HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-10 Info Packet of 8/29 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY August 29, 2002
www.icgov.org
I MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS I
IP1 Meeting Schedule and Work Session Agendas
IP2 Letter from City Manager to JC Board of Supervisors: National Guard Armory
Site on West Melrose Avenue
IP3 Email from Tom Cook to City Manager: Alley [staff response included]
IP4 Memorandum from Assistant City Manager: Municipal Electric Utility Joint
Preliminary Feasibility Study
IP5 Memorandum from Housing and Inspection Services Director: Maggie
Grosvenor, Housing Administrator
IP6 Memorandum from Housing Administrator: Change of Employment
IP7 Memorandum from ITS Coordinator to Finance Director: Voice Communications
Phase II Update
IP8 Memorandum from Associate Planner Hightshoe to Community & Economic
Development Coordinator: Status of the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban
Renewal Area
IP9 Memorandum from Community & Economic Development Coordinator to City
Manager: FY04 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Estimates
IP10 Agenda: August 30 City Council Economic Development Committee
IPll Agenda: August 29 ECICIOG [Wilburn]
IP12 Draft Planning Livable Communities: A Status Report and Best Practices
Manual - ECICOG [Wilburn]
IP13 Announcement: September 9 "A Community Partnership: Involving Seniors
in Planning Services" [Pfab]
City Council Meeting Schedule and ^~9,~oo~
C~TV O~ ~OW^ C~V Work Session Agendas
www.icgov.org
TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
· MONDAY, SEPTEMBER2
Labor Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
· MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 EmmaJ. HarvatHall
6:30p Special Council Work Session
· Review Zoning items [Franklin]
· First Avenue Truck Embargo [Davidson]
· Lexington Avenue Barricade [Davidson]
· Allocation Criteria for CDBG/HOME Housing Projects [Nasby]
· TIF Agreement for 1555 S First Avenue [Nasby]
· Design Review Procedures [Franklin]
· Municipal Electric Utility [Helling]
· TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10 EmmaJ. HarvatHall
7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting
· MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting
· MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Special Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8 Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting
Meeting dates/times/topics subject to change
FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS
Regulation of Downtown Dumpsters Downtown Historic Preservation
Comprehensive Plan Update Opening of First Avenue
Age of Consent SW District Plan
CiTY OF IOWA CITY
www.iegov.org
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
Stephen J. Atldns
City Manager
steve-atkins~iowa-city.org August 23, 2002
Dale E. Helling
Assistant City Manager
dale-helling@iowa-city.org
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Attention: Patrick L. Hamey, Supervisor
Administration Building
913 South Dubuque Street, Suite 201
Iowa City, tA 52240-4207
Re: National Guard Armory Site on West Melrose Avenue
Dear Pat:
This is in response to the questions raised by Colonel Reefer to you with relation to
the County, as a quid pro quo, extending water, sewer, and storm drainage services to
the proposed National Guard site on West Melrose Avenue.
There is currently a water line along the north side of Melrose Avenue immediately
adjacent to the site. This line has adequate capacity to serve the National Guard
facilities. Sanitary sewer can be extended to the site from the line serving the County
Home south of Melrose Avenue, and we estimate that cost to be $85,000 - $100,000.
Finally, there is no storm sewer in that area and all drainage is surface drainage; thus,
any drainage costs would be those associated with required site drainage and
stormwater management, which would be part of the normal site development costs. I
would assume these costs would be borne by the National Guard.
Please let me know if you need further information or clarification.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
cc: City Council
Assistant City Manager
mg dltrs/ntlguard site.doc
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: (319) 356-5010
Fax: (319) 356-5009
Marian Karr IP3
From: Cook, Tom [TCook@mail.public-health.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:46 PM
To: Steve Atkins
Cc: Jann Ream; Barb Coffey; 'Lisa Mollenhauer'; 'council@iowa-city.org'
Subject: RE: Alley Use - Right-of-way
Hi Steve,
Just want to drop a note to says thanks to you and your staff for the prompt
response to my inquiry yesterday. Jann Ream in Housing and Inspection
Services was especially helpful and informative.
Best regards,
Tom Cook
..... Original Message .....
From: Lisa Mollenhauer [mailto:Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:23 PM
To: 'TCook@mail.public-health.uiowa.edu'
Cc: Steve Atkins; Jann Ream; Barb Coffey
Subject: FW: Alley Use - Right-of-way
Mr. Cook,
Steve Atkins forwarded me your note below for response. To identify the
property lines, you will need to contact a surveyor, such as MMS, to locate
the pins. The City does not locate property pins.
I have cc'd Jann Ream of our Housing and Inspection Services Department on
this response. If you are interested in a fence, Jann would be the contact
for the request (356-5120).
Best of luck.
Lisa
Lisa Mollenhauer
Administrative Assistant
to the City Manager
(319) 356-5010
..... Original Message .....
From: Cook, Tom [mailto:TCook@mail.public-health.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 2:52 PM
To: 'steve-atkins@iowa-city.org'
Subject: Alley Use - Right-of-way
Hello Steve,
My daughter, Jennifer Cook, just purchased the house at 1823 C St. on the
east side. There is a gravel-covered alley running parallel the full length
(150 feet) of her property and, in places, the alley is just 3 feet or so
from her living room and kitchen windows. My question is this: Who should
I contact to help Jennifer locate the boundary of the public right-of-way.
I would like to know where she can legally erect a fence to: 1) increase her
privacy, 2) keep mud from splashing against her house when it rains, and 3)
keep dust from blowing in her open windows when it's dry.
I would be grateful for any information/direction that you can provide.
Thanks very much,
1
Tom Cook
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
DATE:FROM: August Dale Helling' Assistant City Manager ~v~~
RE: Municipal Electric Utility Joint Preliminary Feasibility Study
Attached please find a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a preliminary feasibility
study to be undertaken jointly by approximately 10 to 15 Iowa cities and facilitated by the
Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities. This draft was composed at the meeting on
August 13 which Kevin O'Malley, Andy Matthews and I attended.
The RFP is deliberately formulated to allow those responding to more specifically define
the scope of services as applied to all participating cities as well as those components
that will address individual needs and characteristics. Based on those determinations,
proposals will include not only the projected total cost of completing the study, but also a
breakdown of how these costs will be allocated to each of the participants. Each of us
will have the opportunity to review the proposals and have input into the selection
process. At that point, estimated to be early to mid-November, each city will be
expected to either commit to joining in the study at its respective cost share or to opt out.
Some further individual refinement by the City of the results of the preliminary study may
be desired once it is completed. Hopefully the savings realized by participating in the
joint study would offset those additional costs. We will be better able to assess that after
the proposals are received.
Cities wishing to be a part of the RFP process must commit by September 13. There is
no cost for that involvement and staff recommends that we participate.
This matter will be scheduled for Council discussion at your work session on September
9. No formal action by Council is required at this point and we will proceed as directed
at your work session.
cc. City Manager
Chuck Schmadeke
Rick Fosse
Kevin O'Malley
Andy Matthews
Carol Spaziani, Citizens for Public Power
IOWA
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES
Request For Proposal
To Jointly Investigate The Feasibility of Establishing Municipal Electric Utilities
The Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities, on behalf of the cities of
, is issuing a request for proposals to jointly investigate the feasibility of
establishing municipal electric utilities. ~'~- ....... ........... ~ ....... ~ c, .... ~Woposals._is~'. ~,~: ..... ............. ~ ........
gc!cctcd cnginccr/ng ?.rm~. Each city joining in the request for proposals believes it
prudent to undertake such a study for the protection and advancement of the interests of
citizens in reasonably priced electric service.
Thc objective of the study is to analyze issues common to all participants and
to jointly study those common issues. It is assumed that a joint feasibility study will
provide economies of scale resulting in a higher quality study at a lower cost. For those
issues that are conceptually common to all participants, but require analysis of specific
fact situations, the objective is to identify a common analytical approach on behalf of the
participants and to utilize that approach to proxidc a specific analvsis for each city.
IAMU will provide the assumptions to use in the study for power supply
costs. This information is based on studies conducted on behalf of 126 Iowa and
Minnesota municipal electric utilities. The data come from the following studies: (1) a
forward pricing analysis completed in December 2001 of the wholesale power market
with sensitivity to gas and coal prices; (2) an in depth study of both jointly developed
municipal generating facilities and joint ownership in power plants being developed by
other utilities and independent power producers; (3) analysis of renewable energy sources
as part of a power supply portfolio; and (4) study and recommendations regarding
investments in energy efficiency as a way to defer or displace investment in generation.
All proposals submitted in response should therefore assume the availability of this
information. Proposals should also assume that rate data from incumbent electric utilities
would be available through 1AMU as well as the status of the various city franchises.
IAMU will also provide an analysis of the legal precedents and assumptions under which
system acquisition would occur. This information will include a review and assessment
of IOWA CODE §476.23(1)(2001) and consideration of the precedent found in In Re:
City of Sheldon, Iowa v. Iowa Public Service Company, Docket No. SPU-88-7, "Order
Denying Petition for Certificate of Authority, (Issued August 2, 1990). The information
will also describe applicable condemnation statutes, IOWA CODE §6B.46 6B.5l and
implications of recent changes in utility tax law in Iowa.
1735 NE 70TM AVENUE
ANKENY, IOWA 50021 50021-9353
Phone: 515/289-1999 Fax: 515-289-2499 Web: www.iamu.org
The proposal shall address all of the following five elements:
I. The scope of proposed work:
A. Describe the consultant's approach to assessing the costs of operating a
new municipal electric utility. Note that the study must include a
depiction of the "end state" of each new municipal utility including the
costs and functions off
1. Acquisition costs under regulatory scenarios, including but not
limited to pricing of distribution assets at original cost less
depreciation and replacement cost less depreciation.
2. Power supply costs as provided by the Iowa Association of
Municipal Utilities. The consultant shall supplement this data
with any additional information deemed relevant.
3. Management
4. Staff
5. Equipment
6. Insurance
7. Operation and maintenance of the utility, including startup
costs
8. Electric load in the area assumed to be included in the new
service area.
9. Analysis of reliability, which will assume IAMU's Mutual Aid
programs
10. Debt service
11. Tax (Iowa replacement tax information will be provided by
IAMU)
B. Describe consultant's approach to projection of revenues.
C. Describe sensitivity analyses that would be used to consider consequences
of possible industry restructuring.
D. Generally describe how the consultant would present conclusions as to
possible cost savings, benefits and feasibility of forming municipal electric
utilities.
E. Describe any additional information the consultant believes relevant and
material to conducting the study.
II. Describe the qualifications of consultant suited to successful completion of the
scope of work:
A. The proposal should include a description of consultant's personnel
assigned to complete the study.
B. The proposal should include a description of qualifications of
subcontractors.
C. The proposal should list all references of similar analyses completed by
the consultant. Any other experience with municipal or investor-owned
utilities, which is relevant to the scope of work required in this Request
For Proposals.
D. Full disclosure of all potential or perceived conflicts of interest that could
lead to conditions prejudicial of the municipality or any completed study
shall also be made in this section.
III. The proposed budget:
A. The proposed budget shall include a "not-to-exceed" limitation.
B. The proposed budget shall be susceptible to being unbundled or otherwise
adapted to complete aspects of the study based on specific needs and facts
of individual participants. I
C. Labor costs should be provided for individuals ~vho will be assigned to
complete the study.
D. The kinds and amount of expenses anticipated by the consultant in
completing the study.
E. The cost of all subcontracts.
IV. Consultant shall identify ail deliverables and outline a project timeline with
particular attention to the joint character of the proposed study.
V. Written proposals are due at the offices of IAMU in Ankeny,
Iowa. Proposals shall include a transmittal letter containing an executive summary of all
five points in this Request for Proposals with the exception of the proposed budget which
shall not be discussed and instead separately submitted as a sealed document. A
Selection Committee of IAMU and participants will review all timely submitted
proposals for responsiveness to this Request, qualifications of the consultant and the
proposed budget. IAMU, on behalf of all participants, reserves the right to reject any and
all proposals and is not obligated to select the lowest bidder. An electronic copy of the
proposal shall be submitted to bhaug ~(~jamu.org.
3
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 28, 2.~,G~~ ~ 1~'~ r~
To: City Council (~
From: Douglas Boothroy~r~ ~gOfA~mOi~is ctionServices
Re: Maggie Grosvenor, Ho si t
This is to inform you that Maggie Grosvenor, Housing Administrator for the Iowa City
Housing Authority, has resigned effective July 5, 2003 in order to pursue a career as a
business consultant in association with John Langhorne & Associates, which is located
here in Iowa City. Maggie has done an excellent job, will be missed, and I wish her all the
best in her new career.
hisadm/mem/db-mg doc
F.4X: (,3~9) ~6.~459
mD: 0 9) . 56.S4
MTHDRITY 410 E. IV(~hit4~tonS~et · Iowa CiD' · Iova · 52240.1826
TO: City of Iowa City, City Council
FROM: Maggie Grosvenor, Housing Administrator~
DATE: August 28, 2002
RE: Change of Emplo~ent
I have been offered a unique opportunity in my life to join John
Langhorne Associates as an Organizational Development
Consultant. My 18 years of business organization and
administrational experience will merge with John's 18 years of
consulting business to assist businesses improve their
productivity.
The transition to find and train a new Housing Administrator
will begin with my half time employment on January 5, 2003, and
end with my termination on July 5, 2003. I will assist in
whatever way possible to help find a suitable replacement for my
position and facilitate the training of that individual.
Approximately 10 years ago as I entered the field of Housing
Administration, I was interviewed and asked why I was leaving my
work with Senior Citizens after 8 fulfilling years. The reason
I gave at the time is the same reason I give today, and that is
service. I am called to be of more service to others and feel
this career change will allow me to do so.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve as Housing Administrator
for the Iowa City Housing Authority. I have learned and gained
much from my employment with the City of Iowa City.
City of Iowa City IP7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin O'Malley, Finance Directo, r
FROM: Gary Cohn, ITS Coordinator
DATE: August 23, 2002
RE: Voice Communications Phase II Update
An integral portion of the Outside Plant package project is to use MidAmerican Energy's
poles for the aerial suspension and distribution of the fiber optic cable. According to the
City's Electricity Franchise with Mid American, section 12-1-3 Rights of the City:
Right to Use Company Poles, Towers, Etc.: The City shall be privileged, upon
notice to the company, without charge, to make use of the poles, posts, towers
and underground conduits of the company for any City alarm, City control or
City communication function to the extent that such use shall not interfere with
their use by the company, but the City shall hold the company harmless from
any and all causes of action, litigation or damages arising through the placing of
the facilities of the City upon the company's poles, posts or towers or in the
company's underground conduits. (1978 Code §14-9)
With the expiration of the current franchise agreement, Mid American Energy is insisting
that the City pay the appropriate application fee, and a minimum $5.00/per pole/per
annum license fee for usage of the pole.
This will initially cost our project approximately $2,500.00 this year, and $1,500.00 every
year after that.
.J
RECEIVED
MidAmerican AUG 1 0 2002
Mi[JAmerican Er~ergy Company
'~ ! I~ l= I~ G¥ 250 S. 5th STREET 1630 Lower Musc~tine Road
O~SESSIVELY' RELENTLE$SLY'~T lfO~ ~E* BOISE, IDAHO 83702 Iowa City iA 52240
August2,2002
Mr. Michael Meister
CSHQA
C.W. Moore Plaza
250 S. 5t~ St.
Boise, ID 83702
Re: City of Iowa City, Voice Communications - Phase 2
Project No. 02024.20T
Dear Mr. Meister:
This is to confirm that MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) has received your
plans to attach fiber-optic and/or copper communications cables to poles in the Iowa City
area. To complete the work, MidAmerican requires a signed Pole Attachment
Agreement, and, an Application for Attachment (Exhibit A) prior to any work being
started. Both of these forms should be returned to' my attention, along with the required
administrative fee of $750.
The applicant shall also reimburse route inspection fees and construction "make-ready"
work provided by MidAmerican. Route inspection and engineering time will be billed at
a rate of $50/hour and only actual hours will be charged. All "make-ready" construction
work that is identified will be estimated and submitted to the applicant for approval.
Your MidAmerican representative for this project will be Mr. Dick Bock. Mr. Bock can
be reached at (319) 34t-4468 or at the mailing address on this letter.
Please contact me at (319) 341-4402 if yon should have any questions about the
Agreement or the Application form.
MidAmerican
August 2, 2002
Mr. Meister
Page 2
Sincerely,
Brian J. Phelps
Engineering & Operations Manager
MidAmerican Energy Company
Attachment: Pole Attachment Agreement for Private Fiber Optic Attachments
Cc: Ms. Karen Huizenga (w/o attachment)
Mr. Dick Bock (w/o attachment)
City of Iowa City
........... MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager c,~/-~
FROM: Steven Nasby, Community & Economic Development Coordinatu~)'~.._,~~
Tracy Hightshoe, Associate Planner/~
DATE: August 15, 2002
RE: Status of the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal Area
The following table provides an historical review of the assessed values for the Sycamore
Mall. The Council, by resolution, adopted the MGD L.C. Agreement for Private
Redevelopment on September 19, 2000. Basically, the signed agreement rebates the value
of property taxes paid in excess of the base year's assessed value. The January 1, 2000
assessment is the base year for this agreement.
Valuation Year Assessed Value Property Taxes Paid Taxes Rebated
January 1, 1997 $9,879,450 $317,256 NA
January 1, 1999 $7,500,000 $245,238 NA
January 1, 2000 $4,662,900 $152,958 NA
January 1, 2001 $4,662,900 $163,000 NA
January 1, 2002 $10,168,280 $355,451~ $149,951z
Property Taxes Paid Include the City County and School District
Estimated - Calculated using the 2002-2003 Consolidated Debt Levy (35.75416)
2 Estimated - ((($10,168,280-4,662,900)'97.7701%)/1,000)* 02-03 TIF Debt Levy (27~85843)
The 2003-2004 Debt Levy rate is not a va#able until July of 2003
After the adoption of the Sycamore and First Avenue Urban Renewal Area, over $6.8 million
in building permits were issued for the Sycamore Mall. The January 1, 2002 assessment
shows an increase of over $5.5 million from the 2000 and 2001 assessments.
As the 2001 assessment was the same amount as the base year, no incremental value
was added, thus no rebate is provided for that year. The 2002 assessment is an
approximate $5.5 million increase from the base year assessment. MGD L.C. will pay
taxes for the January 1, 2002 assessment in September of 2003 and March of 2004. Per
the agreement, in June of 2004, they will be "rebated" the amount of property taxes paid
in excess of the January 1, 2000 assessment. For the January 2002 assessment, MGD
L.C. will pay an estimated total of $355,451 in property taxes, of which $149,951 will be
returned to the developer. After the rebate, MGD L.C. will have paid an estimated
$205,500 in property taxes for the January 1, 2002 assessment.
The estimated annual value of property taxes paid after rebate will exceed the actual
annual property taxes paid in each of the prior two years. MGD L.C. has made a
significant investment in the Sycamore Mall and will contribute to increased property tax
revenues for this parcel.
If you need any additional information or have questions regarding this project, please
call Steve Nasby at 356-5248 or Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5244.
City of Iowa City IP9
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Hanager
FRO~I: Steven Nasby, Community and Economic Development Coordinator ~r-~-,
RE: FY04 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Estimates
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) just released CDBG
funding estimates for next year. Since the U.S. Census data used to calculate these grants
has not been updated in 10 years, many cities, counties and states experienced significant
funding changes. Some grantees nationally gained or lost more than 20% of their CDBG
entitlement.
Iowa City's CDBG entitlement grant is projected to decline by 13.1% or about $124,000
(from $950,000 to $826,000). In Iowa, only one city received an increase (Council Bluffs
gained ~t.3%) and one had no change (Cedar Rapids). The other seven grantees saw
decreases range from .5% to 6.4%.
CDBG entitlement allocations are calculated by HUD using two formulas. These formulas
include factors such as population, population growth lag, pre-1940 housing stock,
overcrowding, and poverty rate. Iowa City's CDBG funding was likely due to a change in
the poverty rate (as the poverty rate comprises 30% or 50% of the CDBG formulas).
According to the U.S. Census, in 1990, our poverty rate for all families was 9.3% and in
2000 it had declined to 6.7%, compared to a national average of 9.0%
This decline in CDBG funding will have an impact on City programs (e.g. Housing
Rehabilitation, Aid to Agencies and the Economic Development Fund) and those operated by
our community partners. In September we will be starting our annual review of the CiTY
STEPS plan. This discussion will provide us with an opportunity to make priority changes if
needed.
HUD also uses a formula to allocate HO[VIE Investment Partnership program funds. I
anticipate that we will see decrease in funding; however, not as pronounced as with the
CDBG program. When the HOME funding estimates are made available I will provide you
with an update.
Cc: Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
Housing and Community Development Commission
AGENDA
City of Iowa City
City Council Economic Development Committee
Friday, August 30, 2002
9:30 a.m.
Lobby Conference Room
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes from June 20, 2002 and August 1, 2002
3. Discussion and Recommendation - TIF Request for Plamor Redevelopment Project
4. Discussion - Review of Current Zoning (North Dodge Street Area)
5. Discussion -- Continuation of Visits to Local Employers
6. Update -- Englert Theatre and Vision Iowa Funding
7. Update - Outreach to Potentially Displaced Businesses
8. Other Business
- Memorandum on CDBG Use for Early Childhood Education Centers
- Memorandum on the Use of RISE for Economic Development
9. Adjournment
Minutes
City Council Economic Development Committee
Thursday, June 20, 2002- 9:30 AM
Civic Center Lobby Conference Room
Members Present: Ernie Lehman, Dec Vanderhoef and Ross Wllburn
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Steve Atkins and Steve Nasby
Others Present: Dan Smith, Irvin Pfab, Steven Kanner, and Amy Correia
Call to Order
Mayor Lehman called the meeting to order at 9:30 AM
Approval of Minutes of Ma'/16,2002
Amended mutes to read: whenever there is a direct meeting with company members that a staff AND
ECONOMIC COMMITTEE MEMBER be there. Previous it read as OR COUNCIL MEMBER.
Minutes approved
Discussion of Alternative High School
Vanderhoef stated two problems with the project at the Curalville location. One was that the library might
not remain in the same location, which would be a detriment to the school dis~ict. The second concern was
the frequency of bus service to the area and the need for these students to move around to different work-
study locations during the day.
Lehman stated the need to be available to the school board if they were interested in locating somewhere in
Iowa City. Lehman felt the location of the alternative high school should be left up to the School Board
because they would locate it in an area that best served the students.
Wilburn felt the larger issue was that this type of program be available to serve Iowa City students, not the
location of the school. Wflbum is comfortable with the position Coralville is in right now to enter into
discussions with the school board, and didfft feel that the City of Iowa City needed to present a counter-
proposal. Wilbum agrees with Lehman that the school board will make a good decision on the placement
of the school.
Lehman instructed stafftu send a letter to the School Board stating committee support for the Alternative
High School, the willingness to help if there was any interest in an Iowa City location, and that the
committee was sure the school would be placed where it made economic sense and best served the needs of
the students.
Vanderhoef and Wilburn agreed with this action.
Discussion of Economic Development Funding for United Action for Youth
Vanderhoef feels the change from building tax base in that particular building to allowing them to purchase
that property, and make it a non-taxable location is a measure of support from the community and that there
isn't a need to look at another funding source for this particular space.
Wilbum agreed with Vanderhoef and also pointed out that United Action for Youths primary focus in using
the space would not be economic development in nature and because of this would not support the use of
Economic Development Funds for this project.
Lehman felt that it would be very difficult to justify the use of Economic Development Funds to purchase a
property that will be taken off the property tax rolls.
Atkins questioned why this was even an issue for the Council Economic Development Committee. Lehman
clarified the issue by stating that the property had been sold o UAY for $50,000 less than it was listed and it
have been brought up that the Economic Development Fund should make up that difference. Lehman does
not agree with this.
Outreach and Survey of Interest - Displaced Businesses
Lehman liked the letter and survey that was sent out to businesses in the Coralville Business Park. Steve
Nasby reported that Karin Franklin had notified Kelly Hayworth that this was being done. Coralville has
very little industrial property for these businesses to relocate to and it was a good opportunity for the cities
to work together to keep the businesses in the area. The letter and survey has been sent to the property
owners first, and it will be sent to the business owners in the near future. Lehman stated that it is important
that it get to the tenants so they know the City of Iowa City is willing to help. Nasby reported several
positive responses had been received from property owners.
Discussion of HCDC Representation for CDBG Economic Development Applications
The Housing and Community Development Corntmssion (HCDC) had expressed interest in working with
the Council Economic Development Committee due to CDBG funds being used in the Economic
Development Loan Pool. Amy Correia, vice chair of HCDC, was present for the discussion.
Wilburn has no problem with a liaison from HCDC that attended Council Economic Development
Committee meetings.
Lehman has no problem if HCDC wants input but the final decision of where funds will go should remain
with the Council Economic Development Committee.
Vanderhoef feels that there is no problem with keeping HCDC in the loop, but that the time for public
imput is at City Council Meetings when the funding would be approved.
HCDC is looking to expand the lines of communication between the Council Economic Development
Committee and its own body. HCDC did not recommend CDBG funds to be used for the Economic
Development Loan Pool and wants to make sine that their viewpoints are represented when applications for
the use of those funds are reviewed.
Steve Nasby asked Amy Correia to clarify ifHCDC was looking for representation when CDBG
applications were received, Correia stated that was not the case.
Staff was instructed to make sure HCDC was on the mailing list and information was made available to
them as to when applications where going to be reviewed.
Lehman stated that while the Economic Development Funds had been removed from HCDC and put under
the control of the Council Economic Development Committee that no one would have a problem if HCDC
wanted to make comments, but that the formal process that HCDC used to carry out would now be carried
out by the Council Econorinc Development Committee.
Wilburn stated that the Council Economic Development Committee makes a recommendation to the City
Council and City Councilors have the option of accepting or rejecting that recommendation.
Lehman stated that no matter who made the recommendation, the City Council makes the final decision on
the mailer.
Amy Correia wanted to make sure HCDC had enough time to review the applications so that if they had
comments they could get them to the Council Economic Development ConmUttee.
Marketing of Economic Development Financial Assistance Programs - Update
Paul Heath of the Small Business Development Center was going to give Steve Nasby some marketing
ideas on how to reach some of his clients. Nasby also sent him applications for all of the City*s programs
and Heath was going to make sure it was available to all his "fast track" classes. Nasby also contacted the
Institute of Social and Economic Development. ISED has several classes that are targeted for low to
moderate-income clients and they are going to market the City's program as well. Dan Smith from the
Chamber of Commerce has been contacted and he is going to make sure it is in he Chamber bulletin,
Reflections. This will make the local chamber member aware of the programs available. Nasby has also
been doing research on what is available from the State of Iowa so that when people cai1 he can give them
accurate information as to what is available.
Wilburn was interested in the amount of people who take classes from ISED in a year. Nasby stated that
there are usually 30 people in a class and that there are 2-3 classes a year. ISED gives classes on basic
business skills and also has some funding available for people starting their own business.
Business Outreach Program - Major Employer Visit Schedules
Nasby and Vanderhoef visited with Bill Robertson, manager of the North Dodge Hy-Vee store Tuesday,
June 18t~. It was a positive meeting. Concerns for that store were the reconstruction of North Dodge Street,
further development in the North East area, and traffic.
Lehman stated that the completion of Scott Blvd. and the opening of 1st Avenue would help with infitling
the commercial areas around Hy-Vee.
Vanderhoef would like to take a look at the comprehensive plan and see what is developable in the area
near Hy-Vee. There is some typography in the are that does not lend itself to development and it would be
a good idea to see what is possible in the area.
Staff was directed to take a look at the area and report back to the committee.
Postal Service visit will take place in late June and the Veterans Administration in early July.
comrmttee members felt this was a good program and staffwas instructed to look at the next tier of
businesses to target for visits.
Other Business
Lehman brought up the South side transportation center and the childcare component. Lehman was
interested in knowing if CDBG funding would be available for the childcare component.
Vanderhoef reminded to the committee the sale of 64-1a would bring in $250,000 and it might be possible
to use that money to help build the childcare component. Lehman agreed that it might be a good use for
those fi~nds.
Staff was instructed to look into those issues.
Staffwas instructed to keep sending hard copies of meeting packets to cormmttee members and to put the
information into the council packets.
Adioumment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30
Minutes
City Council Economic Development Committee
Thursday, August 1, 2002- 1:00 p.m.
Civic Center Lobby Conference Room
Members Present: Emic Lehman, and Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Ross Wilbum
Staff Present: Dale Helling, Steve Nasby, Tracy Hightshoe, and Emily Pierce
Others Present: lrvin Pfab, Steven Kanner, Justine Zimmer, Brian Tibbets, Judy Houghton
Call to Order
Mayor Lehman called the meeting to order
Mr. LetLman received an e-mail from Ross Wilburn saying he would not be attending the meeting due to a
co,fillet of interest. Mr. Wilburn is the head of the Crisis Center, an organization partially funded by
CDBG funds.
Discussion of CDBG Funding Request for the Englert Civic Theatre, Inc.
Mr. Lehman was in Des Moines three weeks ago and visited with Vision Iowa Board Members. Vision
Iowa roles are that unless a project is supported by the city, county, and private sector it will not receive
Vision Iowa funding. Because the Englert is being completed in phases, according to Vision Iowa roles,
The City of Iowa City has not given financial support to phase two. Even though substantial support was
given in phase one, it does not count according to Vision Iowa roles. Justine Zimmer confirmed that the
County met informally this morning and agreed to give the Englert Theatre $20,000 over 5 years.
Mx. Lehman asked Mx. Nasby if this project met the criteria for CDBG funding. Mr. Nasby said it did. It
meets the CDBG program criteria through job creation. It also meets financial assistance guidelines
created by the City Council. In addition, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because of
a positive economic impact it will have on the community. Nasby added that the Downtown strategy
adopted by the Council the first item listed is to provide a critical mass of destination points for the
downtown. The Englert meets those criteria. Nasby said that the award of the CDBG financing would be
contingent on the Englert receiving a viable Vision Iowa Grant.
The Englert has request a $75,000 CDBG Grant. Ms. Vanderhoef asked for clarification of jobs created.
Mr. Nasby explained that the CDBG regulations allow for Full Time Equlivents not full time jobs. The jobs
created should pay a living wage as outlined by local standards, whereas CDBG regulations would only
require the jobs to pay minimum wage.
MS. Vanderhoef would recommend to the Council to grant money to the Englert Theatre, because it is
exactly the type of project she envisioned this type of funding to be used for.
Mr. Lehman supports this project and recommends to the Council they approve funding of this project. Mr.
Lehman would like to leave it up to the council to decide the funding level. Ms. Vanderhoef agreed.
Ms. Vanderhoef made a motion, with Mr. Lehman seconding, to recommend CDBG funding, in an amount
to be decided by the Council, to the Englert Theatre, contingent upon the receipt of Vision Iowa funds.
Meeting was adjourned.
Prudential .,.,..,i., ..,b,o.. & J.cob....,A,To,s'
250 12th Avenue, Suite 150
Coralville, IA 52241
Bus 319 354 8118 Fax 319 354-0921
prudential@pruic corn
August 19, 2002
City of Iowa City
City Council
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Council Members,
The purpose of this letter is to formally request Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for the
former Plamor Lanes property located at 1555 S. First Avenue in Iowa City.
The current assessed value of that property, which is Assessor's parcel #1014486002, is
$754,950.00. This assessed value netted a real estate tax totaling $26,390 for the 2001-
2002 fiscal year (payable in 2002-2003). I have recently acquired this property for a
purchase price of $900,000, and plan on adding approximately $1.2 to $1.5 million in
improvements, beginning in mid to late September of this year.
These improvements should result in an increase in tax revenues for the City of Iowa
City. I would like to make this property something that the community will be proud call
it's own, similar to what has been done at the Sycamore Mall.
I would greatly appreciate it if this request would be taken into consideration for approval
at the September 10, 2002 City Council meeting. I truly appreciate your consideration of
this request and wish you all well.
independently owned and operated member el lhe Prudeafial Real Estate AffiliateSr Inc
CITY OF IOWA CITY
June 26, 2002 4 I0 East Washington Street
Iowa City, iowa 52240-1826
Otg) 356 sooo
Hy-Vee Food Store (a~ 3s6-s00~ r^x
Attn: Mr. Bill Robertson www.icg, ov.org
1201 North Dodge Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Re: Development near North Dodge Hy-Vee
Dear Mr. Robertson:
During our visit on June 16, you had questions regarding multi-family development near the
North Dodge Hy-Vee. If you look at the North District Plan maps enclosed, you will see there
are multi-family and commercial mixed-use zones in the northeast and southeast quadrants of
the North Dodge and Dubuque Road intersection. On the Northeast district map I have
enclosed, there are highlighted areas where the city prefers multi-family development take
place. The Northeast plan was adopted in June 1999, and development of that area is
generally following the preferences of the plan.
As we discussed there are plans to widen Nodh Dodge Street. It was scheduled to begin this
year but because of state budgetary issues it is now tentatively scheduled to start in 2005.
North Dodge will become 3 lanes with 8' sidewalks from the intersection of Governor Street to
the intersection of Scott Boulevard. From the intersection of Scott Boulevard to Interstate 80 will
be 4 lanes with 8' sidewalks on each side. Usin9 statistics gathered in traffic counts and
applying state guidelines, stoplights will be placed where North Dodge Street intersects Prairie
Du Chien Road and Scott Boulevard. We anticipate that these two stoplights will create large
enough gaps in the traffic flow to allow traffic to exit and enter at other intersections along North
Dodge Street. The placement of stoplights is an issue that will be revisited with the completion
of Scott Blvd, the opening of 1't Ave, and increased development in the area.
The North District Plan, adopted May 2001, and the Northeast District Plan will provide more
information about development in the general area of North Dodge Street. Both of those plans
are available at the Planning and Community Developmer)t Office located at 410 E. Washington
Street. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at 356-5248 at any time.
Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us, and I hope the information we have
provided you is useful.
Sincerely,
Steve Nasby
Community and Economic Development Coordinator
CC: City Council Economic Development Committee
North District Plan Map
February 2001 ~
Attachment A Iowa City Employer:50=Private
20 30=Public
EMPLOYER
FIRM NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP AREA PHONE CODE ~f EMP
INTEGRATED DNATECHNOLOGIES INC 1710 COMMERCIAL PARK CORALVILLE 52241 319 645-2746 50 100-249
TARGET-DIV OF DAYTON HUDSON CORP 1441 27TH AVE CORALVILLE 52241 612 370-8530 50 100-249
SCHFEI R ALL SPORTS 1461 27TH AVE CORALVILLE 52241 50 100-249
D~LLARD DEPARTMENT STORES INC J-80 & HTM 965 CORALVILLE 52241 501 376-5200 50 100-249
SEARS ROEBUCK & CO 1481 CORAL RIDGE AVE CORALV~LLE 52241 404 ~496-7606 50 100-249
QUALITY CARE 212 1ST ST CORALVILLE 52241 319 354-3108 50 100-249
BENNIGAN'S CORAL RIDGE MALL CORALVILLE 52241 319 ,354-7770 50 100-249
WESTMUS}C COMPANY INC 1212 5TH ST CORALVlLLE 52241 319 351-2000 50 100-249
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST 1507 8TH ST COR~LViLLE 52241 319 :~54-1584 30 100-249
GRANT WOOD AREA EDUCATION AGENCY 200 HOLIDAY RD CORALVILLE 52241 319 :399-6700 30 100-249
APPLIED SYSTEMS [NC - ADP 520 10TH AVE SUITE 100 CORALVILLE 52241 708 I534-5575 50 100-249
BEST BUY STORES LP 1431 CORALRIDGE DR CORALVILLE 52241 612 947-2702 50 100-249
JCPENNEY 1003 25TH AVE CORALVILLE 52241 214 431-2819 50 100-24§
vlONDOS TOMATO PiE 516 2ND ST CORALVILLE 52241 319 337-3000 50 100-245
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SE IA 1410 1ST AVE IOWA CITY 52241 319 337-4158 50 100-249
YOUNKERS 1421 CORAL RIDGE AVE CORALVILLE 52242 601 592-2919 50 100-249
BRIGHT HORIZONS cHILDRENS CTRS INC 109 WESTLAWN ' IOWA CITY 52242 617 673-8000 50 100-249
MALONE'S IRSH PUB 121 EAST COLLEGE STREET IOWA CITY 52244 319 351-0044 50 100-249
MARSH & MCCLENNAN GROUP ASSOC INC 2615 NORTHGATE DR IOWA CITY 52245 212 ~45-5175 50 100-249
OWA CiTY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST 1900 MORNINGSIDE DR IOWA CITY 52245 319 :~37-2149 30 100-249
IOWA CATHOLIC CONEERENCE 2120 ROCHESTER AVE iOWA CITY 522451 515 243-6256 50 100-249I
PRESS-CITIZEN CO INC 1725 N DODGE ST IOWA CITY 52245 319 :~37-3181 50 100-249
IOWA CITY TENNIS & FITNESSR INC 2400 NORTH DODGE ST IOWA CITY 52245 319 :~51-5683 50 100-249
WAL-MART STORES INC 1001 HIGHWAY 1 W IOWA CITY 52246 501 273-4834 50 100-249
MENARDS 1375 HTM I WEST IOWA CITY 52246 715 874-5911 50 100-249
~ IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST 2901 MELROSE AVE IOWA CITY 52246' 319 351-4550 30 100-249
WESTSTAFF USA INO 56 STURGIS CORNER DR IOWA CITY 52246 712 277-2580 50 100-249
-'" CAMBRIDGE TEMPOSITIONS INC 1700 1ST AVE STE 25A IOWA CITY 522401 319 :~62-9555 50 50-99
VITO'S OF IOWA CITY INC 118 E COLLEGE IOWA CITY 52246 319 338-1393 50 50-99
SYSTEMS UNLIMITED INC 1556 S 1ST AVE IOWA CITY 5224(~ 319 338-9212 50 50-99
TRANSPORT AMERICA 2875 W PENN ST IOWA CITY 52240 704 554-1421 50 50-99
OWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST 2501 BRADFORD DR IOWACITY 52240! 319 351-8242 30 50-99
THE AIRLINER 22 S CLINTON IOWA CITY 52240 319 337-5314 50 50-99
K MART CORP 901 HOLLY~NOOD BLVD IOWA CITY 52240! 319 351-8170 50 50-99
NEW PIONEERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY 22 S VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY 52240 319 :~38-9441 50 50-99
PROGRESSIVE REHAB ASSOC LLC 2401 TOWNCREST DRIVE IOWA CITY 52240 319 1339-3648 50 50-99
NARGRAVE-MCELENEY INC 3760 HWY 1 WEST IOWA CITY 52240 319 ;354-1011 50 50-99
CARLOS O'KELLEY'S OF IA CITY INC 1411 WATERFRONT DR iOWA CITY 52240 316 1683-2611 50 50-99
YOUNKERS OLD CAPITOL CNTR IOWA CITY 52240 601 592-2919 50 50-99
2
Attachment A Iowa City Empl°yer:50=Pdvate
20 30=Public
EMPLOYER
FIRM NAME ADDRESS CiTY ZIP AREA PHONE CODE # EMP
HILLS SANK & TRUST CO 1401 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY' 52240 319 679-2291 50 50-9(3
HCM INC ' 4635 HERBERT HOOVER HWY SE IOWA'CITY 5224C 319 351-7460 50 50-99
VON MAUR INC 1600 SYCAMORE ST IOWA CITY 5224(3 515 276-5800 50 50-99
AAA INVESTIGATIONS & SECURITY INC 825 S DUBUQUE IOWA CITY 52240 319 351-9395 50 50-99
/IIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO 1630 LOWER MUSCATINE RD IOWA CITY 52246 319 326-7637 50 50-99
MONDO'S OF iOWA CITY tHC 212 S CLINTON ST IOWA CITY' 5224(~ 319 337-7059 50 50-99
,,IERCANTILEBANK MIDWEST 204 E WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY 52240! 515 !248-7586 50 50-99
MANPOWER INC OF CDR RPDS 825 S. GILBERT ST SUITE 1 OWA CiTY 5224~ 319 ~366-7661 50 50-99,
HUBBARD FEEDS INC HWY 218 S IOWA CITY 52246 507 388-9400 50 50-99
CHATHAM OAKS CARE FACI~.I'FY 4515 MELROSE AVE IOWA CITY 52240 319 '356-6034 50 50-99
PANERA BREAD 1646 SYCAMORE ST IOWA CITY 5224(2 319 359-5722 50 50-99
MCDONALDS - SYCAMORE MALL 1861 LOWER MUSCATINE IOWA CITY 52240! 515 232-2505 50 50-99
MERIT ELECTRIC LTD 1311 HIGHLAND CT IOWA CiTY 52240 319 354-5612 50 50-99
JOHNS GROCERY INC 401 E MARKET ST IOWA CITY 522401 319 337-2183 50 50-9(3
HAWKEYE ABEA COMM ACTION PROGRAM 2007 WATERFRONT DRIVE IOWA CITY 522401 319 351-1214 50 50-99
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST 1930 LAKESIDE DR IOWA CITY 52240 319 351-7590 30 50-99
CITY CARTON COMPANY 3 E BENTOI~ ST IOWACITY' 522401 319 351-2848 50 50-99
HAWKEYE MOVING & STORAGE INC 2930 INDUSTRIAL, PARK RD IOWA CITY 52240 319 338-5404 50 50-99
IOWA CITY COFFEE COMPANY 211 1/2 E WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY 52246 319 !338-2786 50 50-99
METRO PAVERS 1NC 1722 STEVENS DR IOWA CITY 52240 319 351-8800 50 50-99
UNIV OF IA COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION 500 IOWA AVE IOWA CITY 52246 319 339-1000 50 50-99
SPORTS COLUMN CORPORATION 12 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY 5224(2 50 50-9~
WALGREEN CO 2214 MUSCATINE AVE IOWACITY 5224(2 847 914-5407 50 50-99
CAROUSEL FORD 217 STEVENS DR OWA CITY 5224(2 319 338-7811 50 50-991
~,~ F~CEL SERylCE 928 QUARRY RD C~,~*,LV~L~E 52241 50 50-9~
~STUARANT 2651 2ND ST 64~,RC,~C, lLI.~ 52241 925 218~3644 50 50-9(3
............. IE & FITCH STORES INC 1451 CORALRIDGE AVE CORAl VILL~ 52241 614 577-6500 50 50-9(3
_L'-~!E $'r~STEAKHOUSE & SALOON 210 2ND ST, ~ 52241 316 264-8899 50 50-99
Er,T'E~"~'I~TffffT INC 2600 CROSS PARK RD ~ 52241 319 626-5000 50 50-99
NFCN PIOhJE. F. RS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY 1101 2ND ST ~;t,~,J..~41&.~'E 52241 319 338-9441 50 50-9.c
C,*,RE ',,.~'TflA'q-IVES 915 20TH AVE N ~ 52241 515 276-5800 50 50-99
lO.W,~, ~!VER POWER CO 501 1ST AVE 62:~?~,1~ 52241 319 351-1904 50 50-99
p~-R4zSflg-PAMILY RESTAURANT LP 819 1ST AVE CGRCCcW~ 52241 941 7664~.44 50 50-9S
~S,¢,L CLi~w~'ATE CONTROL INC 107 10TH AVE S COrRAl VILLB- 52241 319 354-1636 50 50-99
~S SQU~V~CORP REST ~ 2800 COMMERCE DR ¢~L-CCI~'E, 52241 303 296-2121 50 50-99
%U.E GAP !HC 1451 CORAL, RIDGE AVE 61~t/~'VIL-L-~ 52241 319 388-0000 50 50-99
RANn¥~ ~ ~O~ ~'~RPETS INC 401 2ND ST ¢-~p~l VILt~ 52241 319 354-4344 50 50-99
BO-uttb~'OP 1451 CORAL RIDGE AVE STE 11 CO~,L;'~LLE 52241 50 50-9S
~ONTRACTORS INC 9TH QUARRY RD CORC~-V~'t:E 52241 319 351-1843 50 50-99
Attachment A Iowa City Employer:50=Pdvate
20 30=Public
EMPLOYER
FIRM NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP AREA )HONE CODE # EMP
HAClG4.C=~-RE DA'~ CARE INC 2220 NINTH ST :6~A%~%LE 52241 319 354-7641 50 50.99
OGD RE~.ALJ.~ANT CO 1451 CORALRIDGE AVE #1208 ~C~F~A~4~LE 52241 612 942-9760 50 50.99
APP. i ~R~PR NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL & BAR 200 12TH AVE ~R,'~-'~LLE 52241 316 683-2611 50 50-99
D OcF_C, FO_ODS INC 618 1ST AVE ,x::~a '.~'_LE 52241 319 354-1731 50 50-99
THE VINE TAVERN & EATERY 39 2ND ST S'~LE 52241 602 ~45-5928 50 50-99
I~,, '"" ¢'~Tv' c'~, ......... ............. '"' ..... ~L DIST 501 6TH ST ¢',Q¢~4 Vail i= 52241 319 354.4211 30 50.99
THE DAILY IOWAN 111 COMM CTR - UNIV OF IA IOWA CITY 52242 319 335-5786 50 50-99
TOYOTA OF IOWA CITY INC HWY 1 W IOWA CITY 52244 319 151-1501 50 50-90
HY-VEE FOOD STORES INC 1201 N DODGE ST IOWA CITY 52245 515 276-5800 50 50-90
HIGHLANDER INC "Z525 N DODGE ST IOWA CITY 52245 319 354-2000 50 50-99
ROBERTS DAIRY COMPANY 1109 N DODGE ST IOWA CITY 52245 402 344-4321 50 50-90
HIGHLANDER INC ;'208 N DODGE IOWA CITY 52245 319 354-2000 50 50-90
SHIVE;HATTERY GROUP INC 2834 NORTHGATE DRIVE IOWA CITY 52245 319 362-0313 50 50-99
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST ~30 SOUTHLAWN DR IOWA CITY 52245 319 338-3654 30 50-99
PEDIATRIC ASSOC OF IOWA CITY LLP 105 E JEhI-t:I~SON IOWA CITY 52245 319 351-1448 50 50-99
B P O ELKS LODGE 590 537 FOSTER RD IOWA CITY 52245 319 351-3700 50 50-99
RANDALLS/CUB FOODS/SAVE-A-LOT ;55 HVVY 1 WEST IOWA CITY 52246 515 278-0211 50 50-99
PAREWAY STORES INC 2530 WESTWINDS DRIVE IOWA CITY 52246 515 432-2623 50 50-99
REACH FOR YOUR POTENTIAL INC 1ST AVENUE MINI MALL IOWA CITY 52246 314 354-2983 50 50-99
FIRST STUDENT INC 1515 WILLOW CREEK DR IOWA CITY 52246 513 684-8751 50 50-99
GREENWOOD MANOR/PLEASANT CARE LLP 505 GREENWOOD DR IOWA CITY 52246 319 338-7912 50 50-99
U OF I COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE INC 2949 SIERRA CT SW IOWA CITY 52246 319 337-8522 50 50-99
KELLY SERVICES INC 24 STURGIS CORNER DRIVE IOWA CITY 52246 313 362 '!'[dd 50 50-99
HARTWIG MOTORS INC 529 S RIVERSIDE DR IOWA CITY 52246 319 337-2101 50 50-99
RED LOBSTER 1069 HWY I' W IOWA CITY 52246 305 859-3044 50 50-99
GROUND ROUND INC 830 S RIVERSIDE DR IOWA CITY 52246 614 249-7211 50 50-99
~AUL'S DISCOUNT OF IOWA CITY INC 424 HIGHWAY 1 W IOWA CITY 52246 319 338-7217 50 50-99
D&W [OWAN ENTERPRISES 804 S RIVERSIDE DR IOWA CITY 52246 319 354-1731 50 50-99
AHRENS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 26 COMMERCIAL DRIVE IOWA CITY 52246 319 354-3170 50 50-99
CHEZIK-SAYERS HONDA 2343 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY 52246 319 337-6100 50 50-99
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST 1137 S RiVERSiDE DR IOWA CITY 52246 319 338-3685 30 50-99
AC,,,C,.pc-e~c~,.~C, TTFI ~=~,,~^D~T~. INC 2000JAMES ST COPJ',LV:LLr- 52440 319 261-0204 50 50-99
~ i ~,~, ..... ~'r~, ....... ~ 1451 CORAL RIDGE CORCcL--~}LLE 52240 312 960-5412 50 20-49
IOWA GYM-NEST 545 OLYMPIC CIR IOWA CITY 52240 319 338-7971 50 20-49
IOWA CITY COUNTRY KITCHEN 1402 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY 52240 319 337-7205 50 20-49
IOWA CITY LANDSCAPING 520 HWY 1 WEST IOWA CITY 5224(3 319 338-3216 50 20-49
MICKY'S LTD 11 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY 5224~ 50 20-49
YELLOW CAB OF IOWA 404 E COLLEGE IOWA CITY 5224C 319 338-9777 50 20-49
STEINDLER ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC PLC 2403 TOWNCREST DR IOWA CITY 5224C 319 338-3606 50 20-49
4
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 3uly 2, 2002
TO: Council Economic Development Committee .,~] ~, It~
FROM: Steven Nasby, Community and Economic Development Coordinato
RE: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding -- Early Childhood
Education Centers
At your June meeting the Committee discussed the possibilities of using CDBG funds for an
Early Childhood Education Center located in the proposed NSS Transportation Center and
Transit Interchange facility. The link between jobs, economic development and the
provision of early childhood education is important and this project is a positive step for the
downtown.
The two sources of CDBG funds that were discussed included the Economic Development
Fund and the proceeds from the sale of 64 l-a. There is currently $147,900 set-aside in the
CDBG ED fund. Since the proceeds from 64 l-a will be CDBG program income, our normal
procedure would be to allocate these funds during the annual CDBG funding cycle. CDBG
funds from either source can be used for acquisition, construction or operations.
Due to federal spending caps on CDBG funds, it would be much easier to fund acquisition or
capital expenses. To be eligible, the Early Childhood Education Center must meet one of
the CDBG program's national objectives as identified in 24 CFR Part 570.208. The Early
Childhood Education Center could qualifi/by benefiting to iow-moderate income persons or
under slum and blight (since the area is already part of an existing urban revitalization
area).
A Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued regarding the proposed Early Childhood
Development Center to be located in the NSS Transportation Center and Transit
interchange facility. Negotiations are currently underway with the preferred provider, Good
Shepherd. The discussions around this proposed project have included the use of CDBG
funds and a commitment by Good Shepherd to provide a percentage of the services for Iow-
moderate income households.
One other question that was raised concerned the possibility of using the CDBG funds as a
portion of the non-federal match for the NSS Transportation Center and Transit Interchange
facility. After consulting Federal Transit Administration staff, it appears that CDBG may not
be used as a "non-federal" match for the NSS Transportation Center and Transit
Interchange facility.
Cc: Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 12, 2002
To: City Of Iowa City Economic Development Committee
From: Jeff Davidson, Assr, Director, Dept. of Planning and Community Development
Re: Iowa Department of Transportation Revitalize Iowa's Sound Economy (RISE) program
The City Manager asked that I apprise you of the particulars of the RISE program. Unfortunately I
have commitments on the days of your July and August meetings, so I thought I would provide
information to you in writing. I will be happy to attend a subsequent meeting if you have any
questions. The RISE fund was created by the Iowa legislature in 1985 to assist in promoting
economic development in Iowa through the construction or improvement of roads. The program is
funded from a percentage of the state motor fuel tax. There is consistently a balance of several
million dollars available in the fund for distribution.
The most important element of the RISE program is lob creation. The simplest explanation of the
RISE program is that it is a program that creates jobs by building roads. We have successfully
used the RISE program in this community several times, including the construction of Heinz Road,
the reconstruction of Herbert Hoover Highway, the NCS traffic signal on Highway 1, construction
of Commerce Drive in Coralville, and the reconstruction of Penn Street in North Liberty. The City
of Coralville has an ongoing RISE project to construct an industrial subdivision road off of U.S.
Highway 6.
There are three types of funding available from the RISE program. Immediate opportunity
funding is reserved for cases where a location decision hinges on a quick commitment of RISE
funds. Immediate opportunity is the top priority for funding, and the State will make a decision on
the commitment of funds within 15 days of receiving an application. Competitive rating funding
is for projects which support local economic development but do not require an immediate
commitment of funding. These projects are selected on a competitive evaluation basis. Regional
development project funding is for projects which have an impact beyond a single county, city,
or site. These projects may involve improving access between two cities or between a city and an
interstate highway.
There are no dollar limits on the funding of RISE projects, and the state encourages innovative
financing proposals involving grants, loans, and local funding. Several years ago the unofficial rule
of thumb was that the state would fund approximately $3,000 per job created; perhaps up to
$5,000-$6,000 per job for really good jobs. As part of the application process it is necessary to
disclose specific information about the jobs that are being created by the proposed project, and
this is something frequently resisted by private sector firms which are not accustomed to such
public disclosure. Relocation of jobs from another part of the state is not considered job creation
in Iowa DOT's eyes, unless the company will otherwise potentially leave the state. Iowa DOT will
not help us compete with other places in Iowa.
I would also add that the RISE program is part of the political process, and as such it is important
that we do as much connecting with State political entities as possible in support of any
application. I have seen cases where weak proposals were funded and I believe this was due to a
coalition of support built for a specific project. I do not mean this as a criticism of the program; it is
simply a characteristic of the program that we should be prepared to deal with.
Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. The JCCOG Transportation Planning Division
is available to complete any RISE grant applications that need to be prepared.
cc: City Manager
PCD Director
Economic Development Coordinator
jccogadm\memos\rise.doc
Submitted by Council Member
~ Ross Wilburn
EAST CENTRAL IOWA .
!11,111
COUNCIL .OF GOVERNMENTS
YOUR REGIONAL PLANNINGAGENCY
ME _MORANDUM·
DATE: . June 19, 2002
TO: ECICOG B,9.oa~of Directors
SUBJECT:' Next Meeting - Thursday, August 29, 2002
-. The ECICOG Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, Aughst 29, 2002, 1:00 p.m., at the
ECICOG. offices Jn Cedar Rapids. An agenda for the meeting and minutes of the June 27 board
of directors and July 31 exechtive coInrmttee meetings are enclosed. Other items are highlighted
' below:
Item 2.0 Routine Matters: Financial statements for the month, of July are enclosed.
Item 3.2 Board Members' Reports: At the inv, itation of board member Ross Wilburn, Alison '
Wahll of the Crime Victim Assistance Division of the Iowa Attorney General's office will
present information oh the div!sion's programs.
'Item 3.3 Director's Report: Reaently the Governor announced a new initiative, Iowa Works.
which would regionalize the distribution of §t~te and federal monies for economic development.
Those of you with email have received several updates on this issue from me, including copies of
the enclosed newspaper articles. I'd request that th~ board discuss the role of COGs. and in,
particular, ECICOG, in this proposal.
Items 3.4 Community Development: Staff has enclosed a draft copy of P!anning Livable
Communities .... a report prepared by ECICOG and funded by theIowa Department of Economic
DeveloPment. This project was one of the results of the conference ECICOG .sponsored on
regional perspectives on growth management in February 2000. Your review find comment on
the report will be requested at the board meeting.
Item 3.5, 3.6, & 3.8 Housing, Circuit Rider, ,& Transportation Reports: Staff reports are
enclosed.
Item 3.7 Solid Waste Repo~?t: Staff has prepared two travel requests for conferences out of
state in September. These requests are within the FY 03 departmental budget for professional
development and travel.
OVER
108 Third Street SE, Suite 300 Cedar Rapids~ Iowa 5240~ 319-365r994 l FAX 319-365-9981 w~v. ia.neff-ecicog
Next Meeting
August 21, 2002
Page 2
Item 4.1 Executive Committee As authorized by the board, the executive committee met to
conduct the agency's business for the month of July. The minutes of the July 31, 2002, meeting
are enclosed. The committee asked that you review the minutes, in particular, section 3.2,
Committee Member Reports.
Items 4.4 & 4.5 TOG and SWTAC Minutes of the most recent meetings are enclosed.
Please review the remainder of the enclosed materials, and contact us if you have questions
before the meeting on the 29th.
Enclosures
East Central Iowa Council of Governments Board Meeting Notice
I
East Central ~q~a~ltgg~l~K~0~e~'~:n; ~
TEL 365-9941 FAX365-9981
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
.1 Recognition of Alternates
.2 Public Discussion
.3 Approval of Agenda
2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS
1-3 .1 Approval of Minutes (June 27, 2002)
4-6 .2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balmice Sheets
3.0 AGENCY REPORTS
.1 Chairperson's Report
.2 Board Members' Reports
· Presentation: Alison Wahll, CVAD
7-11 .3 Director's Report
12-13 .4 Community Development Report
· Plalming Livable Communities: A Status Report and Best Practices Mannal
14-16 .5 Itousing Report
17 .6 Circuit Rider Report
18-23 .7 Solid Waste Repo~l
· Travel Requests
24-27 .8 Transportation Report
4.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
28-30 .1 Executive Committee
.2 Personnel Committee
.3 Budget Committee
31-32 .4 Transit Operators Group
33~34 .5 Solid Waste Teclmical Advisory Committee
.6 Ad Hoc Colranittee Reports
5.0 IOWA INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM
6.00I,D BUSINESS
· l Approval of Expenditures
7.0 NEW BUSINESS
8.0 NEXT MEETING: September 26, 2002
E£TCOG is the Region 10 planning agency serving local governments in thc counties of Benton, Iowa, Johnson,
Joncs, Linn, and Washington.
MINUTES
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Board Meeting 1:00 p.m. - June 27, 2002
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
108 Third Street SE, Suite 300 - Cedar Rapids, IA
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bob Stout-Washington County Supervisor
Don Magdefrau-Benton County Citizen
Ross Yr~ilburn-Iowa City City Council
Ed Raber-~ashington County Citizen
Gary Edwards-Iowa County Citizen
Ed Brown-Mayor of t~ashington
Dennis Hansen-Jones County Citizen
Pat Harney-Johnson County Supervisor
Henry Herwig-Coralville City Council
Charlie Montross-Iowa County Supervisor
Leo Cook-Jones County Supervisor
Larry [Yilson-Johnson County Citizen
Rod Straub-Iowa County Supervisor
David Vermedahl-Benton County Supervisor
Tom Tjelmeland-Mayor of Ely
MEMBERS ABSENT
Lu Barron-Linn County Supervisor
James Houser~Linn County Supervisor
Ann Hearn-Linn County Citizen
}Vade FP'agner-Cedar Rapids Commissioner
Benton County elected official-vacancy
Jones County elected official-vacancy
ALTERNATES PRESENT - None
OTHER'S PRESENT
Aaron Chittenden - Jones County Economic Development Coordinator
STAFF PRESENT
Doug Elliott-Executive Director
Gina Peters-Administrative Assistant
Chad Sands - Planner
Tracey Mulcahey - Grants Administrator
Mary Rump-IT/TransportationPlanner
Robyn Jacobson-Transit Administrator
Marie De Fries-Solid }~aste Planning Coordinator
Catherine Hankey-Circuit Rider
Lisa-Marie Garlich-Planner
Lisa Carlson-Planner
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Ed Brown at 1:03 p.m.
.1 Recognition of Alternates - None
.2 Public Discussion - None 1
.3 Approval of Agenda
M/S/C (Stoutf/vion~'oss) to approve the agenda. All ayes.
2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS
.1 Approval of Minutes (May 30, 2002)
M/S/C (Hansen/Wilson) to approve the minutes as written. All ayes.
.2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets
Elliott handed out revised May financial statements. (attached) The II'ERS payable account was
overstated affecting the net income on the previous statements.
M/S/C (Cook/Wilbum) to receive and file the May financial statements for audit. All ayes.
3.0 AGENCY REPORTS
.1 Chairperson's Report - None
.2 Board Members' Reports - None
.3 Director's Report
Elliott reported on the EDA Conference he attended earlier this month. He learned that after July 1,
ECICOG's designation as an EDA District will become a priority to EDA. The interim funding
requests submitted by Region 6, Des Moines and ECICOG should be receiving favorable review after
October 1.
.4 Community Development Report
Garlich handed out an informational sheet on hazard mitigation. (attached) The Cities of Palo, Tiffin,
Newhall, Monticello, Marengo, Wyoming and Olin as well as Johnson and Jones Counties all have or
are working on hazard mitigation plans. Funding is still available for ECICOG to assist communities
in preparing a plan. Cook asked why it has taken ECICOG so long to get this information out to the
communities. Elliott stated that since 1998 when funding was secured, ECICOG has promoted hazard
mitigation planning. Information has been included in board mailings, newsletter articles, and has
been mention numerous times at board meetings. Discussion followed.
O"ermedahl joined the meeting at this time.)
.5 Housing Report
Muleahey told the board that the City of Crawfordsville is going out to bid in July for a new sewer
system.
.6 Circuit Rider Report
Elliott told the board that Hankey was out at meetings.
.7 Solid Waste Report
Brown asked DeVries if she had found another house for the GRO Program. She told the board she
has sent letters to all city clerks in the region and to realtors in Jones County, but that a home has not
been located to date.
Cook asked how closely tied ECICOG staff is to Bluestem. Elliott stated that Bluestem is in the solid
waste planning area and they fund about half of the solid waste assessment. Cook expressed his
concems about ECICOG stating a position pertaining to the landfill siting. Elliott stated that no
position is taken by ECICOG on where to site a landfill. He noted the region has submitted a
comprehensive plan to the IDNR which includes Bluestem. Included in the plan is a statement from
Bluestem showing the need for a local landfill. Discussion followed.
(Raberjoined the meeting at this time.)
DeVries handed out a magazine article on the Business Recycling Challenge and talked about
commercial recycling. (attached) 2
(Hearn joined the meeting at this time.)
.8 Transportation Report
Jacobson referred to the draft East Central Iowa Transit Substance Abuse Policy and Program Update
included in the board mailing. She told the board pre-employment testing is now an option of each
transit provider. If pre-employment testing is done, federal guidelines must be followed.
Straub asked if any comments on the policy were received fzom the transit providers. Jacobson stated
no comments were received.
M/S/C (Herwig/Cook) to adopt the East Central Iowa Transit Substance Abuse Policy and Program
Update. All ayes.
Jacobson told the board the Transit Operators Group would like the region to purchase two drug and
alcohol testing videos to be used for trairdng. One video pertains to training and awareness and the
other reasonable suspicion. The cost of each video is $259.00.
M]S/C (TjelmelandIHerwig) to purchase two substance abuse training video tapes for the region. All
ayes.
Todd Bishop, IDNR GIS Coordinator gave a presentation to the board on the Iowa Color Infrared
Digital Orthophotography Project.
4.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
.1 Executive Committee - None
.2 Personnel Committee - None
.3 Budget Committee - None
.4 Transit Operator's Group - None
.5 Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee - None
.6 Ad Hoc Committee Reports - None
5.0 IOWA INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM
M]S/C (HauserffHeam) to approve the Iowa Intergovernmental Reviews with a favorable review. All
ayes.
6.0 OLD BUSINESS
.1 Approval of Expenditures
M/S/C (Montross/Harney) to approve payment of expenditures. All ayes.
7.0 NEW BUSINESS - None
8.0 NEXT MEETING: August 29, 2002
M/S/C (Edwards/Cook) to authorize the executive committee to meet in lieu of the full board in July.
All ayes.
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
David Vermedahl, Secretary/Treasurer
August 29, 2002
Date 3
CENTRAL IA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Balance Sheet
As of July 31, 2002
Jul 3t,02
ASSETS
Cunrent Assets
Checking/Savings
1t20 ° CHECKING4=IRSTAR 38,546.36
¶ 140 · CHECK]NG-JC-FHLB 26,258.02
tt50 - P=; ~ V CASH 50.00
t220 · SAVINGS-TRANSiT 30,543.76
1230 · ~AVINGS-FIRSTAR 129,183.40
1240 · SAViNG.~-HOUSING 73,182.01
Total Checking/Savings 297,763.55
Accounts Receivable
1500 · ACCOUHTS RECEIVABLE 250,705.27
Total Accounts Receivable 250,705.27
Other Current Acsets
1400 · PREPAJD EXPEHSES 7,723.36
1450 · REHAB LOAH REC-WILCOX 4,025.52
1470 · TRANSIT LOAN REC 112.10
Total Other Current Assets 11,860.99
Total Current Assets 560,329.80
Fixed Assets
1610 -TRANSPORTATION EQUIP 3,121,228.22
16t5 · ND TRAHSPORTATION EQUIP -2,513,930.61
1620 · FURNITURE & FIXTURES 66,~40.64
1625 - A/D FURNITURE & FIXTURES -59,~45.83
Total Fixed Assets 616,392.42
TOTAL ASSETS 1,176,722.22
LIABlUTIES & EQUITY
Liabilities
Current Uabllit]es
Accounts Payable
2100 · ACCOUHTS PAYABLE 36,469.43
Total Accounts Payable ~ 36,469.43
Other Current Uabllifles
2300 · ACCRUED VACATION PAY 11,184,99
2360 - CAFETERIA 576.80
2450 · STATE PAYROLL TAXES 1,864.0Q
2460 - STATE UNEMPLOYMENT 13.43
Total Other Current Liabilities 13,639.22
Total Current Uabitifles 50,108.65
Total Uabllifles 50,108.65
Equity
2500 · FUND BALANCE-UNRESERVED 223,519.04
2510 · FUND BALANCE-RESERVED 6~9,576.50
Net Income 233,518.09
Total Equity 1,126,613.57
TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 1,176,722.22
4 Page 1
Submitted by Council Member ~
Ross Wil burn
! ?~q'~' I
PLANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES:
A STATUS REPORT AND
BEST PRACTICES MANUAL
Prepared by
ECIC G
EAST CEIxlI~ IOWA
COUNCtL OF C.~)VERNMENTS
PLANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ,~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments
Planning Livable Communities:
A Status Report and Best Practices Manual
ECICOG Community Development Department
Chad C. Sands, AICP
ECICOG Board of Directors
Lu Barron, Linn County Supervisor
Ed Brown, Mayor of Washington
Leo Cook, Jones County Supervisor
Gary Edwards, Iowa County Citizen
Dennis Hansen, Anamosa City Council
Pat Harney, Johnson County Supervisor
Ann Hearn, Linn County Citizen
Henry Herwig, Coralville City Council
Jim Houser, Linn County Supervisor
Don Magdefrau, Benton County Citizen
Charles Montross, Iowa County Supervisor
Ed Raber, Washington County Citizen
Robert Stout, Washington County Supervisor
Rod Straub, Iowa County Supervisor
Tom Tjelmeland, Mayor of Ely
David Vermedahl, Benton County Supervisor
Wade Wagner, Cedar Rapids Commissioner
Ross Wilburn, Iowa City Council
Larry Wilson, Johnson County Citizen
Benton County Elected Official - vacant
Jones County Citizen - vacant
The East Central Iowa Council of Governments
108 3rd Street SE ~ Suite 300
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
(319) 365-9941 (phone)
(319) 365-9981 (fax)
ecicog@ia.net (email)
The East Central Iowa Council of Governments is an intergovernmental council govemed by a board of directors
comprised of elected officials and private citizens. ECICOG was created to promote regional cooperation and to provide
professional planning services to local governments in Benton, Iowa, Johnson, Jones, Linn and Washington Counties.
i
I PLANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planning Livable Communities:
A Status Report and Best Practices Manual
page
Acknowledgments i
Table of Contents ii
Author's Notes iii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I
CHAPTER 2 BEST PRACTICES 2
Land Use Planning 2
Agricultural Preservation 6
Environmental / Natural Resources Protection 9
Urban Design 10
Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Cooperation 14
CHAPTER 3 INVENTORY OF REGION 10 LAND USE PLANS 17
Glossary of General Planning Terms iv
Notes ix
PLANNING L VABLE COMMUNITIES AUTHOR'S NOTES
PLANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
This manual was completed as a result of a grant from the Iowa Department of I~conomic
Development's Rural/Community Planning and Development fund. This document was
designed to encourage innovative land use planning at the local level and cooperation on
growth management at the regional level.
In addition, the East Central Iowa Council of Governments (ECICOG) will encourage local
governments to use this document as a reference and guide to other research for the
general betterment of the region.
To meet the above goals, this document will be disseminated throughout the ECICOG
region. It is our hope that local governments will be able to utilize this manual to assist
with any questions they have about growth management and development.
ECICOG appreciates the financial assistance of the Iowa Department of Economic
Development, for without their support, this document would not have been possible. In
addition, ECICOG would like to thank all who have contributed their time and ideas to the
formulation of this document. Their input has made this manual a pertinent and meaningful
guide to assist with quality growth and development throughout the region.
iii
C,HAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
PLANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
This document will be divided into two parts. Part one will Identify best practices on land
use regulation; innovative approaches to zoning and subdivision controls; methods to
create publidprivate partnerships in support of land use policy directions; and ways to
establish multi-jurisdictional cooperation to coordinate regional planning efforts. Part one
of the manual will provide meaningful examples of innovative land use tools to be used at
the local level.
Part two will offer a listing and analysis of several land use plans throughout ECICOG's
region. This will enable policy makers, elected officials, planners, and interested citizens to
coordinate future land use planning efforts; identify areas of conflict in future land use
planning; reduce overlap in service provision; and serve as the basis for regional
cooperation in land use planning.
It is recommended that the entire document be carefully reviewed annually to insure that
the land use tools are current and that new and innovative practices are included. The local
planning process should be an ongoing endeavor. The success of this manual will require
the support of local governments and the private sector to provide long-term benefits
throughout the region.
Successful, livable communities do not just happen. They must be continually shaped and
guided. New issues and opportunities will inevitably arise. While no document could
possibly foresee every issue, the tools described in this manual will provide flexibility for
public officials and area residents in successfully planning for the future.
CHAPTER 2 BEST PRACTICES
The ECICOG planning area includes the Counties of I_inn, Johnson, Benton, Iowa, Jones
and Washington. Since 1990, this region has been the fastest growing area in the state of
Iowa. Between 1990-1998, 31.1 % of all population growth in the state occurred in the
ECICOG region. According to ISU Extension Census Service, the six IECICOG counties are
among the fifteen fastest growing counties in Iowa.
Between 1990-1998, five of the six fastest growing communities in Iowa were in the
ECICOG region: Walford grew 215%, Robins 78.4%, Ely 74.9%, Tiffin 73.7%, and North
Liberty grew 55.9%. Twenty five of the 66 communities in the ECICOG region grew at a
rate greater than 10% (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Division). This
growth has come on the heels of historically stagnant population growth in the ECICOG
region. Between 1980-1990 the region experienced significant population loss. The result
has been that local governments are overwhelmed and underprepared to plan for growth
management.
Identified within this chapter, are several issues which greatly impact growth management
within the region. These issues have repeatedly appeared during the local planning process
of many projects ECICOG has worked on in recent years. The central issues are as follows:
· Land Use Planning
· Agricultural Preservation
· Environmental / Natural Resources Protection
· Urban Design
· Multi-Jurisdictional Cooperation
Each issue is described below. The focus will be on ~ew and innovative practices within
the planning field. In addition, a case study will be described in detail for many of the best
practices. This will allow local governments to learn about 'tried and truer measures while
planning for the rapid growth occurring in the region.
ISSUE #1: LAND USE PLANNING
Best Practice: The Comprehensive Plan
The basic, guiding document of the public land use planning process is the comprehensive
plan, sometimes known as the general plan or master plan. While comprehensive planning
is not necessarily innovative and certainly not a new planning tool, it is the most important
tool available to communities in planning for the future. Therefore, it is important to revisit
the necessity of having an updated, user friendly comprehensive plan.
The plan should be the basis for all land use decisions of a local government. Such a plan
can provide a firm foundation for policy and action that will allow local governments to
promote a more certain future in regards to growth and development.
A comprehensive plan is long-range and typically general in nature. A plan should provide
a framework and policy context within which to make all decisions relating to land use and
future development. Because the plan deals with issues as many as twenty to thirty years in
the future, plans should not chart a highly specific course. Instead, they should point the
way toward goals and objectives and act as a reminder of the general policies that the local
government should consider when making development decisions.
It is important that the local government prepare and keep updated a comprehensive plan.
In Iowa, a plan is required for cities or counties that have a zoning ordinance. This
requirement is in place to insure that the zoning requirements have a well thought out
basis and are not arbitrary or capricious.
The Iowa Code does not describe what should be included in a plan. Therefore, a smaller
community could adopt a land-use development policy intended to guide future zoning
decisions. In short, this could be described as simply a land use plan.
Generally, however, the larger a community the more issues arise, necessitating a larger,
more comprehensive plan. In this case, a plan should also take into account population
projections, housing needs, economic development issues, transportation and
infrastructure needs, park and open space requirements and other issues central to the local
government doing the planning.
The creation of any comprehensive plan should include a significant amount of public
participation. It is, in fact, the residents who live and work in that community which have
the greatest stake in how the area develops. Therefore, the local government should strive
to hold several public meetings, charettes, open houses and other forms of public
participation when creating a plan. Having the public's input will help make any plan a
pertinent and meaningful guide to assist with future growth and development.
Finally, a comprehensive or land use plan is implemented through a variety of tools.
Zoning and subdivision ordinances are the two most common and several types of these
ordinances are described later in this manual. Other tools to implement a plan include a
capital improvements schedule, annexation policies, and design standards. In all cases, the
tools used should be based on the policies, goals and ob ectives contained in the plan.
Case Study: Lisbon, Iowa
The City of Lisbon has recently updated their comprehensive plan which will be the
cornerstone of the city's growth management program. The plan outlines community
development principals in the following areas: Land Use, Development Character,
Environmental Sustainability, Transportation, and Economic Development. In addition, the
ECICGG 3
plan establishes future growth patterns and provides a policy framework for
implementation tools such as the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances, capital and
transportation improvement programs, and design standards.
The plan focuses on protecting the City's small town character by utilizing compact growth
contiguous to existing development and to ensure that new development will enhance the
existing community. Also, any new development will be designed around unique, existing
natural features to protect environmentally sensitive land.
In addition, the Lisbon Plan will help establish a strategic growth plan with Linn County
(Linn County's Strategic Growth plans are described later in this manual). In short, the
strategic growth plan will coordinate growth in the fringe-area outside of the city.
This Plan is the culmination of a year-long planning process that involved citizens in and
around the community in creating a vision for the future of Lisbon. The process was
managed by ECICOG through monthly public work-sessions.
The first part of the process involved assessing the City's current position. This includes
holding a town meeting, analyzing census data, population trends and housing and
economic development issues. From there, public meetings were held to establish a
common vision and reachable goals for the next twenty years. Finally, action steps and an
implementation schedule were created to achieve the stated vision.
Best Practice: Conservation / Cluster Subdivision Ordinance
As mentioned before, a subdivision ordinance is a tool to implement goals contained in a
comprehensive plan. A conservation or cluster subdivision ordinance is a practical method
for rural local governments to accommodate growth while preserving environmentally
sensitive areas, including prime agricultural land.
The term conservation subdivision design refers to residential developments where half or
more of the developable land area is designated as undivided, permanent open space,
thereby protecting environmentally sensitive areas and valuable agricultural land. The
remaining developable land is then subdivided into building lots.
Minimum lot and yard sizes are reduced to accommodate the open space in the
development. Although lot sizes are reduced, overall density stays the same. For example,
if an existing zoning and subdivision ordinance requires one acre lots, a typical 40 acre
development would subdivide the entire property with 40 one acre lots (this is overly
simplified - does not take into consideration street and utility rights-of-way). In this case, the
entire property has been developed, including trees and unique natural features.
Using the clustered approach, the same 40 lots could be situated on ¼ acre lots which
would only require 10 acres of land for building homes (still not including space for street
and utility rights-of way). In this case, 30 acres would then be set aside for open space,
EcICGG 4
storm water detention or park area, while maintaining the same density as in the fi'rst
example. Although each lot is smaller, they could all be situated to back out onto the large
open spaces provided in the development.
This type of subdivision ordinance can protect wildlife from dwindling, protect remaining
wooded areas from continued fragmentation and insure the quality of the water over the
long-term. Another advantage of this type of design is its lower cost. Street and utility runs
can be shortened due to the compact or clustered nature of the subdivision. This will
ultimately reduce long-term infrastructure maintenance costs.
Case Study: Prairie Crossing, Grayslake, Illinois
Prairie Crossing is one of the best examples of a conservation, clustered development in
the country. This development is rather large within the context of the ECICOG region.
However, the principals should work anywhere. The developers took an ecological
approach by making the needs of the natural areas equal to and integrated with the needs
of developed space.
Prairie Crossing is a 667 acre development that preserves nearly 70 percent of its acreage
as open space, leaving only 30 percent of its land for residential and commercial
development. That is approximately 200 acres of buildable land and nearly 315 homes.
Each house, while on smaller lots, backs out onto large open spaces.
Within the development, 175
acres of prairie and 18 acres of
wetlands were designed as a basic
element for stormwater
management. Greenway trails are
looped throughout the property
through large tracts of open space.
Housing is then clustered on short
streets, and surrounding the
clustered homes are prairie swale
systems that passively filter
Prairie Crossing Subdivision, Grayslake, Illinois stormwater as it flows through the
175 acres of prairie and ultimately
into the 18 acres of wetlands and 27 acres of lakes within the development.
Locally, Johnson County has adopted and implements a conservation subdivision design
ordinance to create unique and innovative developments much like Prairie Crossing in
Illinois.
Best Practice: Overlay Zoning
Zoning is the most widely used form of land use regulation, Zoning ordinances include
written requirements and standards that define the permitted uses of land and buildings,
the height and size of buildings, the size of lots and yards around buildings, the supply of
ECIC G
parking spaces, size and type of signs and fences, and other characteristics of development
specific to the local government. The fundamental purpose of zoning is to separate
incompatible uses of land. Because traditional zoning is rather inflexible and can lead to
uninspiring developments, a host of alternative zoning approaches has been formulated,
including overlay zoning.
An overlay district can be described as a zoning district, applied over one or more other
districts, that contains additional provisions or conditions for special features, such as
historic buildings, wetlands, steep slopes, and downtown residential uses.
Possibly the best known overlay district technique is the planned unit development (PUD).
Under this approach, the zoning ordinance allows flexibility in the development of large
tracts of land. PUD regulations are typically more flexible than conventional zoning
requirements in terms of building placement and development standards. In creating a
PUD, local officials and developers work together to arrive at an approved plan which
would improve site design with unique building placement, protect and preserve open
space, and lower infrastructure costs by reducing street length. In addition, PUDs may
include mixed uses, such as community centers, commercial or retail space, recreational
facilities and mixed housing types for mixed income levels - in short, creating a viable
neighborhood as opposed to a plain suburb.
Best Practice: Incentive Zoning
Another innovative zoning technique is incentive zoning. This entails zoning provisions
that encourage developers to provide certain amenities or qualities in their projects in
return for identified benefits, such as increased density or rapid processing of
applications. Incentives are often used in downtown areas to gain open space, special
building features, or public art in connection with approved developments.
Because incentive zoning is a quid pro quo - more d&velopment for some benefit, the need
for which may not necessarily be created by the development itself - the local ordinance
should clearly spell out the bonuses and the benefits.
Best Practice: Inclusionary Zoning
Yet another zoning technique is inclusionary zoning. Traditional zoning seeks to separate
different uses, including the separation of various residential uses (single family, multi-
family, different densities, etc.). Many times traditional zoning can lead to 'exclusionary~
practices, or regulations that result in the exclusion of Iow- and moderate income or
minority families from a community. For example, a zoning ordinance might allow only
large lot, single family homes, which would 'exclude' all but those who can afford large
lots.
Inclusionary zoning works to increase housing choice by establishing requirements and
providing incentives to construct quality affordable housing to meet the needs of Iow- and
moderate income families.
Inclusionary techniques include specific requirements for a minimum percentage of Iow-
and moderate income housing as a part of any development and density bonuses to
developers who build such housing units. In addition, inclusionary techniques could mean
the removal or modification of excessive regulations unrelated or in excess of those needed
for safe and sanitary housing. By removing excessive regulations that generate unnecessary
costs, housing may be able to be built more affordably.
IISSUE #2: AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION
Best Practice: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process
In 1981, The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now know as the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), developed a planning tool to evaluate federal agency
projects that threatened to convert farmland. The land evaluation and site assessment
system (LESA) has served the cause of farmland protection and growth management on the
state and local level for over two decades.
The purpose of LESA was to create a
rational comprehensive tool to rate the
agricultural suitability of land against
demands for other uses. Agricultural land
is extremely attractive for development. It
is flat, well drained, and has little ground
cover. It is on the metropolitan fringe,
where land prices are significantly
cheaper.
LESA is a process that helps communities
make appropriate development location Farm fields are extremely attractive for development
decisions. The process occurs in two parts.
First, the land evaluation portion of the process compares a parcel's soil suitability for
agriculture to other parcels in the area. Second, the site assessment portion rates the social
and economic factors of conversion, such as location to infrastructure, access to market,
and adjacent land use compared with that of similar parcels. The result is a comparative
score that indicates which lands are most valuable remaining in agriculture and which
lands could be developed without causing significant damage to the region's agricultural
productivity.
The encroachment of development into rural, agricultural areas can threaten the viability of
the agricultural economy in many ways. When this happens, farming suddenly becomes a
nuisance. Irrigation water blows into newly developed subdivisions drawing complaints
from replanted city dwellers; farmers are expected to run combines during normal business
hours; livestock are considered a malodorous annoyance to newly arriving residents.
As traditional patterns of land use change irrevocably, the agricultural economy, often
times, is the first thing to change. LESA has been used to link local land use planning in
rural communities to the needs of the agricultural economy.
Why is this important in our region? Agriculture is a primary economic activity of our
region, yet during the comprehensive planning process, many communities identify future
growth areas adjacent to and surrounding their communities that most often are
agricultural. LESA provides a thorough method to consider where growth can occur
without harming the agricultural economy.
Case Study: Bonneville and Freemont Counties in rural Idaho
In Bonneville and Freemont counties in rural Idaho, LESA was used as a method to plan for
future growth without sacrificing valuable farmland. The comprehensive plans of these two
rural Idaho counties relied heavily on LESA as a way to answer questions related to land
value, development location, location of prime and most valuable farmland, and the
importance of agriculture to their rural economy.
The criteria they chose to evaluate farmland included, among other things, costs for
conversion. They found that the average rural dwelling failed to generate tax revenues
sufficient to cover the costs of providing needed services. If they were to identify and
encourage continued residential development, they would be subsidizing this growth from
an already taxed general budget.
Their conclusion was to allow future development densely clustered to existing
infrastructure on lands not considered
agriculturally important. Both counties utilized the
technical skills of soil scientists to compare soil
quality ratings for various parcels. They also
utilized the experience of local citizens and
farmers in evaluating socioeconomic criteria. The
result was a plan with broad public support,
respectful of local norms and patterns,
and based on solid soil science.
Suburbia creeps closer to prime farm
Best Practice: Purchase / Transfer of Development Rights
Although not currently used in Iowa, a number of states have created aggressive programs
to purchase the development rights of agricultural lands, thereby keeping them as open
spaces in perpetuity. Under such arrangements, a farmer sells the rights to develop the land
to a local trust or estate agency while retaining title to the land, the right to farm on it, and
all other rights and responsibilities of private landowners - except the right to develop it.
For example, if a farm is worth $6,000 per acre on the open market, but its value if
restricted to agricultural production is $4,000, the state with a purchase of development
rights program will pay the farmer the difference of $2,000 an acre. The farmer then agrees
ECIC G 8
to a perpetual easement to keep farming the land or preserve it for open space uses -
provisions that are binding on any future owners as well.
Because the farm land is safe from development, the results can be significant. The cost of
buying the easement should pay for itself in less development to service and maintain (no
roads, sewer, water, etc.), with more agricultural land, the farming economy should remain
stable, and there's always the beautiful open space which will remain year after year.
Similar in nature to purchasing development rights, is a program where local governments
allow a developer to buy development rights at one location - where there is a historic site,
wetlands, special natural site, prime farmland, etc. - and transfer the right to develop to
another place within the jurisdiction. The idea is to channel market pressures for
development away from rural areas and into designated growth areas.
This farmland preservation technique has worked around the country, but it is difficult to
establish. It requires that the local government have a comprehensive plan with designated
development or receiving areas. But the concept has the advantage of making private
developers compensate landowners for easements and open spaces. It also works to
channel development into the pre-selected areas that already have the needed
infrastructure.
IISSUE #3: ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURAL
RESOURCES PROTECTION
Best Practice: Open Space Protection for the Private Land Owner
Iowa is perhaps the most altered landscape in the country, and is also one of the states with
the least publicly owned land. This hinders opportunities for large-scale conservation
projects. Thus, conservation of natural habitat is of greater concern in Iowa to private land
owners and the organizations that work with them.
Public agencies and conservation organizations have a number of programs adapted for
small, privately owned parcels of land. The best example, is the United States Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This annual rent and cost-
share assistance for restoration can be of great help in a natural habitat conservation
program.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has begun funding a private lands
conservation assistance program. In addition, the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship (IDALS) is working with USDA on a new initiative called the Conservation
Research Enhancement Program, which will be administered through Soil and Water
Conservation District offices. This program expands CRP qualifications to a larger number
of potential recipients.
ECIC G 9
Among the programs of the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service Wetlands
Reserve Program are the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program and the new backyard
Conservation Campaign, which are designed to help property owners protect and enhance
the natural habitat.
The Partners for Wildlife Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides assistance
to private land owners who want to conserve
habitat for wildlife and environmentally
sensitive areas. It focuses mainly on wetlands
and prairie, with some projects in stream
habitats.
In addition, a number of private
organizations also offer programs to protect
open spaces. Pheasants Forever provides
prairie seed to land owners for restoration
efforts, Ducks Unlimited funds wetlands
restoration in conjunction with state and federal conservation efforts, and the Iowa Natural
Heritage Foundation encourages conservation easements.
Information from this best practice was taken from Iowa State University Fxtension's Land
Use Series entitled Preserving Natural Habitat in Iowa, by Susan Cosner, February, 2001.
Best Practice: Open Space Protection for Local Governments
Local governments have many tools at their disposal to protect open space. The tools
mentioned in detail in this manual (conservation / cluster subdivision ordinance, LFSA,
PDR/TDR) can all be tailored to the needs of the local community in preserving open
space. Perhaps the best way for cities to protect dwindling open space, is to adopt a
conservation / cluster subdivision ordinance (see lssub # 1: Land Use Planning for more
detail).
ISSUE #4: URBAN DESIGN
Best Practice: New Urbanism
In the early 1990s, a new urban planning and design movement called "New Urbanism"
burst on the scene, proposing some striking departures from traditional urban design,
neighborhood layout and architecture. Essentially, New Urbanism rejects the norms of
suburban, car-dependent, single-use development and promotes compactly designed,
mixed-use urban neighborhoods that host diverse income groups and races, mixed land
uses, and useful public and open spaces.
New Urbanist subdivisions usually feature walkable streets with houses situated on smaller
lots. Particular attention is given to the architectural design of the buildings, which often
ECI¢ G 0
feature front porches, gable roofs and fenced yards. The following principles of New
Urbanism can be applied to any project from a single building to an entire community:
· .*o Walkability: Pedestrian friendly street design.
· :o Connectivity: Interconnected street grid network
disperses traffic and eases walking.
· :. Mixed-Use: A mix of shops, offices, apartments, and
homes on site. Mixed-use within neighborhoods,
within blocks, and within buildings.
· :. Mixed Housing: A range of types, sizes and prices in
close proximity.
· :. Quality Architecture and Urban Design: Emphasis on
beauty, aesthetics, human comfort, and creating a
sense of place; Special placement of civic uses and
sites within community.
· :. Traditional Neighborhood Design: Discernable center and edge; Public space at
center; Contains a range of uses and densities within 1 O-minute walk.
· :o Increased Density: Buildings, residences, shops, and services closer together for ease of
walking, and to enable a more efficient use of services and resources.
o:. Smart Transportation: Pedestrian-friendly design that encourages a greater use of
bicycles and walking as daily transportation.
· :o Sustainability: Eco-friendiy technologies, respect for ecology and value of natural
systems; More walking, less driving.
· :. Quality of Life: Taken together these principles add up to a high quality of life and
create places that enrich, uplift, and inspire the human spirit.
The most effective way to implement New Urbanism is to first plan for it by including its
principals in your local comprehensive plan. Then, write New Urbanism standards into
zoning and development codes. This will direct all f~ture development into this traditional
design form.
Case Study: The Peninsula Neighborhood, Iowa City, Iowa
This new neighborhood is being built on the north side of Iowa City on an area of land
locally known as the ~peninsula". Following the principles of New Urbanism, this
neighborhood will contain over 380 new homes, as well as offices, shops, civic buildings,
parks and squares set in the fabric of tree and sidewalk lined streets. This walkable place
will be the only New Urbanist neighborhood in Iowa City and one of the few in the
Midwest.
The Peninsula Neighborhood is made up of a network of streets, narrower than most new
suburban streets, lined with sidewalks and street trees. The narrower streets will slow
automobiles down and are easier to walk across. Sidewalks and street trees provide walkers
with a safe, sheltered and beautiful path away from automobile traffic. At the ends of
several streets are significant views or interesting buildings providing a sense of
anticipation and stimulation while one walks through the neighborhood. These design
qualities make walking in the neighborhood an enjoyable experience and a less expensive
alternative to driving.
The neighborhood will have a mix of home types unified by a similar historic design.
Townhouses, single family homes,
condominium flats, and flex homes (live over
the store/office) will create a rich visual
environment while providing places to live
for people with a variety of household sizes
and lifestyles.
The plan for the neighborhood was designed
by Dover, Kohl and Partners of Miami,
Florida. Through a city wide public
participation charrette process, the plan was
developed based on ideas from the charrette
participants and on historically proven
principals of traditional town development.
Subdivision concept for the Peninsula Neighborhood
Many of the design ideas were based on planning and environmental design principals
found in the historic neighborhoods of Iowa City.
Tree lined streets with sidewalks, a network of streets to reduce traffic on any one street,
garages placed on alleys behind the properties, a mixture of uses, and traditional regional
architecture are all concepts requested by the public in the charrette process.
The neighborhood was designed on 35 acres of upla.nd leaving 160 acres of wooded
ravines and floodplains to be undeveloped. The developed portion of the site will
accommodate up to 380 homes as well as public open spaces, offices and shops.
The 160 acre ravines and lowlands around the neighborhood will be maintained
predominantly in a natural state and be used for educational purposes and as an ecological
preserve.
Information for this case study was taken from the Peninsula Neighborhood website:
wv~v.thepeninsulaneighborhood.com
Best Practice: Urban Design Survey
The urban design survey or community preference survey, is a tool useful for communities
interested in managing growth in a way that insures that all future development is
consistent with the aesthetic quality of the existing community.
Often, communities feel limited in their legal ability to participate in the design process of
development. A landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, however, upheld the ability of
a municipality to use their zoning authority to control how their community looked:
'The concept of the public welfare is broad and inconclusive...The values it represents are spiritual as well as
physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the
community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as
carefully patrolled" Berrnan v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954).
Does zoning control design? The answer may surprise you. Setbacks, height restrictions,
building to site ratios, all of these are commonly included in zoning ordinances. They
control how a site is developed and what the buildings will look like. Imagine what your
community would look like without some sort of land use control, be it a subdivision
ordinance or a zoning ordinance. A traditional zoning ordinance is, however, the extent to
which most communities go in regulating how their community looks. Incorporating
design elements into a zoning ordinance can help a community ensure that all construction
adheres to certain standards.
An Urban Design Survey is a planning process used to identify a coherent community
design standard applied to all new development. First, area residents are surveyed. They
are asked to look at photographs of residential, commercial and industrial buildings and
various sites. They rate these pictures on a 5-point scale. This information is then tabulated
to arrive at an architectural standard for new construction.
While residents are surveyed on their preferences, an inventory of the town's visual assets
is undertaken. Many times this inventory is completed during the comprehensive planning
process and codified in the local government's master plan. When making decisions on
new developments, this inventory should prove useful when trying to protect the local
character of the community.
Particularly important elements to the unique character of small and mid-size towns are:
· :- Scenic views
· :, Entry points to the community
· :, Open spaces
· :' Unique or historical buildings
· ~,. Landmarks
The community survey and community inventory provide valuable information about the
visual and physical strengths of a community and the desires and preferences of the
residents. From here, a visioning workshop provides an opportunity to develop a design
ordinance that restricts new development from obscuring important views, regulates
development in historic districts, and fosters the kind of buildings and developments that
add to the traditional character of the community.
ISSUE #5: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL
COOPERATION
Best Practice: Fringe-Area Agreements between a city and county in the State of Iowa
Chapter 354 in the Code of Iowa allows a city to establish a fringe area within two mi[es of
its corporate boundary for the purpose of reviewing and approving subdivisions. Chapter
354 further grants a city the authority to require subdivisions within the fringe area to
adhere to the respective city's subdivision standards and conditions unless the city
establishes alternative standards and conditions for subdivisions by means of a 28E Fringe
Area Agreement with the respective county.
If a city's land use plan anticipates future development in a portion of its fringe area, it is
important that this future growth be carefully integrated with existing city developments.
Local governments are able to accomplish this by utilizing city standards and conditions in
an agreement with the respective county.
Even though growth and development in the fringe area is outside of the city, it would
likely have significant impacts on the city's traffic patterns, environmental quality,
floodplain management, property valuations .
and other city services. For example, people
living in a new development one mile
upstream of a city will pay no city taxes, yet
drive on city streets to get to work, use the
city library and parks and possibly cause
drainage issues for city residents living
downstream - all causing extra maintenance
costs for the city without taking in extra
revenue.
In addition, counties want growth and
development directed towards planned growth areas to protect prime farm land. Therefore,
it is in the interest of both the city and county to establish policies for the orderly growth
within the tv,o-mile fringe area of the city.
Case Study: I. inn County's City/County Strategic Growth Plans
Because coordinated land use planning between a city and county promotes compact
growth patterns, reduces public infrastructure costs, and encourages the retention of viable
agricultural operations, Linn County is committed to establishing fringe area agreements
with each community in the county.
The County's 2000 Land Use Plan calls for the creation of City/County Strategic Growth
Plans (CCSG) for every community in the county. These growth plans will be the basis for
ECICGG 14
adopting fringe-area agreements to insure that local land use plans are being implemented
and that local needs are fairly addressed.
At a minimum, the following elements will be incorporated in the CCSG plan with each
community (specific elements will be mutually agreed and formally acted upon during the
joint planning process):
1) Overall goals and specific policies of the Urban Service Areas: Urban Service
Areas can generally be described as potential growth areas for the city, where
development should be directed due to ease of service and appropriateness of land.
Within the specific policies, discuss how, when, and where development should
OCCUr.
2) Quantification of Urban Service Area development potential: The amount of land
in the Urban Service Area should be commensurate with city and county projected
population and employment forecasts for a 20-year period.
3) Framework for identification of potential receiving areas for a county
Development Rights/Density Transfer program: The potential for receiving areas
should be considered during the planning process including the conditions under
which receiving areas may be established.
4) Two-Mile Fringe Area Map: At a minimum, the following elements will be
designated on the map (specific map elements will be mutually agreed and formally
acted upon during the joint planning process):
a) The map should designate areas outside of the city's existing corporate limits
for at least 20 years of anticipated growth.
b) The map should display both the types of land uses mutually agreed upon
and the locations of such'uses, including minimum levels of service
standards.
c) If applicable, the map should display potential receiving areas for a county
Development Rights/Density Transfer program.
In addition, the following elements will be included in an intergovernmental agreement
between a city and the county (specific elements will be mutually agreed and formally
acted upon during the joint planning process):
a) The agreement should set forth mutually agreed upon criteria for Minimum
Levels of Services to be provided at the time of development.
b) The agreement should define minimum criteria to ensure plan consistency.
c) The agreement should identify the process for updating the provisions of the
plan, including criteria to adjust Urban Services Area boundaries. Such
criteria shall consider actual and projected growth, planned infrastructure
improvements, and other factors affecting future growth of the city.
d) The agreement should establish a process for arbitration of the disputes
regarding interpretation of the plan, map, and/or agreements, in order to
avoid litigation between the city and the county.
e) The agreement should provide for notification to the county prior to
annexation and, to the extent possible, describe the phasing of potential
annexations.
f) The agreement should provide a mechanism for review of applications for
land use map amendments and changes in zoning within the Urban Services
Areas.
g) The agreement should describe the extent of the mutually agreed upon extra-
territorial authority of the city. Generally, the county will retain approval
authority and provide a city with the opportunity to administratively
determine if an application is consistent with adopted plans and regulations.
Formal city approval shall be required for applications that are not deemed
to be consistent with adopted plans and regulations.
IBEST PRACTICES CONCLUSIONS
This document is designed to encourage innovative land use planning at the local level and
cooperation on growth management at the regional level. It is hoped that your local
government will use this document as a reference and guide to other research for the
general betterment of the region.
If your community has any questions or comments about the planning tools contained in
this manual, or if you wish to undertake a project which involves some of the innovative
tools we have discussed, please feel free to contact the ECICOG Community Development
Department for additional information.
ECICOG Community Development Department-2002
ICHAPTER 3 INVENTORY OF REGION 10 LAND USE PLANS
Part two of this document will offer a listing and analysis of many of the comprehensive
and land use plans throughout the region. This will enable policy makers, elected officials,
planners, and interested citizens to coordinate future land use planning efforts, identify
areas of conflict on future land use planning; reduce overlap in service provision, and serve
as the basis for regional cooperation in land use planning.
The study was conducted to inventory the extent of land use planning that is administered
throughout ECICOG's region and not to independently evaluate plans and critique their
worth. Instead, the analysis will focus on whether a community has a plan in conjunction
with a zoning ordinance and offer a cursory review of the plan.
Criteria to review plans included whether the plan: included socioeconomic projections;
provided significant public participation; identified areas for future growth; included an
implementation schedule; adopted smart growth policies; and considered the regional
impact of growth.
Zoning with a Comprehensive Plan
The State of Iowa delegates zoning responsibility and regulation to cities in Chapter 414 of
the Code of Iowa. Section 414.3 states that:
~The [zoning] regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive
plan...," and that ~Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration,
among other things, as to the character of the area and the district and the peculiar
suitability of such area for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value
of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such
city.~
The same language appears in Code Chapter 335.5 which applies to county zoning in
Iowa. Simply put, local governments must develop their zoning ordinance in accordance
with an adopted comprehensive plan, and any changes or revisions to the zoning
ordinance must be consistent with the plan.
The Iowa Code does not define what elements or topics should be addressed in a plan, nor
does it define the term comprehensive plan. It is generally accepted that a local
government is in compliance with the State Code if there has been a planning process with
an adopted plan as the outcome.
The plan could be called a master plan, general development plan, land use plan or
comprehensive plan. Elements of the plan must be pertinent to the local government doing
the planning. Typical elements of comprehensive plans include population projections,
housing needs, economic development issues, transportation and infrastructure needs, park
Methodology
To complete this inventory, a basic survey was sent to each local government in the region.
The survey asked if the city or county has an adopted plan or zoning ordinance. 63 or
nearly 88 percent of the surveys were returned.
In addition, the survey requested a copy of the government's plan. With these plans and
the plans already on file, ECICOG staff was able to review 38 of the region's adopted
comprehensive and land use plans.
Criteria to review plans included whether the plan: included socioeconomic projections;
provided significant public participation; identified areas for future growth; included an
implementation schedule; adopted smart growth policies; and considered the regional
impact of growth.
A quick breakdown of the adopted plans in the ECICOG region 4 of the 6 counties have a plan
4 of the same 6 counties have zoning regulations
43 of the 66 cities have a plan
40 of those cities have zoning standards based on their adopted plan
47 of the 72 local governments (city / county) have a plan
2 cities have zoning standards without an adopted comprehensive plan
7 cities have zoning standards with a plan that has not been updated within 5 years
Smallest city (population) with a plan: 250
Largest city (population) without a plan: 750
In general, the higher the population within the ECICOG region, the more likely a city or
county will have a plan.
Study Results
Through this study, ECICOG reviewed 38 of the 47 plans from local governments around
the region. Nine of the area plans were unavailable for review. Of the plans ECICOG
reviewed:
38 (100 %) included socioeconomic projections
36 (94.7 %) identified areas for future growth
32 (84.2 %) included growth management policies/strategies
31 (81.6 %) have been updated within the last five years
29 (76.3 %) identified future infrastructure needs
25 (65.8 %) included an implementation schedule
20 (52.6 %) identified future extensions of the local transportation network
19 (50 %) had significant public participation (town meetings, open houses, etc.)
18 (47.4 %) identified extra-territorial land use
16 (42.1%) established design standards
14 (36.8 %) considered the regional impact of growth
12 (31.6 %) adopted smart growth policies
ECI¢~G 18
Cities within two miles of each other in the ECICOG region
There are 19 instances in the ECICOG region where two cities are within two miles of each
other. In each case, both cities have a plan to help manage future growth. However, many
of the plans are at odds with each other or the respective local governments do not have an
agreement to coordinate growth. The following are cities within two miles of each other in
the ECICOG region:
Cedar Rapids / Bertram
Cedar Rapids / Ely
Cedar Rapids / Fairfax
Cedar Rapids / Hiawatha
Cedar Rapids / Marion
Cedar Rapids / Robins
Cedar Rapids / Shueyville
Cedar Rapids / Swisher
Marion / Hiawatha
Marion / Robins
Robins / Hiawatha
Fairfax / Walford
Lisbon / Mount Vernon
Iowa City / Coralville
Iowa City / University Heights
Coralville / North Liberty
Coralville / Tiffin
North Liberty / Tiffin
Swisher / Shueyville
Currently, there are 13 adopted or proposed agreements between the above cities to assist
with future development. Several more communities in the region have adopted or
currently are working to adopt a fringe~area agreement with the respective county to
address regional planning and growth management issues.
The following local government's plans were reviewed for this study:
Alburnett Fairfax Olin Wyoming
Anamosa Hiawatha Oxford Junction Benton County
Atkins Hills Palo Johnson County
Belle Plaine Iowa City Riverside Jones County
Bertram Lisbon Robins Linn County
Cedar Rapids Marengo Shueyville
Center Point Marion Solon
Central City Monticello Urbana
Coggon Mount Vernon Walford
Coralville North Liberty Washington
Ely Norway Wellman
ECICGG 19
INVENTORY CONCLUSIONS
This study was conducted to inventory the extent of land use planning that is administered
throughout £CICOG's region and not to independently eYaluate plans and critique their
worth. Its purpose is not to advocate any local policy direction or legislation in regard to
land use planning.
It is, however, meant to increase awareness of issues which play a large role in how local
communities grow. Planning for future infrastructure needs, land use, environment,
recreation and open space is essential for the quality of life of local residents.
Comprehensive planning needs to be encouraged and supported.
The ECICOG region is unique in that there are two metro areas~ and so many small
communities. Residents in this region enjoy many different benefits from the small town
atmosphere to the resources provided by the metro areas, i.e., employment, commerce,
recreation, and entertainment. Local governments can preserve their town character and
sustain prime ai~ricultural land, while benefiting from and supporting the resources
provided by the metro areas. Comprehensive, smart growth planning is essential to
maintaining and achieving this balance.
There are many reasons people live in the ECICOG region. Quality of life and small town
atmosphere are only two reasons which residents have expressed in past town meetings
throughout the region. If local governments do not plan, or if plans are poorly maintained
or ignored, the quality of life and small town atmosphere that people enjoy may ultimately
suffer.
ECICOG Community Development Department- 2002
~ Metropolitan areas are described as population centers with over 50,000 residents. 2000 US Census counts for Cedar
Rapids: 120,758 and Iowa City: 62,220
ECI¢ G 2o
PLANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES APPENDIX
GLOSSARY OF GENERAL PLANNING TERMS
Adaptive Reuse: The development of a new use for an older building or for a building
whose original use is no longer needed or practical. This is particularly useful in preserving
older building with historical or architectural significance
Aesthetic: The perception of elements in the natural or created environment that are
pleasing to the eye.
Amenity: A natural or created feature that enhances the aesthetic quality, visual appeal or
makes more attractive a particular property, place or area.
Annexation: To incorporate a land area currently outside of the existing city limits into a
municipality, with a resulting expansion in the boundaries of the municipality.
Buffering: A common planning tool used to minimize negative impacts between
neighboring uses. Buffering can include open space, landscaped areas, fences, walls, berms
or any combination thereof to physically separate or screen one use or property from
another.
Built Environment: Artificially created fixed elements, such as buildings, structures, devices
and surfaces, that together create the physical character of an area.
Capital Improvements Plan: A local government's timetable or schedule of all future
capital improvements to be carried out during a specifiec period and generally listed in
order of priority, with cost estimates and sources of financing each project. A typical capital
improvements plan is a five year program. A capital i.mprovement is generally a major
construction project or the acquistion o'f large, expension equipment.
Circulation: Systems and structures for the movement of people, goods, water, sewage, air
or power by such means as sidewalks, trails, streets, highways, waterways, towers, pipes
and conduits.
Contiguous: Having a common boundary, next to, abutting or touching an adjoining
property.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: An analytic method whereby primary and secondary costs of a
proposed project are measured against the benefits to be received from the project. For a
simplified example, if a road were to cost $500,000 to construct (primary costs) and $5,000
a year to maintain (secondary costs) yet bring in $25,000 a year in economic develoment
revenue, the benefits may outway the costs to build the road.
Density: The number of housing units or structures allowed per unit of land. A typical
urban density in Iowa for single family housing units is S to 6 housing units per acre.
Design Standards: A set of guidelines defining parameters to be followed in site and/or
building design and development. Can also be used to define standards for infrastructure
improvements as well.
Development: The physical construction of buildings and/or the preparation of land.
Development activities include: subdivision of land; construction or alternation of
structures, roads, utilities and other facilities; installation of septic systems; grading; and
clearing of natural vegetative cover (with the exception of agricultural activities).
Environmentally Sensitive Land: An area with one or more of the following characteristics:
(1) steep slopes, (2) flood plain, (3) soils with high water tables including wetlands and
wetlands transition areas, (4) soils that are highly erodible or subject to erosion, (5) land
incapable of meeting percolation requirements, (6) stream or river corridor, (7) mature
stands of native vegetation, and (8) habitats of endangered species.
Fringe-Area Agreement: See Intergovernmental Agreement.
Future Growth Boundary: The corridors that define the potential growth area for a city.
The corridor can be generally described as where development should be directed. Also
called Urban Service Areas or areas which define the geographical limit of government-
supplied public facilities and services.
Goal: Description of a future desired state of affairs for the community. Goals are the broad
public purposes toward which policies and programs are directed. Generally, more than
one set of actions (objectives) may be required to achieve each goal.
Growth Management: A wide-range of techniques used in combination to manage or
influence the amount, type, location, density, timing and/or rate of growth. Growth
management objectives often form the backbone of a comprehensive plan. Techniques
used to execute growth management policies may include: zoning and subdivision
ordinances, capital improvements, design standards and designation of future growth or
urban service boundaries.
Human Scale: The proportional relationship of a particular building, structure or
streetscape element to the human form and function.
Impact Analysis: A study to determine the potential direct or indirect effects of a proposed
development on activities, utilities, circulation, surrounding land uses, environment, city
services and other factors. The analysis can include fiscal, aesthetic, social and legal
impacts. The analysis should point out what impact the proposed development will have
on the factors considered and provide needed steps to mitigate the impact.
Implementation: Car~'ing out or fulfilling plans and proposals.
Incremental Design: Method of development to maintain small town atmosphere and
reducing sprawl by utilizing compact, contiguous growth to existing development.
V
Infill Development: The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered
vacant sites in a built-up area. Infill development takes pressure away from the fringe-area
of a community and allows growth to occur where infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.)
is already in place.
Infrastructure: Public services and facilities needed to sustain residential, commercial,
industrial and all other types of development activities. Infrastructure includes, but is not
limited to sewage disposal systems, water supply systems, drainage systems, roads, parks,
sidewalks, trails, schools, libraries, fire, police, emergency, medical facilities and public
works facilities.
Intergovernmental Agreement: (28E Agreement) A legal document binding two or more
governmental units or agencies to act in certain, cooperative ways. The term is most often
used in a planning context to refer to shared or delegated responsibility to review
development proposals and/or to recognize adopted plans and policies of the
governmental units or agencies. For example, the City of Lisbon and Linn County may
adopt a 28E agreement which requires each entity to provide materials on development
proposals within certain geographic areas for the other entity to review and comment
upon. Also called fringe-area agreements.
Issues: Points of debate, discussion or dispute in the community that are identified in a
local plan and are dealt with by the plan's goals, policies and objectives.
Land Use: A description of how land is occupied or utilized. Land use types typically
include: various types of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and public uses.
Mitigation: Methods used to alleviate or lesson the impact of developmentor potential
hazards such as a flood.
Mixed Use District: The development of a tract of land with a variety of complementary
and integrated uses in a compact urban form. Mixed t~se could include a combination of
properly planned single- and multi-family residential and light, neighborhood commercial
uses to ensure compatibility between each use.
Neighborhood: An area of a community with characteristics that distinguish it from other
areas that may include distinct ethnic or economic characteristics, housing types, or
boundaries defined by physical barriers such as a major highway or river.
Neighborhood Commercial: Small scale business activity which is limited in size and
operation to insure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and uses. It is generally
within walking distance to local residential neighborhoods.
Objective: Individual accomplishments which, taken together, will enable the local
government to achieve stated goals.
vi
Open Space: Any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and
devoted to an open space use for the purposes of (1) the preservation of natural resources,
(2) outdoor recreation (active or passive), or (3) public health or safety. Land used for the
managed production of resources (farming, etc.) is typically not considered open space.
Also called green space.
Plan: The formulation and graphic representation of the means to reach a desired end, as
well as the act of preparing a plan (community input, research and analysis). A plan is a
written and graphic analysis of a desirable and feasible pattern of growth with goals and
objectives to best serve the residents of the local government. A plan should be based on
the input of the community as well as data and extensive research. Final product can be
called a master plan, general development plan or comprehensive plan.
Policy: Statements of government intent for which individual actions and decisions are
evaluated.
Region: The region designated by the Iowa Legislature as State Planning Area 10. This
region consists of six contiguous counties in eastern Iowa, including: Benton, Iowa, Linn,
Jones, Linn, and Washington, which are served by the planning agency East Central Iowa
Council of Governments (ECICOG).
Sense of Place: The characteristics of a location that make it readily recognizable as being
unique and different from its surroundings.
Setback: The distance between the permitted structure and the lot line. The setback is
typically regulated for the front, rear and side yards of principal and accessory uses.
Stormwater Management: The control and management of stormwater to minimize the
detrimental effects of surface runoff.
Strategy: Tasks which may be taken to achieve state(~ goals and policies.
Street System Hierarchy: A typical street system generally consists of three functional uses
of streets: Arterial, Collector and Local streets. Arterial Streets provide a continuous route
for the movement of large volumes of through-traffic across and beyond the City and
between high traffic generation points. Collector Streets provide movement of traffic
between arterial streets as well as providing limited access to abutting property. Local
streets serve as a means of access to abutting property.
Streetscape: All the elements that constitute the physical makeup of a street and that, as a
group, define its character, including building frontage, paving, street furniture,
landscaping (trees and other plantings), awnings and marquees, signs and lighting.
Swale: A depression in the ground that channels stormwater runoff.
Taking: To take, expropriate, acquire or seize private property without just compensation.
vii
Traffic Generator: A specific land use or activity in a particular geographic area that
generates a substantial amount of vehicle trips per day to and from the specific use or
activity.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): The removal of the right to develop or build from
land in one area or district to land in another district (receiving area) where such transfer is
permitted. A TDR program is used to protect and preserve open space and farm land and to
direct development to more appropriate or suitable areas. A TDR program permits an
owner of real property to sell or exchange the development rights associated with that
property to another owner in return for compensation.
Urban Design: The process of organizing the contextural elements of the built environment
such that the end result will be a place with its own character or identity. Also, urban
design can be described as planning the development of the built environment in a
comprehensive manner to achieve a unified, functional, efficient and appealing physical
setting.
Urban Service Area: See Future Growth Boundary.
Urban Sprawl: Uncontrolled growth, usually Iow-density in nature, in previously rural
areas and some distance from existing development and infrastructure.
Use: The purpose for which a lot or structure is or may be leased, occupied, maintained,
arranged, designed, intended, constructed, moved, altered, and/or enlarged in accordance
with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use categories.
Zoning: The delineation of districts and the establishment of regulations governing the use,
placement, spacing and size of land and buildings. Because traditional zoning is rather
inflexible and can lead to uninspiring developments, a host of alternative zoning
approaches have been formulated, including overlay and incentive zoning.
ECICOG Community Development Department- 2002
viii
~?LANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES - · APPENDIX
NOTES
ix
I PLANNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES APPENDIX
NOTES
From Council Member Pfab ~
"A COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP:
INVOLVING SENIORS IN PLANNING SERVICES"
What: A panel discussion with a small group of community
leaders serving the Johnson County community.
Issues:
How does the community look at the big picture of services for
Seniors? How does the community determine what services
Seniors need and want? How does the community determine
who can best provide the services, how to fund the services,
and how to fit them together? How should Seniors be involved
in the planning process? What community partnerships can be
formed or strengthened?
PANELISTS:
Steve Atkins, Iowa City City Manager
Carol Thompson, chairperson Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Beverly Jones, President of the Consultation of Religious Communities
Connie Benton-Wolfe, Director of Elder Services
Ralph Wilmoth, Director of Johnson County Public Health Department
When & Where
2:00 P.M.
Monday September 9t"
Assembly Room
Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
28 South Linn Street
Iowa City
Co-Sponsored by the Johnson County Task Force on Aging
and the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center.
Both current and future Senior Citizens and friends and
interested parties are invited to come and participate.
Questions? Co~tact Eve Casserly at 351-1135.