The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-04-09 Info Packet+VIII, CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET MISCELLANEOUS April 9, 2015 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule P2 Copy of City Manager correspondence to Iowa Economic Development Authority: Leepfrog Technologies IP3 Copy of email from Council Member Throgmorton: Fiscal Implications — Madison, WI IN Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP5 Copy of Press Release: Citizens Police Review Board Community Forum IP6 University of Iowa Invitation: Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities Celebration DRAFT MINUTES IP7 Airport Commission: March 19 IP8 Citizens Police Review Board: April 7 IP9 Historic Preservation Commission: March 12 IP10 Human Rights Commission: April 1 r 1 04-0 is City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule SP1 !f r A.� -Ia.at�_ Subject to change April 9, 2015 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meeting Location Wednesday, April 15, 2015 5:00 PM Special Formal Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall separate agenda & executive session (evaluations Manager, Attorney, Clerk) Monday, April 20, 2015 4:00 PM Reception prior to meeting TBA (Coralville) 4:30 PM Joint Meeting / Work Session Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, lune 2, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, July 27, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 18, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 1, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 15, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting ► r � (CIO o CITY OF IOWA CITY April 8, 2015 BY REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL www. icgov.org Ms. Debi Durham Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E. Grand Ave. Des Moines, IA 50309 Office of the City Dear Ms. Durham, Manager At the City Council meeting on April 7, 2015, the attached letter was approved for submittal to the Thomas M. Markus Iowa Economic Development Authority regarding the relocation of Iowa City -based Leepfrog City Manager tom-markus@iowa-city.org Technologies, Inc. to Coralville. At 2:30 p.m. on April 7, 1 received an email from Coralville City Administrator, Kelly Hayworth stating that he had read the staff recommendation in the City Council packet regarding to Leepfrog's State of Iowa grant application, and that the conditions placed on the recommendation were not acceptable to the City of Coralville and that the City and Leepfrog would be withdrawing the application for state assistance. Lee Brintle, CEO of Leepfrog Technologies was in attendance at the Iowa City City Council meeting that evening and when I had a chance to ask him about the withdrawal of the application, he said he had not withdrawn their application. Today Mr. Brintle indicated that he would withdraw their application. Regardless of whether the application is submitted, Iowa City will support the move and expansion of one of its businesses to Coralville, if Coralville accepts the conditions expressed above. Sincerely, omas M. Markus City Manager You will note that the letter of support includes two conditions. The first relates to the City Geoff E. Fruin Assistant to the City Manager Council's desire to establish a Communications Protocol with Coralville to avoid precisely the geoff-fruin@iowa-city.org situation we find ourselves in. I reiterate that we would entertain revisions to a Communications Protocol that has already been adopted in Iowa City. Simon D. Andrew Administrative Analyst The second condition is that Coralville pass a resolution stating that Coralville will not object to a simon-andrew@iowa-city.org subsequent move by Leepfrog from Coralville back to Iowa City. At 2:30 p.m. on April 7, 1 received an email from Coralville City Administrator, Kelly Hayworth stating that he had read the staff recommendation in the City Council packet regarding to Leepfrog's State of Iowa grant application, and that the conditions placed on the recommendation were not acceptable to the City of Coralville and that the City and Leepfrog would be withdrawing the application for state assistance. Lee Brintle, CEO of Leepfrog Technologies was in attendance at the Iowa City City Council meeting that evening and when I had a chance to ask him about the withdrawal of the application, he said he had not withdrawn their application. Today Mr. Brintle indicated that he would withdraw their application. Regardless of whether the application is submitted, Iowa City will support the move and expansion of one of its businesses to Coralville, if Coralville accepts the conditions expressed above. Sincerely, omas M. Markus City Manager ;NIP co � CITY OF IOWA CITY April 8, 2015 BY REGULAR MAIL AND EMAIL www.icgov.org Ms. Debi Durham Iowa Economic Development Authority 200 E. Grand Ave. Des Moines, IA 50309 Office of the City Dear Ms. Durham, Manager By letter dated March 17, 2015 the City of Coralville informed the City of Iowa City that Leepfrog Thomas M. Markus Technologies, Inc. is being offered incentives from the State and Coralville to expand the Leepfrog City Manager business in Coralville, which expansion will result in a substantial reduction in Leepfrog's tom -m arku s @iowa-city. org operations in Iowa City. The letter requests that Iowa City submit a letter to IEDA indicating that Iowa City has no objection to the move. Leepfrog submitted a Business Financial Assistance Geoff E. Fruin Assistant to the City Manager Application to IEDA on February 5, 2015 that was sponsored by the City of Coralville. Attached is geoff-fruin(d_iowa-city.org a copy of Coralville's March 17 letter, which includes an outline from the Iowa City Area Development group (ICAD) on Leepfrog's history and plans. Simon D. Andrew Administrative Analyst It is our understanding that the State is offering assistance under the High Quality Jobs Program simon-andrew@iowa-city.org and that a letter from Iowa City is being requested in accordance with the provisions of Iowa Code Section 15.329, which sets forth the following eligibility requirements and provides that IEDA will consider a letter of support from the affected local community in determining whether the eligibility requirements have been met: 1) the "business shall not be solely relocating operations from one area of the state while seeking state or local incentives"; 2) the "business shall not be in the process of reducing operations in one community while simultaneously applying for assistance under the program"; and, 3) expansion is not prohibited "if existing operations of a similar nature in this state are not closed or substantially reduced." As you know, a similar provision was added to the Iowa Code in 2012 to prohibit the use of TIF when the project will result in the substantial reduction of a business's existing operations in another area of the State. Leepfrog's February 5 Application to the State, which was sponsored by Coralville, reveals that Coralville is providing a local match of $495,000. We understand from the ICAD outline attached to Coralville's March 17 letter that the source of these funds is TIF. Thus, while Coralville has asked only for a letter to the State, the package of assistance being offered also will require a written agreement approving the use of TIF funds pursuant to Iowa Code Section 403.19(9). As set forth in (CAD's outline, Leepfrog is a software company serving higher education that has been headquartered in Iowa City at 2105 ACT Circle since its founding in the early 90's. It is our understanding that in connection with its expansion in Coralville for which incentives are being proposed, Leepfrog will be substantially reducing operations in Iowa City. According to ICAD: "Leepfrog will maintain ownership of its Iowa City facility on ACT Circle as its main data center, but will move most of the remaining staff from this building to the new office space to put their April 8, 2015 Page 2 (C 0oL ' team under one roof." Leepfrog's Application to the State submitted February 5, 2015 states that the type of project is both the "Expansion of [an] Iowa Company" and a "New location in Iowa." Coralville's March 17 request puts both Iowa City and Leepfrog in a difficult position, and one which we believe could have been avoided had there been earlier conversations between the two communities. We do not relish impeding the ability of any company in our region from maximizing its potential to expand with the use of economic development incentives. However, the law clearly expresses the State policy that state and local incentives should not be available to assist with a relocation or expansion when there is a substantial reduction of the company's operations in another jurisdiction in the State. Iowa City knows firsthand the harm that can result both to a community and region when incentives are used in this manner. Since receiving Coralville's March 17 letter City staff has met with Leepfrog CEO Lee Brintle to better understand the company's plans and to explain the City's concerns. Unfortunately, it is our understanding that prior to Coralville's letter of March 17 Leepfrog was unaware of the need for Iowa City's approval and the State laws regarding relocation and expansion. We recognize that businesses seek locations based on a variety of factors. Over the last two plus years I have worked with the Administrators in Coralville and North Liberty to develop a communication protocol to facilitate positive and early interaction between the communities in the Iowa City area on issues of business expansion and migration. The ICAD Board of Directors, including the Coralville City Administrator, voted unanimously to support the communication protocol, noting: "For our area to be successful, we believe the various communities all need to be working together to compete for the best jobs and investment." The protocol has been approved by the City Council of Iowa City. The Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce also endorsed the concept of a communication protocol. While press accounts indicate that Coralville is not interested in signing the protocol, the agreement has not been placed on its formal agenda for Council consideration. Had this protocol been in place, Iowa City would have been involved in the discussions at the outset and Leepfrog would have been made aware of the State law and the need for Iowa City's endorsement. A copy of the protocol and ICAD's endorsement is attached. Iowa City believes that this is an untenable situation that a communication protocol could have prevented. We support Leepfrog's efforts to expand but hope to prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future. To that end, Iowa City will support Leepfrog's expansion to Coralville subject to the following conditions being met prior to release of IEDA funds: 1. Coralville places the Agreement Establishing a Communication Protocol for Economic Development Activity endorsed by ICAD on a formal Council agenda and approves the protocol or a substantially similar agreement that assures communication and interaction with the host city when a business is considering relocation. Press comments indicate that Coralville has concerns about the language of the agreement as it relates to public disclosure of a business's plans. The communication protocol does not contemplate public disclosure at the early stages of business development. The cities currently are subject to open records requests regarding development activity, and staff already conducts itself with an appreciation for a business's privacy concerns in the early stages of development. Issues of relocation would be treated in the same fashion. Iowa City does not resist amendments consistent with the State open records law that are designed to keep the business plans private until the time that Council action is necessary. 2. A written agreement between Iowa City and Coralville regarding the relocation of Leepfrog prior to the use of TIF funds as required by Iowa Code Section 403.19(9), which includes an agreement by Coralville to support a subsequent move by Leepfrog (or its spinoff or created subsidiaries) back to Iowa City. April 8, 2015 Page 3 Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. Very trul yours, T;vas M. Markus Enclosures Cc: City of Coralville Lee Brintle, CEO Leepfrog Technologies, Inc. f� f CORALVILLE March 17, 2015 Mr. Tom Markus City Manager City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Leepfrog Technologies, Inc. Dear Tom: I am writing to you in reference to Leepfrog Technologies, Inc. Leepfrog Technologies currently operates a facility in Iowa City on ACT Circle and a facility in Coralville on Oakdale Blvd. Leepfrog, with the assistance of ICAD, conducted a process of looking for additional space for their expansion and have entered into a letter of intent with a developer to build a new facility on Oakdale Blvd in Coralville. I have attached an outline from Mark Nolte, ICAD President, outlining the process the company has went through. The company has indicated to us that they intend to keep the facility in Iowa City as an expanded data center for the company. Leepfrog has submitted a request for assistance from the State of Iowa and the City of Coralville. The State of Iowa has asked for a letter from the City of Iowa City indicating you have no objection to the Leepfrog expansion in Coralville. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, elly J. worth City Administrator Enclosure CC: Mark Nolte City Administration PO Box 5127 1512 7th Street Coralville, Iowa 52241.0127 319-248-1700 Fax: 319-248-1894 Timeline of LeepFrog Technologies Space Planning Leepfrog Technologies, a software company serving higher education, has been headquartered at 2105 ACT Circle in Iowa City since its founding in the early 90's. As the company expanded they sought additional office space in the area to accommodate their growth. In 2013 they moved some of their staff into an available office property at 2300 Oakdale Blvd with the mindset that this would be a temporary location until they could find a more longterm solution. ICAD communicated this move to the City of Iowa City and there was no financial incentive at the city or state level offered or provided. In October of 2013 the company contacted ICAD Group about finding space for a new building. ICAD sent project information to the developers, construction companies, real estate professionals and banks who are investors in ICAD to gauge interest and identify properties. City of Iowa City staff was included in this request and submitted several Iowa City sites. Initial interest focused on the Larson Farms property near ACT, this land was under contract at the time to Liberty Development and meetings were had to discuss site layout and City of Iowa City staff were engaged. Leepfrog decided at this time to enter into an agreement with Proximity, a Des Moines based construction advisory consultant to take the lead on site selection and negotiations with builders. Communication from this point forward with ICAD was very limited. By fall of 2014 Liberty Growth had offered lease terms for a build to lease property to the company via Proximity but were informed other sites were being considered. Liberty Growth, having not secured a tenant, let their option expire on this land. ICAD continued to share ideas on sites and buildings directly with the company leaders. Through Proximity's guidance, a lease agreement has been negotiated with Build to Suit to occupy a floor of anew building to be constructed on the UI Research Park. Per the company, an employee survey was conducted which showed strong support for this location as the most accessible option for their staff. Leepfrog will maintain ownership of its Iowa City facility on ACT Circle as its main data center, but will move most of the remaining staff from this building to the new office space to put their team under one roof. At this time, the company would like to apply for state assistance to add additional jobs and has made an application to the Iowa Economic Development Authority. Build to Suit has worked independently with the City of Coralville on a TIF application for the property. Before the company can apply for state assistance, it would need the City of Iowa City to provide a letter to IEDA Director Durham indicating does not oppose the company leasing space in Coralville. ICAD believes every effort was made to help the company identify all existing buildings and sites in Iowa City. Ultimately however, the company's decision at this point is to pursue this new building in Coralville. An Agreement Establishing a Communication Protocol for Economic Development Activity in the Three Jurisdictions of Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty Purpose The cities of Iowa City, Coralville, and North liberty (hereinafter "communities" or "participating communities") join in the prospect of encouraging economic development within their own Jurisdictions and throughout the region. Working together, these communities seek to highlight the region's strengths and focus on maintaining an attractive environment for business growth and expansion. The communities seek to expand business opportunities within their own boundaries, but do not wish to do so at the expense of those participating In this Communication Plan Agreement. Inevitably, for various reasons, businesses may seek to migrate from one jurisdiction to another. In such cases, this agreement outlines a process that seeks to enhance communication and promote equity between the communities. With the exception of a business on Its own initiating with another community a discussion about relocating, the communities agree that actively pursuing businesses to migrate from one participating community to another shall be prohibited and practices of performing such actions restricted. The purpose of this agreement is to: 1. Establish and facilitate interaction between communities to promote economic development in the region; 2. Express commitment from communities that they will not actively pursue the relocation of a business that has not independently indicated an interest in moving from one participating community to another and further not propose or offer incentives to a business in support of its relocation until the actions set forth In the Economic Development Communication Plan have been fully satisfied; 3. Establish a process that balances the interests of the business' home community and other participating communities; and 4. Establish a point of contact within each jurisdiction for communication about economic development matters. Definitions For the purposes of this agreement, "relocation" means the closure or substantial reduction of an enterprise's existing operations in one participating community and the initiation of substantially the same operation In another participating community. This agreement does not prohibit an enterprise from expanding its operations in another participating community provided that existing operations of a similar nature are not closed or substantially reduced. For the purposes of this agreement, "expansion" and "consolidation" shall be defined in a manner consistent with state law. 1 Economic Development Principles in the interest of promoting economic well-being and growth of our cities, we, the undersigned, agree to the following principles: Business Attraction and Retention. The regional economy will grow stronger and be more attractive for business growth if communities work together on economic development, rather than against one another. The communities In this agreement seek to grow the regional economy knowing that regional growth will translate Into jurisdictional growth. The communities in this agreement are committed to attracting new businesses, retaining or expanding existing businesses, and promoting their cities as good places for business. While business migration will occur, the communities are dedicated to refraining from actively encouraging business migration from one city to another. Active Pursuit. The communities agree that when a business has not taken the initiative to express an interest In moving from one city to another, the communities will not actively pursue that business to encourage it to relocate. "Actively pursue" means to initiate contact with the business directly, with the Intent of luring the business through cold calls, visits, mail solicitations, marketing, or through a third party. This does not preclude the communities from marketing themselves as a good place to do business, generally promoting the benefits of starting, expanding, or locating a business in their city, or responding to questions and requests for information posed by a business. If a community provides incentives for a speculative building or infrastructure, the community agrees to discourage developers, realtors and others Involved with the project from recruiting businesses from the other participating communities. Moreover, in these cases, each participating community shall develop an agreement which each community would use with developers, realtors, and others involved with the project in their respective communities that specifically disallows this type of recruitment. The communities agree that businesses located in an incubator (designated space for business incubation) or other similar facilities supported in whole or in part by the Iowa City Area Development Group or the University of Iowa are not subject to the rules of this agreement when it relates to the relocation of a business from one of the above described facilities in one participating community to another participating community. Economic Development Communication Plan In the event a business residing in a different community ("the home community") contacts another community ("the contacted community") to discuss possible relocation or in the event a business desires to consolidate its operations (already established in two or more of the participating communities) to the contacted community, whether that contact be directly or through a representative, the following communication plan will be implemented: 1. The contacted community or its third party representative will advise the business that it wants to assist the business so that it is successful. 2. The contacted community or its third party representative will ask the business whether it has advised the home community that it is considering relocation, and if not, whether it objects to the contacted community advising the home community of the inquiry. 3. If the home community has not been advised and the business does not object, the contacted community or its third party representative will promptly notify the point of contact from the home community In writing of the inquiry. 4. If the home community has not been advised and the business does object, the contacted community or its third party representative will inform the company of the general terms of this agreement and applicable state law, and that no further discussions regarding relocation will take place until the home community is notified. 5. The communities or their third party representatives will not propose or offer incentives to the business in support of Its relocation until the home community has approved in writing that incentives can be used. 6. In the event that participating communities learn of a business considering relocation or consolidating operations from a participating community to a non -participating community, It will be the responsibility of those participating communities to inform each other of such. Priority of this Agreement The provisions of this agreement cannot be superseded by agreements for confidentiality or other contracts between a local government or nonprofit economic development organizations and a business. Local business will be made aware of this agreement immediately upon contacting a local government about relocating within the participating communities. Addition of Participants The communities strongly encourage other communities within the region to join this agreement, tlpon request, the communities will consider the addition of other participating communities. Point of Contact For the purposes of this agreement, the points of contacts for the participating communities are as follows: 1. Iowa City: City Manager, 2. Coralville: City Administrator, 3, North Liberty: City Administrator, Term The agreement shall be effective when the agreement is signed by all communities and shall remain in effect until terminated in accordance with subparagraph 1 of the General Provisions below. Non -Substitution This agreement shall not constitute a "written agreement concerning the general use of economic incentives to attract commercial or industrial development" for purposes of Iowa Code Section 403.19(9)(a)(1). 3 General Provisions 1. Termination: Any community can end its participation In this agreement by providing at least 180 days notice to the other communities. Such termination shall be effective as of the date stated on such a notice, In the event only one participating community remains, the agreement shall no longer be In effect, 2. Amendment or Modification: This agreement may be amended or modified by the participating communities, provided that any such modification or amendment shall only be effective upon written agreement of all participating communities. 3. Capacity to Execute: The undersigned hereby certifies that all actions necessary to execute this agreement were taken, and the person executing this agreement is authorized to do so and has the power to bind the jurisdiction to the terms and conditions herein, 4, No Third -party Beneficiaries. This agreement Is not intended to benefit any person or entity not a party to this agreement and shall not be construed to do so, 5. No Agency Relationship. Nothing herein creates an agency relationship between the participants and nothing herein authorizes one participant to act as an agent of another participant or participants. CITY OF IOWA CiTY Dated this 23�rrd,, ,ddaay�of February 20 15 MAYOR ATTEST: -24a,,,,,-,,,,) e - /%1/ CI LERK CITY OF CORALVILLE Dated this day of By: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF NORTH LiBERTY Dated this day of. By: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 4 20 Ile GX ICI_ 20 Iowa City Area Development Group To: The Honorable Mayors Hayek, Lundell and Nielsen and the City Councils of Iowa City, Coralville and North Liberty Re: Support for Establishing an Inter -Jurisdictional Communication Protocol for Economic Development Dear Mayors and City Councilors, On behalf of the board of directors of the Iowa City Area Development Group, we express our support for the adoption of the Communication Protocol for Economic Development among our respective communities. We understand that a draft of the document has been developed by our respective city administrators which outlines a process by which a clear standard for engagement and communication will be agreed to regarding economic development projects. For our area to be successful, we believe the various communities all need to be working together to compete for the best jobs and investment. Competition among our communities can become a detriment to this goal and create situations where our communities are pitted against each other. This agreement does not limit a community from assisting a company during a location search, but spells out a transparent process which helps the host community leadership better understand and react when a company may wish to move. Signing this agreement will enhance the trust and cooperation between our communities and pave the way for more collaborative approaches to problem solving and planning. Working together is the best way to benefit the residents of all communities and our area as a whole. We urge you to support this vital step towards a strong local economy and approve the signing of this agreement. It is our hope that your leadership will encourage the other communities and counties in Iowa's Creative Corridor to follow in your footsteps and sign on to this agreement as well. If we can provide any additional information or clarification of our position publicly, please let us know how we might best serve your needs. Sincerely, a� Tom Goedken Board Chair Mark Nolte, President 3143 t_ Gourt Street lowri t;ity, IAS ri2240 :319 354 3939 3 � f Iowa City Area Development Group To: The Honorable Mayors Hayek, Lundell and Nielsen and the City Councils of Iowa City, Coralville and North Liberty Re: Support for Establishing an Inter -Jurisdictional Communication Protocol for Economic Development Dear Mayors and City Councilors, On behalf of the board of directors of the Iowa City Area Development Group, we express our support for the adoption of the Communication Protocol for Economic Development among our respective communities. We understand that a draft of the document has been developed by our respective city administrators which outlines a process by which a clear standard for engagement and communication will be agreed to regarding economic development projects. For our area to be successful, we believe the various communities all need to be working together to compete for the best jobs and investment. Competition among our communities can become a detriment to this goal and create situations where our communities are pitted against each other. This agreement does not limit a community from assisting a company during a location search, but spells out a transparent process which helps the host community leadership better understand and react when a company may wish to move. Signing this agreement will enhance the trust and cooperation between our communities and pave the way for more collaborative approaches to problem solving and planning. Working together is the best way to benefit the residents of all communities and our area as a whole. We urge you to support this vital step towards a strong local economy and approve the signing of this agreement. It is our hope that your leadership will encourage the other communities and counties in Iowa's Creative Corridor to follow in your footsteps and sign on to this agreement as well. If we can provide any additional information or clarification of our position publicly, please let us know how we might best serve your needs. Sincerely, a� Tom Goedken Board Chair Mark Nolte, President 3143 t_ Gourt Street lowri t;ity, IAS ri2240 :319 354 3939 [ -09-15 IP3 1. Marian Karr From: Jim Throgmorton Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 11:03 AM To: Council; Tom Markus Attachments: fiscal-implications-madison-wi.pdf Tom and fellow council members, I recently learned of the attached report and thought you might be interested in taking a look at it. It uses Madison WI to test a new methodology for assessing the fiscal impacts of alternative development scenarios. Given the fiscal challenges looming before us, the report's findings deserve careful consideration. Jim Throgmorton District C, Iowa City City Council Please Note: No correspondence (including emails) to City Council is confidential. All correspondence (including emails) to me as a City Council member about City issues is a public record. ri .. ^r a o '- • �' � yip �:".'!�' �'.p�`J Y � � ♦ .'X—� 100101910 THE FISCAL IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Analysis of Madison, WI Prepared by Smart Growth America for the City of Madison, WI April 2015 Background and objectives The connection between land use development patterns and the costs of providing public infrastructure and services has long been a topic of study, particularly since The Cost of Sprawl: A detailed analysis was published in 1974. Since that time, dozens, if not hundreds of studies, have been conducted relating to this topic. Most of these have concluded that "smart growth" (that is, more compact patterns of development) is associated with reduced local government spending on a per capita basis relative to sprawl (recognizing that the definition of each of those terms not entirely consistent). Smart Growth America's Building Better Budgets report, published in May 2013, summarizes the results of 17 of these studies. Yet these findings are not often included in the typical fiscal impact analyses done in connection with new development proposals. There are many reasons for this, but the inconsistent methodologies used in the above -referenced studies, as well as the time-consuming data collection efforts they involve, have likely slowed the filtering of these academic findings into the "practice." Instead, most, (though not all) fiscal impact analyses rely on a simple average cost approach, which implicitly assumes that each new resident or job will add the same amount of public costs, regardless of whether they live and work in a sprawling, low-density development, or a high-density walkable urban one. In connection with a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Smart Growth America ("SGA") aims to develop a fiscal impact methodology that not only accounts for the increased cost efficiencies associated with denser development patterns, but can also be easily adapted and used by local practitioners across the country. The City of Madison generously agreed to become a case study community in the development of this methodology. Scenarios The City of Madison asked SGA to review development plans at two different sites. The first, known as the Pioneer District, is the subject of this memo. The Pioneer District is approximately 1,400 acres in size and is largely vacant at present. The City of Madison provided two scenarios for evaluation. The "base" scenario reflects the current plan for the development of the Pioneer District. The second scenario, called "Plus 50" assumes 50 percent higher density on certain parcels within the District. Note that this scenario results in a different mix of development than the base scenario, meaning that any changes in revenues and costs are not due to changes in density alone but also to changes in the ratio of commercial space to residential space. Therefore, SGA introduced two additional higher density scenarios, which assume the same development program as the base scenario and "Plus 50" scenario respectively, but on approximately 500 fewer acres. They are called the "Compact" and the "Compact Plus 50" scenarios, respectively. Finally, for purposes of comparison, SGA created a "Low Density" scenario, which assumes the same development as the base scenario but on approximately 1,000 acres more. The Low Density scenario, in particular, is purely hypothetical as it would consume more acreage than the Pioneer District contains. Nonetheless these scenarios help to evaluate the magnitude of public cost savings associated with more compact development patterns. The quantity of development in each scenario is summarized below (see Table 1). TABLE 1 Quantity of development in five scenarios Key findings Net fiscal impact As the chart below clearly shows, as the density of development increases, the net fiscal impact per acre also increases (see Figure 1). Once again, the "Low Density", "Base", and "Compact" scenarios all have the same development program on a varying amount of land while the "Plus 50" and "Compact Plus 50" scenarios are based on a different development program, per Table 1. Low Density scenario Base scenario Compact scenario Plus 50 scenario Compact Plus 50 scenario Single-family detached homes 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,780 1,780 Multifamily units 3,236 3,236 3,236 4,466 4,466 Total units 4,779 4,779 4,779 6,246 6,246 Total gross acres 2,379 1,403 915 1,403 915 Net residential density 4.1 9.0 16.2 11.7 23.4 Commercial square footage 4,646,920 4,646,920 4,646,920 6,990,376 6,990,376 Key findings Net fiscal impact As the chart below clearly shows, as the density of development increases, the net fiscal impact per acre also increases (see Figure 1). Once again, the "Low Density", "Base", and "Compact" scenarios all have the same development program on a varying amount of land while the "Plus 50" and "Compact Plus 50" scenarios are based on a different development program, per Table 1. FIGURE 1 Estimated annual net fiscal impact per acre $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 •' Low Density Base Scenario Compact "Plus 50" Compact "Plus 50" ■ City of Madison * Madison Metropolitan School District The relationship in the above chart is due mainly to two factors associated with higher density: cost savings and reduced land consumption. For the City of Madison, the compact scenario would reduce estimated costs by approximately 12 percent over the low density scenario. Even after assuming a reduction in the average value of single-family homes due to smaller lot sizes', the cost savings under the compact scenario make a large difference to the bottom line net fiscal impact. Under the compact scenario, the net fiscal impact of $2.07 million for the City of Madison is 23 percent higher than the net fiscal impact under the base scenario of $1.66 million, and 53 percent higher than the net fiscal impact under the low density scenario. The net fiscal impact per acre is even more dramatic as the higher absolute net fiscal impacts are spread over fewer acres. These results highlight the high opportunity cost of sprawl on public finances and the importance of the net fiscal impact per acre metric, as opposed to only the absolute total. Judged solely by the combined total of the net fiscal impact for both the City and the Madison Metropolitan School District, the compact scenario generates a total net fiscal impact that is 3 percent lower than the low density scenario. However, that net fiscal impact is achieved on 915 acres instead of 2,379. The remaining 1,464 acres and the property tax they generate is not included in the result. The remaining land, even if it remained vacant would generate property tax revenues, but more importantly, it could accommodate future growth and development, an opportunity that would be 1 Based on assessment records from the City of Madison. See page 5 for further details. foreclosed under the low density scenario .2 Because the value of the "saved" acreage is not reflected in the absolute totals, the net fiscal impact per acre is the more informative comparison between the programs. This is important to note in interpreting the results for the Madison Metropolitan School District. For it, the compact scenario is estimated to result in a 2.3 percent cost savings over the low density scenario. On an absolute basis, this level of cost savings is not enough to compensate for the projected loss in tax revenue associated with smaller single-family lot sizes, so the analysis shows a decline in the absolute net fiscal impact for the Madison Metropolitan School District as density increases. However, the low density scenario consumes 1,464 fewer acres than the compact scenario. Therefore, on a per acre basis, the net fiscal impact to the Madison Metropolitan School District does increase as density increases. In fact, the net fiscal impact per acre under the compact scenario is nearly double that of the low density scenario, even under the assumption that single-family home values would decrease in the compact scenario.' Table 2 presents a summary of the results by scenario. The results reflect the estimated annual net fiscal impact, at build -out, of each scenario. The net fiscal impact is defined as the projected revenues minus the projected operating costs and certain annualized capital costs.' All results are presented in 2015 dollars. TABLE 2 Revenues, expenditures, and net fiscal impacts, by scenario Revenues The retained land could of course be put to a public purpose, such as new parks. In such a case, it might come off the tax rolls; nonetheless, it clearly has economic value, which might be approximated by considering the cost that would be incurred to purchase it for that purpose. As noted and discussed further below, this analysis maintains the very conservative assumption that reduced lot sizes result in reduced single-family property values. If, on the other hand, we allow for the possibility that the value of residential property may rise on a square -foot basis when homes are located in walkable environments, and in close proximity to services offered in a mixed-use community, there arises the potential for the 'location premium" to offset the value of the diminished land area. The model does not currently account for all public capital costs. Only capital costs associated with fire protection, road resurfacing, pipe reconstruction, and school construction are included. Capital costs not accounted for are assumed not to vary directly with density. Future versions of this model will attempt to develop a more comprehensive accounting of all capital costs associated with new development, depending on data availability. Per Capita Per Capita (Res. & (Res. & Scenario Total Emp.) Per Acre Total Emp.) Per Acre Low Density $15,645,811 $662 $6,577 $19,625,708 $831 $8,251 Base Program $15,083,051 $638 $10,751 $18,779,740 $795 $13,385 Compact $14,752,060 $624 1 $16,120 1 1 $18,356,756 $777 $20,059 "Plus 50" $20,306,016 $607 $14,473 $24,544,553 $734 $17,494 Compact "Plus J$26,358 50" $19,974,975 $597 $21,827 $24,121,504 $721 The retained land could of course be put to a public purpose, such as new parks. In such a case, it might come off the tax rolls; nonetheless, it clearly has economic value, which might be approximated by considering the cost that would be incurred to purchase it for that purpose. As noted and discussed further below, this analysis maintains the very conservative assumption that reduced lot sizes result in reduced single-family property values. If, on the other hand, we allow for the possibility that the value of residential property may rise on a square -foot basis when homes are located in walkable environments, and in close proximity to services offered in a mixed-use community, there arises the potential for the 'location premium" to offset the value of the diminished land area. The model does not currently account for all public capital costs. Only capital costs associated with fire protection, road resurfacing, pipe reconstruction, and school construction are included. Capital costs not accounted for are assumed not to vary directly with density. Future versions of this model will attempt to develop a more comprehensive accounting of all capital costs associated with new development, depending on data availability. Expenditures Net Fiscal Impact Per Capita Per Capita (Res. & (Res. & Scenario Total Emp.) Per Acre Total Emp.) Per Acre Low Density $14,334,441 $607 $6,026 $16,567,449 $701 $6,965 Base Program $13,417,592 $568 $9,564 $16,395,796 $694 $11,686 Compact $12,683,412 $537 $13,860 $16,172,703 $685 $17,672 "Plus 50" $18,011,514 $539 $12,838 $20,306,696 $607 $14,474 Compact "Plus 50" $17,326,913 $518 $18,934 $19,971,850 $597 $21,824 Net Fiscal Impact Conservatism SGA believes this model likely underestimates the improvement to net fiscal impact associated with higher densities. Most importantly, the model makes very conservative assumptions with regard to revenues. A wide body of research has confirmed that dense, walkable environments enjoy significant value premiums of 20 percent and higher over typical suburban product.5 This means that the assessed value per square foot of development could well be higher in the compact scenario than the base or low density scenarios. At this point, however, we have not included any value premium associated with density in this analysis. In fact, to be conservative, SGA has assumed that the average single-family home land value would decrease with higher density due to smaller lot sizes. In addition to the conservative revenue assumptions, SGA was not able to model certain other cost drivers that may be density -related due in part to a lack of sufficient data. Solid waste and recycling 5 CEOs for Cities. (2009). Walking the Walk. Available at http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/. Pivo, G. and Fisher, J. (2010, February). 'The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Development." Responsible Property Investing Center, University Of Arizona and Benecki Center For Real Estate Studies, Indiana University. Available at http://www.u.arizona.edu/-gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208_4%20draft.pdf. Leinberger, C. and Alfonzo, M. (2012, May). "Walk this Way: The Economic Promise of Walkable Places in Metropolitan Washington, DC." Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Available at: http://www. brooki ng s. ed u/-/med ia/Research/Files/Papers/2012/5/25 %20walkab le%20places°/a 201ein berger/25 %2 Owalkable%20places%201ei nberger. pdf. Per Capita Per Capita (Res. & (Res. & Scenario Total Emp.) Per Acre Total Em Per Acre Low Density $1,311,370 $56 $551 $3,058,259 $129 $1,286 Base Program $1,665,459 $70 $1,187 $2,383,944 $101 $1,699 Compact $2,068,648 $88 $2,260 $2,184,053 $92 $2,387 "Plus 50" $2,294,502 $69 $1,635 $4,237,857 $127 $3,021 Compact "Plus 50" $2,648,062 1 $79 1 $2,894 $4,149,654 1 $124 1 $4,534 Conservatism SGA believes this model likely underestimates the improvement to net fiscal impact associated with higher densities. Most importantly, the model makes very conservative assumptions with regard to revenues. A wide body of research has confirmed that dense, walkable environments enjoy significant value premiums of 20 percent and higher over typical suburban product.5 This means that the assessed value per square foot of development could well be higher in the compact scenario than the base or low density scenarios. At this point, however, we have not included any value premium associated with density in this analysis. In fact, to be conservative, SGA has assumed that the average single-family home land value would decrease with higher density due to smaller lot sizes. In addition to the conservative revenue assumptions, SGA was not able to model certain other cost drivers that may be density -related due in part to a lack of sufficient data. Solid waste and recycling 5 CEOs for Cities. (2009). Walking the Walk. Available at http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/. Pivo, G. and Fisher, J. (2010, February). 'The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Development." Responsible Property Investing Center, University Of Arizona and Benecki Center For Real Estate Studies, Indiana University. Available at http://www.u.arizona.edu/-gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%208_4%20draft.pdf. Leinberger, C. and Alfonzo, M. (2012, May). "Walk this Way: The Economic Promise of Walkable Places in Metropolitan Washington, DC." Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Available at: http://www. brooki ng s. ed u/-/med ia/Research/Files/Papers/2012/5/25 %20walkab le%20places°/a 201ein berger/25 %2 Owalkable%20places%201ei nberger. pdf. pickup, for example, is almost certainly less efficient in low density environments because of the greater distance, and therefore time and fuel between pickups. Police protection may also become less expensive in dense, walkable environments because of a need for fewer patrol cars and vehicle fuel and maintenance costs. The effective modeling of this relationship remains a task for future research. Methodology Revenues Property tax The City of Madison provided assumptions with respect to property values for each product type involved in the study. However, SGA made its own estimates of single-family home values based on an analysis of land and improvement values in the vicinity of the Pioneer District. Using these homes, SGA conducted a linear regression analysis of the relationship between lot size and assessed land value. Using this analysis, SGA was able to estimate the likely impact on assessed value of the changes in lot sizes that follow the changing densities in each scenario. No adjustments for lot sizes were applied to townhouses, multifamily units, or commercial properties because land for these functions is typically valued on a per unit or per allowable square foot basis. In each scenario, the assumed assessed values were multiplied by the appropriate tax rates for the City of Madison and the Madison Metropolitan school district. Miscellaneous revenues Residents and employees of the development were assumed to generate revenues related to licenses, permits, fees, and certain other miscellaneous sources at the same rate as current residents and employees. These revenues were assumed to not vary by density. Expenditures Density -related expenditures SGA divided the expenditures associated with new development into two basic categories. The first includes those that are likely to be affected by the density of the development while the second includes all other expenditures. For purposes of this analysis, SGA has treated expenditures on the maintenance of roads and pipes, including water, sewer, and storm sewer, as well as fire protection and school transportation as density -related. This represents approximately 20 percent of the total operating expenditures by the City of Madison and 3 percent of the Madison Metropolitan School District. Other expenditure categories, in particular solid waste pickup, and police protection are likely also affected by the density of development but the available information was not sufficient for SGA to credibly analyze the relationship for all categories. Roads SGA analysis shows that there is a strong inverse relationship between road length and area per capita, and the density of development in the City of Madison. Using GIS, a grid of equal -sized cells was drawn across the City of Madison and the number of residents and employees determined, as well as the road length and area in each cell. From these data points, SGA a formula was derived estimating both the road length and area needed per capita, at any reasonable density, assuming that the new development conforms to historical experience in the area. A scatterplot, with road length per capita on the y axis and the density (measured in terms of residents and employees per acre) on the x axis, along with a regression formula describing the relationship between the two factors, is shown below.s As the chart clearly illustrates, there are significant improvements in efficiency when moving from typical suburban densities of 4-5 people and employees per acre to approximately 40 persons and employees per acre. Thereafter, the quantity of roads per capita decreases only slightly as density increases (see Figure 2). While the chart below depicts road length only, SGA found a similarly strong relationship between road area and population/employment density. FIGURE 2 Quantity of roads per capita 50 ; 0s 45 CO a 40 ) v o 35 a� a Q E 30 0 25 OF 20 U 15 * y = 75.462x-0.877 0 9;' 10 R2 = 0.80069 5 ~ ��....� .�t�. a.�.......�.. �..�......�.....�.............. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Residents and Employees per Acre In Madison, Capital costs for roads are paid by the developer; however, the City must maintain all roads. The City of Madison estimated that roads generally cost $3.00 per square foot to resurface and must be resurfaced every 20-40 years depending on usage. This model assumes that all roads will be resurfaced every 25 years. The cost of resurfacing is annualized by dividing the estimated resurfacing cost by the expected lifetime of 25 years. In addition, the model assumes that the new roads would generate the same average costs per square foot in terms of pothole repair and snow removal as all other roads in the City of Madison. Note that this model does not currently estimate the additional demand placed on off-site roads, which may also incur maintenance costs. 6 Note that each point may not represent one cell. Instead, values for all cells within certain density categories were averaged and presented as one point. Water and sewer mains The maintenance of water and sewer mains is performed by the City utility, which collects fees based on the quantity of water provided and wastewater processed. In a typical fiscal impact analysis, costs and revenues associated with public utilities are ignored because it is assumed that the utility adjusts its rates to cover all costs, such that any expenses associated with a new development would be covered by the revenue it would generate. Nonetheless, the density of development does affect the costs to the utility. All else being equal, a development that requires an average of 100 feet of pipe between residences will cost more to maintain than a development with only 20 feet of pipe between residences. To account for this fact, SGA has developed a methodology that compares the ratio of pipe maintenance costs to the projected water and wastewater revenue generated by the development, to the same ratio for the City as a whole. If the ratio of maintenance costs to revenue generated is lower in the development than in the City as a whole, then the project is assumed to generate a positive cash flow to the City and vice versa. Sewer and water mains typically follow the length of the street and SGA found that to be largely the case in the City of Madison. Therefore, SGA employed the same methodology used for road length to estimate the length of pipe needed in the development under each scenario. Water and wastewater use projections were made on a per resident and per employee basis using third party estimates.' Pipe maintenance costs were based on the annualized cost of reconstruction, assuming a cost of $200 per linear foot and a lifetime of 100 years.' (The current analysis does not assume the reuse of any existing pipe.) Fire/EMS protection To be effective, fire and EMS services must respond to emergency calls in a short amount of time. The specific response time varies by community, but fire service budgets and capital requirements are typically based on an established standard. This necessarily means that, for any given response -time standard, the efficiency of fire service will be dependent on the density within the "fire service shed" (the geographic area served by a station). If it is developed at a very low density, then the cost of service, including the cost of the station, the ambulances, fire engine/ladders, and their staff will be spread over a few people and employees, and likely a low property tax base. However, only the station costs are fixed. If density increases enough, the additional population will eventually require new fire engines and staff to serve them. SGA was unable to find any widely accepted standards, either in the City of Madison, or nationally, on the quantity of fire engines and staff per population and employee. Therefore, SGA assumed that the City of Madison would maintain its existing level of service, which is approximately one fully -staffed fire engine per 27,000 residents and employees and one fully staffed ambulance per 55,000 residents and employees. The current City of Madison response standard is 5 minutes. Assuming 1 minute for dispatch, this equates to a 4 minute travel time for the fire engine. SGA estimated the distance that the fire engine could travel using a formula developed by the RAND institute and in use by ISO, a firm that 7 https://www.home-water-works.org/about/calculator 8 SGA has not assumed any variation in pipe width associated with density. No correlations were apparent between the average pipe width and the density of existing development in the City of Madison. analyzes the risk associated with public protection services for insurance companies.9 SGA translated the distance the engine could travel in 4 minutes into the acreage of the response shed from a hypothetical station at the center of the proposed development.tO Based on these assumptions, we found that the maximum service capacity for one fire engine and ambulance can be reached even at relatively low densities of approximately 6-7 residents and employees per acre. Therefore, the incremental operating efficiencies associated with rising density are already more or less maximized, even at low densities. The capital cost of the station, however, is more fixed. Though additional bays may need to be added as the population of the response shed increases, much of the station would remain the same. These costs can then be "spread out' over more people and a larger property tax base as density increases. Based on information provided by the City of Madison and additional sources, SGA estimated the cost of constructing a fire station, purchasing the necessary vehicles and equipment, and operating the vehicles on a per capita basis, assuming that the entire response shed is built -out." This per capita cost is then multiplied by the number of residents and employees in the development in each scenario. School transportation All else being equal, school transportation costs should decline in areas of higher density, for two reasons: a) more students will live within the "walk zone" (close enough that they are expected to walk to school), and; b) for those who are bused, school buses should have smaller distances to travel, saving on fuel costs and other operating costs. Data collected by the state of Wisconsin and other states on district transportation costs bears this out - transportation costs per student clearly decline as density increases. The chart below, based on data from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, illustrates the relationship (see Figure 3). 9 https://firechief.iso.com/FCWWeb/mitigation/ppc/3000/ppc3015.jsp 10 The estimate is based on the assumption that the fire engine response shed is roughly equivalent to the area of a circle with its center at the station, and radius equal to the distance the fire engine can travel in 4 minutes, after discounting the distance for connectivity issues. SGA estimated the appropriate discount by comparing the actual areas of various response sheds, using the street network, to the area in a whole circle. 11 Until the response shed is completely built -out, per capita costs would be higher but the intent of this model is to capture the long-term differences in costs associated with different densities, therefore the per capita costs at build- out were used. FIGURE 3 Transportation costs per student $1,000 0 $400 �� . • • ro • o $300 .................... OL• $200 ~ $100 • y =-84.11ln(x) + 798.36 R2 = 0.81794 .............................................. • $0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Pupils per Square Mile SGA's model calculates school transportation costs by estimating the number of students that are likely to be within the "walk zone" of any given school, assuming that the area around it is populated at the same gross density as the planned development in each scenario. Based on American Community Survey Public Use Microdata (PUMS) data for the City of Madison area, we estimated the number of students that would live in each development scenario and calculated the density of students per acre. The average student density was multiplied by the acreage of the walk zone for each school type (Elementary, Middle, and High). The number of likely students in the walk zone was then compared to the average school size by type for the City of Madison. If the number of students likely to be in the walk zone met or exceeded the typical school capacity, then transportation costs were assumed to be zero. If the number of students within the walk zone was less than the capacity of the school, the remainder were assumed to be eligible for school bus. No data was available on the percentage of eligible bus students that actually use bus. Pending the availability of better data or a better basis for an assumption SGA has assumed that 75 percent of eligible bus students were assumed to actually use bus, to account for the fact that some bus eligible students will find other means of transportation. Every bused student was assumed to generate annual costs equivalent to the current average expenditure per bused student in the Madison Metropolitan School District. This model does not account for bussing due to reasons other than the distance from the school, e.g. integration, magnet schools, etc. Non -density related operating expenditures For all expenditures deemed not related to density of development, SGA applied the conventional methodology of average costing, whereby expenditure categories are averaged across the number of residents and employees in the jurisdiction. Each new resident and employee is assumed to generate these same costs. The distribution of costs between residents and employees is imprecise, as municipalities typically do not and/or cannot track expenditures at this level of detail. $900 • c a> _0 $800 • CO $700 CL $600 0 W 0 $500 • • 0 $400 �� . • • ro • o $300 .................... OL• $200 ~ $100 • y =-84.11ln(x) + 798.36 R2 = 0.81794 .............................................. • $0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Pupils per Square Mile SGA's model calculates school transportation costs by estimating the number of students that are likely to be within the "walk zone" of any given school, assuming that the area around it is populated at the same gross density as the planned development in each scenario. Based on American Community Survey Public Use Microdata (PUMS) data for the City of Madison area, we estimated the number of students that would live in each development scenario and calculated the density of students per acre. The average student density was multiplied by the acreage of the walk zone for each school type (Elementary, Middle, and High). The number of likely students in the walk zone was then compared to the average school size by type for the City of Madison. If the number of students likely to be in the walk zone met or exceeded the typical school capacity, then transportation costs were assumed to be zero. If the number of students within the walk zone was less than the capacity of the school, the remainder were assumed to be eligible for school bus. No data was available on the percentage of eligible bus students that actually use bus. Pending the availability of better data or a better basis for an assumption SGA has assumed that 75 percent of eligible bus students were assumed to actually use bus, to account for the fact that some bus eligible students will find other means of transportation. Every bused student was assumed to generate annual costs equivalent to the current average expenditure per bused student in the Madison Metropolitan School District. This model does not account for bussing due to reasons other than the distance from the school, e.g. integration, magnet schools, etc. Non -density related operating expenditures For all expenditures deemed not related to density of development, SGA applied the conventional methodology of average costing, whereby expenditure categories are averaged across the number of residents and employees in the jurisdiction. Each new resident and employee is assumed to generate these same costs. The distribution of costs between residents and employees is imprecise, as municipalities typically do not and/or cannot track expenditures at this level of detail. SGA used judgment in this regard, informed by the total proportion of residents to employees in the City of Madison, as shown on Exhibit 12. Note, however, that the allocation of these costs can have significant impact on the results, particularly when comparing development scenarios with different ratios of residents to employees. SGA recommends that the City of Madison review these assumptions carefully. Notes on interpretation This study is intended to provide an estimate of the different costs and revenues associated with development at different densities. To that end, it compares annual revenues for each scenario at full build -out. It does not account for the time until build -out, which may well vary depending on the scenario. It also is a better calculator of the difference between scenarios, rather than the actual net fiscal impact in any given year of one scenario. This is mainly because major capital costs are annualized to provide an estimate of the overall long-term average costs. In reality, the City may need to spend very little money in the early years on maintaining infrastructure, for example, before eventually making a large balloon payment when infrastructure reaches the end of its lifetime. This model essentially assumes that the City saves up enough each year to make the large payment. The City's actual practice may differ, of course. In addition, the model does not account for all capital costs that may be generated by new development. For example, the capital cost of new police stations, libraries, and recreation facilities are not currently included in the model. These cost items were assumed to be either independent of density or SGA did not have sufficient data to establish a relationship between density and their costs. Therefore, the inclusion of these costs might reduce the net fiscal impact of each scenario but the difference between scenarios, and the basic conclusions of this analysis, would remain unchanged. The model also does not specifically account for the capacity of existing infrastructure. This is a deliberate choice for two reasons. First, the information on school, police, and fire capacity is difficult to obtain. Particularly, with respect to police, and fire, there are often no objective standards on when a new staffing or equipment is required. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is questionable to attribute the cost of a new station or school entirely to the new development that happens to push facilities beyond their "tipping point." Growth in prior years is equally responsible. For that reason, it is more important to understand the long-term average costs and apply them equally. The key point is that, while such a quantification may be important for a full fiscal impact analysis of prospective development, it would not affect the results here, because any such variation is likely to be the same regardless of the density of the development alternatives. In this analysis, our effort is simply to discern fiscal impacts that vary based on development pattern. iu\ Smart Growth America lqniir Making Neighborhoods Great Together Smart Growth America is the only national organization dedicated to researching, advocating for, and leading coalitions to bring better development to more communities nationwide. From providing more sidewalks to ensuring more homes are built near public transportation or that productive farms remain a part of our communities, smart growth helps make sure people across the nation can live in great neighborhoods. Learn more at smartgrowthamerica.ora. .. CITY OF IOWA CITYIP4 MEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show At your April 7th work session meeting Council Members agreed to the following schedule for the Wednesday 8AM radio show: Wednesday April 15 - Dickens April 22 — Mims April 29 — Hayek May 6 — Botchway In addition we are adding a 7:15 — 7:45 AM the first and third Friday of each month: Frida y April 17 — Mims May 1 — Dickens Future requests / commitments: Wednesday May 13 — May 20 — May 27 — June 3 — June 10 — June 17 — June 24 — July 1 — July 8 — July 15 — July 22 — July 29 — August 5 — August 12 — August 19 — August 26 — September 2 — September 9 — September 16 — September 23 — September 30 — October 7 — October 14 — October 21 — October 28 — November 4 — November 11 — April 9, 2015 Page 2 November 18 — November 25 — December 2 — December 9 — December 16 — December 23 — December 30 - Friday May 15 — Dobyns June 5 — Throgmorton June 19 — Throgmorton (preference for 5�n) July 3 — July 17 — August 7 — Dobyns August 21 — September 4 — September 18 — Dobyns October 2 — October 16 — Dobyns November 6 — November 20 — December 4 — Dobyns December 18 — ** Please remember that KXIC is very flexible with taping the Wednesday sessions ahead of the show. It is the intent of the Friday interviews to be live. U: radioshowappts.doc Kellie Tuttle From: City of Iowa City <webmaster@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 9:30 AM To: Kellie Tuttle Subject: Citizens Police Review Board Community Forum Citizens Police Review Board Community Forum Issued by: City Clerk Mailing List(s): General City News Originally Posted 4/9/2015 9:30:16 AM Contact: Kellie Tuttle Contact Phone: (319) 356-5043 The Citizens Police Review Board will be holding its Annual Community Forum for the purpose of hearing Citizens' views on the policies, practices and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. WHEN: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 TIME: 6:00 PM WHERE: Iowa City Public Library, Rm A 123 South Linn Street, IC Questions & Comments: Send your questions or comments you'd like addressed at the forum to the following by Tuesday, April 21 st: Please include full name and address. (All correspondence is public) CPRB City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Or e-mail to CPRB staff: kel I ie-tuttlee Iowa -c itv. org The Board will attempt to address all correspondence received. The forum will be taped and rebroadcast on the Interactive City Channel 4. The agenda is available at: htto://www.icgov.org/defaultlaoos/boards/boardList.asp View this article on the ICGov Web Site: http://www.icoov.org/aoos/news/?newslD=10409 This media release was sent to: kellie-tuttle aniowa-citv.ora Do not reply directly to this a-maill It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or comment about this information, please contact the individual(s) listed in the release. • Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details. • Visit our *obs Page for employment opportunities. • View more news from the City of Iowa City. =1 Marian Karr From: Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities [mailto:iisc@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:13 AM To: Matt Hayek Subject: IISC-Iowa City Year -End Celebration THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA INITIATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Year -End Celebration SAVE THE DATE Join the Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities and the City of Iowa City in celebrating their year-long partnership. We're bringing together students, faculty, and staff who completed projects in fall and spring semesters. Help us in celebrating their work, read final reports, look over posters, and learn about their recommendations. When MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015 from 5 to 7 p.m. Where IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A 123 LINN STREET Iowa City, IA 52246 Formal invitation and agenda to follow. Airport Commission March 19, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2015 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Jose Assouline (left at 7:00 P.M.), David Davis, Minnetta Gardinier, A. Jacob Odgaard, Chris Ogren Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Sue Dulek Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Melissa Underwood, Jeff Edberg RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. DETERMINE QUORUM: M Chairperson Ogren called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. She noted that the first item on the agenda is the election of officers. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Ogren nominated Gardinier for the Chair position. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. Ogren the nominated Odgaard for the Secretary position. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Odgaard abstaining. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Newly -elected Chair Gardinier then took over the meeting. Minutes from the February 19, 2015, meeting were reviewed. Ogren moved to accept the minutes of the February 19, 2015, meeting as presented. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Airport Commerce Park — Jeff Edberg with Lepic-Kroger spoke to Members first. He noted that they had extended the listing agreement authorizing him to market the property for the Airport and to accommodate the two closings. He stated that with the change in plans, they will now have Lot #7 back on the market, and he now needs another extension to the listing agreement. Edberg is requesting that this be done through the end of the year. Airport Commission March 19, 2015 Page 2 Responding to Member questions, Edberg stated that the interested party for Lot #7 basically disappeared, and that Lots 11, 12, and 13 are still pending sale and expected to go through as planned. After some discussion, Members agreed to have the listing agreement amendment run through the end of this year. i. Consider a resolution approving amendment to listing agreement with Lepic-Kroger — Ogren moved to approve Resolution #A15-04 to amend the listing agreement with Lepic-Kroger as discussed. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. Edberg then spoke to the real estate transaction with Tamarack Materials, stating that they have been in a `due diligence period.' It has become a somewhat difficult transaction, according to Edberg, especially when Tamarack decided that it would be better financially for them if they leased versus purchased, as far as both the lots and the building they need. He further explained the process they are going through, noting that even with the delays, ultimately the deal is expected to go through. Edberg responded to Member questions, giving further detail of the three -lot sale for Tamarack at $585,000. The anticipated closing date for this sale will be dependent on the FAA's approval of the proposed building. b. Airport Master Plan — Melissa Underwood spoke to Members next about the Master Plan process. She noted that the open house took place on March 5 and was very well attended with 50 to 60 participants. Everyone agreed that it was an excellent turnout and that it went quite well. Continuing, Underwood stated that today they received some of the obstruction data from Quantum and that she had some preliminary maps to share. She spoke to some of the findings and responded to Member questions, as the group reviewed the preliminary maps. Tharp noted that they will need to have further discussions regarding these findings and the approaches for the Airport. Underwood stated that now that they have this data, it will be taken to the Advisory Group so each runway end can be looked at individually to see if it can meet the goals of the Master Plan Group first, before going to the FAA. C. FANIDOT Projects: AECOM (David Hughes) — i. FY15 Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that once this data has been analyzed by Underwood and her group, they can start to move forward here. iii. Fuel Tank Rehabilitation — Hughes noted that these projects went out for bid and have come back. There are now two resolutions for the Commission to consider. On the fuel tank rehab, the request was sent to seven contractors. Two requests were received, both lower than the estimate, according to Hughes. This project can be completed for $52,881 and covers the fuel tank painting and coating, as well as some miscellaneous pipe replacement. Members then briefly discussed how they will have to handle this project, such as bringing in trucks to hold the fuel. Gardinier asked what the expected timeframe is to complete one tank. Tharp responded, noting that the outside painting will be around two weeks, with the interior liner taking extra time to complete. Airport Commission March 19, 2015 Page 3 1. Consider a resolution approving contract — Ogren moved to consider Resolution #A15-05 approving the contract for the fuel tank rehabilitation. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. iii. North T -hangar Electrical Service & LED lighting — Hughes stated that they sent proposal for this project out to three contractors. They received all three back, with the low proposal from Neumiller Electric at $57,225. Tharp and Hughes responded to Member questions, especially those concerning the huge dollar amount difference in the proposals. Gardinier asked what the expected timeframe is on this project, and Hughes stated that they will be aiming for completion prior to fall. 1. Consider a resolution approving contract — Ogren moved to consider Resolution #A-15-06 approving the contract for north t - hangar electrical service and LED lighting. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. d. Airport Operations — Tharp noted that the window replacement project is scheduled for the week of the March 30. He further explained what they can expect as windows and blinds are replaced. As for the gate security question, he noted that he finally received the extra security bids, so now they can move forward with adjusting the codes and getting this project completed. Tharp noted that the gates are currently coded as `pass through,' and people can just walk in. (Assouline had to leave the meeting at this point.) Tharp continued to explain the window replacement project and responded to Member questions. i. Strategic Plan- Implementation — ii. Budget — iii. Management — 1. Application for event at Airport (wedding reception) — Tharp noted that they have received a request from a couple that would like to host their wedding reception at the Airport. They want to use one of Jet Air's hangars, who would be renting the hangar. Tharp further explained that they would like to serve alcohol at their reception, and that the Airport policy requires the Commission to approve any such requests. This is what the Members will be approving this evening. Matt Wolford with Jet Air spoke to this request as well, stating that he will be working with the couple on timing, set-up, clean up, etc. Members spoke to the alcohol policy and how this has been handled in the past. After further discussion, Members agreed to approve this request with the conditions of having extra portable bathrooms available and a reserve deputy on site. e. FBO/Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air — Wolford shared the monthly reports with Members. He asked Tharp if the pilot -activated lighting problem had been addressed yet. Tharp noted that the electricians have been working with the manufacturer on this, but that he is not sure if it has been resolved yet or not. Gardinier asked Wolford what fence repair is noted in the monthly reports, and he explained what this is. The March report shows that the pilot's lounge was painted, as was the snack room/kitchen area. Wolford Airport Commission March 19, 2015 Page 4 stated that they are sprucing things up again and will be painting office areas soon. Continuing, Wolford further explained some of the maintenance issues around the Airport that they have been working on. The big item noted on the reports was the 60 -amp outlets that were installed. Wolford spoke to this and why they have been upgrading here. Wolford then spoke to Jet Air's business. He stated that with the warmer weather they have seen an uptick in flying and people getting their planes ready. Air Ambulance has had an increase in flights, according to Wolford, as has their jet service. They have had an increase in medical flights using the jets, taking patients from one state to another. As for flight training, Wolford stated that this has been very steady for them. Odgaard stated that the price does not appear to be scaring potential pilots away, and that the pilots seem to like the new plane versus the older one. f. Commission Members' Reports — Gardinier reminded the group of the Girl Scouts event next weekend. She spoke to how she would like to set up the event, with the girls being at the Airport from 11:30 to 1:00. Tharp stated that he will talk to Air Care and see if they can be present during that time. Wolford also spoke to this event, noting that he will also check into what aircraft may be available at that time. g. Staff Report — Tharp stated that he will be out of the office tomorrow afternoon. h. Consider a motion to adjourn to Executive Session to evaluate the professional competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to individuals' reputations and those individuals requested a closed session — Ogren moved to adjourn to Executive Session at 7:40 P.M. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Assouline absent. Gardinier moved to adjourn back to the regular meeting. Ogren seconded the motion at 8:00 P.M. The motion carried 4-0, Assouline absent. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: Ogren stated that she will be out of town on April 16 and questioned if others will be. Gardinier noted that she will be, as well. A brief discussion ensued regarding a possible change to the meeting date. Odgaard stated that he plans to be present on the 16, and it was noted that they would need to check with Assouline in order to have a quorum. Tharp noted that they will have some action items at this meeting. The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, April 16, 2015, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building, pending the determination of a quorum. (Odgaard left the meeting at this point.) ADJOURN: Ogren made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:08 P.M. Gardinier seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Odgaard and Assouline absent. Airport Commission March 19, 2015 Page 5 CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission March 19, 2015 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015 Key. X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 0 0 0 — -.L 0 0 0 U7 0) v 00 CO O N N W NAME EXP. cn W -4 -' co rn 0 (n Cn 0 0 � � � � � .A � cn cn cn Minnetta 03/01/19 X O/ X X X O/ X X X X X Gardinier E E Jose Assouline 03/01/16 X X X X X O/ X X O/ X X/E E E Chris Ogren 03/01/18 X X X X X X X X X X X A. Jacob 03/01/17 N N X X X X O/ X X X X Odgaard M M E David Davis 03/01/17 N N N O/ X X O/ X X O/ X M M M E E E Key. X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time DRAFT IP8 CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES —April 7, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:31 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Royceann Porter, Mazahir Salih (5:42PM), Joseph Treloar MEMBERS ABSENT: Fidencio Martinez STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Sargent Chris Akers of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-11 PRESENTATION BY EQUITY DIRECTOR — Increasing Diversity on City Boards & Commissions Equity Director Bowers presented a PowerPoint. (PowerPoint is archived in the meeting packet) CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 03/10/15 Motion carried, 4/0, Martinez absent. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — Tuttle notified the Board that notices regarding the forum had been posted and sent out. The first press release had been done and included in a City Council packet. Extra copies of the notice were given to Board members to post. Jensen mentioned that Jennifer Hemmingsen from the Gazette contacted her to do a guest editorial regarding the forum. Tuttle informed the Board that the CPRB video would not be ready for the forum because of the recommended name change. City Council was giving direction on the Charter Review Commission's recommendations that night and they would not be finalized by the 28tH NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. CPRB April 7, 2015 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Salih, seconded by Porter to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Martinez absent. Open session adjourned at 6:00 P.M. (Salih left at 6:09 P.M.) REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:52 P.M. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter, to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #14-11 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 28, 2015, 6:00 PM, , IC Library, Room A, Community Forum • May 12, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to May 201h) • June 9, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • July 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Treloar stated she would be unavailable for the May 12th meeting. After discussion the Board agreed to move the May 12th meeting to May 20tH Motion by Porter, seconded by Treloar to move up the May 12th meeting to Tuesday, May 20tH Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:09 P.M. CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD (Formerly Police Citizens Review Board) ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2014-2015 (Meetinp, Date) KEY: X = TERM 5/13 5/19 6/11 8/26 9/15 10/13 11/10 11/25 12/3 12/8 12/2 2/10 3/10 4/7 NAME EXP. 9 Melissa 9/1/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Jensen Donald 9/1/15 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- King Joseph 9/1/17 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X Treloar Royceann 9/1/16 X X X X O X O O X X X O X X Porter Mazahir 9/1/17 X X O/E O X X X X X X O/E X O/E X Salih Maxime 9/1/15 --- --- --- X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Tremblay Fidencio 9/1/15 --- --- --- --- --- --- X X X X O/E X X O Martinez KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 April 7, 2015 Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-11 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-11 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: fta _a a min To: City Council Complainant co""""' City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint �==' r From: Citizen Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-11 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-11 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 12/31/14. As required by Section 8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was filed with the City Clerk on 02/25/15. The Board voted on 03/10/15 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8- (B)(1)(a). The Board met to consider the Report on 03/10/15 and 04/07/15. On 03/10/15, the Board reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident. FINDINGS OF FACT On October 3, 2014 police responded to investigate a motor vehicle accident involving a cement truck and a passenger car. These vehicles collided when the cement truck was backing in to a construction site. Allegation 1 — Officer failed to sufficiently investigate the motor vehicle collision as directed by ICPD General Order 99-09, Section IV, Procedures. Upon examination, the Citizen's Police Review Board has determined that the offiggr did sufficiently investigate this motor vehicle collision as directed by ICPD General OrTer 99-Q, Section IV, Procedures. The officer interviewed both drivers, surveyed theet the accident, and assessed vehicle damage. �-- 12 M co r- Allegation 1: Not sustained _ M w a► Allegation 2 — Officer's determination that the Complainant was at fault in the accident was incorrect and the traffic citation for following too closely should not have been issued. The Citizen's Police Review Board (CPRB) watched the videos of this incident and examined all available evidence in this case. The officer was heard on the video telling the complainant "When he started to back up you were too close and he hit you." The officer is also heard to say "Why would you not try to go backwards" to the complainant. These statements indicate that the officer believed the complainant was stopped when she was hit and did not run into the truck, but the truck backed into her vehicle. The Board feels that the officer's determination that the complainant was at fault was incorrect and took the following ordinance into consideration: In the Iowa City Code, in Chapter 3: Rules of the Road, Section 9-3-9: GENERAL DRIVING RESTRICTIONS, (D) states: Moving Vehicle Backward On Highway: A person shall not cause a vehicle to be moved in a backward direction on a highway unless and until the vehicle can be backed with reasonable safety and shall yield the right of way to any approaching vehicle on the highway or intersecting highway which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. (1978 Code §23- 127; amd. 1994 Code; Ord. 97-3788, 6-3-1997) The CPRB determined that the above ordinance may more appropriately apply to this situation. Allegation 2: Sustained. Allegation 3 - Officer did not listen to the Complainant's point of view in regard to how the accident occurred. The CPRB reviewed the video and the conversation and it was clear that the officer did listen to the complainant's point of view in regard to how the accident occurred. The officer did not agree with the complainant as to who was at fault, but he did listen to her views on the incident. Q C s • Allegation 3: Not sustained � Allegation 4 -Officer's threat to take the Complainant to jail was inapria% roax these circumstances. w The CPRB reviewed the video and the conversation and did not feel that A officer acted inappropriately or threatened to take the Complainant to jail. It was evident that tfie complainant did not seem to understand that by signing the citation, she was not pleading guilty to the offense, but was just promising to appear in court. She seemed to be resistant to signing the citation as she did not want to be admitting fault in this incident. Allegation 4: Not sustained Allegation 5 - Officer issued the Complainant a citation because she is not an "American". The CPRB reviewed the video and the conversation and did not feel that the officer indicated in any way that he was biased against the complainant because she was not an "American". The officer did make a statement that the driver of the truck had a right to use the highway. However, the officer was expressing his belief the driver of the truck had the right of way at that time. This may have been why the complainant believed that the officer was inferring that the complainant did not have a right to use the highway because she was not an "American". The officer did not state, nor did he give the impression that he implied the complainant was receiving the citation because she was not an "American". Allegation 5: Not sustained COMMENTS None. N C„ r co .'-nM _ 7 1 , I . um -7 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2015 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Agran STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM: Swaim stated that the subcommittee, along with Miklo and Trimble, met this past week. She said that Corcoran is the chairperson of that committee. Corcoran said the subcommittee met on March 9 for about an hour and one-half and fully discussed the topics assigned, mainly identifying individual properties that could be worthy of landmark status. She said the subcommittee looked at the map that Miklo provided and decided that the subcommittee needed to look at the survey forms. Corcoran said that she and Trimble plan to look at the survey forms in the next ten days. Regarding the map, Miklo said the areas in the salmon color have all been surveyed, so there is documentation on almost every building over 50 years old in those areas. He said that the cross -hatched area south of Burlington Street is currently under study as part of the mitigation for the University removing Sabin School. Miklo said there is a windshield survey of the area south of Burlington and west of Lucas Street. He said it's an area that has been almost entirely redeveloped with twelve-plexes and student housing, so it is not of great concern. Miklo stated that the other salmon areas that are slightly lighter and have a boundary around them are already in conservation or historic districts and are therefore protected. Miklo said that leaves the brighter salmon color to designate areas that have been surveyed, but there are buildings out there, such as the Unitarian Church and the Saxony -Gilmore Building at 109 Market Street, that need to be discussed to identify properties that are individually eligible to get on a list and prioritize for consideration. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Regarding the Melrose Neighborhood and Manville Heights, Miklo said there are very good studies that show areas that qualify as historic districts. In fact, parts of the Melrose Neighborhood are a National Register Historic District. Corcoran said that she and Trimble will be reviewing the survey forms for areas outside the black lines to look for properties for the subcommittee to review. Regarding Miklo's comments about Manville Heights and the Melrose Avenue neighborhood, Corcoran said that since studies have already been done, the subcommittee decided to check with neighborhood leaders to get a feeling for neighborhood opinions before proceeding. Corcoran said the last thing the subcommittee was asked to look at was a strategy for dealing with mid-century modern buildings. She said the subcommittee needs to discuss that further, because no studies have been done. Corcoran said the subcommittee would be meeting again on March 24 at 4 p.m. She said the subcommittee would provide the Commission with a full report of its findings and a recommendation at the Commission's April meeting. Corcoran asked subcommittee members if they had any comments. Swaim said the subcommittee talked specifically about the Unitarian Church because it is in this area, and sort of strategized on how to consider that. She said she drafted a letter for the consideration of the Commission. Swaim said that if the Commission approves the letter, she would ask that the Commission authorize her to send it at the appropriate time. Corcoran said the subcommittee members felt it was better to be proactive and wanted to see if the full Commission would favor something like this. Swaim asked Commission members to take a few minutes to read the letter. Durham asked if, at the very end of the letter, there is a particular action, such as a deadline or behavior, that the Commission can script for the City Council to look at to know what it will do and when. He said that in a persuasive outline, that would be the last step. Durham said it may be as simple as stating, "We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience," or it may be a calendar driven event for which the City Council would review the letter and then respond in writing. Miklo said that may be difficult in terms of asking the City Council to respond in writing. Durham said that, in a more generic sense, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) wants to ask the City Council to do something that can be observed so that HPC will know that the City Council has processed this and is responding. Swaim said that the building in question is owned by the Unitarian Universalist Church, which has voted to find a new location and put the building and lot, or just the lot if the building is demolished, up for sale. Miklo said the fifth paragraph of the letter describes what the HPC is asking. In terms of asking for a response from the City Council, Miklo said the City Council is not going to be able to reply without having a vote. Clore suggested including a statement that the Commission would be glad to assist in this. Swaim said she agrees with Durham in that the Commission would like some type of acknowledgement that the City Council has received the letter and likes Clore's idea of asking if HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 3 of 7 there is a way the Commission can be involved. Swaim said that in terms of the HPC mandate, the Commission is certainly an advocate for preservation. Ackerson said he did not think the Commission should push the City Council to formally acknowledge or acquiesce to the Commission's suggestions. He said that after the problems with the cottages, the City Council is being put on notice with a letter like this that there is another potential minefield ahead, and here are things that should be considered in preparation for the application for a demolition permit, should that occur. Durham asked what the Commission can look forward to that would let the Commission understand that the City Council has added this recommendation as information pertinent to the process in which it is engaging. He asked how the Commission will know if it has made an impression. Swaim said there is not any formal process yet. Miklo said the letter would become part of the public record. Michaud said the Unitarian Church is voting at its 7 p.m. meeting on the intent to apply for a demolition permit. She said there appear to be a lot of obstacles to the plan that the Unitarian Church has worked on for so long so that the church is looking around for other properties or locations to build. Miklo confirmed that an approved demolition permit would be valid for six months. Michaud said it can be renewed every six months. She said that a placard would have to be posted for seven business days on the building regarding a demolition permit. Michaud asked Miklo if anyone would have grounds to challenge the application. Miklo said this is not a landmark building, so he did not think anyone would have grounds to challenge this. Swaim said that if there is public dissention, the City needs to hear from the community in terms of what the feeling is about the building. Trimble said that when the subcommittee met, it was noted that Mayor Hayek had pointed out that the incentives are critical — that these incentives are given so that the developers choose to do the right thing. Trimble said that one of the things that needs to be clearer if the City is following its own policy is that if the Unitarian Church is to be preserved, at least the historic original part, then the church should be given the incentives offered by the City, such as a density bonus, etc., but should not get any incentives at all if they demolish the church. Trimble said it is the church's right to demolish the building, but the City should not play a part in that. She said that, for instance, the church should not get a bonus density if that happens, and the City should not make the church a deal on the adjoining parking lot. Trimble said that is really key for the City to make historic preservation work. Trimble said she has contacted the church, which told her it would be sending a letter out to membership regarding any demolition before it happened so that she would be aware of it and would know what is going on. Corcoran asked Miklo if there are any special requirements to get a demolition permit. Miklo said there is a fee and also the seven-day waiting period before acting on the permit. He said there is not specific test unless the property is designated. Swaim asked if there are any HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 4 of 7 requirements to renew a permit. Miklo did not know, but said it is pretty rare to renew, because once a permit is granted it is usually acted on within the six-month period. Michaud said the church has to have a destination. She said if they build from scratch, it will take two years from the time the land is purchased. Michaud said that in this case, the church might just renew the demolition permit periodically, but that gives the Commission some time. She said the only thing that would be fast would be if they found an existing church or a building to repurpose. Miklo said if the building is demolished there would be nothing left with which to bargain with the City in terms of a developer using part of the City's parking space and such. He said that what the letter would do is send the message the current building has value in the scheme of a larger project. Swaim said the Commission doesn't want to appear to be doing this at the eleventh hour again and wants to be proactive concerning preservation issues. She said the letter is to show concern and explore the options and to show the City Council the opportunity for it to work on this with the owner and potential seller. Trimble said this could be a great deal for the City too. She said the City needs space, and if there is more exploration on the part of the people who are interested, this can be a win-win situation for everyone involved. Trimble said she believes there is a way to at least save the original portion of the church, and historic incentives are a great method for that. Michaud discussed the size of the church building. Trimble said the whole property has just over 8,000 square feet and is therefore a very small lot. Miklo said this is zoned CB -5, which requires parking for any new structure that includes residential units on that site and that would make it difficult to redevelop the site without the City's cooperation. He added that the current building is grandfathered in regarding parking requirements. Michaud said she is supportive of sending this letter. Ackerson said he thinks it is well-written and strikes the tone that the Commission wants. Swaim said there has been a suggestion for the second line in the fifth paragraph to read, "The Commission strongly urges the City to convey to the society and to developers that preserving the building could hold potential economic benefits in the form of bonus incentives for both seller and buyer." Swaim said she hopes this initiates a City and a public conversation about this. She said that in terms of what can be done, she would like to see the Commission get on record that this is a concern and look for a win-win solution to this. Trimble said that one of the important things that Friends of Historic Preservation can do for whomever the developer would be, if the building is going to be saved, would be to write for the developer a complete application for a local landmark. She said she has the information, and Friends would do whatever needs to be done to make this a landmark, including all the paperwork and help with tax credits if that's needed. Swaim said the Commission needs to track whether a demolition permit is applied for and/or received. Michaud said she can pass along the results of the vote. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Corcoran said she likes Swaim's comments regarding the goal being to start a conversation about this. She referred to the last paragraph of the letter about it being critical to find a win-win solution. Corcoran said it behooves the Commission to be explicit about what it hopes will happen. She asked if the Commission would want to say something like, "We're raising this matter now in hopes that there will be an open, public dialogue that will lead to such a solution; therefore this Commission calls upon the City to work with the Unitarian Universal Society and members of the community to explore ways to save this historic building..." Miklo said the players here are really the City, the church, and an unknown developer. Swaim said she would incorporate the wording into the letter. MOTION: Corcoran moved that the Historic Preservation Commission authorize the Chair to submit the discussed letter to the City Council at an appropriate time. Male Durham seconded the motion. Swaim said she would like to list the names of the individual Commission members on the letter. She said she would also contact Agran for permission to add his name. The consensus of the Commission was to add the individual member names. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Agran absent). Michaud said she called Jean Walker about making the Melrose Neighborhood a district. Michaud said that Walker said she was done working on it, after having championing it for so many years and getting it on the National Register. Michaud said that Manville Heights has seen a lot of teardowns, so it might be worth revisiting. She said she would prefer to stick with those issues rather than considering 1950s buildings. Michaud said these are more valuable areas, and she doesn't want to see big mcmansions ruining the character here. She said there were three waves of development for Manville Heights, and the fourth wave should not necessarily take place in 2015 or later. Corcoran said the subcommittee agreed with that sentiment, because the studies of Melrose and Manville Heights are available. She said the subcommittee members wanted to talk to those in the neighborhoods and assess the residents' feelings. Corcoran stated that the subcommittee members agreed that, rather than cherry picking individual properties within those areas that might be worthy of landmark status, it would be much better to get some kind of district. Swaim said she inferred from the subcommittee discussion that the mid-century modern buildings would not be the highest priority of the work plan but would perhaps give a chance to get it started so that houses of that age stay on the radar. Trimble said one of the other things that was mentioned was that when a lot of these surveys were done, there were houses that would now be historic in the historic districts that were not counted as historic in the surveys. She said at that point they were not 50 years old, but now some of them actually could be contributing properties in the districts. Trimble said that might start coming up more frequently now, although they will have to come before the Commission anyway if they are in a district. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 12, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Swaim said she did not see a need for a motion at this time but expected there will be a report at the next meeting that the Commission could vote on adopting. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Miklo said there was one certificate for 115 South Summit that involved a soffit repair proposal that was done correctly, an application to replace bead board soffit with a similar plywood material that will have the same appearance once painted. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 12 2015: MOTION: Sandell moved to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2015 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as written. Durham seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Agran absent). HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION. Miklo said the City recently hired Jessica Bristow as a historic preservation specialist. He said Bristow will be helping him review projects. Miklo said she would start next week and would come to a few meetings this spring. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte CNI X X X X X X X X X x Cl) N T- X X X X X X X x N Q X x X X x X 0 X x x N X X X X X x X x X w V- O Cl) r r x LU O Ill O X X X X X X X X p X X X X X X X X X LU O LU O r x x x x x x X x X o x xx LLJ - 0 - X X x x N T- X X x X X O o O X X X to co Ill x X x X X x X X x o 0 X p x X X LU X X X X Cl) x x x x x x x x o Cl) Q o N X x X I X X 0 X X X ti M G. CD M X x X i x x X X i x x N ,j w I- LO n w 0 f- 0 I- 0 LO CL 0)rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn W W N N N N N N N N N N N F" M M M M M M M M M M M w i Y Q Q w- z Y m p H p D a Z p H w Q : Q � C9U. z WO z d Ww WO a z a o w W Y. Y OJ 0 U_ Q _� Q C9 Q Q 4U m V N a� (n N 7 � Ox E W N E c c N -0 Q-) ¢az y N u If n u xoo LU Y Minutes Human Rights Commission April 1, 2015 — 5 PM Helling Conference Room Preliminary Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr, Kim Hanrahan, Joe D. Coulter, Stella Hart, Paul Retish, Edie Pierce -Thomas, Harry Olmstead, Ali Ahmed, Shams Ghoneim. Others Present: Jeff Schott. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendations to Council: No. Call to Order: Coulter called the meeting to order at 17:01. (Not present Ghoneim, Hanrahan, Ahmed). Jeff Schott presented to the Commission on Open Meetings and the Law. The presentation included a discussion of the following: Executive closed session, violations of the open meeting law, public records law, gender balance law, confidential records, Iowa Public Information Board, violations of the public record law, gift law, restricted donors, conflict of interest law, duties & responsibilities of board members, policy program evaluation, community connection, six strategies to improve performance, board improvement, team work, board orientation, decision making, act strategically. Hanrahan present 17:05. Ghoneim present 17:08. Ahmed present 17:40. Townsend left 18:35. Pierce -Thomas left 18:45. Adjournment: 18:59. Next Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 at 6:00 pm. Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2014/2015 (Meetine Date) NAME TERM EXP. 5/20/ 14 6/17/ 14 7/15/ 14 8/19/ 14 9/16/ 14 10/2/ 14 10/21/ 14 11/18/ 14 12/15/ 14 1/20/ 15 2/17/ 15 3/17/ 15 4/1/ 15 Edie Pierce- Thomas 1/1/2016 - - - - - - - - - X O/E X X Joe D. Coulter 1/1/2016 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X Harry Olmstead 1/1/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X Paul Retish 1/1/2017 X X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X Ali Ahmed 1/1/2017 O/E X X X O/E X X X X O X O/E X Orville Townsend, Sr. 1/1/2017 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Kim Hanrahan 1/1/2018 O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X X X Shams Ghoneim 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X Stella Hart 1/1/2018 - X X X O/E X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = No longer a member R = Resignation 2 ,AA Stefanie Bowers From: Stefanie Bowers Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:07 AM To: Stefanie Bowers Subject: FW: Disability Advocate Award -----Original Message ----- From: Harry Olmstead [mailto:HarryO3@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 6:38 PM To: Stefanie Bowers Subject: Disability Advocate Award Dear Commissioners: A friend and advocate in that of Terry Cunningham died recently. Terry served on many boards in Iowa and Iowa City. I hope that I can have your support passing the following motion at the Human Rights Commission meeting on April 21. 1 move for the Iowa City Human Rights Commission develop a yearly award for a person who has a disability and has made significant contributions in Iowa City. I recommend that we name this award after Terry Cunningham and that it be presented at the City-wide ADA Celebration which will be July 25 on the ped mall. Terry Cunningham was a disabilities advocate. Terry served on the Olmstead Task Force, Terry served on the Iowa State Independent Living Council, been a board member on Johnson County Mental Health and Disabilities Council, has been President and Board member of Access2lndependece, Terry also served on the Johnson County Para -transit Advisory Board, member of the Johnson County Task Force on aging, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of UpTown Bills, served on the Board of Directors for PATV even hosting and producing a weekly show about issues that persons with disabilities would want to know, Terry also served on the Extend a Dream Foundation Board. In 2012 he was awarded the Hero Award by the Association of Retarded Citizens of SE Iowa. He has been instrumental in the yearly ADA Celebration in Iowa City. I hope that you would agree with me that this is an award whose time has come in Iowa City. I ask for your support and vote to make this award a reality. Truly, Harry Olmstead COPY CEMM Fm HLOAANRKM UICHR Home About Us , UICHR Commentary Education and Dubuquejowa City, and Cedar Rapids by Brian Farrell I Mar 30, 2015 1 News 10 comments Initiatives . Arts and Letters . News & Events y U pp at events in Dr. Michelle Farrell from the University of Liverpool will discuss'Torture in the 21 st Century Liberal Democracy" in three public lectures: • Wednesday, April 8 at S;bo p.m„ Blades Chapel, University of Dubuque, Dubuque • Thursday, April 9 at 3:30 p.m, C131 Pomerantz Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City • Monday. April 13 at 3:30 p.m., 405 Stuart Hall, Coe College, Cedar Rapids Farre0's lectures are sponsored by the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights. Since the tum of the century, torture has revealed itself as a more vexing issue than the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would ever have imagined in 1946. Then, the inclusion of an absolute, unqualified ban on torture was uncontroversial. The prohibition on torture is universal. States derry its practice. It is generally met with condemnation. Yet. over the past 14 years, in the United States and In Europe, the justifiability of the use of torture in certain limited circumstances has become a legitimate topic of debate. How did this happen? what are the Implications? This presentation examines the findings of the Senate intelligence Committee Report on CIA torture. It uses these findings to ask some difficult questions about the practice of torture and the practitioners of torture. What is torture? What are the links between the purposes of torture and Its practice? How do liberal democratic states facilitate an essentially illiberal and illegal practice? This presentation concludes that the practice of torture is revealing, not of information but of the very nature of contemporary state power. Michelle Farrell is a lecturer In law at the School of taw and Social justice, University of Liverpool. Her research interests are in moral, political and critical theory on human rights and in individual rights and the constitutional order in the face of conflict, political violence and states of emergency. At Liverpool, Farrell teaches Security, Conflict and the Law, amongst other subjects. She Is Co -Director of the Human Rights and International Law Unit. In August 2013, she published her first monograph The Praft tion of Torture in Exceptional Circumstances with Cambridge University Press. The book contemplates how and why the use of torture in exceptional circumstances became such a central topic of debate following the events of 11 September. Share dit- i Designed by Elegant Themes I Powered by WordPress