Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-08/23/2010August 23, 2010 The Council of the City of Waterloo, Iowa, met in Regular Session at City Hall Council Chambers, Waterloo, Iowa, at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, August 23, 2010. Mayor Ernest G. Clark in the Chair. Roll Call: Cole, Getty, Jones, Greenwood, Schmitt, Welper, Hart. Moment of Silence. Pledge of Allegiance: Buck Clark, 135106 - Hart/Schmitt Mayor. that the Agenda, as proposed, for the Regular Session on Monday, August 23, 2010, be accepted and approved. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135107 - Hart/Schmitt that the Minutes, as proposed, for the Regular Session on Monday, August 16, 2010, at 5:30 p.m., be accepted and approved. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Tom Smock, Iowa Committee for the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, presented the Patriot Award to James McIntosh, a supervisor for John Deere. Mr. McIntosh was nominated by Michael Shackleton. CONSENT AGENDA 135108 - Hart/Cole that the following items on the consent agenda be received, placed on file and approved: a. Resolutions to approve the following: 1. Resolution approving Schedule AP642, pp. 1-77, dated August 23, 2010, in the amount of $1,851,285.79, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office, together with recommendation of approval of the Finance Committee. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-752. 2. Request of Story Construction Co. for a variance of the Noise Control Ordinance effective from August 24, 2010 to September 30, 2010 for the purpose of the use of a bypass pump in conjunction with the F.Y. 2010 Sixth Street Storm Pump Station Improvements, Contract No. 716 -Submitted by Jamie Knutson, Associate Engineer Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-753. 3. Request of Christa Miehe, The VGM Group, for a variance to the Noise Ordinance on August 28, 2010 from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. in conjunction with VGM Drive -In Movie that will be held in the back parking lot at 1101 W. San Marnan Dr., together with recommendation of approval of Chief of Police -Submitted by Suzy Schares, City Clerk Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-754. 4. Request of Fun House dba Spicoli's Grill, for a variance to the Noise Ordinance on September 5, 2010 from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in conjunction with University Cruise Car Show that will be held in the parking lot at 3555 University Ave., together with recommendation of approval of Chief of Police -Submitted by Suzy Schares, City Clerk Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-755. 5. Request of Vanderloo Chiropractic to hold patient appreciation barbeque on August 27, 2010 starting at 4:00 p.m., utilizing the right-of-way to erect a tent on the grass between Kimball Avenue and the parking lot at 3731 Kimball Avenue -Submitted by Suzy Schares, City Clerk Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-756. August 23, 2010 b. Motion to approve the following: Page 2 1. Recommendation of appointment of Beth Huffman, Steven Buckles, and Sharina Sallis, to the Waterloo Commission on Human Rights, with terms to expire January 1, 2013. 2. 3. 4. 5 Travel Requests Name & Title of Personnel Class/Meeting Destination Date(s) Amount not to exceed Rudy D. Jones, Community Development Director 2010 Housinglowa Conference Des Moines, Iowa September 8-9, 2010 $460.00 Paul Huting, Leisure Services Director Iowa Park and Recreation Association Fall Workshop West Des Moines, Iowa September 14-16, 2010 $317.64 Mayor Buck Clark; Michelle Weidner, Chief Financial Officer; Suzy Schares, City Clerk Iowa League of Cities annual conference Coralville, IA September 22-24, 2010 $825.00 Cheryl Huddleston, Human Resources Manger; Mary Peterson, Human Resources Administrative Secretary Academy III: The Negotiation Process Public Employer Relations Association Des Moines, Iowa September 8-10, 2010 $1,028.96 6. Beer License Permit Application Class C Neighborhood Mart, 2100 Lafayette Street (New) (8/15/11) (Includes Sunday Sales) 7. Liquor License Permit Application Class C The Hoist Bar and Grill, 814 LaPorte Rd. (New) (9/1/2011) (Includes Sunday Sales) Chapala Mexican Restaurant, 900 LaPorte Rd. (Renewal) (8/1/11) (Includes Sunday Sales) 8. Wine License Permit Application Class B Neighborhood Mart, 2100 Lafayette Street (New) (8/15/11) (Includes Sunday Sales) 9. Outdoor Service Area Application Spicoli's, 3555 University Ave. (expansion of existing outdoor service for 9/5/10) The Hoist Bar and Grill, 814 LaPorte Rd. (New) 135109 - Schmitt/Greenwood to table b(1) for two weeks. Councilperson Hart, what do you look for when you go through your commissioner process? Abraham Funchess, Human Rights Director, obviously we just follow the city code section. As we look at the applicant's names are being passed on to commission chair. They make recommendations to the city council from there. Ayes: Four. Nays: Three (Cole, Getty, Welper). Motion carried. consent agenda cont. Ayes: Seven. Ms. Cole abstained from item a(3) as this is her employer. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS 135110 - Schmitt/Welper • • • • August 23, 2010 Page 3 that proof of publication of notice of public hearing on Library Boiler Replacement, as published in the Waterloo Courier on August 12, 2010, be received and placed on file. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135111 - This being the time and place of public hearing, the Mayor called for written and oral objections and there were none. Schmitt/Welper that the hearing be closed. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135112 - Schmitt/Welper that "Resolution confirming approval of plans, specifications, form of contract, etc. in conjunction with Library Boiler Replacement", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-757. 135113 - Schmitt/Welper that "Resolution ordering construction in conjunction with Library Boiler Replacement", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-758. 135114 - Schmitt/Welper to receive, file and instruct City Clerk to open and read bids and refer to Building Official/Maintenance Administrator for review: Bidder Bid Amount WBC Mechanical Inc. 1801 Falls Avenue Waterloo, IA 50701 $116,466.00 Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135115 - Getty/Cole that proof of publication of notice of public hearing on Hammond and Ridgeway Avenue Intersection Improvement Project, as published in the Waterloo Courier on August 12, 2010, be received and placed on file. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135116 - This being the time and place of public hearing, the Mayor called for written and oral objections and there were several on file in the City Clerk's Office. Andy Olson, 1420 E. Ridgeway Avenue, I have lived there fro 22 years and I guess I got the short straw so I got chosen as the first speaker anyway representing the Hurst Neighborhood Association. First of all, I'd like to thank the Mayor and City Council. I met with all of you pretty much at one time or another. I appreciate your time. Some of you spent some one on one time. My calls have been answered immediately and I think we got along good. Our main concern I guess would be the safety of that intersection. The way it is right now is that it's a four way stop. We just don't have accidents. We've got police reports from the years 2004 to 2010. In the last seven years there's been four accidents, that result in an injury at that intersection. So that's an average of one every two years compared to the accident ratio of intersections with lights. I know one of our neighbors took a random survey out of the police log and out of 27 accidents reported in that seven -week stretch, 26 were lighted intersections. One was at a four-way stop. Also, we took comparisons from IDOT that provided statistics as far as traffic counts for Ansborough & Ridgeway; Kimball & Ridgeway; and Hammond & Ridgeway. Out of those three intersections Hammond and Ridgeway has the second highest traffic flow. And that's with two lane streets. The other intersections are both four lane. I believe their accident count was a lot higher than ours. We also have very low pedestrian traffic at that intersection. Schools have moved their crosswalks to Easton & Hammond and Easton and 11th. Those are both traffic lights that function all year round. So the schools have tried to move all of their kids down to those intersections to use those and so they stay away from that from the intersection of Hammond & Ridgeway. Also, since Beth has opened up as a thru street traffic I believe has dropped. And I'm sure the studies that were done in -favor of putting lights there were done before that street was open. So I believe the traffic counts are down from what they were. I think that Beth has helped a lot because a lot of the traffic, especially GMAC, I think they know its easier to sneak right out that back way instead of coming down to the Hammond intersection. We think we would be spending a lot of money on an intersection to solve a problem that only exists for a few hours a day. In the afternoon when schools let out we have two high schools, we've got an elementary school, August 23, 2010 Page 4 we've got all of the businesses around there. We've got Hawkeye Community College where a lot of students use that intersection. And this problem is only for a few hours in the afternoon during the week and during the school year. The summer there is obviously less traffic. Also the proposed intersection at Ridgeway and LaPorte when that opens up to accommodate the new fire station we think that will also help get some of the traffic away from that intersection. We realize we do have a lot of traffic in the afternoons but we can look at Ridgeway and 9th Street with the same kind of problem and they've got lights and you still see traffic backed up past 8th street and up the hill going west on Ridgeway past Saratoga yet in every direction. We have a lot of four-way stops in town right now and they all seem to work fine. We like our intersection the way it is I guess. We don't see the improvements. I don't think we are going to be able to improve the traffic flow by that much if any. And once that intersection is reconstructed its never going to go back to a four-way stop. We've also submitted a petition with over 500 signatures to the city council and I know that the city has a copy of it. Of people that favor the four-way stop. I know its not the best but its safer because people know that they are coming up to a four-way stop and they slow down for it. Traffic light, you are looking to beat it. I do the same thing and it causes more accidents. And there will be more serious accidents. It won't be low impact. I know we've got several other people who want to speak. Thank you for your time. Patricia King, 1152 Oregon previously at 1407 Oregon, I was hit by a car at that time so all of those statistics that they have mean nothing to me because I almost lost my life. I still have medical problems for the rest of my life because of being hit. I know another person was killed on that street. There was a teacher killed a few years ago and they say well low impact. According to the statistics. Well if your driving in your car its fine and good but if your walking the kids still have to go to that street to cross, there's still senior citizens that have to go to that street there. There's three construction things going on in that area and the traffic is getting more violent. Its not just one time a day. You have East, West High, GMAC, Columbus, traffic from San Marnan for restaurants, people coming from out of town, and you can go on and on and on. Its not just one time a day but several times a day. And like I said, I've walked it and watched it. If you are driving a car you can speed through because some people don't to at what is a stop light there or whether there is a traffic light there because they are not paying attention or are in a rush. I've been sitting on the bus and watch people almost run into the bus because they didn't stop. So I think they do need a traffic light there because there are a number of kids who come down from four or five blocks away who have to cross the street. They don't have any supervision by a parent because their parent either has to go into work. They need a safe way to get there. In the winter time many people do not shovel their sidewalks so I've walked in the street with one of those reflective vests on because I was afraid people were going to hit me again. I still had my crutches at that time. It look me five years to walk again. So they can say its low impact, it doesn't matter because they are speeding in their car or truck. But if they get out and walk it is all times of the day it's a different matter. Mark Brockman, 3244 Hammond Avenue, I live on the southbound side of Hammond and south of Ridgeway. I have lived there for almost four years. Basically I bought the house on Hammond because I knew that I could have a four-way stop because it's a regulated stop. Everybody has to stop regardless. Whether you have a stop light they can keep on going. You have to start from a standing stop to get going. So it does regulate and it does also slow down the traffic from the intersection. I am against the traffic light proposal. Again like I said I went through and living down there I spent the time and you have two cars there at the intersection every five seconds the cars can go. That's a stop and a start. But if you have four cars there in the two opposite directions then it's a 9 second gap. So the thing is that this does force everybody to stop and it does create a five second and nice second gaps. Whereas if you do have a stop light it depends upon the cycle time you put it whether it's a 30 second red you think your going to create gaps but you truly aren't because there is always the right turn on red. So you actually always have traffic coming down you are not creating a regulated gaps in the traffic. So the gaps also help for me to get out. I am not as bad as the people on the north bound side but on the south bound side I can always hang a right. The people on the north bound side don't have a choice and they are stuck until somebody actually stops to let them in. And with the traffic light it will create traffic stops. It will create a backlog of cars. Whereas the stop sign will too but you'll always have cars and they are always moving. The other gentleman was talking about the police reports. This is from the year of January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007. One is Hammond and Ridgeway and the other is Ridgeway and 9th Street. It was unique that year because Hammond northbound lane from Ridgeway was closed down from traffic so a majority of traffic had to come down to 9th Street over to Hammond and then go south. What makes it so unique is the fact that everybody says well you can't try to compare one intersection to another intersection. Well you really don't have the same cars, same people, same time, same temprement this is. This is the same people within 30 seconds of going through the two • . August 23, 2010 Page 5 intersections. And what you'll find out if you take and go through the summary is that as far as the traffic hazards, this again is police calls so I don't know what the final, the traffic hazards a the 9th and Ridgway regulated intersection there is 15 calls where as at the Hammond there was only 7. They call it an MVA property and injury. I'm not sure what that means but basically there was 13 of them in that year at the 9th and Ridgeway intersection and there was only three at Hammond. So overall there was 30 calls on Hammond and there was roughly 51 at the 9th and Ridgeway. So I do have those reports. As far as the case of saving gas on emissions that I think, I'm an engineer for John Deere and I work with material flow and so forth whether it's a car or container its all the same thing. In the case here the question I have is that every morning my wife and I go to work. Every morning I go through the Hammond and Ridgeway intersection. If there's a car in front of me or across it takes 9 seconds. That's all the time I've got for idling time. If I were to take a lighted intersection and go through the calculations you are going to find out that out of a 30 minute cycle you are going to find that on the average you are going to have sometimes you are going to hit the green sometimes you are going to hit it wrong. But your going to average 30 minutes. Anyways there is about a 27 second between the averages. And that's on a daily basis. You multiply that times 5 and so forth. But anyway it sounds minor but just for me to go in the morning with a lighted intersection I'm going to have an hour and 40 more minutes of idle time at that intersection than it would be with a stop sign. You take it times and if I come back home that doubles it to three hours. My wife is at 6 hours a year so that's just two of us. Now take everything, all the traffic that is there on Saturday, Sunday and so forth that has to sit there and wait for that light. I have a little question on the calculation of the engineer, was it strictly based on they went to the highest traffic time or did they look 24/7? I had a chance to look at 24/7 and to me it would have definitely taken more idle time, more gas and more emissions. In conclusion, I am against the proposal and there was 90 plus residents at that 2008 meeting that were also against it as well. And the factors being number 1, the car gas to get out of your driveway you have designated gas at the stop sign versus a stop light. Two, you have an increase in speed from the first quarter mile from the intersection because if you can take it at 30 mph through there you are running 30 whereas in this case you will always have to come from a standing stop. Safety and traffic problems, some people say its going to be safer. I don't know, I've got these traffic reports. The same traffic people for the most part at least 50 percent of them went through there and its showing data to me as saying that actually I don't know if a lighted intersection is safer than a stop sign. Again, I just had to fault the engineering in that fact that I don't think they took a 24/7 survey of the traffic that actually goes through there. Because if you go through and actually multiply all of the times all of those times all of those cars have to slow down because of the lighted intersection that's more they are going to offset that creates the emissions are going to more than offset the GMAC traffic and so forth. And the other thing is that nobody whey they made the presentation nobody came up and said well this is how its going to promote the business in the area. Flow to where? Traffic to flow to where? I'm looking for what we can do to increase the business. In my case if you have taken Ridgeway to the four land intersection point being is something like that will actually take a lot of traffic flow to go through there. Case in point, McDonalds there on LaPorte and McDonalds there on Kimball. I go to the one on Kimball even through its farther away because you know what it's a lot easier to get to. I don't have to go through all of these back roads. And so consequently if we concentrate more on what we can do to increase business in the area as far as traffic flow the better off we can be. The other thing is that I don't think it does anything to increase the employment of GMAC. I don't think that there is anyone there being turned down because there are no lights at Hammond. So I don't think that should be a real reason why anybody should take and say that well GMAC people have to wait or whatever. Mark Little, 1715 Hammond, I live right on the intersection. The biggest thing I want to bring up is this lady here with her accident Andy picked her up on the bus and was not on our intersection. And I am unaware of anybody being killed the last two years there. It could have happened but I am not aware of it because I live there. And I want to say that its safety first for all of us. I live there and I don't want to be hit by a car running these lights. I'm afraid we are going to have higher speeds. Most of the people on our streets have no place to turn around and they have to back out into traffic. Its going to be dangerous now I believe because everybody runs lights and that's why they are getting cameras out for them. Mayor Clark, we aren't necessarily getting cameras we've just looked at it. Mr. Little, right. Well Cedar Rapids does have the cameras and its an issue. I've been here for 35 years and I've had to live with it. I think everybody should be able to live with it. Its just a couple minutes out of their day and its safe. And I'm kind of upset with the way the city has handled some of this stuff. My neighbors called me up one day and they had contractors in my yard August 23, 2010 Page 6 without my permission measuring my garage and driveways. And I asked them to politely leave my premises. And I asked the city and they made them stay. Then I get a registered letter a couple of weeks ago saying they are condemning my property, threatening me and I am not comfortable with this stuff. So I had to retain a lawyer now and I think if they do proceed I will have to proceed also. And everyone else has brought up all good issues. I think you are all aware of them. You are all aware that yes we have 500 signatures and I just want to thank you for your time and hope you vote for us. John Rooff, 103 Ivanhoe Road, when I took this issue up Mr. Getty remembers it and we held at least a dozen meetings with this neighborhood association. They wanted no traffic signal there. We studied it thoroughly and decided at that time that it was best if we left it up to the citizens to get their access and that you stay with the pattern that you've already established. Tonight you have to consider that you've already spent $70,000.00 in preparation for this but that does not dictate to you that you have to go for another amount of money or to accept this $400,000.00 grant. I would ask you to vote against this and allow these people to enjoy their homes. And I will give you one example in closing. If any of you want to know what can happen when they say we are only going to take 10 feet go over to 1720 Franklin where Trish and I made our first home by St. John's Church. When they got finished with Franklin you could between the curb and the sidewalk run a lawnmower once through there to mow your front lawn. Then you had four feet of sidewalk and then you have a step and then you went to your front porch. You look at that and 10 feet gives you a different image than a third of your property. Any of you that have a front property line, someone says I'm going to take 33 percent of that all of a sudden that's different than 10 feet. And these people have lived peacefully and quietly and they've 570 plus have said please don't do this to us. And I also would say that after 10 years there is probably a lot of people that are maybe too old and tired to continue to fight it but they are out there. So having given you that bit of insight please consider that and please let these people stay. Mary Ball, resident on 9th Street, I've lived there for 47 years. I've been acquainted with that intersection for 50 years because my brother Laverne had a home down on Hammond. I think you are getting federal money and really its all of our money. And if people would do what they taught you in kindergarten to take your turn I think the intersection is fine. Otherwise, go down to 9th and Mitchell and look at that traffic that's backed up almost to Ridgeway. I think no and that's my opinion. Doug Smith, 721 Wildwood Road, which is a little bid south of the intersection. It has been abundantly clear to me ever since I moved to this community 11 years ago that this is an intersection that desperately needs to be signalized. You have all of the experts, you've seen all of the data, you've heard from the engineers and they all agree. Yes, there is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the change. But that is not a valid basis for solid public policy decision making. And yes you do need to take seriously the concerns for the people who live on those corners. There's is three houses. Take them seriously but their fears should not drive your decision. The needs the community for smooth traffic flow out -ways the fears of the few. I believe you already know the right decision to make you just the courage to do it. Anesa Kajtazovic, 1225 E. Ridgeway Avenue, and I do have some information but I don't have enough copies printed to give to you. I just wanted to point out a few things: 1 - safety; and 2- the price to add on this. I'm speaking out mostly because I'm terrified of what will happen if they do put in these lights. And my neighbor lives right on the corner right next to our house. Our house is second from the Ridgeway and Hammond stops. And they have little kids that play basketball. And just today I've seen it, sometimes their ball will get loose and they run. I mean a five-year-old kid, they don't know they might just run under or right in front of a car. They don't understand and if someone is speeding when people are in a rush they will run past yield signs and everything. But I feel like its served us well. I can not imagine, like I said, what would happen if they hadn't. We would not be able to get out. I work at GMAC mortgage, I always go in and out. I've gone to work at 6:00 a.m. there is no traffic at 8:00 a.m. At noon lunch hour its so nice I can sometimes go home. Its very tough when I want to go out and eat because all of the lights on San Marnan. And even on 9th and Ridgeway and Kimball. It just takes forever when you do have these traffic lights. And I don't want that. I think it's a huge inconvenience and it makes no sense. Like I said, safety number 1. Here is an article that my nice neighbor Ruth saved. Muhammad the Waterloo Traffic Engineer was quoted saying "most of the bad accidents are people running red lights, those are the deadliest accidents". I don't want that to happen where we live because that's really a residential area its not commercial. So lots of kids, neighbors trying to get out. Second about the price, I can not believe how much they said it would cost. A half a million? To me that's ridiculus especially with this economy I think its just part of a big waste of spending. I usually read what happens in other parts of the state and now here we are • • • August 23, 2010 Page 7 right in front of our house they want to engage in this. And I think its just horrible. So please just take in consideration, read the article. There's so much dangerous points. Traffic lights are dangerous, second of all the cost we just can not afford it. Lawrence Wheeler, 433 Bratnober, I usually go through that area quite a bit. I would like to be able to suggest a green alternative instead of putting in a traffic signal. To go ahead and audit communities that are doing this and putting in roundabouts. And the safety factors on all of the ones that I have seen outside of this community have very excellent safety. I wish the city would consider putting a roundabout there but there is one minor problem. With some of the houses that are there on the corner for the easement for the center island it would a lot of space. I don't know if the owner of 1715 is here but if they are there may be a need of consideration to acquire that property to have property green space because the house would encroach on the corner. And other thing to if the City of Waterloo decides to go ahead and ignore the public and put a signal in there and if you do adopt the red light camera ordinance that would be a location that I would like to see one at. Mayor Clark, just to speak on Mr. Wheeler's comment about the roundabout. There has been several comments made about the roundabout and so that everybody kind of understand that when this project was initially looked at I'm not sure if it was back in John's era or recently but there was an engineer study done about a roundabout in that particular intersection. And because of the curvature of the road as it goes through the intersection and the way the property is laid out it just was really not a feasible alternative. The people that live around that area would take much more of their property to put a roundabout it then it would to put signals. So early on the roundabout was really not a viable consideration because of those two factors. Sandie Greco, Superintendent of Traffic Operations, we have our consultant engineering firm here and we also have our traffic engineer. They have a short presentation that we would just like to finalize everything for you. Andy Burke, Snyder & Associates, Inc., Sandie asked us to give a brief overview of where we are at with the project thus far. I am under the understand that the technical part of the project has already been presented to the council at a previous meeting so this will not get into the technical aspects of it but a brief overview. I have three main discussion points tonight. The first one being the intersection improvements themselves in relation to some of the surrounding development. The second one would be some of the impact to some of the home owners in the adjacent vicinity of the project itself. And the third one would be intersection safety. The first item Muhammad will give a brief overview of the existing system and where we sit today. Muhammad Elahi, Traffic Engineer, this is an area map of the area. You can see there are some developments shown in yellow highlights that's going to be in place. Some are eventual developments. There is some signals already at Ridgeway. There are a couple of stop signs. One of them at Hammond and there is a school crossing signal that is going to be relocated. So this is the area of interest. If you look at it more closely these are the signals: one at Kimball Avenue, one at W. 9th and a new signal that is going to be at LaPorte Road where there is going to be a new fire station. The stop signs and the stop signs at the current location has been recommended to change to traffic signals. Why has this been recommended there? The first is high traffic counts for the intersection that would call for traffic signals to operate smoothly and to shorten how many cars are backed up. And out of the intersection during the peak hours we have three peak hours: morning, noon and afternoon. We have congestion at the intersection. And that is normally in the United States and all over the world when you design for intersection studies you do it for the peak hours because that is when most of the volume and most of the fuel is consumed. That is when the delay happens is during the peak hours. Another one is the high level of pollution from cars at peak times. And this isn't just something that you throw in, pollution causes lung cancer. And our studies and the state and federal authorities agreed with us that pollution is high there. The way to adjust the pollution is through installing traffic signals. This is the area that's southeast of the traffic signals that's new development area that will add to existing traffic counts and pollution. So now you have a corridor that's going to add several traffic signals and added traffic. The addition of traffic signals at Hammond and Ridgway would facilitate a smooth and safer traffic flow through all of these groups of signalization. Andy Burke, I am just going to give a real quick overview. As you can see everybody knows theres a skew to the alignment when you run north to south. And within the design of this project we tried to find an even balance between the safety of the curvature within some of the standards that we go with the design speed but we also kept in mind to minimally impact the neighboring properties as much as possible. There was only one property that we had to acquire right-of- way at which was the church at the southwest corner. And all of the other August 23, 2010 Page 8 properties there was no right-of-way acquisition needed. We are doing the work within the existing right-of-way but there is some parcels that there is a temporary easement is needed to tie in their driveways and some of the on site grading. Here is kind of a blow of the intersection in general. And you can see the differences between the existing pavement which is shown lighter and the proposed pavement which is shown as the pink lines. This is just a quick overview of the project in general. And the green highlighted areas are the areas that will be widened from where the existing pavement sits today in the gray shading. This is approximate. And the green shading will be the widening to widen out the intersection to fit left turn lanes at all four legs of the intersection, also realign the curvature of the intersection to make it a safer travel north bound and south bound. On the east leg there is a few properties along that line which will be minimally affected because of a temporary easement that tie in their driveway grades. As you can see on the east leg it will be a approximate widening of 9 foot at its maximum point. It will be tapering back into its existing pavement as you continue to the east. In the blue hatching there will provide somewhat of a buffer for the property in the southeast corner. There is an existing right turn lane there which is a safety concern because it acts almost as two separate intersections. Which is never good to have two intersections that close together. So it will provide a little bit of a buffer in that southeast corner. On the south leg, the same sort of situation. There is a small sliver of widening that is needed from the existing pavement on the east side there. And on the west side, in order to fit in the footprint of the left turning lane. The proposed left turn lane and right turn lane we needed to widen out to the west as little bit further. Which to the west is where the church property is located. This parcel is the parcel that's probably the most effected by this because of their driveway access. As you can see there's two existing driveway access. One goes right into the meat of the intersection or the middle of the intersection and there is another one to the north. This is where the widening is most significant, its about 14 feet. But we do stay within the city right-of-way. We are not acquiring any right-of-way from any of these parcel except from the church property. We had to reconfigure his driveway to make it safe for that property owner to exit and leave his driveway. What we did was relocate the north driveway to the north property line to get it further away from the intersection as we could. And what we also did was eliminate their south driveway because that was an extremely unsafe location for a driveway in a signalized intersection. On the north leg, same type of scenario. No right-of-way was needed or to be acquired. There is a sliver of additional widening at that location. The northwest is the same type of situation. Third discussion point, we wanted to discuss tonight the intersection safety. As I stated before the aligning has an existing skew to it. And with our design we tried to find a decent balance that will provide efficient travel through the corridor that will also increase visibility as the approaching vehicles approach north and south bound. Replacing the four-way stop at this intersection with the signals with a properly designed signal. And a lot of these elements that are associated with this project result in an overall safer intersection. And as Muhammad commented with the reduced delays, reduced congestion that will be included with this proposed project the amount of particular matter particular pollution will also decrease because of vehicles will not be in queue for the extending period of time. In conclusion, the proposed intersection as we have it designed today will reduce the pollution because of the decreased congestion, decreased delay. And it will also suitably accommodate the proposed developments to the southeast portion of this intersection. And as I have commented before, there has been every effort made in the design and processes of this project to minimize the impact to the property owners while providing a safe and efficient corridor for the traveling public. And once again, there was only one parcel that required right-of-way acquisition and that was the church property in the southwest corner. And no other properties were affected in that manner. Councilperson Getty, this gentleman said that only the a portion of the church property was going to be required yet a gentleman got up and said that he got a letter saying they were going to condense some of his property. Is that the gentleman with the driveway? Mayor Clark, yes. Councilperson Getty, so that is what he is talking about. Councilperson Welper, with the intersection of LaPorte Road and Ridgeway it was said tonight that the traffic would slow at the Hammond and Ridgeway. Actually the traffic will increase with the LaPorte intersection is that correct? Mr. Elahi, yes there are some people that may now that the intersection is open may decide to take Ridgeway for access to LaPorte Road and that area. So it might actually increase the traffic. • • • • August 23, 2010 Page 9 Councilperson Welper, if this should fail tonight the improvements to this intersection will not happen and it will remain as it is. They will just simply re -blacktop that intersection, is that correct? Mr. Elahi, correct. Councilperson Welper, seeing the development that is happening out at Crossroads would you say within five years that if this fails tonight that this intersection will increase because of the traffic in the near area? Mr. Elahi, if the traffic increases then yes. Sooner or later something has to be done. Councilperson Schmitt, I think the last time we talked about this one of the former councilmembers mentioned that this intersection was not in the top 10 as far as dangerous intersections in the city, is that an accurate statement? Mr. Elahi, for accidents yes. Councilperson Schmitt, as we look at the development that you showed on the map and then we've heard rumors of the new Orange School potential on the south side of Waterloo, assuming there's going to be continued development on that. Have we stepped back and looked at the big picture as far as getting some kind of a feeder lane to downtown? We've got Baltimore, 9th Street, Hammond, and we've got 11th. They are all residential two lane roads. I'm concerned that we are going to spend a half a million dollars or whatever on this and then its not going to be the fix because we are going from two lanes to a four lane intersection back to two lanes in all four directions. Is it a long term solution to this traffic flow problem that's just going to continue to get worse? Mr. Elahi, for a network I don't know. That has to be a transportation network study like INRCOG transport planning model can do that. But for this location you have two lanes of traffic getting to an intersection. When you cross that intersection you are sharing the intersection where it crosses so the capacity basically goes down to half. So once the traffic builds up on the two lane road by improving the intersection you open up that. So yes for this location this is a good solution but for overall I don't have that answer. I don't know because that is beyond the traffic engineering that is traffic planning and a transport planning study. Councilperson Jones, from a traffic engineering standpoint is the current intersection safe? Mr. Elahi, no it isn't. The thing with four-way stop signs, stop sign control, when we compare it to other four-way stop sign controls this has an unusually high number of accidents. And four injuries in six years for a four-way stop sign you expect no injuries in six years. Or 17 property damage accidents in six years you don't expect that. So this particular situation and I don't know what is the reason but maybe the way that its built is not a safe intersection for these stop signs Cole/Hart that the hearing be closed and oral and written comments be received and placed on file. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135117 - Getty/Welper that "Resolution confirming approval of plans, specifications, form of contract, etc. in conjunction with Hammond and Ridgeway Avenue Intersection Improvement Project", be adopted. Ayes: Two. Nays: Five (Cole, Getty, Greenwood, Schmitt, Hart). Motion failed. Councilperson Jones, I appreciate all of the neighbors who have spoken on this issue tonight. I have met with many of you, I have sat in your driveways, I've sat in your living rooms and talked about these issues. I know they are important to you and the thing that I have struggled with being a council person is the concerns of the people versus the concerns of the larger community. And being new to the council that's been a big struggle for me to get that down. I have gotten calls on both sides of the issue. People saying they really want the signal and other people saying they don't want the signal. As far as the cost one of the biggest shocking thing to me is what things cost to build for the government. I had no idea so yes this is an expensive intersection but it seems to align what other like projects cost. The majority of this one is being paid for with the Iowa Clean Air Attainment Grant. I'm mixed on that as well because it is a lot of money and it is our money. Its tax money and its not just amanted from Heaven dropping down on us. That is a big consideration. But as a council person I wear two hats. If there is available money I want it August 23, 2010 Page 10 spent in my community. My other hat is a taxpayer I don't like all of the available money and that's something I need to take care of. Councilperson Cole, this has gone one for so long that my hair changed color. I want to first of all congratulate Andy and the other people who worked to put together this presentation that you brought us and for the civility of this evening. Because we had some earlier meetings that were fairly rockes. I've changed my mind about 16 times on this but what it has finally come down to for me, and this is in my ward, is would I want this intersection to happen two doors down from me? Would I want that much right-of-way taken from me? And secondly, people elect us to listen to what they want. And this group has spoken loudly and probably longer than any other group in the community. Because this has been going on, John remembers how far back this goes and Harold probably remembers farther than that. So I'm going to come down on the side of the community and I am not going to support this. Councilperson Schmitt, I also would like to compliment everybody that is here tonight. And this is one of those tough decisions and I can certainly empathize with both sides. Matter fact I think this is the first issue that Councilperson Hart when we got on almost three years ago this is the first issue with it of any volatility we had to deal with it out there at the church. And it was quite a hearing that we had that night and much more subdue tonight and I appreciate that. Councilperson Getty and I did go meet with the folks at GMAC and discussed with them. And they raised the issue that Mr. Smith opened up about since they opened up Bethel Street that that has had a positive effect on the traffic flow out there. I have had a lot of calls and conversations with folks in the area. I also got a call today with some neighbors in the Kimball and Mitchell area. And they were talking about that intersection now versus when it used to be a four-way stop. And they would prefer that that would go back to being a four-way stop. So I concur with Councilperson Cole and I will be vote not to approve this. 135118 - Schmitt/Hart that proof of publication of Boswell of Boswell Properties generally located at 720 Park notice for the Avenue, 261 Cottage Grove at a cost of $3,500 as published in the Waterloo Courier on of public hearing on request of Jonathan sale and conveyance of city -owned property 312 Charles Street, 116 Parker Street and 00 per property for a total of $14,000.00, on August 19, 2010, be received and placed file. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135119 - This being the time and place of public hearing, the Mayor called for written and oral objections and there were a few placed on file in the City Clerk's Office. Ryan Madison, 650 Dawson Street, I've brought two sheets today. I am not going to ridicule Mr. Boswell's goals or asperations but I will state some facts tonight. Fact is Waterloo has had a consistent problem with dilapidated homes until the adoption of 647A which was put in place to seize and demolish abandoned properties. Fact two is the market for rental homes is starting to become so saturated in our areas that its starting to kill and destroy home ownership for those people who have invested time and money in their livelihood into a place that they want to call home. Fact three is Waterloo and Black Hawk County has become so relaxed on out of city and out of state fly by night investors who come into our town purchasing tax sales with no intention to take ownership of these properties but have the lease change hands. Causing the problems that we have today of abandon homes. If you grant Mr. Boswell to purchase these properties today you will be sending a message loud and clear to hard working homeowner taxpayers. Our focus is the financial bottom line of and not the quality of your life. This is a door we should want to open unless someone will be standing in it tomorrow to take advantage of. If you take a look at those properties currently owned by Mr. Boswell I printed out two of them, 1019 South Street and 701 Locust. I wouldn't let my dog live there. The foundation is cracked, soffit and fascia is rotted. On 1019 I saw pigeons living in the fascia. That is unfit for someone to live in. If we give him four houses for $34,000.00 that is a laughing stock for this city. And its time for us to crack down on landlords and people who are owning these properties. If we start this with 657A I guaranty you we are going to have slum lords coming out of the woodwork to take advantage of this. So I beg you, as you would say Mr. Getty, put yourself in my shoes and vote no on this. Jonathan Boswell, 230 Maryland, first of all I just want to say that I love this city. I am a relative new comer. My first time out here was in November this past year. And at the time I actually owned 24 properties. And I was priding myself in the fact that I was non -emotional and these were real estate investments that I had never visited the city but they were a good economic decisions. That was foolish because when I came out here at the time there was a local property management company that was managing its properties. And when I came I was appalled. I was appalled at their condition, I was appalled at the • • • • August 23, 2010 Page 11 way they were being maintained. And I am not the first investor this has happened to. This has happened to a lot of other people and what most people have done is they say forget I'm throwing in the towel, I'm leaving Waterloo they take most of their assets and pull out and leave town. And what has been left in that is a wake of abandoned homes, neglected properties and a community that is sick and tired of out of state landlords. So I had the choice to either follow suit or to do something different. And I made a difficult decision at the time to go ahead and do something different. I started Boswell Property Management to manage these properties directly, I hired local staff, I began visiting every other month. And made plans to move myself, my wife and our son out here to spend time here in this community and to remedy the situation that I found in my investments and what had occurred. So over the summer I invested another quarter of a million dollars back into this community, jobs, and properties. I rehired opportunities that had existed. I also wanted to partner with the city. Your staff here has been fantastic, Noel Anderson and Chris Western. I've loved working with them. And you have a great program here with the repossession of blighted properties. 657A is a great opportunity and I think what it does is it basically gives the city a chance to take over these run down properties and rebuild a better and stronger community. These properties were going to be sitting there for months on end, years in some cases. And I wanted to see if there was a way for me to be a part of the solution by getting rid of these blighted homes. And to me it seemed that there had to be some way to take the worst of the worst and demo those and take ones that were worth saving. And bring them back into the rental base. So essentially be built a development agreement to that end. It involves $14,000.00 of payments to the city, $74,000.00 of rehabilitation to these properties. And basically bringing four properties back to rent ready status versus demolishing them. You can imagine my surprise last week when the measure was tabled based on the fact that changes were made to that development agreement. I'd been called in early that day to make those changes at the request of feedback from the council. I since then have e-mailed each of you. I've been very open and forth coming about accepting feedback. Again my goals has been to partner with you guys. We have an opportunity here to really build a better and stronger community and I want to partake in that. The financial equation to this, there are actually better opportunities financially for me available with direct people. A lot of out of state investors are just liquidating their whole portfolios. So this isn't necessarily a financial incentive although that is a part if it. It needs to be in order for me to continue to grow my company. However, the true basis for this is to rehabilitate these neighborhoods where a lot of my investment already exist. Some of those properties that were mentioned, I would love to see those pictures because 1019 is one that I acquired a month and a half ago. Since then there has been about $27,000.00 to $28,000.00 of investment into that property. Brand new siding and roof. We've rehabilitated all of the insides of the property as well. There is still quite a bit of work to be done. I am here to say that in the last 7 to 8 months of running Boswell Properties we've got it all figured out and know there is still a lot of room to grow for sure. There is a lot of improvement to be done. Is it better than where it was when I came here in January? Absolutely, unequivocally yes. So what we have here today before the council is an option to make income into the general fund and to also provide jobs and the purchase of $72,000.00 of materials and equipment into this community. Or to vote against this and to eliminate those jobs and opportunities here. Now I have heard interesting stuff. None of you directly have gotten back to me except for the exception of Mr. Schmitt. He wrote one e- mail requesting the address. I haven't received any direct feedback. And the Mayor and I haven't got a chance to sit down this week. There was a little bit of dialogue. I've heard some interesting things. That I'm an evil landlord, I'm too young to know what I am doing. Most of these comments I kind of roll my eyes at. There is one comment that I have heard which seems to be legitimate and that is that the city council wants a process in place for the rehabilitation of these homes. I believe that that is a good improvement thing. I would be supportive of that, my only request is that if you do vote no on this proposal tonight that we very proactively figure out a way to get these properties either demolished quickly or rehabilitate and put back into the community. Councilperson Greenwood, I had a chance to drive by several of these properties. I've been out of town for the last 10 days so I am sorry that I haven't been able to communicate with you. 720 West Park is currently, it was, it looked like a nice single resident home and now has been subdivided into four apartments. What would you do with that property? Mr. Boswell, that property is actually ideally a duplex. Councilperson Greenwood, so you would make it a duplex versus a four-plex. Mr. Boswell, I am open to that. August 23, 2010 Page 12 Councilperson Greenwood, the property I drove by at 701 Locust Street looked to be in hugely disrepair. Mr. Boswell, the company I set up to manage the property was directly so now tenants aren't calling a third party they are calling the company that I manage directly. 701 Locust is mostly cosmetic. You have the volume of properties that I have we've had to go in to address structural issues first. Some of these properties were in complete disrepair. Specifically there is some shingles on the siding there right by the dumpster that is going to be replaced. That is on our maintenance list. There are a few other issues with that property. Again, most of that is surface. We've gone back and addressed most of the structural stuff. Again, you get to the volume of the properties that we have and we have to prioritize. And I understand that question and yes that probably needs work. Councilperson Cole, were these properties that you own purchased at tax sale? Mr. Boswell, no. Councilperson Cole, all of them? Mr. Boswell, they were all purchased through local realtors. In fact, I actually purchased some of these properties from people that were selling them that they had acquired at tax sales. So this is me picking them up from people that acquired them through a tax sale. Councilperson Jones, I do appreciate your efforts in your investments in our community. The only issues that I have is not with you or your developments but with coming up with a standard with the city. In looking at some of the minimum standards that we have today, for example even at the HUD standards. We need, I think, as a city to adopt the standards of what these homes should look like because we have the same goals. We want to redevelop the neighborhoods, we want to provide safe and good energy efficient housing for folks. So I do appreciate the investment I just don't think we are quite there yet with the process. Councilperson Welper, if there has been one common conversation for the last couple of years especially this summer its our housing stock in Waterloo. This weekend I and other volunteers fired our neighborhood for the annual clean-up. And for the last 18 years I've watched our housing stock deteriorate. The 657A program is great, its certainly helping us clean-up our neighborhoods. But it comes with a cost. Not only the cost of knocking the properties down but Ms. Weidner tells us that we are spending almost $50,000.00 a year maintaining these lots with snow removal and mowing. So as I spoke to you earlier Mayor, I would be certainly interested in putting a moratorium on selling anymore 657A properties until we can put down a policy as to what we expect. I would be happy to work with Mr. Boswell as time proceeds but I think he needs to know what we expect and we need to know what we expect. Not just him, there is going to be other properties coming up. This weekend was very shocking to look at some of the properties that are out there that we have a lot of tenants who simply don't care about their property. Some of that could be blamed onto the landlords as well. But its pretty disgusting what we see. Councilperson Getty, are you putting that in a form of a motion. Councilperson Welper, I will if you so choose. This was just open discussion at this point. If someone else wanted to make some comments you can but I will come back to that. Councilperson Hart, I just wanted to say in addition to Mr about some of the properties locally and even the ones that Councilperson Jones had an opportunity to travel this summer some of the folks with the From The Heart program that are Welper's comments we've seen I think and take a look at trying to maintain their properties the best that they can. So you have those that may not but you have those that are trying hard. And I just wanted to say directly to Mr. Boswell that I never really stopped to consider 1019 South, I wanted to drive-by all of them and didn't get an opportunity to. My main focus, like Councilperson Jones said was making sure that we have consistency in a standard policy that we can go back each time. Because I think we may have a golden opportunity. And some of the homes that we do acquire to be able to rehab them. But when we take a look at what standards we want to put into place to making sure that folks are living in a very nice place. And I'm not saying that you don't put them in there, that wasn't my goal, but mine was more so to continue to work with our dilapidated housing committee. And we met last week. And I think we are even going to change that name to focus more on redevelopment of the community to make it more of a positive stance on what we are trying to do with this. And so we are working on meetings this week and going to come back and present something to council in a work session to make sure we have that standard in place so when folks like yourselves or a person or homeowner wants to rehab one of the better 657A properties then we'll have that standard in place and • • • August 23, 2010 Page 13 expectations. And just have that mindset when we move forward to redevelop our community. So I don't know what you've heard about being too young, I've heard it a couple of times too. No so much as I used to but I don't know about all of those other comments that you've heard. The focus has been on putting a standard in place that's consistent and fair to folks like yourself and others that may come behind you with this process. So I just wanted to let you know that. Mr. Boswell, I appreciate those comments and absolutely I think that is imperitive. I would say that their currently is a process in place and that is to acquire them to demolish them and then to maintain the lots. That is the current process and I would strongly urge the council that if you are going to reject this that you in short order take exactly what Councilperson Hart is saying and I would love to be a part of that process. I would love to partner and be proactive with that. Councilperson Schmitt, Noel Anderson you have a development agreement with Mr. Boswell for these properties right? So then you know what got laid out what the city's expectations are? How many vacant buildable lots do we have in Waterloo? Can you give me a ball park amount? I don't expect you to be exact but isn't it a couple of hundred? Noel Anderson, Community Planning & Development Director, you mean that we've acquired through the 657A? Councilperson Schmitt, through the 657A or whatever purpose or whatever reason. Mr. Anderson, probably I would estimate somewhere in the 60 to 70 range. Councilperson Schmitt, I thought I had an e-mail from Chris Western that thre was around 200. So regardless of that. Mr. Anderson, I guess it depends on your definition of a buildable. Some of those would be like 40 foot wide lots. They are lots of record so they can be built on. They're a little more difficult to be built on for all styles of homes so that would increase the number a little bit. Councilperson Schmitt, so if these continue down the 657A process we'd have four more big lots. Mayor I didn't get a chance to get by all of Mr. Boswell's properties I do appreciate you e -mailing us that list. But the ones I did get by appear to be in the process of repair. And it seems to me that we've got enough vacant lots in this town and we don't need more. I don't want to say that I'm offended by the inference of Mr. Boswell because he's a landlord therefore he is a slum landlord because I'm not aware from our code office, from any of those folks that we've had issues with Mr. Boswell based on any of his previous. Mayor Clark, I don't think those comments were made. Councilperson Schmitt, I'm not saying these folks I'm just saying comments that have been made. We've gotten e-mails, phone calls and I'm sorry I did not mean from council. As you know I have been working with the Landlords Association and Churchrow Neighborhood on ways to clean-up that particular neighborhood. And I think that what Mr. Boswell has proposed he probably should be patted on the back if we are going to be $3,500.00 a piece for properties that we are going to have no value. We are going to spend $6,000.00 to $10,000.00 to demo the buildings then we have empty lots. And I'd love to see us have a process. This kind of goes back to our sale of the lot for Farmers State Bank. We've got some processes that . I think we kind of fine tune and this is obviously one of them. I don't see a reason to deny Mr. Boswell unless I am missing something but I don't see any reason to deny Mr. Boswell the sale of these four properties. Councilperson Hart, these four properties on here since they have been identified as ones that don't necessarily have to be torn down at this particular moment. Is that correct? Chris Western, Planner II, one of the things you've got to keep in mind is we've received calls and complaints of these properties for a number of years. To have them sit another winter, I don't think is going to sit very well and I'm a little concerned about the image we'll be putting out there in the community. I sure hate to tear them down however I would just recommend not having them sit another winter. I think the committee would probably agree with me on this. Councilperson Schmitt, what is our time frame for our development agreement? Mr. Anderson, if the measure were approved tonight the development agreement would go into effect. August 23, 2010 Page 14 Councilperson Schmitt, what is his timeframe? Mr. Anderson, the timeframe was 90 days. Mr. Boswell, I had to pull all of the permits within one month and get to work. I just want to say for the record that the properties you are talking about are city properties. The city hasn't been getting phone calls about my properties for years. Councilperson Greenwood, I applaud Mr. Boswell for what you are doing here. One thing I think we are having in the near west side of Waterloo is we take these homes that were one family residencies and make them into the four apartments. And I think in the development agreement I don't see anything in here that says what they are going to have to look like when they are done. I would think on a return on an investment if you have $3,500.00 in this property and you put $22,000.00 in there so you've got $30,000.00 in a house that you can't sell in that neighborhood which has an insurance office, bank, Grout Museum, attorney's office, funeral home, dentist office. And you can't sell that house for $70,000.00 if you make it into a single family home and try to redevelop that area in there. Mr. Boswell, I would love to. Right now if that house was the only one that was changed on W. Park Avenue, then no it would not be worth $70,000.00. If that whole street changed over time and the area was redeveloped which there are lots of projects and opportunities there then yes over time that would be. That is my long term incentive of doing these projects right and not just developing one house here and taking one out. But taking whole streets, neighborhoods and redevelope them. So yes, there is a good return investment if there is a lot of time, money and opportunity at stake and also requires a whole development not just individual homes. These individual properties from our line of prospective are better opportunities. If you look at complete neighborhoods to be somewhere people want to live then yes there is a long term value and that's why I am here. Councilperson Getty, how long will it take the committee to go through and come up with some specifics before it comes back to council? Could it be done within two weeks? Mr. Western, this would be a new process I would think that with a series of meetings that two weeks is probably a goal that we could reach. We would certainly love to do it sooner. So as to not lose out on an opportunity. There others out there that seem to be interested as well. So I would say that we could do that in two weeks. Councilperson Hart, right now these have been taken off the 657A list because we thought we could sell them or are they still set to be demolished? Mr. Western, they were listed as alternates so incase this doesn't happen we can still get them in this year. Councilperson Hart, what is our timeframe for that, what is the last date we have to have some type of decision so we can get them down if that is what we chose to do? Mr. Western, I'm really unsure of the timeline as Louis Starks is the one who does the council letters and bids but I would say that council needs to approve the contract as an alternate and we could hold off on those alternates probably quite a ways into the fall, say October. Mayor Clark, this issue here is that we don't have a policy for selling 657A properties. This has never come up before so however you act on this it would be my suggestion that we not put a moratorium right now on selling these properties but we do act immediately on trying to create a policy both on the sale price on how we arrive at the sale price for 657A properties and the development agreement as to what they look like when they get done. If these three properties don't happen to fall in the timelines to meet that there are going to be lots of 657A properties. Mr. Boswell is going to be around and there will be others. And we will have a policy in effect that we can actually put into place. There has been two calls today who now want to buy these three for more money. So we have to get a policy in place. Councilperson Getty, that is my objection to approving this until such time that we get a policy. Hart/Schmitt that the hearing be closed and oral and written comments be received and placed on file. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. • • • • August 23, 2010 Page 15 135120 - Hart/Schmitt that "Resolution authorizing said sale and conveyance", be adopted. Ayes: One. Nays: Six (Cole, Getty, Jones, Greenwood, Welper, Hart). Motion Failed. RESOLUTIONS 135121 - Getty/Hart that "Resolution authorizing said sale and conveyance in conjunction with request of Fortunes Tap for the sale and conveyance of the remaining portion of city -owned vacated Elm Street located next to their site at 328 Elm Street at a cost of $1.00", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Councilperson Jones, I would prefer that this was a lease so that we could have more control over that property. I've been assured that everything is going to align properly, everything will transfer properly and it will be used in the future. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-759. 135122 - Getty/Hart that "Resolution approving development agreement in conjunction with request of Fortunes Tap for the sale and conveyance of the remaining portion of city -owned vacated Elm Street located next to their site at 328 Elm Street at a cost of $1.00", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-760. 135123 - Getty/Cole that "Resolution setting date of hearing as September 13, 2010 to approve request of Janet Kendall to vacate approximately 3,180 square feet of Maplewood Street right-of-way at the intersection of Maplewood Street and Riverside Drive located directly west and adjacent to 903 Riverside Drive, and to purchase the area at a cost of $1,633.00 and subject to a utility easement is retained over the entire area -Submitted by Aric Schroeder, City Planner", be adopted and City Clerk instructed to publish notice of same. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-761. 135124 - Hart/Cole that "Resolution approving recommendation of award of contract with B&B Builders and Supply of Waterloo, Iowa in the amount of $11,853.90 in conjunction with F.Y. 2011 Sidewalk Repair Block Grant Program -Zone 10, Contract No. 780 - Submitted by Wayne Castle, Associate Engineer", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-762. 135125 - Hart/Cole that "Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with INRCOG for the writing, preparation, and submittal of a Rise Application for $265,000.00 for local development, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said documents -Submitted by Noel Anderson, Community Planning & Development Director", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-763. 135126 - Hart/Cole that "Resolution to set date of hearing as September 7, 2010 to approve a request by Kevan Cortright on behalf of Browning Family Trust to rezone approximately 2.5 acres of land from "R-4" Multiple Residence District to "R-4, C -Z" Conditional Zoning District for property located at 3254 Kimball Avenue for the purpose of allowing a pharmacy and related uses -Submitted by Aric Schroeder, City Planner", be adopted and City Clerk instructed to publish notice of same. Ayes: Six. Abstain: One (Greenwood). Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-764. 135127 - Cole/Hart that "Resolution approving submission of a grant application to IA Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau (GTSB) for an Alcohol- Incentive Grant (410) in the amount of $26,750.000, with no required local match -Submitted by Chief of Police Daniel J. Trelka", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. August 23, 2010 Page 16 Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-765. 135128 - Cole/Hart that "Resolution to set date of hearing as September 7, 2010 to approve a request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of Lost Island Real Estate, LC to rezone approximately 14.8 acres of land to "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District, 51.4 acres of land to "R-4, R -P" Planned Multiple Residence District, and 87.2 acres to "C -P" Planned Commercial District from "A-1" Agricultural District at the northwest corner of East Shaulis Road and Hess Road -Submitted by Aric Schroeder, City Planner", be adopted and City Clerk instructed to publish notice of same. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-766. 135129 - Cole/Hart that "Resolution approving recommendation of acceptance of bid from Sedona Staffing Services, Cedar Falls, Iowa in conjunction with parking cashier services for the W. 5th St./Convention Center Ramp at a cost of $13.00 per hour - Submitted by Suzy Schares, City Clerk", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-767. 135130 - Cole/Hart that "Resolution approving Financial Assistance Award agreement in the amount of $7,009,315.00 with Economic Development Administration for 8 new pump stations - Submitted by Jamie Knutson, P.E. Associate Engineer", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-768. 135131 - Cole/Hart that "Resolution approving recommendation of award of contract with Konomi Construction of Eldora, Iowa in the amount of $98,000.00 in conjunction with Window Replacement - Waterloo Fire Stations 1, 3, 4, & 6 -Submitted by Debra Anderson, Building Official, Maintenance Administrator", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-769. 135132 - Greenwood/Schmitt that "Resolution approving Professional Services Agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Waterloo, Iowa in the amount of $119,000.00 in conjunction with Infiltration and Inflow Analysis Update for Service Area 15 - Tributary to Cattle Congress Lift Station -Submitted by Michelle Weidner, Chief Financial Officer", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-770. 135133 - Greenwood/Schmitt that "Resolution approving Professional Services Agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Waterloo, Iowa in the amount of $133,000.00 in conjunction with planning and engineering services for sanitary sewer, storm water and sanitation projects -Submitted by Michelle Weidner, Chief Financial Officer", be adopted. Ayes: Seven. Resolution adopted and upon approval by Mayor assigned No. 2010-771. Mayor Clark, these are two of the most important items that I believe we've had to pass since I've become Mayor. I have said all along that we are going to start taking our first steps towards addressing the water issues that we have in Waterloo. Whether it be storm, sanitary or sewer run off we have been reluctant to start that process. We have now got a contract with AECOM with Bob Bamsey being the project manager on these two items that we are going to start moving forward and developing plans. And having the resources and process to address our sewer issues. Bob has been involved with the sewer system in this particular town for a long time. There is no one that knows more about our infrastructure when it comes to sanitary sewer storm systems. Bob Bamsey, AECOM Project Manager, we are excited about getting this going as you are. I've got probably 35 years with various projects in the sanitary sewer system. And I'm very happy to say that we really have made a lot of progress over that time. What we are dealing with is some of the problems that have existed then, we have some major projects and no all part to Larry and his • • August 23, 2010 Page 17 staff that we work closely with. We will be here many times in the future to talk about our progress. OTHER COUNCIL BUSINESS 135134 - Welper/Schmitt that Change Order/Extra Work Order No. 1 for a net increase of $47,720.00 for work performed by Active Thermal Concepts in conjunction with Phase 2 Demolition - Former Chamberlain Manufacturing Property, Contract No. 762 -Submitted by Noel Anderson, Community Planning & Development Director, be received, placed on file and approved and Mayor authorized to execute same. Ayes: Six. Nay: One (Getty) Motion carried. Councilperson Getty, I really have a problem with us issuing a contract to Howard Green for Chamberlains to go through the building, getting rid of the asbestos, tearing it down, etc. According to what I'm looking at Mr. Green hired a company called Active Thermal Concepts to take care of it and get any of the asbestos in these buildings. And according to this paper that they have given us several of the buildings and all of a sudden we ran into a cement wall in number 10 that they supposedly didn't know was there. And now its going to cost us another $47,720.00 to get rid of this. It really upsets me that we are paying a half a million dollars to a company that hires a contractor who can't come up with the correct bid. Every bid we have had in that Chamberlain project always ends up having a change order for increase in bids. These guys are professionals and they ought to know that the cement block that they found now is in buildings 30-60 years old. So why wasn't it included in the initial bid? I really have a problem that we are going to spend another large amount in a project that should have already been taken care of. Noel Anderson, Community Planning & Development Director, during the first phase we had an asbestos survey they entire time at the site. So a different company went in and identified everything that they thought had asbestos containing materials and did testing on it and then produced a report that said this is all of the asbestos material. We did the initial phase with the money that we had. We are fortunate to get additional grant money. So we had these additional demo phases. Howard R. Green is our consultant that is overseeing this and Active Thermal is actually the low bidder approved by the council so that they are not hired by Howard R. Green they just work with them to make sure they are doing everything according to the specifications that we hired Howard R. Green to do. But Active Thermal bid on the project based on the previous report of all of the asbestos containing materials. This particular portion that they just discovered actually is the floor of the floor above. It was painted a different material. It was behind some piping going up on the ceiling so it was very difficult for them to see. It is normally silver and it was painted white. Actually one of the workers was walking along and found some flaking materials, thought it was asbestos and tested it and it was. That is how they discovered it was additional material. So it was very difficult for them to see initially. They found it unfortunately and the bad news is it is additional costs but it is asbestos so we need to treat it as such. The good news is they did find it and are able to take it out properly so its not viable to all the surrounding neighborhoods. And we want to make sure that we are taking care of all of the asbestos correctly. This is extra costs that was very difficult to find. This is grant money Councilperson Hart, you indicated about a report. Who is that report by? Chris Western, Planner II, Advanced Environmental. Mr. Anderson, we normally do bidding on asbestos surveying. We identify it and then we do a separate bid on asbestos removal to identify. Councilperson Getty, how many buildings are left out there? Mr. Western, we are down to building ten north and south. There is approximately 6 buildings remaining. They are predicting to be done October 30, 2010. Councilperson Greenwood, so the people we hired to go in and identify the asbestos is Advanced Environment and a separate company then who is removing. So we paid them and they missed this part. Is there any retribution for them not identifying everything? Mr. Anderson, I don't believe so because they go in there to identify as best they can and this was difficult to see. 135135 - Welper/Schmitt August 23, 2010 Page 18 that Change Order No. 1 for a net decrease of $12,700.00 by deleting 318-20 Irving from the contract in conjunction 171 -D -EDI -08 -02 -10 -Submitted by Louis Starks, Contracts and Grants Coordinator, be received, placed on file and approved and Mayor authorized to execute same. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 135136 - Welper/Schmitt that Change Order No. 2 for a net increase of $300.00 for repair of sidewalk and removal of concrete at 201 Lincoln Street in conjunction 171 -D -EDI -08 -02 -10 - Submitted by Louis Starks, Contracts and Grants Coordinator, be received, placed on file and approved and Mayor authorized to execute same. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. ORAL PRESENTATIONS Lawrence Wheeler, 433 Bratnober Street, I have complained on a regular basis to Chief Carter Waterloo Fire Department and Chief of Police Trelka. I would like to request that city ordinance 4444 be repealed due to the fact that this ordinance is not being enforced. I am also requesting that all signage pertaining to ordinance 4444 be removed. 4444 pertains to No Parking Fire Zone with a fine of $50.00 or towing or both at vehicle owners expense. I would also like to request when city liquor and tobacco at 508 Broadway in Waterloo when license comes up for renewal that this place of business be denied a license renewal. The business has drive thru window, heavy traffic in alley often creates ruts and potholes in the gravel alley. During the winter of 2009 a contractor was seen pushing snow/ice into public alley obstructing alley the business has been robbery incidents also business owner has attempted to have addition built without a permit and a stop work order was issued in Mid -August. On an occasion customers have been seen loitering, drinking in public, violations of intoxicated people driving with open containers purchased at drive thru. Roger Klinkfoose, 800 Hawthorne Avenue, I'm here to speak for my daughter who lives by Black Hawk School and she has to move. The city has a lot that she would like to purchase and nothing has happened. She was told there is a lease on it and there is. But she is willing to buy the property with the lease on it and now they have put it up for bid. It was put up for bid and nobody bid on it at all. She is willing to give a fair price for the lot. Noel Anderson, as you know we are working on that and we only received one bid. We put out another bid process and are waiting on that process. Ryan Madison, 650 Dawson Street, thank you for voting that down today and I understand there has to be a process in place. One thing I would like to see some more policies out there like properties without utilities. And an ordinance with hazardous trees or yard. Mack O'Neal, 2253 E. 4th Street, I have called Waste Management and spoke to Councilperson Getty and nothing is being done with the old Save -A -Lot building with weeds out in front and you can hardly see any cars coming from the south. 135137 - Hart/Cole that the above oral comments be received and placed on file. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT 135138 - Hart/Cole that the Council adjourn at 7:42 p.m. Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Suz '7 -ares City Clerk • •