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