what it is we’re talking about at this
hearing.
Franklin: Sure. This is a project that would construct 10 – a 10-unit apartment
building at the address of 341 North Riverside Drive. The property is
zoned RNC-20. The use of this property as a 10-unit apartment
building is an appropriate use within that zone. The reason that it’s
before the City is because it is a piece of property that has topographic
features such that it falls under our Sensitive Areas Ordinance. And
because of that it needs to go through the rezoning process in so far as
this development encroaches upon or involves at all steep and critical
slopes. They have also requested under the Sensitive Areas….which
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows a variation of the height of the
building from 35 feet to 38.5 feet. That is being requested so that the
building need not be as wide or as long as it might be otherwise. And
this is a provision that is provided for in the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. Likewise, they have asked for a reduction in the buffer
between the building and the slopes and this is also a provision which
is allowed for in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in those cases in which
the determination is made by looking at the engineering of the site that
it will not have an adverse impact on those slopes.
Pfab: I have just one question. Will a retaining wall be built in a sensitive
area?
Franklin: I would ask the engineer for the applicant to address that.
Lehman: Well, why don’t we let Karin finish her…
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 15
Pfab: I think she’s done.
Lehman: You’re done?
Franklin: That’s where that is. The reason it’s before you is because of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance and these two variations that are being
requested.
Lehman: And the purpose of the hearing is to see whether or not it complies
with the requirements of that ordinance.
Franklin: That’s correct and it’s gone through obviously staff review and it’s
gone through Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission
has recommended approval of this on a 7-0 vote.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: So these variances – these two major variances are judgment calls
based on the expertise of your staff that are subject to review of the
Council, correct?
Franklin: Yes.
Lehman: Okay. Thank you, Karin.
Franklin: You’re welcome.
Dilkes: Just to give you a little more detail on the language of the ordinance
with respect to the height adjustment that’s being requested the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows that to be waived provided that the
design of the development results in sufficient light and air circulation
for each building. With respect to the buffer reduction it allows a
reduction if it’s demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City that the
hazards can be eliminated. That it won’t result in instability of the
slope. So those are the things that you need to focus on.
Lehman: Okay.
Champion: Karin did address last night that the problems of the water runoff onto
River Street. Maybe you could talk about that for a minute.
Lehman: I think…Connie we’re probably going to get some comment on a lot
of things. So the public hearing is open. So anyone from the public
who would like to address this please sign your name in and limit your
comments to five minutes or less.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 16
Betsy Boyd: Good evening. My name is Betsy Boyd and I am a lifelong resident of
Iowa City. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you
tonight. I am here to speak as the current chairperson of the River
Park neighborhood association. We, as an association, have great
concerns about the proposed development of the property located at
341 North Riverside Drive by developers Jim Peterson and Cindy
Parsons. Our concerns are the following. 341 North Riverside Drive
is zoned as a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone. This property contains a
regulated, protected, critical and steep slope subject to protection in the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the Iowa City Ordinance. Parsons and
Peterson have asked that this property be rezoned so that they can
proceed with their plans to build into the slope. Iowa City associate
planner Shelley McCafferty has recommended the approval of the
rezoning request because of human activities, mainly dumping, which
is believed by the developers and by McCafferty to have altered the
slopes. We as neighbors are very concerned. One of the loveliest
assets of our community is the fact that it is not flat. We have
beautiful bluffs in our City. Why would we want to jeopardize the
stability and the beauty of our bluffs by allowing a developer to
excavate and build into a bluff especially one that has been zoned as a
Sensitive Areas Overlay. Have we not learned of what happens when
you build into a slope from the cliff’s project on North Dubuque
Street? A petition was circulated to neighbors addressing the concerns
that exist when building into a slope. This petition was signed by 257
citizens representing approximately 208 separate households. You
have each been provided with a copy of that petition. Additionally we
have serious concerns about the size of the building that the developers
are proposing to build. We, as a neighborhood, have learned that the
developers like to use the maximum amount of their property when it
comes to constructing their rental real estate. This can be witnessed by
the property that the developers are currently building on the corner of
River Street and Ellis Avenue one block from the proposed building
site. We are concerned that the developers are not taking into serious
consideration the other buildings in our neighborhood. Our
neighborhood is filled with buildings on lots that have green space
surrounding the structure on the lot. The proposed building is
scheduled to be built 20 feet from the property called Ape House, also
owned by the developers. The developers are attempting to build a 10-
unit building on a piece of land that cannot accommodate a building of
its size and parking. So the developers additionally asking to have
special permission to: a.) build into the slope and b.) add three feet to
the height of the building as well as to excavate under ground level
and build a parking garage. By doing this not only will the site line be
altered, but trees that our neighborhood is known for will be removed
or they will die. Thus, altering the density of the environmental
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 17
landscape of our neighborhood. Finally, we have many young families
– thankfully – who have moved into our neighborhood and are
choosing to raise their families here. They, as well as the rest of us,
are very concerned about the additional traffic that will occur as a
result of the proposed building. I will close now, but not without
thanking you for listening to our concerns when it comes to preserving
our neighborhood. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
John Shaw: My name is John Shaw. I’m the architect for Cindy Parsons and Jim
Peterson. In our application for rezoning we’ve been asked to address
three issues. The first issue is the reduction of the buffer between
construction activity and protected slopes. As discussed at planning
and zoning meetings this project will be engineered as such so that its
construction poses no threat to the protected slopes. Right now we
have a lot of concrete rubble in what is being described as a the
beautiful slopes of the neighborhood. The slope basically consists of
concrete rubble and it is infeasible at this time to remove that rubble to
do soils test. The rubble that has to be removed to do the building
which is not on the protected slope – it’s just in the buffer area of the
protected slope will be removed at the time of construction
commences. And the footings will be designed by a geotechnical
engineer. The second issue is a request to increase the allowable
building height as a matter of convenience to the City – okay to
increase the allowable building height – I’m reading through by notes
a little bit quickly here. As a matter of convenience to the City and
ourselves we choose to pursue this increase through the rezoning
process rather than asking for a minor modification which is
commonly granted. We just thought it would save everybody…
(End of side 1, tape #02-57. Beginning of side 2, tape #02-57)
…exceeds the allowable height by one foot, seven inches. The
building was designed with the pitches shown. If I could get an
overhead here we can see. Can we pull the overhead out and get it to
work?
Lehman: John, we can do the overhead, but you realize that you’re limited to
five minutes.
Shaw: Okay. Well, you have…I don’t know what you have in your packet is
very easy to see. You saw last night at the work session.
Lehman: We did. We did.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 18
Shaw: The building is at quite a bit lower the adjacent building and it was
designed the was it was designed to be more compatible with adjacent
building. We can easily lower this roof an inch if we are required to,
but we feel this will result in a less attractive structure. The third issue
is storm water drainage. In conjunction with City engineering staff
and adjacent property owner Jim Clark we are pleased to present a
solution that actually improves the existing conditions and enhances
the stability of the protected slopes. And you all heard Rick Fosse,
City Engineer, tell you that this project was going to improve the
conditions of the runoff at that slope last night at the informal session.
The improvements are as follows. The City will repair the existing
storm sewer located under the Clark property parking lot. The storm
sewer’s been partially blocked and operating far under capacity for
many years. In conjunction with the repair of the existing storm
sewer, the City will construct a new intake to the east of the Clark
property lot. The intake will be connected to the new storm sewer
currently under construction on Riverside Drive. The intake is
designed to accept the vast majority of all rainfall which currently runs
straight down the slope. The repair of the existing storm sewer
coupled with the construction of the Lucy project affords the
opportunity to create a managed path for water in between the Clark
property and Lucy project. And it gives the storm water which comes
from far off our property. We’re managing storm water for a three
block area through our property. And it gives us the opportunity to
manage that storm water into an intake that will be connected directly
to the storm sewer down on Riverside Drive that’s being installed.
And this is a vast improvement to what we see today. As a result of
this project nearly all storm water falling on the Lucy site and the
storm water coming from off-site will be directed to the storm sewer.
Through coordination and cooperation with City staff and adjacent
property owner Jim Clark we present a project that corrects existing
negative conditions. The statement earlier that we are going to be
removing trees in the area is simply – that’s erroneous. There will not
be trees moved or removed in conjunction with this construction.
There are no trees in the footprint of the building and it’s…that’s
just…that wasn’t correct. We’ve been working on this since May 13th
and we would request that on July 16th the Council collapse the second
and the third readings and that we get final approval at that time. We
started this process May 13th and Council does not meet again until
August 20th and we feel it would be detrimental to the whole project to
have to wait that long to begin.
Lehman: John, just by way of information we’re having the public hearing
tonight, but the first reading won’t occur until the 16th.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 19
Shaw: Oh, I thought the first reading could occur tonight.
Lehman: It is not on to be read tonight.
Shaw: Okay.
Lehman: This is only the public hearing. And I might also add that with a lot of
controversy on something it is not common for us to collapse.
Shaw: Okay. I didn’t think it would hurt to ask.
Lehman: Thank you.
Shaw: Okay.
Kanner: John?
Shaw: Yes.
Kanner: You’re keeping the current structure there. What’s going to go in
there? The current house that’s there.
Lehman: There’s no current house.
Shaw: We’re not tearing anything out to do this project. There is no house on
the lot right now. It’s empty ground.
Champion: It’s empty.
Kanner: I don’t understand what this picture is then.
Champion: It’s the two houses.
Dilkes: The one you got last night is a simulation.
Shaw: The one is an existing building that sits directly to the north of the
proposed project. And then the one that is the line drawing is the
building as it relates – and it’s very accurate lay in as it relates and as it
sits in relation to the Ape House. The Ape House is called the Ape
House because that was the AEP fraternity and was known around the
town forever as the phonetic shortening of AEP which was Ape. And
we’ve named this project Lucy for…
Kanner: But, it’s owned by the same people as for this project?
Shaw: Yes. And the Ape House has been converted into 12 apartment units
and if anybody questions the quality of the work that’s being
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 20
performed by Miss Parsons and Mr. Peterson I would encourage you
to go look at the Ape House. They are first rate apartments. They
just…the entire building has been…we won a historic preservation
award for the work we did at the last awards on the Ape House. And
it’s been done in a first rate manner to the point where the interior
walls were totally taken out, new walls put in. It’s an extremely
energy efficient house now. It’s an exemplarity project. And it’s the
kind of quality that my clients are used to presenting.
Lehman: Thank you, John. You may speak again. It’s just that we like to keep
everyone an opportunity to speak.
Shaw: I feel no great need to speak.
Lehman: But you may.
Shaw: Okay.
Lehman: Okay.
Shaw: Thank you.
Lehman: Certainly.
Gary Klinefelter: My name is Gary Klinefelter. I’m the project manager for this
proposed project and I was the project manager for the conversion of
the Ape House. The thing I want to bring before you this evening is
the conversation that I had with Rick Fosse this afternoon. Professor
Wyrick in the process of going through the hearings with the Planning
and Zoning Commission raised some relevant issues about storm water
drainage in that area. What we attempted to do in working with the
adjacent property owner, working with the City engineering staff was
to solve those problems. Rick Fosse was her last night. You heard his
report. He said that he met with Professor Wyrick this afternoon or
this morning. Professor Wyrick basically approved the proposal that
we have made and with a couple of additions that are common sense
and will be incorporated into this storm water management problem.
And so Rick felt that it was not necessary for him to be here at this
meeting tonight. But we really feel that we have gone the extra mile to
solve a valid concern for the area and this will vastly improve a long
term storm water drainage situation problem in this area. Thank you.
Pfab: I’m going to ask you the question. I see you’re project manager.
Klinefelter: Yes.
Pfab: Will that retaining wall be built in a sensitive area? The retaining wall.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 21
Klinefelter: The retaining wall is in the buffer.
Pfab: So, it’s not in the sensitive area itself?
Klinefelter: No.
Pfab: Okay. Thank you.
Kanner: Isn’t some of the buffer going into the hills – the slope?
Klinefelter: The…I don’t have the site plan in front of me and there have been
some changes made to the site plan.
Franklin: Can I help clarify maybe?
Klinefelter: Sure.
Franklin: The buffer is between the building and the protected slopes.
Remember we’ve got three different kinds of slopes here: steep,
critical and protected. The buffer is required for the protected slopes.
The retaining…there are two retaining walls. One is on the east side
of the building and that retaining wall will be in the buffer and will be
across critical and steep slopes, but will not touch the protected slopes.
Okay? But, you can have a retaining wall on steep and critical slopes.
You just have to make sure that it’s engineered in such a way or any
construction in those slopes is engineered in such a way that it does
not jeopardize the slopes. Okay?
Klinefelter: Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you.
Bill Prowell: Good evening. My name is Bill Prowell. I’m an attorney at
Shuttleworth & Ingersoll in Cedar Rapids. I represent Casey Mahon
as one of the neighbors of this proposed project – she couldn’t be here
this evening. This is a complex project. The application for the
rezoning that was originally submitted was a very brief application. I
mean it was on the required form not accompanied by an awful lot of
owner requests that the application be approved on an expedited basis.
I’m here to tell you that I don’t think it’s a very good idea for this to be
approved on an expedited basis due to its complexity. We were asked
to get involved in this by Casey, of course, and we did that. And in so
doing took a look at the application and reviewed in some great detail
both the existing zoning ordinance which is the neighborhood
residential conservation district and this sensitive overlay district and
we were the ones who actually identified that there was a drainage
issue that needed to be addressed. It was so ably addressed by Wyrick
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 22
at one of the City Planning Commission meetings. And we are the
ones who have identified additional issues which we feel need to be
addressed. Some of which must be addressed by this City Council and
haven’t yet been addressed yet in this process. Some of which we
think it would be a good idea if they were addressed before this is
approved or rejected as the case may be – really before full
consideration is given by the City Council to this application. When
that application was submitted and when we got involved it seemed to
us that the City staff itself was very comfortable with the application
and what was proposed. And when we started digging into it a little
bit I think we were providing an education to ourselves to the
applicants and to City Staff because it was our belief and
understanding following that that maybe City Staff and perhaps City
Council, I don’t know, have not had a lot of these sensitive areas zones
issues come before them. We’re not experts at this. We’re not any
better in Cedar Rapids than anybody in Iowa City would be at it
obviously. But, we just dug into it, I think, a little bit deeper. A lot of
those things are addressed in a letter that I delivered to the City
Council as soon as we could really this afternoon. I would urge you to
review that letter very carefully before you make any kind of decision
on this and come to some conclusion in your own minds about what in
that letter needs to be addressed. It’s our opinion that all of those
items need to be addressed. Some of them must be addressed in our
opinion again before this City Council reaches some conclusion about
this. The letter is evidence to the fact that in our opinion the applicants
in this case have not yet satisfied the requirements of the ordinance.
The City Staff has gotten comfortable with the drainage issue because
our expert Wyrick ran some numbers and essentially described what it
was going to have to be done in order to take care of that. And again
that was the subject of the City Planning Commission meeting. This
matter has been before the City Planning Commission three times.
That gives you some indication of just how complicated it truly is. So
careful review that letter if you would. But, rather than go through
every detail of the letter the bottom line is here that the majority of the
neighbors in that neighborhood – the ones who have spoken up – don’t
want this project. Manville Heights doesn’t need another apartment
building. It’s too big. It’s in a potentially dangerous location. It will
generate far too much traffic. There’s no need for another apartment
building up there. This is a little bit different than the other projects at
Ape House has done because those were conversions for the most part
of existing facilities like the so called Ape House next door. An
example of something that they must abide by here is your ordinance
requires that there be certain set backs for this building. There has
been no…the building as it’s currently designed does not meet those
set back requirements as best as we were able to identify that on the
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 23
site plan. If that’s the case, those set backs then increase when this
City Council, if it does approve this, says that they can build the
building taller because the moment they make it taller the set backs
have to get even deeper than they might be right now. It appears to me
from reading the ordinance in order for them to get that set back, if
you approve it, it’s got to go to the Board of Adjustments so they can
say the set backs are okay. In our judgment the building is too big to
begin with so that whole thing ought to be rejected. But again the
bottom line is that the neighborhood doesn’t want this. We urge you
to reject it. If you choose to approve this after the three readings of the
ordinance on three separate public hearings or at three separate public
forums we would tell you that you need to approve it with all kinds of
conditions built into it to make sure that all those items identified in
the letter and the concerns voiced by Betsy Boyd are addressed and
that the applicants have agreed to address those before any
construction starts on that slope because they just need to do more
things. One of the things they need to do is to get into the soil not
withstanding the apparent presence of concrete and do some soil
borings to determine whether or not this building is going to move –
whether it can truly be there because they are already putting a
retaining slope or retaining wall in the buffer zone. So, it needs to be
approved in our judgment with conditions attached to make sure that it
gets done properly. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. Marian, do we need a motion to receive correspondence
for this?
Karr: You may if you want to wait to the end of the hearing we’ll do it all at
once.
Lehman: Okay, that’s fine. Okay.
Kanner: Eleanor it was eluded, I think, by John Shaw that there was another
process they could have gone through instead of the sensitive areas
ordinance rezoning.
Dilkes: Karin can you address that?
Kanner: And I was wondering what was that? Was that possible?
Franklin: There is a minor modification provision in the zoning ordinance which
allows, as it says, minor modifications. Without the code right in front
of me I can’t tell you exactly how much you can vary the height of a
building. So I’m not sure whether the 2.8 feet that is being varied here
falls within that minor modification process. But, that is what John is
talking about.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 24
Kanner: And you said the other issue…
Franklin: It’s something that’s done administratively through the Housing
Inspection Services Department.
Kanner: The buffer zone is you said was another issue. Or Eleanor perhaps?
Franklin: Yes, the buffer…
Kanner: Could that have gone through the same process?
Franklin: No. That is specifically pertinent to the sensitive areas ordinance and
Mr. Prowell’s statement about the Board of Adjustment – I’m sorry if I
got your name wrong – Prowell...Mr. Prowell’s statement about the
Board of Adjustment. The sensitive areas ordinance permits the
variations: the height, the buffer, and so it does not require the process
of going through the Board of Adjustment. That’s specifically
outlined in the sensitive areas ordinance.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: I think that you read that to us prior to…
Dilkes: I concur with that.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Is there…I have a question.
Lehman: Let’s get the rest of the public input and then we’ll see if we have
questions for the public.
Dilkes: Let me just say by way of clarification, I don’t know what the
setback…I mean I haven’t looked at the plan and measured the
setbacks. My understanding is the only modification being requested
from the requirements of the underlying zone is the height adjustment.
And I concur with Karin’s statement that the sensitive areas ordinance
allows – in fact that’s an integral part of the sensitive areas ordinance
that you can request such modification.
Cindy Parsons: Hi. My name is Cindy Parsons. I’m one of the co-owners of Ape
House L.C. and I’d just like to I guess say it’s very frustrating – this
has kind of been the history of this whole project. I think what Mr.
Prowell said sums it all up for the Manville Heights residents we have
no need for another apartment building. And that’s the whole crux of
the matter they don’t want more apartment there even though it’s
zoned for it. We’ve met all the zoning requirements. That’s the crux
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 25
of the matter. We’ve received anonymous phone calls from neighbors
saying they’ll do everything they can to prevent us from doing this
project. And it’s just…we’ve tried everything. I think we’ve been
very cooperative with City staff and I think actually we’ve come up
with some solutions with the City Engineer that really will improve the
situation over what it is now as far as the drainage. But there have just
been a number of…for example this letter that appeared on your desk
tonight we have no chance to review that ahead of time. This has kind
of been the history of the tactics are these last minute volleys that we
don’t have a chance to respond to. But in just my brief review of that
there’s just a number of misstatements, mis…just misinformation.
And really all of these issues have already been brought up in front of
the Planning and Zoning Commission who voted 7-0 to approve this
project and with an actually a positive endorsement from the Chair of
the Commission. We’re in compliance with all of the zoning
requirements. It’s zoned for these apartments. We’ve complied with
all the setbacks. This has been meticulously reviewed by the City
Staff and by Planning and Zoning Commission just in view of all the
opposition we’ve had from the neighborhood. And it’s getting very
frustrating. Just…we’ve started with this process the first time was
May 16th. We appeared in front of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and now with the, I understand, you have scheduling you
know differences now that it looks like the next meeting (can’t hear)
that we couldn’t possibly be approved before August 20th and maybe
into September now when we started the process in May. It’s very,
very frustrating. We’ve tried to address every concern that’s been
raised. Like I said there were legitimate concerns about the storm
water drainage and I think we’ve come up with some very good
solutions with that. We’ve worked cooperatively with Jim Clark
who’s our neighbor to the south there and we’ve gotten him on board
with all this. And I really think we’ve gone the extra mile on this. I
think we’ve proved by the Ape House that we do quality projects.
You’ve seen the elevations of this building. It’s going to be a nice
building. It’s not just going to be just a square box. I think it’s going
to fit in with the neighborhood. And, you know, we’re not going into
the bluff. We’re doing everything we can to save all the trees. We’ve
pushed the building back as far as we can to Ridgeland Avenue so we
won’t impact that slope. And it just boils down to they do not want
more apartments there. And I can sympathize with that if it were my
neighborhood I might feel the same way. But, it is zoned for that and,
you know, that is what we are proposing. We’ve met all the
requirements. And thank you for listening.
Lehman: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 26
Bernard Sorofman: Good evening. My name is Bernard Sorofman and I live at 403
Beldon. And I’m surprised. I give a lot of talks, but I’m pretty
nervous now. I am part of the group that’s here from the
neighborhood – Manville Heights. I have after 15 years of living there
have learned that I live near the Ape House. And for 14 years I didn’t,
but this last year it’s been Ape House. There’s a nice sign on
Riverside that indicates that too if you would like to see a large
commercial sign. I am concerned about the haste to approve this. I
appreciate that they’ve been working on it since May 16th – am I
correct? I’ve lived there for 15 years and I’m going to ask you to take
it slow. And I ask my neighbors to please stand and at least let you
know that they’re here because it is an issue. If you’d like to see how
things are being built technically correct and in accordance with your
guidelines I encourage you if you have not to observe the apartment
that’s being built on Ellis and Riverside especially if you would like to
drive down from Riverside. A two-story apartment building with –
and I’m not an architect – it looks like a two-store roof on top of it.
It’s quite interesting, but I do look forward to it looking very attractive
when it’s done. If you’d like to determine whether or not it’s
appropriate in terms of parking, I encourage you to wait and drive over
there on August 25th when school starts or maybe you ought to drive
on a bicycle. But try to figure out where parking is going to go
because all the pressure is being put on River Street with all of this
new apartment housing. It’s pretty incredible. My kids who
fortunately are now teens and may contribute to some of that driving
issue – I’m sorry neighbors, we’re working on it – who are teen are
also have lived there all their lives. And there is some issue in terms
of traffic. The people who live in those apartments, in my opinion,
have been nothing but good neighbors to me for 15 years. It’s an issue
of the traffic and where they need to go. Part of one of the petitions
that my neighbors put forward to you was one about people driving the
wrong way on Grove Street – a one-way street. That’s because they
don’t know where else to go. That’s because with all of the traffic
they’re just driving down those streets to get out of that area. There’s
a lot of pressure there. Finally, I would like to encourage you to enjoy
that area. Get up early one morning, go into the ravine. I have to be
fair I don’t want to damage anybody – there’s poison ivy there. Go
into the ravine and enjoy what’s down there. It is a beautiful place.
And it’s a nice place to be. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Evelyn Acosta Weirich: Hi. I’m Evelyn Acosta Weirich and I live at 630 West Park
Road. From the beginning as I got involved in this I was concerned
about the project when I understand I just see the sign out there that
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 27
says Parsons that Parsons was going to be developing because I know I
had seen the building on Ellis. I was able to meet with Cindy Parsons
and Gary and Jim and Betsy Boyd and Michael Neu. We went over
and as a part of looking at that property we were able to tour Ape
House which is beautiful. I’ll admit they did a fantastic job and if I
had only seen Ape House as an example of the kind of work they
would have done I would have thought we would have no problems.
But, when I found out that Parsons had done the street…the apartment
on Ellis which I never heard anybody in my neighborhood describe in
anything but well terrible terms.
Lehman: Excuse me. Really we’re talking about whether or not this property
meets the sensitive areas ordinance. That really is the issue.
Weirich: Right. And that’s what I am going with then. So give me a second.
And the reason is because that is the building that has lost our trust. I
mean that building…when we look at that we say how can we trust
that these developers are going to do the right thing in this apartment
building that they propose to build. In a sensitive area they want
waivers. I know Cheryl Jensen who sits across from that Ellis
apartment building – Ellis and River apartment building. It was
suppose to be prairie style and they got some waivers – they got some
exceptions. Who is there to tell us that if they get these exceptions that
they’re only going to be going up this high? Is there…are they limited
to that?
Lehman: Absolutely.
Weirich: Oh, so if you…if they go up another 20 inches are so, they can go no
more?
Lehman: Let me just say this and I don’t usually try to engage in a public
hearing. If this building were to be approved there are very strict
guidelines they must abide by. That’s why we’re even having this
hearing in the first place. They have to abide very, very strictly to the
rules of the sensitive areas ordinance and we have inspectors. My
suspicion is this will be a very, very closely inspected project if it were
to be done.
Weirich: And so we can be assured from the City that the concessions that will
be made or the conditions that will be put down will be adhered to and
they won’t go up any further. They won’t go any farther into the slope
than what the City tells them.
Lehman: Eleanor I believe that is correct. Is it not?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 28
Dilkes: Well there are no guarantees, but as part of the building permit…as
part of the – excuse me – as part of the building permit process those
issues are looked at. Inspections are done. And no I can’t guarantee
anybody that any particular defect would be caught, but that’s the
purpose of the inspection process.
Champion: Well, I also think that you have, I mean, it’s hard for me to believe that
they’re going to pay the architect to do two different sets of plans to
raise the building up another 2 inches. I don’t think…I mean I think
that’s a…
Weirich: But, it’s our understanding that the Ellis building started out very
different as well.
Lehman: I can’t speak to that.
Weirich: I don’t have much more to say.
Lehman: But, go ahead.
Weirich: I just wanted to say that’s our fear. That’s our concern. I mean, I look
at Ape House. It’s gorgeous. I look at Ellis and I’m scared to death.
And that’s beyond all the issues that are brought up. All these other
issues of traffic and parking and all that. I just want to know that if
these conditions are made they’re going to stick to them and the City is
going to make them stick to them and we’re not going to find oh well.
You know it’s going to go up a little bit higher. Oh we’re going to go
a little farther down the slope. That’s my concern.
Lehman: I hear you. Thank you.
Susan Frye: Good evening. My name is Susan Frye and I live at 816 River Street
in Manville Heights. I’ve been a resident of Manville Heights for 18
years. I just have two points to make to the Council. If I understood
Mr. Shaw correctly he stated that soil borings and soil studies will not
or cannot be conducted because of rubble accumulation and that the
studies would not be performed until after construction commences. I
would just urge you to consider the logic or lack of logic that
statement if that were the case it would defeat the purpose all together
of the soil borings and the soil studies requirement. Second, all of my
neighbors here tonight have mentioned the possible likely increase of
traffic flow if this project were to be approved. It is my understanding
from my neighbors that someone from your traffic department – and
I’m sorry I don’t have that person’s name – will be conducting a traffic
study after school reconvenes in August. So, again I would urge you
to not treat this in an expedited manner and to wait for the results of
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5h Page 29
that traffic study which supposedly will be completed after school has
started. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak to this? Public
hearing is closed. Thank you.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O’Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by O’Donnell.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All in favor? [All
ayes]. Opposed? Motion carries.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5l Page 30
ITEM NO. 5l CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND A FINAL PLAT OF WILD PRAIRIE
ESTATES, PART 4, A 35.86-ACRE, 23-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF GOLDENROD DRIVE
AND WEST OF DUCK CREEK DRIVE (SUB02-00005)
Lehman: (Reads item). We’ve been asked to defer this to the 16th of July.
Dilkes: Indefinite I believe.
Lehman: I’m sorry.
Dilkes: Yes. Indefinite deferral has been…
Vanderhoef: Moved.
O’Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O’Donnell for indefinite deferral.
All in favor? (All ayes). Opposed? Motion carries.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#5m Page 31
ITEM 5m CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
EXTRATERRITORIAL FINAL PLAT OF LACINA MEADOWS, A
79.94 ACRE, 23-LOT RESIDENTAIL SUBDIVISION LOCATED
IN JOHNSON COUNTY IN FRINGE AREA C, WEST OF DANE
ROAD AND NORTH OF OSAGE STREET SW (SUB02-00007)
Lehman: (Reads item).
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
O’Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O’Donnell. Discussion? Roll
call.
Kanner: What’s the county zoning for this? Was it suburban, residential
suburban? They don’t have to rezone?
Franklin: RS. No it does not have to be rezoned.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 32
ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC HEARING ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE FY02 AND FY03 ANNUAL ACTION
PLAN BUDGETS, THAT ARE SUBPARTS OF IOWA CITY’S
2001-2006 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (CITY STEPS) AS
AMENDED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT
SAID AMENDMENTS AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER
AS THE AUTHORIZED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE
CONSOLIDATED PLAN.
Wilburn: Mr. Mayor?
Lehman: Yes.
Wilburn: I will not be participating in the public hearing on item number six due
to a conflict of interest with any items involving CDBG decisions due
to being employed by CDBG funded agency.
Lehman: Thank you. (Reads item). Public hearing is open.
Jeanne Kelsey: Good evening. I’m Jeanne Kelsey with Metro Plains Development
and I believe all of you should have a letter in your packet again
describing the situation and the circumstances why we are here
tonight. Basically, I’d like to open it up for discussion based upon
your input as well over our request that we be allowed or continue to
ask for the $250,000 that we were originally awarded for this
development to continue to be given to this development so we can
forward this fall and apply for housing tax credits and state home
funds.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: What are the odds of you getting those credits this year? Give us a
rough estimate in you opinion.
Kelsey: Hopefully three times the charm. I don’t know. I guess what I did do
is we have filed an appeal with the State this time around and it gave
us an opportunity for an informal process yet formal on their level to
discuss what some of the problems were with this application. It was a
confusing site for them to get their hands around because of the
association that there was a four-plex that had two units in the four-
plex that we were buying along with the fact that we were buying two
other existing units that were going to be maintained as market rate
rental because they are currently rental right now and then in addition
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 33
to building them 20 new units. Based upon sitting down with them
and giving 1-to-1 and having them come over and view the lots and
look at the development they feel a lot more comfortable. I can’t tell
you the odds because we basically have to compete like anybody else
would have to this fall. And you have point score out.
Kanner: You have to what?
Kelsey: You have to point score out. So basically they’ll award to the top
scoring application.
Lehman: When would that be awarded?
Kelsey: Right now the schedule is set up for November application and then
the first week of March is their award.
Lehman: So, the actual award if you were to get the tax credits it would not be
until next March.
Kelsey: Correct. Just like any other applicant that would (can’t hear).
Lehman: Okay. Any other questions?
Kanner: And I’ll ask this also of the other project. Would you be willing to
extend the amount of years that would be affordable housing from 20
to perhaps 50 years?
Kelsey: Last year when they had the application for housing tax credits they
took away the home ownership occupation as a point scoring equal
points so last round when we submitted we did submit it for 50 years
of affordability. I believe that the State would really like to try to
create a home ownership – a rental to home ownership and we would
really like to keep that option available that if we can create something
based upon again what they state right now in the proposed QAP is
that it would have to be approved by Iowa Finance Authority in order
for it to be a home ownership.
Kanner: But absent of that home ownership, you would go for the 50 years?
Kelsey: We would certainly…yes.
Kanner: Okay. And you would write that down?
Kelsey: It would be in the land use restrictive (can’t hear). Correct. And that’s
what we did commit to last time around based upon what we asked for
in support from the Council and that you did support us in last round.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 34
Lehman: Thank you.
Kelsey: Yep. Thank you.
Lehman: Anyone else like to speak to this issue?
Palnick: I don’t know much about this particular plan. It’s clear that you have
worked with them and have favored this without any of us knowing
about it. I see from the abstract that a public hearing is required by
HUD. I’d like to know more about that public hearing because I think
it’s very important for the credibility of this Council and its
appropriate relationship with every neighborhood in the City that
people be given an opportunity to express their feelings about a
neighborhood that has been primarily that of people who own their
own homes including a historic district. We moved there because our
children live on Sheridan between Clark and Summit. This changes
the character of the district from home ownership to rental. And I
heard the question from one of you proposing that it be rental
practically in perpetuity. It does not sound very home owner friendly.
So I wish that you would make clear this question of HUD’s requiring
a public hearing at which people other than developers can express
their expressions as to a transition to rental property. Thank you, Sir.
Lehman: Thank you.
Palnick: Thank you for your time.
Lehman: I believe this is a resolution approving an amendment. There have
been a prior HUD public hearing on issues…how many times has this
been an issue for public discussion? It went through the process…
Dilkes: Well, it would have been before the initial plan was adopted. We’re
having this one upon amendment. I don’t know are there public
hearing in front of HCDC? Steve? Steve Long can probably give you
a better summary.
Long: Yes we have our normal public hearing process where we allocate all
the CDBG and home projects all at one lump…one time. And that’s
usually held in the spring – March and April.
Lehman: Right. But, I mean I guess what I’m trying to establish is there were
public hearings at HCDC. There was a public hearing before the
Council. Now there’s a public hearing on an amendment which we
would not be having had there not been a change in what we had
already accepted. Is that correct?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 35
Long: Right.
Lehman: Yeah. So this actually is the third or fourth time this has been the
subject of a public meeting.
Kanner: Well, not necessarily. This is…there are two subjects here. There’s
the question of whether or not the money should go to Metro Plains or
the Garden Prairie. Then there’s the other issue of if it goes to Metro
Plains locating in Longfellow Manor and that is relatively recent
development in that they were originally going to go somewhere else.
So, I don’t know if there was a hearing in going to Longfellow Manor
per se. Was there any kind of hearing?
Long: There was. There was about a year ago right now there was a public
hearing about that.
Kanner: To switch it from the previous location to Longfellow Manor?
Long: Correct.
Kanner: Okay.
Lehman: It’s hard to keep up with this.
Dilkes: Remember we’re…just for purposes of information we’re not talking
about a public hearing at a particular project, but rather all the…a
public hearing on all the funding decisions for the CDBG money and
that’s a different issue.
Palnick: There really hasn’t been a public hearing on this project.
Dilkes: There’s been a public hearing on the funding of this project.
Kanner: And the location according to Steve when they switched to your
neighborhood there was a hearing you’re saying?
Long: Right.
Kanner: A year ago on this specific issue of should it go into Longfellow
Manor?
Long: Correct. As the change in scope. A change in location so we had a
public hearing.
Palnick: How do you advertise a public hearing?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 36
Lehman: Sir, you need to talk into the microphone. No you’re perfectly willing
to speak it’s just that we can’t pick it up for the record unless you
speak into the microphone.
Palnick: I think I’m part of the public. I pay taxes in Johnson County and Iowa
City. How come we didn’t know – we who live there did not know
there was a public hearing. Is it a clandestine public hearing I ask
you?
Lehman: That wouldn’t be public.
Long: No we do advertise through the web site. We advertise in the
newspaper. We advertise on public access T.V. We try our best to get
the word out. A lot of times we have projects (can’t hear) sites.
There’s not site control. In this particular case there was. We don’t go
door to door.
Vanderhoef: Maybe what is missing for you sir is the fact that when we advertise
for these public hearings it is for this whole group of things so the
advertisement is listed as the City of Iowa City CITY STEPS Program
for CDBG and home funds and then we have multiple projects in
there. So it wouldn’t draw your attention specifically to your
neighborhood unless you got the material then to find out all the
projects that were listed in that.
Pfab: I’d like to ask Steve a question. Okay for the public who may be
watching and listening what if there is…if we vote to change this as…
(End of Tape #02-57. Beginning of Tape #02-58)
Long: If you vote as it’s stated tonight you will not have any funds invested
in that project.
Pfab: So, the ownership will…
Long: It will be on the private market.
Pfab: So, there is…the chance it will not be moving one step closer to low-
income rental housing.
Long: Right. Not with Federal (can’t hear).
Pfab: Okay. All right. That’s the point that I wanted to know.
Kanner: And also for the future as far as notification one of the things that we
are talking about is having an ordinance that requires developers to
talk with neighbors before development happens. And I would assume
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 37
it (can’t hear) in with this type of project also if we pass something
like that. We have a voluntary good neighbor policy, but we’re
considering whether or not to pass the mandatory one. But, I assume
that it includes these types of projects also. No it would if we passed
it.
Franklin: I think there’s some issues here that are getting muddled.
Lehman: Thank you.
Franklin: The gentleman from Longfellow Manor is concerned about a land use
question to some degree. That is whether the property is going to be
owner occupied or rental. I think it should be clear that regardless of
the Metro Plains project that the buildings within this development can
be owner occupied or rental. We do not control that. Any single
family house can be rented out in this community. A duplex can be
rented out. So there is a plan that has been adopted for Longfellow
Manor that speaks to the buildings that will be built in that space and
what kind of buildings they will be. It does not speak to whether they
would be owner occupied or rental and it does not speak to the income
level of the people who will live there. As far as the good neighbor
policy is concerned right now that voluntary good neighbor policy
addresses subdivisions, rezonings, actions of the Board of
Adjustments. It does not address funding of CDBG or home projects.
And as we have looked at it to make it mandatory in the zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations it also is not anticipated that it
would address those federally funded projects.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin.
Marianne Wilkening: Good evening. I’m losing my voice. I am very proud to have
almost a one year resident in this town since last July 4th. And I really
like Longfellow Manor. If I was coming into your neighbor – my
name is Marianne Wilkening, 812 Longfellow Court. There’s three
places and it really confuses the electricians and florists because
there’s three streets named the same thing. If I was moving into your
neighborhood and coming and building one home I would not really
be expected nor would you expect me to sit down and have a dialogue
with you. If I was coming into your neighborhood to build as many or
more homes than already there I would hope that I would want to have
a dialogue with you and you would probably want to find out what am
I going to build more than half of what’s already there. We knew
nothing about this. We knew it was for sale because we wanted to
have those empty lots filled too and we’re very happy that someone
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 38
wants to bring us neighbors. But we did not know it was sold until we
really didn’t know until today. There’s been all the rumors that this
gentleman said and we received a letter Saturday asking us to come to
a meeting today. It’s a legal three days - it’s right in our by-laws - so
that’s not a concern. But if I understand right the decision about these
funds will be decided by July 16th and that’s a pretty short time. And
building as many or more homes than are already there could be a
question or a concern for any of you in your neighborhoods. We
would like to have some organization that’s asking to meet with us and
the larger Longfellow neighborhood which is I’m really happy to be a
part of that neighborhood because I love all the things they do and
they’d like to be a part of this and to say that we’re going to have a
meeting the next day of the next City Council meeting doesn’t give us
much time to dialogue. So, I guess I’m publicly saying I’d like to see
Metro Plains work with us because we want to work with them but not
the day of the next City Council meeting. And one of the reasons
probably that no one knew about the public hearing that was held was
that most of us did not move into Longfellow Manor until last June or
last July so it was probably after the hearing because many of those
were still rented or empty homes. When I moved in people were just
starting to come in last summer. So maybe that’s why we didn’t know
about that because I think we would have attended. I do not want to
go on record to say I do not want any kind of diversity in my
neighborhood. I’m a social worker and I taught that for 20 years, 30
years. I like Longfellow because it is diverse, but I would like to have
us be some part of that so that our futures as retired people is
considered also. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else like to…I’m sorry go ahead.
Champion: How many units are involved in Metro Plains in the Longfellow
neighborhood?
Kanner: 24.
Champion: 24.
Kanner: And I did have a question for Steve and/or Bob if Bob wanted to
address them. If not I could ask Steve. One of the things we talk
about is that we wanted to spread subsidized housing around the City.
The Burns Garden Prairie proposal talks about scattered housing. What
does that mean – scattered? Do we have any definition of what
scattered is and where they are going to be located? And how do we
know how apart they’ll be.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 39
Long: We don’t have an exact definition of that. We like to think it’s
scattered throughout the community like some of our other projects.
However, that’s something we could add in the agreement if, you
know, would like us to. I’m not sure how we would define that. There
isn’t a set…HUD has a definition that’s in the 100’s of units per
project. We’ve never met that definition in Iowa City.
Kanner: We don’t have the requisite number – the density you’re saying where
it kicks in?
Long: We don’t have a (can’t hear) decision. No. We don’t have anything
other than the HUD definition.
Kanner: And would the Garden Prairie project also be willing to go up to 50
years of affordability?
Dilkes: You might want to address those to the applicant. Maybe the applicant
can say what scattered means for his?
Kanner: Yeah. I would like to talk to Bob, but if he’s reluctant to come up
there I guess I can’t ask him.
Dilkes: I don’t know that Steve can answer that.
Kanner: So you haven’t…has that been broached by the committee at all?
Long: I believe in the application it stated 20 years, but I’m not sure. We
haven’t discussed an extension.
Kanner: And what about going up to 3% - these are suppose to be loans?
Would either applicant go for 3%?
Long: This money would be part of the same funds that you requested that it
be 3% at a previous meeting. So these funds would also be 3%.
Kanner: For either applicant it would be…
Long: For the Garden Prairie.
Kanner: And for Metro Plains if we left it with Metro Plains?
Long: It would be, I believe, it was 1%.
Kanner: Would you be willing to go to 3%? You have to come up.
Kelsey: That’s difficult for me to answer unless I would run a performa based
upon that. Because one thing that our development does is that we
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 40
really work hard to utilize first mortgages as much as possible and
utilize home funds as truly a soft second. That means that that’s scab
financing. So on our proposal we’ve only asked for $250,000 – well
originally we asked for $300,000 and then we were cut down to
$250,000 and we’re doing 24 units with that. Ultimately what I’m
trying to answer for you is that that’s what these funds are supposed to
be. Now the State really encourages us to utilize them as a soft second
and the State is willing to work with a 1% interest on them.
Kanner: I don’t understand what a soft second is.
Kelsey: A soft second mortgage is meaning that it is a second mortgage and
that it’s soft meaning that I propose to you that I would be paying you
out of cash flow.
Lehman: Which is not quite the same as a secured first mortgage.
Kelsey: Correct.
Lehman: Okay.
Vanderhoef: I think we have quite a few questions here and I was going to propose
it anyway so why don’t we keep the public hearing open and let’s have
a work meeting on it in two weeks before we move forward with this.
Lehman: Is that a motion to continue to the 16?
Vanderhoef: To continue the public hearing until the 16th.
Champion: Second.
O’Donnell: Sounds like a good idea.
Pfab: What do you…are we open for discussion?
Lehman: We’re open for discussion of the motion to defer.
Pfab: Right so my question to Dee would be what do you hope to gain by
deferring?
Vanderhoef: Obviously there is some question up here from the Council and we
need to give Staff an opportunity to sit and talk with Council on this.
This is the first we’ve seen of the reallocations and we’ve heard the
people that have made requests and I think we need to have a chance
to talk it over with Staff.
O’Donnell: I agree.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 41
Pfab: Okay. So wasn’t this recommended by CDBG people?
Kanner: HCDC. Well it was one thing about that Irvin is that the proposal was
to keep it with Metro Plains and it was a 3-3 vote – there were people
absent. So it didn’t pass and I think this would give an opportunity for
perhaps a fuller body of HCDC if they so wish to look at it again.
Vanderhoef: And the other thing is we have not seen the minutes from that
particular HCDC meeting which will come out in our next packet.
Kanner: That’s true.
Vanderhoef: Also and I would like to have that information of the deliberations at
HCDC.
Lehman: Well this actually is not going to slow the process down. We could
continue the public hearing and also act the same night. And we may
continue the public hearing and not have a single person speak to it
and then just close the public hearing. But I think there are questions
here that Council obviously had some questions that have come up
tonight that I’m not sure we have answers to. It gives us an
opportunity to look it over, talk about it at a work session, put it on the
agenda for the 16th. If there are things to talk about at the public
hearing fine. And if not we can go ahead and act on it.
Pfab: So at the next meeting there will be nothing to stop us from voting it
up or down.
Lehman: We would have it on the agenda to be voted upon.
Pfab: Is that…?
Lehman: Yeah if we choose to do it that was and I would propose that we do
that.
Pfab: Tonight we were not going to vote?
Lehman: We weren’t going to take any action tonight anyway.
O’Donnell: It’s a hearing.
Pfab: No, I just…
Lehman: Bob, before we vote on a motion to defer to the 16th go ahead.
Bob Burns: My name is Bob Burns – 319 East Washington Street. I did submit
two letters – two letters of correspondence – this evening for your
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 42
record to review. And I wanted to answer the question. We would
agree to a 50 year land use restrictive covenant.
O’Donnell: We’ll take that into consideration in two weeks.
Lehman: Okay. All in favor of deferral till the 16th say aye. (All ayes).
Opposed? Motion carries. I think we need a motion to accept
correspondence.
O’Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O’Donnell, seconded by Champion. All in favor? Motion
carries.
Atkins: Before you move onto the next item I think the Longfellow people
should be made aware of the process question that you will be
discussing it Monday night the 15th at the work session.
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: Monday night the 15th in this room we will have a work session Metro
Plains, Longfellow those issues are likely to be discussed.
Pfab: Okay, but say the rest of it.
Lehman: You might want to be here to hear the discussion.
Pfab: But you will not have…
Lehman: Irvin do you mind? The public meeting…at work sessions we do not
accept comments from the public. However, the public hearing will be
continued two weeks from tonight and you certainly may come and on
anything you hear at the work session. So and I would encourage you
to be there.
Atkins: And Mr. Palnick if you have any questions please feel free to call my
office (can’t hear).
Lehman: Yeah. You don’t need to wait until the next work session to get
information.
Palnick: I just want to thank you for at least giving this issue your consideration
and thank you again.
Lehman: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#6 Page 43
O’Donnell: Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#7 Page 44
ITEM NO. 7 PUBIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 14, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE A, BUILDING CODE,
BY ADOPTING THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE,
2000 EDITION, AND THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING CODE, INCLUDING APPENDIX F RADON
CONTROL METHODS, 2000 EDITION, PUBLISHED IN
COOPERATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, BUILDING
OFFICIALS AND CODE ADMINISTRATORS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND THE SOUTHERN BUILDING
CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THEROF; TO
PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH,
WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA.
Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. No wonder it costs so much to
enforce code. That’s just a preamble they have on a thing of public
hearing.
O’Donnell: You did so well though.
Dan Smith: Good evening. My name is Dan Smith. I’m representing the Greater
Iowa City Area Home Builders Association. I have a sort of blanket
statement in regarding the entire code. The Home Builders
Association is pleased to endorse the amendments to the International
Residential Code as recommended by the Board of Appeals. We
believe that code amendments are representative of something more
than just minimal safety construction standards. They’re
representative of good work relationship we’ve established with
building and housing officials and we believe our example of how
sound policy can be accomplished and promoted when City officials
work with professional organizations such as the Home Builders. The
key to any productive working relationship is a sense of mutual respect
and open and free communication. The Home Builders Association
would particularly like to thank building official Tim Hennes for all
his assistance and efforts during this months long process. We’d also
like to thank the Board of Appeals for all their consideration as well as
the fire marshals and everyone who’s had a hand in pushing forward
these code amendments. The heart of the Home Builders Association
is a belief in market driven housing principles and the resolute belief in
customer choice. Consistent with that philosophy as you know we had
one issue come up regarding universal design standards. The Home
Builders Association with assistance from the housing officials will be
educating and raising our members’ awareness of universal design
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#7 Page 45
concepts so that people can live in their homes longer and more
comfortably. We are excited by the possibilities universal designs
offer our builders and fulfilling those same market driven customer
demands. We urge the adoption of the code amendments as
recommended by the Board of Appeals and we offer the Council any
assistance we, the Home Builders Association, can provide during
your deliberations in this matter and future housing and construction
issues. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Champion: That was almost as long as the preamble.
Kanner: Tim I think you’re the man. Steve seems to think differently (can’t
hear). Some clarification actually on the Home Builders Association
in regards – I think it’s in this part that we’re having the hearing on
right now – in regards to universal design for housing using public
funds that’s going to be required. Is that correct?
Tim Hennes: That is correct.
Kanner: Now the Home Builders Association has some question about
interpretation and so do I actually. They wrote quote universal design
requirements only with quote the majority of funding coming from the
City of Iowa City to define public funding. I would assume public
funding means any funding from local, county, state or federal – any
public body for any amount would kick in this requirement. What’s
your interpretation of this?
Hennes: That’s our interpretation also that if one dollar goes toward the project
it will require universal design. But keep in mind that it is for the
structure only. It’s in the international residential code is where this
provision is and it is for the structure only. It is not for the
infrastructure or if federal money goes into putting in the streets that’s
not…it’s specific to the structure.
Lehman: House only?
Hennes: House only.
Kanner: The three…you mentioned three main points I think yesterday – door
width, outlets, one step less entry – actually four things – and then a
place for grab bars – as the main components of universal design.
Hennes: Correct.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#7 Page 46
Kanner: And you’re saying if public funding comes from any pubic source for
$1 or more it kicks in.
Hennes: That is correct for a new residential house. It would have to meet all
four of those requirements. If it was a remodel project where they are
going in and remodeling a restroom or to that nature then just those
items…just say the grab bar (can’t hear) would have to be installed.
We wouldn’t require you to go out throughout the house and relocate
the outlets.
Pfab: Or widen the doors.
Hennes: Or widen the doors. That’s correct.
Kanner: That makes sense.
Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this issue? Public hearing is
closed.
Karr: Move to accept correspondence.
O’Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by O’Donnell.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Second by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All in favor (all
ayes). Motion carries.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#8 Page 47
ITEM NO. 8 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE
7, CHAPTER 1, FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION,
ADOPTING THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
FIRE CODE, REGULATING AND GOVERNING THE
SAFEGUARDING OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE
AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE
STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES, MATERIALS AND DEVICES, AND FROM
CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN
THE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING AND PREMISES IN THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
PERMITS FOR HAZARDOUS USES OR OPERATIONS;
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 99-3869 OF THE IOWA CITY
CODE AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF THE
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.
Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. Public hearing is closed.
Vanderhoef: I just have one comment. We had a discussion last night about the
outdoor fireplace.
O’Donnell: The chiminea.
Vanderhoef: The chiminea.
Lehman: Which are not included.
Vanderhoef: In the…isn’t this the right one? Did I write it on the wrong one?
Pfab: That’s the right one.
Kanner: We’re in the right.
Vanderhoef: We’re in the right one. Okay. Concern with as it was presented to us
by the fire department was that they were concerned about them being
used as incinerators and I’m wondering if we can put something in the
code that said the only thing approved for burning in outdoor
fireplaces would be wood and charcoal.
O’Donnell: How would you enforce that Dee?
Champion: By complaint.
Vanderhoef: By complaint. Yeah.
Champion: That’s how you enforce it at all.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#8 Page 48
O’Donnell: Yeah.
Dilkes: I think we could probably craft something to that effect.
Lehman: And that could be taken care of at the next meeting when we have first
consideration if we wish to do that.
Pfab: Is there enough reason to tamper with the suggestion that the Fire
Department made? Is there enough support to…their idea was to
support everything except Section 5 and I support the position that the
Fire Department is taking and I think that while these might be great
ornamental – they may have great ornamental value I think that
they’re…the outdoor – what do they call them – out fireplaces…
O’Donnell: Chiminea.
Pfab: A chiminea or whatever nice name they can think of I that the farther
the people from Iowa City are kept from them or protected from them
I think the better.
Champion: Well, you can’t protect everybody from everything Irvin.
Pfab: Just the chiminea.
O’Donnell: If we’re going to do that Irvin then we’re going to take a look at
barbeque grills, tiki torches, and maybe…
Pfab: It doesn’t say that.
Champion: I’m going to have tiki torches in my yard on the 4th of July. Are we
going to start saying we can’t…
Pfab: I’m going on record as supporting the position that the Fire
Department presented to us last night and I will not support any
changes.
O’Donnell: Well good. Nice to (can’t hear).
Lehman: Thank you Irvin.
Dilkes: Dee if you’re interested in pursing that maybe you need to get the
thoughts of the Fire Department now so you know…so we have some
direction as to what you want us to draft.
Lehman: And that might include…
Vanderhoef: I’ll get their opinion and then if there’s no interest in Council…
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#8 Page 49
Lehman: It might include what is permitted to be burned or what would be
prohibited from being burned.
Champion: I think it would be easier to put what could be burned.
Vanderhoef: I think it would be easier to list two things that could be burned.
Champion: No dogs or cats.
Dilkes: I’m just suggesting I don’t know enough about burning in these
fireplaces to tell you how I would write it. I would have to rely on the
Fire Department to help me with that.
Pfab: And I think that…
Vanderhoef: I’m inclined personally to support it as proposed and not support the
Fire Department issue on this and this was one thing that might
address the concerns of the Fire Department in the complaint process
if they felt they were being used as incinerators and that that was the
piece that you offered to us that made it in your eyes a regressive to
allow these. So I’m looking for some happy ground in between there.
Champion: I thought it was stuff coming out of the chiminea.
Vanderhoef: Well, but the things that they were putting in. They were talking
about…
O’Donnell: Specifically burn items…
Vanderhoef: And the odors and things that go with it.
Pfab: I think the…one of the reasons that I was strongly supporting the
position that the Fire Department took was the fact that it was a good
way to prevent overuse of the Fire Department facilities and personnel
to make runs because people are objecting to them. I think that the
simplest way to stop those is the way they put it rather than complaint
only and after neighbors which this will cause a stir in the
neighborhood if you use these – and especially improperly. They are
going to cause complaints to the Fire Department and I think the Fire
Department has better things to do than go and negotiate with the
neighbors and so to me it looks the point that they made was let’s not
go down that road and that’s why I’m willing to support it that way
especially when we talked about other things in the neighborhood how
we need to conserve the use of these public facilities.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#8 Page 50
Lehman: I would suggest Irvin at the next meeting you make the amendment
that would include the recommendation of the Fire Department and
we’ll discuss that at the time we vote.
Pfab: Okay. That’s fine. Good point.
Lehman: I think the question here and the question that Dee has and if there’s
interest on the Council it’s certainly appropriate to proceed are
there…is there a majority of the Council that’s interested in
specifically indicating what materials can be burned in the…
O’Donnell: Chiminea.
Lehman: Chimineas.
O’Donnell: You know I think we’re coming dangerously closed to saying you
can’t use hickory chips in your barbeque grill.
Lehman: Apple.
O’Donnell: Apple fine whatever. I’m going to support what Dee wants there. I
support the Fire Department fully, but I just disagree with them. This
stepping on somebody’s deck and telling them you can’t do that. And
I have a problem with that.
Lehman: Okay. But we still need to answer the question. My personal feeling
is that if we start telling people what they can and cannot burn we’re
going to still have an impossible enforcement task, but all right is there
interest in specifically saying what can and cannot be burned?
Kanner: I don’t know if I would vote for it, but I’d like to see something
brought back to us so we can…
Lehman: Are you interested in regulating what can be burned?
Kanner: Well I want to see a possible…I support seeing an amendment brought
to us.
Lehman: Alright. We have…
Dilkes: Can I suggest - we have the Fire Department here, can we have some
discussion about what one would burn in these things and what one
should not burn in these things?
Roger Jensen: Good evening.
Lehman: Good evening. Does that present any appeal to you?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#8 Page 51
Jensen: Reasonable solution?
Lehman: Yeah. I don’t know if it addresses what you’re concerned about.
Jensen: Actually. No I don’t believe that it does. Actually that was one point
Councilor and there were actually several others that cause us to object
to the use of the chimineas. One was the obnoxious odors and foul
smells as using it as an incinerator. Another was the issue of the
complaints and the burden upon the public safety agency and in
resolving those issues between neighbors. But there’s also fire safety
issues. It’s a portable device and that means that there can be no
regulation as to where it’s placed, how close it is to something that will
burn. And they don’t have inherent safety features built in them such
as spark arrestors to prevent glowing embers from traveling about and
landing upon your roof. It’s one issue as to not burning yard waste in
them. But it’s only one of many.
Lehman: So what you’re saying is that probably is not something that’s going to
make your jobs any easier.
Jensen: I think it will make it worse.
Lehman: Well, I would tend to agree.
Jensen: In terms of enforcement.
Champion: I mean when you burn a fire in your fireplace. If you drive around
town you see sparks coming out of people’s chimneys in the winter.
O’Donnell: You do?
Champion: I am wondering about these short chimneys on these things too. I
mean are we going to have…if people burn wood, are you going to
have sparks coming out of the top and landing on leaves in the fall or
on my roof?
O’Donnell: You know you’re not going to get a huge bonfire in this thing. I mean
these openings are very small. You can get very little wood in.
Champion: I’m sure that when some big corporation gets a hold of them like, you
know, a big discount house they’re going to make them bigger and
better.
O’Donnell: That’s called a fireplace.
Lehman: We’re going to discuss the relative merits of chimneys and spark
arrestors and whatever on the 16th. The question now is should we
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#8 Page 52
pursue an amendment for this ordinance that would allow only certain
materials to be burnt and I think I hear you say it will not only not help
the situation, but might even make it worse. Now are there four
people who want to pursue this? You want to pursue making it worse?
O’Donnell: No, no. I was responded.
Lehman: Do you still want to make it worse?
Vanderhoef: I don’t understand how it will make it worse?
Lehman: People then will call and say I think my neighbor is burning trash. I’m
burning walnut wood – it’s not on the list.
Vanderhoef: Wood is wood.
Lehman: If it is a legal thing to use then make it a legal thing to use. Let’s not
have to examine what we’re going to burn in them. I don’t like you so
I’m going to call and say hey my neighbor is burning something they
shouldn’t burn. Boom. You have to come out.
O’Donnell: It’s an impossible thing to enforce.
Lehman: You can’t enforce it.
Pfab: I think there’s one other issue here even besides that.
Champion: We’ll discuss it next time.
Pfab: No, no I think this is the time to discuss this and that is the difference
these things will probably be used a lot more in the summer time when
the air conditions are different in the winter time.
Lehman: We’re not talking about that. We’re talking now about whether or not
we want to pursue something that limits what we can burn in them.
Are there four people who would like to do that? Okay. Thank you
very much. We will discuss this next week.
Wilburn: can we get a memo…
Pfab: Did we get four people?
Wilburn: …from the Fire Department asking or outlining their concerns related
to chimineas?
Lehman: Oh we certainly could I’m sure.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#8 Page 53
Vanderhoef: It’s in here.
Wilburn: Is it?
Lehman: I think we have it.
Pfab: So what was the result of our discussion?
O’Donnell: We’re going to talk about it later.
Lehman: We’re going to vote on this on the 16th. There will not be an
addendum to the regulated…
Pfab: Oh great. Oh I think this is just the best City Council I’ve ever served
on.
Lehman: Irvin thank you. You’re part of it.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13a Page 54
ITEM NO. 13a THE CITY’S INTENT TO PROCEED WITH AND
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
FOR THE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD EXTENSION
PROJECT.
PUBLIC HEARING
Lehman: (Reads item). This is a continuation of the public hearing from May
21st. The public hearing is open.
George Dane: Some way that paper is supposed to come of isn’t it? I’m George
Dane. 715 Benton Court, Iowa City. (Read statement). Champion:
Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, George.
George Dane: Now I’ll see if I can get this off.
John Dane: My name is John Dane. I live at 4082 Dane Road SE Iowa City. Boy
you guys got a lot of business almost as bad as the school board
meeting isn’t it.
Champion: Not quite.
John Dane: (Read statement). Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, John.
Kanner: Actually I think John that’s a great idea and I’m going to move to
extend this hearing because of the reasons you sited to an indefinite
date. Any seconds out there?
Pfab: I’ll second.
Lehman: Why don’t we let the folks go ahead and speak first. Bob?
Kanner: Okay.
Bob Wolf: Hi. I’d like to thank John Dane for that insight. It makes a lot of sense
to me in just this short term. One thing that doesn’t make any sense to
me on this and I hope this is the same thing we all have. As I look at
the Iowa River I kind of thinking long range and also thinking of the
past it seems to me when we cross that river you pick up funds from
the State or the National or whoever chances are you’re only going to
get enough money for one bridge and I would strongly suggest that
you consider the S-2 and the S-3 primarily because it…
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13a Page 55
(End of side 1, Tape #02-58. Beginning of side 2)
Wolf: …southeast side of Iowa City. The other two are too short-sighted.
You get just too much land across that’s (can’t hear). The primary
reason I’m here is because the route that you seem to have taken into
consideration or the one that the big map is drawn on is the N12 and 8
project. During this time period we contacted Chuck Smedke and
invited him out to MMS to talk about the layout for that. Essentially
what he’s done is run a sanitary sewer right through our 40 acre
intended development. And it’s something that we’ve spent a great
deal of time and money over the last four years preparing for its use. I
guess the short term is that he would knock about 17 lots off of our
future subdivision and we think that’s a pretty high price to pay
considering we offered him the land – we’re going to reroute the Creek
and we have an engineer with us that has worked on that project to
explain a little bit more to you. But we offered the land on the outside
of the Creek which would be next to the Williams property and
basically at no cost so we could go ahead with our own subdivision.
Thank you.
Lehman: Anyone else wish to speak? Jeff I have a question for you relative to
what Bob just brought up. The location of the sewer, my suspicion is,
is determined by the lay of the land? I mean its gravity sewer means
that when it occurs it will have to occur only in certain places. Is that
correct?
Jeff Davidson: It’s certainly a contributing factor. That is correct although I wouldn’t
want you to conclude that the route that Mr. Wolf suggests is not also
physically possible. I’m sorry I can’t speak to the details of why the
diagonal route has been selected I think that you may want to get a
memorandum from the Director of Public Works if that’s something
you’re interested in. But I wouldn’t draw the conclusion that it is
physically impossible via gravity to have the sewer along the
alignment that Mr. Wolf suggests, but there obviously must be some
other reasons that Chuck has selected that – that alignment.
Lehman: But now the discussion tonight is relative to the road only?
Davidson: No it’s also the acquisition of the property for the sewer.
Lehman: For the sewer as well?
Davidson: Yeah. It’s everything on the colored diagram that you have.
Lehman: Okay. Oh Jeff I’m sorry. You and I visited briefly about yesterday
about the timing for the building of the road that would be required if
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13a Page 56
when runway 24 is extended and I believe that you told me that we had
– that the Federal government is paying for the cost of the temporary
relocation of that road because of the extension of the runway. My
understanding is, and confirm that if it is correct, that we have already
received from the Federal government the money to build that road.
Davidson: That’s what the City Engineer indicated to me today that we have
received it. He thought that it was between $200,000 and $250,000 for
that relocation.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: Jeff, where is the color diagram you’re talking about?
Davidson: This one here. Did that ever go out in the packets?
Lehman: Actually no.
Vanderhoef: That one doing well. This is the one that…
Davidson: That’s the one Mr. Dane provided you I believe.
Vanderhoef: Right.
Davidson: It might have been in your previous packets.
Lehman: We do have it.
Davidson: We initially had it…I mean this is what we had intended to acquire
unless you modify it.
Lehman: I do believe that Mr. Dane’s map does show the portion that we’re
talking about now. This map does show.
Davidson: What Dee is holding is yeah.
Vanderhoef: It just isn’t in color.
Davidson: Right.
Vanderhoef: This is the one John gave…or George gave us.
Kanner: I’m not clear on the sewer that you’re talking about.
Lehman: Sewer is shown on…
Davidson: The sewer Steven is a required piece of infrastructure to open the
property up for redevelopment. In addition to road you need the water
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13a Page 57
line and you need the sewer. And all three elements are being
constructed in conjunction with this project.
Pfab: Is the sewer or no…
O’Donnell: Irvin, it’s down here. It’s the diagonal line above the proposed sewer.
Lehman: And then it runs along the right-of-way due east.
Davidson: The diagonal line Irvin off to the bottom of the picture.
Pfab: Okay. Okay.
Kanner: And again we heard a suggestion for S2 going back to S2 as a
possibility which would come off of US-218. And if that is a scenario
that Council wanted to consider would that push the timeframe back in
terms of when it gets developed since it’s further south I assume we
would want to push it back a number of years.
Davidson: We went through a quite extensive analysis of the alternatives and may
have even gone back to the proceeding City Council I’m not sure, but I
think it probably did. You know the alignments that we presented
Steven which include the ones that shown in the diagram that Mr.
Dane passed out were all buildable. We wouldn’t have presented them
to you if they weren’t and they had various pros and cons. City
Council did select the alignment that we’re working off of now. If you
wish to change that at this time that’s certainly a strategy that’s
available to you, but it would push the project out.
Kanner: Not only because of changing…doing changes, but in terms of…I’m
asking my assumption is the further south you go that means you’re
looking at Iowa City expansion of need for that road further out –
further down the road and for that reason it might be something we
won’t want to consider in the same timeframe as perhaps a more
northerly road like N1.
Davidson: Yeah. You’re aware that we have an adopted growth area boundary
that’s predicated on the area that we can serve with gravity sanitary
sewer and all the alignments that were evaluated, Steven were
evaluated against that. And the development potential that they
enabled the…my recollection and it’s kind of occurred quite a ways
past, but my recollection was the further north alignment did have
greater development potential given the terrain that they traverse
versus the ones that were further south.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13a Page 58
Vanderhoef: And the land was this general vicinity met requirements of how we got
through development that was on 921 and how to get through those
buildings over there and get across the river and then after the bridge
Bob had mentioned something about one bridge. I don’t know that
you’re wrong on that one. And what is going to happen is that there is
a further south alignment that after you cross the bridge you can then
connect with that road further south.
Davidson: And the discussions on the arterial street plan and you had those fairly
recently with the modifications that you made to that south arterial
alignment. I think the notion is the sooner in the future alignment is
the extension of this road further east across the river into the south
planning district. But that as a long range strategy we wanted to keep
that further south alignment. I agree completely with Mr. Wolf that
those will not occur simultaneously or within five years of each other.
I think one is considered a shorter term strategy. Hopefully within the
next 5, 6, 8 years and the other one a longer term strategy in the 10 to
20 year time period.
Pfab: I would bring up another comment here. It would have been a year or
two ago it would have probably not…I would not have given much
thought of the future of the Cedar Rapids Airport…or the Iowa City
Airport here, but with the…since 9/11 and the – I’m almost saying –
the craziness of our attempt nationally and internationally to protect
ourselves from terrorists God only knows will this ever be viable.
Will watching the price that the (can’t hear) operator will pay to be
here. I think that this…it’s going to be very difficult to defend the fact
that this may be coming a more valuable asset over time and it would
especially they’re expanding the Cedar Rapids Airport. They’re
making it quicker and easier to get in and out of there. I mean I would
hate to bet in a certain number of years that this airport will still be in
existence just because of 9/11. With no other mix…no other item in
the mix. But I mean we’re just watching this thing having nothing
but…and I don’t think we’re anywhere near what the Federal
government is going to require for people to travel by air. I mean this
thing well then it just again last night we watched two big aircraft over
where was it Germany or Switzerland hit each other. Now that’s
almost like antiballistic missiles to get those two planes to hit. So I
mean…this thing is just…I have no interest in supporting moving
forward because of the fact that if the airport be possibly be coming
less viable that it may change the whole thing. That’s just my own
personal experience and I’ve talked to no one about them.
Lehman: Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak to this
issue?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13a Page 59
Kanner: Alright. So at this time I’d like to as John Dane had requested in a
quite articulate fashion I’d like to postpone the hearing.
Champion: I thought you already…don’t we have a motion on the floor?
Pfab: No.
Lehman: No.
Pfab: The hearing wasn’t closed.
Vanderhoef: It’s on the floor.
Champion: There is a motion on the floor.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to defer indefinitely – is that the
motion?
Kanner: Yes.
Vanderhoef: (can’t hear) the public hearing indefinitely.
Lehman: Defer…
Champion: No.
Lehman: Continue the public hearing.
Vanderhoef: That was your motion – continue the public hearing indefinite. Do
you want to defer it indefinite?
Pfab: No. Continue it.
Kanner: What’s the difference in between?
Vanderhoef: Well, deferring…
Lehman: You can’t defer something we’ve started. We have to continue it.
Dilkes: I don’t think we can continue indefinitely because what we are doing
here is we’re required to hold a public hearing and give notice to
affected property owners. And so we can’t do that unless we know
when the public hearing is rescheduled for. We also can’t do that
without knowing what the proposed location or locations are. So it
may be that if Council wants to have an in-depth discussion of the
airport issues and go back to the initial alignment etc. then we need to
start over with this process.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13a Page 60
Lehman: But then the appropriate thing then would probably be to close the
public hearing and vote down the project. But we do have a motion to
– I’m going to say – continue the…
Kanner: Let’s say till September – our first meeting in September.
Lehman: Alright. We have a motion to continue the public hearing until the
first meeting in September. We have a… is there discussion on that
motion to defer? Or continue I guess is the correct (can’t hear).
Kanner: Yeah. I think especially what has been brought up at our work session
yesterday in our talk and our investigation with the airport and along
with what Irvin is saying and along with the minimal impact that we
find from the Swanson report of our airport on economic activity. I
think we need to reconsider the use of the airport and I think what John
was saying is a step in the right direction especially in regards to this
whole process of where we want to put a road and when we want to do
it and what part of the land is most valuable – what use of it.
Lehman: Okay. All in favor?
Vanderhoef: I won’t support this deferral. This has been talked about for a very,
very long time. This is a project that has been endorsed by this
Council as far as an economic development project and if you start
looking at pushing the road further south there were lots of reasons
why that one was not accepted for the Mormon Trek extension and if
we truly want to have orderly development to come down from the
north then moving that road further south in this point in time is going
to open up a whole lot of use of our infrastructure and we’re going to
have spot openings all over because we’re just opening up a whole lot
of land at one time.
Lehman: Well, let’s…
Vanderhoef: I’m not going to support the deferral. I’m going to go ahead and
support what we’ve got here.
Lehman: All those in favor of the deferral signify by raising their right hand or
say aye. Those opposed same sign. The motion is defeated 5-2
Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative. Public hearing is closed.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13b Page 61
ITEM NO. 13b CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DECLARING
Lehman: Do we have a motion? Well let’s have a motion to accept
correspondence.
O’Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O’Donnell, seconded by Champion. All in favor? [All
ayes]. Opposed? Carries. Is there a motion to consider the
resolution?
Dilkes: And when you make that motion please identify what alignments
you’re talking about and what connection for (can’t hear).
Lehman: Well would it be okay that a motion would be to accept the proposal as
recommended by Staff unless otherwise modified by Council? The
recommendation by Staff is…
Dilkes: Yes. That’s acceptable.
Lehman: I believe that is the motion which is the alignment of Mormon Trek
including option as has been referred to as option B. so is there a
motion to approve that?
Champion: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Vanderhoef: Okay. I read the letter in the packet from the property owner who is
impacted by how the connecting road is going through his property
and I respect that. However, I also look at this total piece of land and
the old Dane Road that will be maintained and the right angle turns
and knowing what the hills are out there I’m thinking for movement of
a lot of folks in and out of their work place which I hope develops
sooner rather than later. I like the diagonal C suggestion. This to me
makes the most sense for all parties. Yes it’s a little bit longer. It still
is within the cost for the project and the dollars that we are getting
from the FAA to do the project. I’m trying to look at this in a very
broad scope of how this might look as it’s being developed and I think
C is the way to go. The only other amendment that I would consider if
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13b Page 62
there was interest is to approve the whole big road and do the diagonal
later, but since the dollars are here I don’t think that’s probably
prudent.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Pfab: Yes. I would like to…Dee had made a comment that this has been on
this project has been around for a long time. Now I contend that 9/11
made a lot of changes in the broad scope as you said. Now you have
traveled a lot via air before and since 9/11. Correct? Now can you
imagine that small airports are going to survive in this kind of changes
that are coming on and it looks like these travel restrictions are going
to become a lot more serious once we get the Department of Homeland
Security – whatever it is. This thing is going to change a lot. I
contend that this airport is going to…the viability is going to be
drastically reduced or the chances of it being viable. And as a result I
think this whole thing is in question and if the airport is not going
to…if the runway is not going to be extended and there’s other options
I think to move forward is foolish. That’s my personal opinion.
Vanderhoef: I understand it.
Lehman: To me the only issue relative to the airport is the relocation of Dane
Road. Whether or not the airport is there – the extension of Mormon
Trek is a natural sort of thing to occur even if there wasn’t an airport
there. That road would be extended because it makes sense.
Pfab: I was trying to follow up what Bob was saying and it looked to me
where…what…could I ask him?
Lehman: No we’ve had the public.
Pfab: Okay. So I was…it looked to me like he was looking at a lot different
plan…way to run this road.
Lehman: I don’t think there’s any question about that. Also one which we’ve
looked at extensively over the years.
Pfab: But up until 9/11.
Lehman: The airport isn’t relevant to the extension of Mormon Trek in my
opinion.
Pfab: Okay. Well, I…
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13b Page 63
Lehman: That road dead ends on Highway 1. It needs to extend to the east.
That’s a natural continuation of that road. Dane Road obviously is
another question.
Pfab: But where does it…but where the road continues as you go east is not
a natural…there is no natural end to it as I can see it. It looks like it
kind of ends up wherever whatever the mood is or whatever the latest
numbers are because it looks like this thing just keeps floating around.
That’s my position and if there’s a high demand for this property it
might be something we want to think about. I question whether there
is, but that’s my voice.
Lehman: We’ve heard you Irvin. Now would someone else like to comment?
Champion: Well, I do support Dee’s suggestion of diagonal suggestion C, but I
would like to ask if is that a bad implication what happens eventually
with that? That diagonal road looks more drivable to me.
Davidson: Excuse me Connie what’s your specific question?
Champion: I forget. It’s getting late.
O’Donnell: Suggestion C on this map.
Champion: The diagonal.
Davidson: Item C that we’ve presented you was evaluated. It can be built
according to our design standards. You see in Ross’ memorandum the
summary there. Probably the significant thing to note about item C is
Mr. Davis, the property owner over whose property that would go, is
opposed to that alignment.
O’Donnell: Jeff, what about this proposed sewer line. Is there any way…can we
check and see if we can’t…if there’s any realignment there without a
great deal of cost.
Davidson: What I would suggest there, Mike is that you have the Director of
Public Works provide a memorandum in your next packet detailing…
Lehman: Why it’s where it is.
Davidson: He has done that, but there are technical issues that you really ought to
hear from him as to why that’s preferred.
Vanderhoef: Am I not correct that anything basically to the north and east of the
new alignment will flow into the other sewer?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13b Page 64
Lehman: Willow Creek sewer.
Vanderhoef: Because of the lay of the land and therefore this sewer needs to go on
the opposite side of the road because that’s where we can’t sewer by
gravity.
O’Donnell: I need to hear that. I want (can’t hear) cutting through ground.
Davidson: Yeah, the issue that Mr. Wolf raised of going around the perimeter of
his property versus the diagonal route was evaluated by the Director of
Public Works. He should be able to summarize that for you very
easily.
Atkins: Ernie, can I ask Jeff a question?
Lehman: Please.
Atkins: Isn’t the diagonal issue through the Davis property as a road
substantially the same thing as Bob’s concern about a diagonal issue
through his property for a sewer. It encumbers the property.
Davidson: My understanding of Mr. Davis’ position is he does not feel…Mr.
Davis intends to use the relocated Dane Road as an access road for the
redevelopment of his property and he does not feel alignment C does
that well as far as (can’t hear).
Atkins: I happen to recall the whole diagonal issue we went through on the
property on First Avenue and the gates and it encumbers the land at
least according to the property owners. But, I can understand Bob’s
argument.
Davidson: I mean it would leave a parcel – a triangle – of property with virtually
no frontage…
Champion: Exactly.
Davidson: …on the arterial. I assume that’s why Mr. Davis…
Pfab: Well, it doesn’t leave just one – it leaves four – two at each side and
each end.
Dilkes: For purposes of appraise…
Vanderhoef: It has frontage on the new arterial the same amount if it comes in at the
same location which is the way C is being suggested.
Champion: But triangles don’t develop the same. There’s difficulty getting…
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13b Page 65
Davidson: There is one other issue if there is a majority of Council in favor of
alignment C is just be aware as Ross has indicated that will push us out
6 to 10 weeks with our letting which is not insurmountable.
Vanderhoef: But can’t we let Mormon Trek without letting the C.
Davidson: I’ll have to ask the City Engineer about that Dee. That may be
possible and…
Vanderhoef: That would be my intent at this point.
Davidson: If there is a majority in favor of alignment C we’ll at least evaluate
doing that to try and keep the majority…
Lehman: My suspicion is that letting the two together would be significantly
less expensive then having two different times.
Davidson: Yeah. Tacking on change orders after you have already hired a
contractor tends to get a little bit expensive just because they know
they’re the only game at that point.
Lehman: Irvin let’s see if someone else wants to speak. Ross you haven’t
spoken do you have any comments?
Wilburn: No. I’ve gone along with some of the comments that Dee has said and
I agree that, you know, the extension of this road is a natural (can’t
hear) regardless of there being an airport there or not.
Lehman: I agree that’s true.
Pfab: Is this a decision that has to be made to move other than the fact that it
may be easier to bundle it. But is it a decision that has to be made to
do the other?
Lehman: I don’t think that anything has to be made. We can defer this. We can
vote it down. We can vote it up.
Pfab: No, I mean I’m just referring to the alternates A, B, and C.
Lehman: I don’t know. I think that what we’re being asked to do I think the
City is interested in starting the acquisition of property so they can do
the extension of Mormon Trek. As a part of that project and because
we have received the money from the FAA for the relocation of Dane
Road it probably behooves us from the cost standpoint to go ahead and
do the two projects at the same time. Now the recommendation from
the Staff is alternate B and I think that Jeff has indicated why. Dee has
some feeling for alternate C. The motion on the floor is for B.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13b Page 66
Pfab: Or C?
Lehman: B which is the one recommended by Engineering and by the City
Staff.
Pfab: Okay, but my question is if Dane Road is not closed and it won’t be
until the airport is finished is it necessary to get even involved with A,
B, or C.
Lehman: My question to Jeff was that as well and because we have been paid
for that road by the FAA we may be required to spend that money or
loss it.
Pfab: Do we know that for sure one way or the other?
Lehman: I think if you lose it it’s a little late.
Pfab: No, I mean are we required to spend it if we don’t move forward?
Davidson: The City Engineer who is sitting to my left has indicated that the FAA
is interested in us moving as soon as we can with encumbering those
funds.
Pfab: Okay.
Champion: Do we actually have a motion on the floor?
Lehman: We do have a motion.
Champion: For her alternate?
Lehman: Motion on the floor is for alternate B. That’s the way it’s been
recommended by the Staff and Engineers.
Champion: But, she didn’t move to go with C.
Lehman: No.
Vanderhoef: I put it out for discussion to see if there was interest here.
Champion: Can we vote?
Lehman: Well, if there’s no more discussion.
Vanderhoef: I’ll put the motion on just so that everyone is clear that we considered
it.
Lehman: But the motion – I’m sorry.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#13b Page 67
Vanderhoef: I move that we amend the motion to include diagonal C as suggested
on our map instead of the current B for the connection between
Mormon Trek Road and Dane Road.
Lehman: Is there a second to the amendment.
Kanner: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to amend the motion replacing what
appears on our map as item B with the diagonal which is labeled C.
discussion on the amendment.
Vanderhoef: I’ve made my comment.
Lehman: All in favor of the amendment…wait do we – we can do a voice. All
in favor of the amendment signify by raising your right hand. All
opposed to the amendment raise your right hand. The motion is
defeated 3-4, Kanner, Vanderhoef and Pfab voting in the affirmative.
Now we have the motion as it has been presented including B which is
the proposal proposed by the Staff and Engineering. All those…well
roll call on the motion as not amended. Resolution I’m sorry. The
motion carries 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative. Do we
have a motion to accept correspondence or did we do that?
Karr: We did that (can’t hear).
Lehman: We already did that.
O’Donnell: Can we do it again?
Champion: Can we do it one more time?
Lehman: Anyone want to give us some more correspondence?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#19 Page 68
ITEM NO. 19 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING ACQUISTION OF
PROPERTY FOR THE FIRST AVENUE CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – ROCHESTER AVENUE TO “D”
STREET.
Lehman: (Reads item).
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
O’Donnell: Second
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O’Donnell. I only have one
question. I should have asked it last night and if we don’t have an
answer I apologize if it’s okay. But it’s…we have 48 square feet that
we’re paying $4904 for it?
Pfab: It depends whether we’re buying or selling.
Atkins: Please read on, on these things is that it’s we’re compensating them for
taking down trees…
Lehman: Never mind. Okay. Yes and signs.
Atkins: And locate their sign. That’s expensive.
Lehman: I should have read farther. Any…yes?
Kanner: Traffic…we have some correspondence about traffic flow for the
detour. It seems to be going a lot better now.
Atkins: Yes. Much better. Yes. (Can’t hear) have become accustomed to it.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#20 Page 69
ITEM NO. 20 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND THE
FOLLOWING AGENCIES FOR AID-TO-AGENCY FUNDING
BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST THE SAME: BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS
($41,011); CRISIS CENTER ($40,600); DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION PROGRAM ($54,256); EMERGENCY
HOUSING PROJECT ($14,000); FREE MEDICAL CLINIC
($6,584); HAWKEYE AREA COMMUNITY ACTION
PROGRAM ($8,635); IOWA CENTER FOR AIDS RESOURCES
AND EDUCATION ($9,350); MAYOR’S YOUTH
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM ($43,483); MID-EASTERN
COUNCIL ON CHEMICAL ABUSE ($10,500);
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY
($62,856); RAPE VICTIM ADVOCACY PROGRAM ($12,200);
AMERICAN RED CROSS ($5,500); AND UNITED ACTION
FOR YOUTH ($41,525).
Wilburn: I will be abstaining due to a conflict of interest. I am employed by one
of the receipt agencies.
Lehman: Okay. Thank you.
Vanderhoef: This one and 21, correct?
Wilburn: I will be abstaining to 21 due to a conflict of interest with any items
involving CDBG decisions due to being employed by a CDBG fund
receipt agency. Different reasons.
Lehman: (Reads item).
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
O’Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O’Donnell. Discussion.
Kanner: This is perhaps a little bit tangential but with the discussion we had on
the amendments to the CITY STEPS program…maybe I’ll wait to the
next one which is more directly involved with CDBG funding.
Lehman: Any further discussion?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#20 Page 70
Vanderhoef: Just comment – this is Iowa City General Fund dollars…
Lehman: Right.
Vanderhoef: …that we’re voting on here so we’re looking at roughly $350,000 that
we choose to give to our agencies in our community.
Pfab: And what you’re saying is you’re stating the fact that this is separate
than item 21 which is CDBG dollars.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries 6-0. Wilburn abstaining.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#21 Page 71
ITEM NO. 21 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND THE
FOLLOWING AGENCIES FOR FEDERAL COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING BY THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST THE SAME: ELDER SERVICES ($62,063); MID-
EASTERN COUNCIL ON CHEMICAL ABUSE ($19,462); AND
UNITED ACTION FOR YOUTH ($23,475).
Lehman: (Reads item).
Champion: Move the resolution.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Pfab: I’m going to vote against this not because of what’s here but what’s
not here.
Lehman: Okay.
O’Donnell: Are you keeping us in suspense?
Kanner: Yeah. Are you going to elaborate a little?
Pfab: No, in the sense that where are the parts that are not funded – where
the funds did not go.
O’Donnell: thank you.
Pfab: And I’m not so…
Vanderhoef: I think this is the way they choose to do it rather than list multiple
agencies CDBG.
Atkins: I think I understand the question. Okay, Dee…
Vanderhoef: Am I not correct?
Atkins: No, you are correct. What we choose to do, and it’s for paperwork, we
choose a number of agencies to fund directly from the General Fund
and then we apply our procedures and policies and so forth. And then
the remaining…the monies from CDBG fund a group of projects also.
I think it’s like $350,000 for the top half and $105,000 for CDBG.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#21 Page 72
Vanderhoef: $105,000 for down here.
Atkins: It is simply done for convenience.
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: If you’ve already made your policies
Vanderhoef: But they’ve got their money that we talked about earlier Irvin. It’s just
that this way the only have to put in the paperwork for the three
agencies to the Federal Government. The rest of it we can arrange, but
they’re getting exactly what we talked about in the CITY STEPS vote
a few months ago.
Lehman: And there’s no mixed money so we’re not mixing Federal and CDBG.
Pfab: I just have a general uncomfortableness about it and it’s not that I’m
opposed to any of where the money is going. It’s my general
uneasiness with the way it was going.
Kanner: Mine is tangential thing about the discussion we had earlier about the
amendment to our CITY STEPS plan. And in that is with the proposal
$56,000 you put into contingency and I would hope that we could
direct HCDC to look at spending those money perhaps on some more
human service agencies if it’s appropriate. It might not be in the right
category, but…
Vanderhoef: It’s home funds.
Kanner: It’s home funds, but still we could perhaps direct them - I’m sure
they’re going to do it anyhow - to look how to spend that
appropriately.
Vanderhoef: They’ve already made their recommendation and that’s what we’ve
got in our book right now.
Kanner: Well their recommended contingency fund right now.
Vanderhoef: And they’re moving some other funds too.
Kanner: They’re moving some other slight amount but in the final budget right
now with it we’re looking to approve that we talked…had the public
hearing on tonight $56,000 was set aside for contingency. We can ask
HCDC to look at spending some or all of that $56,000 in the
appropriate…for the appropriate purpose.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#21 Page 73
Lehman: I’m sure that’s true. All we’re acting on are these specific
recommendations.
Vanderhoef: These right now. And this is the $105,000 that is set aside…
Champion: We are going to be discussing those funds at the next work session,
Steven, so that would be a very good thing to bring up then.
Pfab: Well can we…can this be postponed?
Lehman: Why would we postpone it?
Vanderhoef: Not this, no. We’ve already allocated the $105,000.
Lehman: Not until we vote. Roll call. Motion carries 5-1, Pfab voting in the
negative and Wilburn abstaining.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
O’Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by O’Donnell.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion to receive correspondence. All in favor?
Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#22 Page 74
ITEM NO. 22 CONSIDER RESOLUTION REPEALING A RESOLUTION
PASSED JUNE 15, 1965, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR
CALLING OF A SPECIAL MEETING AND ADOPTING A
NEW RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR
CALLING OF A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING.
Lehman: (Reads item).
O’Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O’Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll
call.
Kanner: Yeah, I’m going to be voting against this. I think this is a bad move.
It’s a move in a direction of limiting minority input and debate to no
good end. I can’t see the good end. There’s been a strong Council
majority for most of the items and as members have said there’s four
votes and there’s a vote and that’s it. So I think it’s a good idea to
allow two members to explore the idea of calling a special meeting. I
don’t like the direction that we’re going in first with trying to get rid of
the extension vote and then toeing the party line with J.C. Cogs and I
feel that this is just another thing in that direction. And I would urge
you to vote no. There’s really no need for this.
Lehman: Let me just say that if there are not three people on a Council
interested in discussing an issue it seem fruitless to call a meeting so I
don’t see requiring three as a problem of any kind.
Champion: And if people…if at least three people aren’t interested in discussing it
I mean I think the fact that it uses a lot of Staff time and a lot of
people’s time for a meeting that’s not going to be attended. When the
rules said two there were only five people on the City Council.
Lehman: Right. It took 40% to call a meeting.
Champion: Yeah. And so there are 7 of us now, so I think that it is logical to raise
it.
Lehman: Actually it’s a little under 40%. Four times seven is 2.8. Okay other
discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 5-2, Kanner and Pfab in the
negative.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 75
ITEM NO. 24a COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Lehman: Human Rights Commission. Last night we selected Nick Klenske,
ITEM NO. 24b HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Lehman: Three appointments to serve three year terms and we have one
appointment for an unexpired term. We selected two people for the
three year term: Jayne Sandler and Jerry Anthony. We will be
readvertising for the other two positions. Do I have a…actually,
pardon?
Pfab: When you get finished I have a question.
Lehman: Do we have a motion to approve those three?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
O’Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O’Donnell. All in favor?
Pfab: I’d like to split. I’d like to make an amendment and split those.
Lehman: Why?
Pfab: I’d like to amend the motion. I would like to vote for…unless I can
get some new information I understand that there was a possibility that
someone from the…that had been on the CDBG Board is going to
reapply. Did you say that?
Champion: We can’t worry about that.
Lehman: We can only work with the applications that we have.
Pfab: Well, in that case I would support Nick for that Board.
O’Donnell: It’s already done. We did it last night.
Kanner: (Can’t hear) Mike. You can make an amendment to…
Pfab: Yes, I would like to vote for Nick for the CDBG.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 76
Lehman: Alright let’s take the first one. Nick Klenske for the Human Rights
Commission. Do we have a motion to approve him?
O’Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: All those in favor say aye.
Kanner: Wait, wait, wait.
Lehman: I’m sorry.
Dilkes: Can we get a withdraw of the first motion.
Champion: Withdraw.
Karr: Vanderhoef, O’Donnell.
Kanner: We have an amendment on…doesn’t that take precedence (can’t hear).
Lehman: No, we don’t (can’t hear).
Karr: I did not hear an amendment. Not if the Mayor stated that we were
going to do them separately and we had no second to his amendment.
Kanner: But I was ready to second it. Didn’t we have a motion and then we
had an amendment and I was ready to second it?
Lehman: We’re starting from ground zero.
Champion: We’re starting from scratch.
Lehman: First motion will be…
Kanner: Withdraw something. Doesn’t the amendment takes precedence?
Champion: We have to withdraw the original.
Kanner: The amendment takes precedent if it’s on there and there has to be an
option to second it. I’d like to second Irvin’s amendment and deal
with it in this fashion and then…
Lehman: What purpose?
Kanner: The purpose is I don’t want to have to vote on Nick Klenske…I want
Nick Klenske to be considered for HCDC like Irvin’s amendment said
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 77
and if it’s voted down then I would be willing to vote for him for
human rights.
Champion: Oh, I see.
Kanner: I think it makes more sense that Nick is for HCDC and that we select
one of the three others…
Lehman: Let’s start over. Will the people who made the first motion please
remake their motion. Don’t withdraw your motion. Connie you made
it.
Champion: I didn’t…I thought Vanderhoef did.
Karr: Vanderhoef did.
Dilkes: Wait a minutes, are we going back…are we going back to the point
where?
Lehman: We’re going to the point where Irvin made the amendment.
Dilkes: Okay.
Lehman: What was your amendment, Irvin?
Pfab: My amendment was to split the votes or divide it into two parts.
Champion: We’re willing to do that.
Pfab: That’s fine
Lehman: Wait a minute. Is there a second to split the votes?
Champion: I’ll second it.
Lehman: Thank you. All in favor of amendment say aye. Opposed? (none)
Okay we’re going to split the votes. The first one will be is there a
nomination over Nick Klenske for Human Rights Commission?
Pfab: We were going…
Vanderhoef: Yes, I make that.
O’Donnell: And I second it.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second for Nick Klenske for the Human
Rights Commission.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 78
Kanner: Can we…Ernie can we vote the other way?
Lehman: No we can’t. All those in favor of Nick Klenske please say aye.
Opposed same sign. Now the second.
Karr: I’m sorry for the record, opposed was who?
Pfab: I’m going to oppose Nick for…
Karr: And Steven?
Kanner: I’m not voting this way. I think it’s a crummy way to do it.
(End of Tape #02-58. Beginning of Tape #02-59)
Kanner: I want to have an opportunity for other people to pick human rights
and to have Nick Klenske on HCDC.
Lehman: The vote is 5 in favor, 1 opposed – Mr. Pfab and 1 abstention Mr.
Kanner which will count with the positive. The second portion of this
is the Housing and Community Development Commission. Do I have
a motion to accept Jayne Sandler and Jerry Anthony for three years?
Champion: Moved.
O’Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O’Donnell. All in favor? (All
ayes). Opposed? Motion carries.
ITEM NO. 24c JAIL SPACE & SERVICES TASK FORCE
Lehman: Jail Space & Service Task Force appointment. We have been asked to
appoint someone from Iowa City Council as I believe Coralville and
North Liberty and a number of other agencies and organizations within
the County to work on with a consultant hired by the County I believe
to look at the space needs and whatever for a new jail. The person we
appoint will serve from, I believe, August of this year until April or
May of next year. So and I think it is a very, very important position.
I received a call from you, Connie, earlier today expressing your
interest in serving on that Board.
Champion: Yes, I would be very interested in serving on it.
O’Donnell: I think that’s a very good choice.
Kanner: I’d be very interested also.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 79
Vanderhoef: And I think it would be very good for this Council to send their
Mayor.
Lehman: Well let me just say this and I will…I would serve on that Board. I
believe that because of the election…or no actually everybody on this
Council will be serving. I would be happy to serve on that. Frankly I
have awfully lot to do. I will do that at the…you know if the Council
asked me to do it. I feel Connie would be an excellent representative.
O’Donnell: Dee, I don’t see any reasoning that you have to have the Mayor do
this. This is something that any one of the seven of us can do.
Vanderhoef: Absolutely.
O’Donnell: And I think Connie is a wonderful choice on that.
Vanderhoef: She can do a fine job.
Pfab: I would like to serve on that Board also then.
Lehman: Well do we have a nomination?
O’Donnell: I’d like to nominate Connie.
Lehman: We have a nomination for Connie Champion.
Vanderhoef: And I’ll nominate Ernie.
Lehman: We have a nomination for the Mayor.
Karr: Can we get a second?
Dilkes: I think we’re going to do it by motion. I don’t…
Lehman: How should we best do this?
Dilkes: Typically you act by motion resolution for…
Lehman: Alright we have a motion to nominate Connie Champion by Mike
O’Donnell. Do we have a second to that nomination?
Wilburn: I’ll second that.
Lehman: A second from Mr. Wilburn. Are there any other nominations.
Vanderhoef: I’ll nominate Mayor Lehman.
Lehman: Wait. Are we doing this?
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 80
Karr: We typically don’t get into determining the method of voting. How
many motions do you want to put on the floor? Do you want to vote
as you put them on and see if you need more motions?
Kanner: I’d like to make…well we have a motion, but see if we can get another
motion that we…the vote will set the voting precedent. Somehow we
figure out that everyone can be nominated that wants to be and we take
a vote and we just vote for them. We read everyone’s name that’s
nominated and you vote aye or nay for…
Karr: So you want to do endless motions and seconds and then vote in
order?
Kanner: No, I only want one motion and…
Karr: You have the one motion.
Kanner: I’m asking if it can be withdrawn and that we do this other motion that
we list everyone that wants to be nominated and you read their names
and everyone says aye or nay for…
Lehman: I think if we accept nominations you can do that. Can you not do that?
Dilkes: I think that you got a motion (can’t hear) motion and a second on the
floor if that’s withdrawn then I think you need…and you want to vote
in a different way then you need to make a motion to decide how
you’re going to vote.
Lehman: Let me ask you this. Can we have a motion to accept nominations and
then we can accept however many nominations that come up and we
can then vote on them?
Dilkes: that’s similar to a motion.
Lehman: Okay. This is silly, but can we have the original…the last motion to
be all withdrawn. Will someone make a motion?
O’Donnell: No. It’s on the floor and it’s seconded. I’d like to see if there are four
people who want Connie to…
Lehman: Alright. We have a motion for Connie, but we also have a motion for
myself. Is there a second to that one?
Kanner: No, no we can’t.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 81
Dilkes: No we can’t…There are two options here: to proceed with the motion
that’s on the floor or to have the motion withdrawn and go with a
different method of voting.
Lehman: Alright. The motion is on the floor that Connie Champion be
appointed to be the representative from the City of Iowa City to the
Jail Space & Services Task Force. All those in favor of that motion
please signify by raising their right hand. I see one, two, three, four.
All opposed?
Vanderhoef: Make that five.
Lehman: We have a vote of five to two.
Kanner: You can’t change your vote. How can you change your vote in the
middle after…?
Vanderhoef: I just did.
Lehman: She just did.
Kanner: What kind of…some procedure (can’t hear). That just doesn’t make
sense.
Lehman: A little slow getting her hand up.
Kanner: Sometimes you withdraw a motion, sometimes you don’t.
Lehman: In any event Connie you have been selected.
Champion: I didn’t know it was going to be worth all this.
Lehman: No, I believe that’s going to be a very, very important committee and I
really appreciate your offering to serve on it. I think you represent us
well.
O’Donnell: Very good choice.
Pfab: We would have offered to serve too.
Lehman: Yeah I know that. I think everybody would have.
Pfab: That last vote was a little puzzling to me. I’m not sure if I could
describe what happened there.
O’Donnell: There was a nomination and second and we voted.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#24 Page 82
Pfab: Maybe we could ask the Clerk or to describe what…
O’Donnell: Ernie, let’s move on.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#26 Page 83
ITEM NO. 26 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION
Lehman: Council information? Irvin?
Pfab: I think it’s a great night to go home.
Lehman: Good. Connie?
Champion: I think it’s a great night to go home too.
Lehman: We have two votes to go home. Mike?
O’Donnell: I’m going to vote that way too, but I wanted to wish everybody a
happy 4th of July.
Lehman: Absolutely.
Vanderhoef: There you go. A wing dinger.
O’Donnell: Coralville’s having a wonderful celebration as is Iowa City. Coralville
starts tonight with the Mirror’s antique car show with a parade. I
understand there’s actually going to be two cars there as old as the
Mayor and one car…
Atkins: That’s a chariot.
O’Donnell: What’s that – it’s a chariot?
Pfab: There’s one for Steve.
O’Donnell: Enjoy the celebration.
Pfab: I think we’re also going also if we’re going to announce neighborhood
things you see where Oxford is going to have their fireworks too.
Lehman: I think a lot of cities are.
Champion: So is Iowa City by the way.
Vanderhoef: Just one thing. We had a letter in our packet from someone about the
survey in Manville Heights on the traffic count and also there was
some discussion when we were in public hearing tonight about doing
surveys on traffic count and I think people need to know that there will
be one done that we said we would do at the end of the first year of the
Lexington.
Atkins: Yes.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#26 Page 84
Vanderhoef: But that will come later this fall after all the students are back in town
so that we will have a representative look at the traffic. That we might
respond to that letter. That was Linda Dellsperger.
Wilburn: Everyone have a fun and safe 4th. Fun and safe Iowa City Jazz
Festival. I won’t see you until Sunday of Jazz Festival because I will
be at my 20th high school class reunion.
Champion: 20 years.
O’Donnell: It sucks.
Vanderhoef: At least you’re brave enough to go to your class reunions and I know
people who aren’t. I go to mine though I promise you.
Lehman: Steven?
Kanner: Two things. One a Johnson County resident on the south part of
Johnson County clued me into possible invasive species – Buckthorn
Tree – which, have you heard of that, is hit Quad Cities and I guess
part of Johnson County – part of his property.
Champion: There are some in town.
Kanner: And something that we may want to look at in the future. I’m not too
familiar with it, but maybe we can get a little information.
Champion: You know Steven, aren’t sometimes the seeds in birdseed and that’s
how they get started? You buy that mixed birdseed
Pfab: The bird eats it and they travel…
Atkins: I think the bird has a lot to do with it.
Kanner: If Council concurs maybe Steve can just ask Terry about it.
Atkins: Let me ask Terry about it.
Champion: Yeah.
Atkins: Buckthorn?
Lehman: Buckthorn.
Champion: And they’re kind of ornamental so that people like it when
they…they’re very invasive.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
#26 Page 85
O’Donnell: I think I planted one of those.
Champion: No, you didn’t.
Kanner: You burned it in that outdoor fireplace. And then the final thing, Ernie
how did the visit with James Thomas go?
Lehman: I talked to Mr. Thomas today as a matter of fact. My understanding is
that we have received a letter from him and his attorney which I have
not seen. But I did talk with him this afternoon.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: I had a nice visit with him. Okay again everybody have a great 4th.
Just take 10 seconds and think about what the 4th is really all about.
Champion: Right.
________________________________________________________________________
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of July 2, 2002
