Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-05-22 Info Packet
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF iOWA CITY May 22, 2003 www.icgov.org MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IP1 Tentative Future Meetings and Agendas IP2 Memorandum from City Manager: HUD Complaint - CDBG Funding IP3 Memorandum from City Manager: Civic Center Flower Pots IP4 Memorandum from Assistant Planning and Community Development Director: Intersection of Dubuque Street and Foster Road; Proposed Meadow Ridge Condominiums Development IP5 Letter from Ben Barnett to Planning and Community Development Director: Appreciation for Neighborhood Services Coordinator IP6 Letter from Ben Barnett to Police Chief: Appreciation for Police Lt. Jackson IP7 Email from Jann Ream: Web Site Compliment IP8 City Web Site EZPay - Look-Up and Pay Parking Tickets On-Line IP9 Minutes: April 23 Council Economic Development Committee (Final) I PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES IP10 Iowa City Airport Commission: May 6 IPll Iowa City Board of Adjustment: May 14 City Council Meeting Schedule and May22,2003 C~T¥ o~ ~ow^ OT~ Work Session ~" '~,-,uen~,as www.icgov.org · MONDAY, MAY 26 Memorial Day Holiday - City Offices Closed TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS I · MONDAY, JUNE 9 EmmaJ. HarvatHall 6:30p Special Council Work Session · TUESDAY, JUNE 10 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting · MONDAY, JUNE 23 EmmaJ. Ha/vatHall 6:30p Special Council Work Session · TUESDAY, JUNE 24 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting · FRIDAY, JULY4 Independence Day Holiday - City Offices Closed · MONDAY, JULY 14 EmmaJ. Ha/vatHall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, JULY 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Council Formal Meeting · MONDAY, AUGUST 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, AUGUST 19 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Council Formal Meeting Meeting dates/times/topics subject to change FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS Regulation of Downtown Dumpsters Downtown Historic Preservation City of Iowa City IP2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: May 21, 2003 RE: HUD Complaint - CDBG Funding Attached are copies of a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") by Irvin Pfab dated April 16, 2003 and the City's response contained in a letter from Steven Nasby dated May 21, 2003. Mr. Pfab did not provide a copy of his complaint to City staff, but HUD notified Mr. Nasby of the complaint and subsequently provided him with a copy of Mr. Pfab's letter. I believe Mr. Nasby's letter sufficiently responds to the issues raised in Council member Pfab's complaint and that the City need not take any further act[on at this time. i will keep you apprised of any further developments. Attachment /~r Copy to: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian K. Kart, City Clerk Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney Karin Franklin, Director PCD Steven Nasby, Community Development Coordinator April 16, 2003 Ms. Macie L. Houston, Regional Director United States Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD Regional VII Office Kansas/Missouri State Office Gateway Tower II 400 State Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101-2406 Phone Number 913-551-5644/Fax 913-551- 6856 RE: ItUD's CDBG Funding Proposed Use For City Housing Inspector & Other Fundin Irr larities Dear Ms. Houston: I, as an elected official (City Councilperson) with the City of Iowa City and as a taxpayer, have struggled with a reality in this town, for some time. There appears to be a blatant .misuse of CDBG funding for projects, which at best, walk a very delicate path of impropriety and appropriateness. In last year's funding cycle, the HCDC (Housing and Community Development Commission), the citizen advisory arm of the CDBG awarding process, made several recommendations to fund projects. Those recommendations were reversed or denied by the city council. Those projects were summarily dismissed from the funding roster by the city council, without much regard for the work of the citizens who sacrificed a great deal of effort and time in evaluating the submitted proposals of the public. It is my understanding that the HCDC, as the citizen advisory segment of the proposal/awarding/evaluation/monitoring process, represents the "will and desires" of the community, much like public officials (as public servants) represent the welfare, safety and health concerns and interests of the public. I have attached several documents that I believe require an interpretation and possible correction by HUD as the authorizing and distribution entity of the CDBI3 funding process. Please review the attached letters and other documents which reflect what appears to be a cavalier attitude and disrespect for the HCDC Committee. This Committee spends many hours and makes other sacrifices ranking, scoring, and debating funding for community orga~iTations. While the organizations continue to experience a dwindling pool of resources that are designed for Iow income persons in this community. There were several projects last year ~aat were reviewed, evaluated, ranked and ultimately recommended for funding to the City Council or via it's Economic Development Committee. These projects received no input from HCDC Commission. Nor did HCDC have any input, advisory or otherwise. One of these projects that wei-e funded by the city council, independently of HCDC input was a local theatre renovation project that was funded at $75,000. Another project funded in the same maimer by the city via its Economic Development Committee was a skateboard park that was funded at $12,000. This $87,000 could have gone to some worthy organization working directly with low to moderate-income populations in the city. Neither of these projects was reported in or reflected a "critical need" in the City of Iowa City "City Steps" planning and projected needs document. It appears the agencies with the highest need get the lowest amount of funding. Further, the amount of funding eligible for disbursement by the HCDC Commission is presently approximately half of the funding received by the City of Iowa City. In fact, the City is projected to take $270,000 offthe top for administration; another $145,000 for economic development (which is not voted on by the HCDC Commission but an economic development committee decision which is comprised of three city council persons, city administrators and city planning start). Finally $105,000 earmarked for social service programs is also taken offthe top, combined with general revenue dollars and administered by two city council persons through a process called "Aid to Agencies", a city council sponsored initiative that combines CDBG funds with general revenue funds. A December 26, 2002 letter written by Rod Sullivan, states among other things... "There is no law which prohibits the ciO~ from making application to fund a houMng inspector through the CDBGprocess. ' He states in his letter an appearance of conflict of interest issues, the appearance of improprieties in the review process, and apparent biasness since the city manager has publicly endorsed the housing inspector application before the HCDC had reviewed it. Thus, the city council would more than likely follow his lead, since he is the chef city administrator (see attached letter). On February 20, 2003, Doug Boothroy and Norm Cate, from the City Housing Inspection Service office appeared before the HCDC to report that the "workload of the housing inspectors were described as desperate," indicating that because of city growth, its office had a great need to expand its staff (see HCDC Minutes dated Februa~ 20, 2003, pages 1-2). Reflected in the Budget highlights FY04, page 13, Item 3 shows the housing Inspector- CDBO funded. The reasoning listed is, "... due to the overall growth in the number of rental housing units, a new inspector is needed." The problem with this justification, there has been no dramatic increase in the number of low to moderate- income rental units. Matter of fact, the housing/homeless study that was proposed in FY03, and recommended for funding by ItCDC, bat was denied by the city council and then granted to a small home repair project. The question is how does the city now justify CDBG expenditures of non-existing growth of iow to moderate-inceme units??? Next, to be included with this letter are the minutes (dated March 13, 2003) from the HCDC Commission that actually ranked the various proposals submitted for evaluation. The housing inspector position ranked at the absolute bottom of proposals reviewed, yet the housing inspector's position was approved and included in the city's budget for FY04 (see actually discussions of the housing inspector's position). On March 2, 2003, (see page 4 of the minutes) the HCDC Commission chose not to fund the housing inspector's position and to eliminate it from this year's round of funding. ,The vote was 7-I in favor of eliminating funding, with a provision from the HCDC Chair that a justification committee be constructed to explain to the city council the rationale why the HCDC Commission voted its position regarding the housing inspector. Page 6 reflects the total amount of funding that the HCDC had to work with after the city removed its share, without any discretion from the HCDC. The next document I am asking you to review is the transcripts fi'om the January 28, 2003, City Council Budget Work Session meeting transcripts. On page 49, Councilperson Vanderhoef requested that a policy be created that if the housing inspector position were approved, that a policy be created to allow the city to pull offthe top the continuation funding for the housing inspector position in subsequent funding cycles. The city manager agrees as he indicates a desire to have the inspector funded by CDBG to be as stable as other inspectors funded by general revenue funding. The city manager responds by saying it is likely that the position will be "rolled into those certain fixed costs." The city manager then agrees it would not be a bad idea to "write something up." The city manager then encourages the council to place the projected position within the city's budget, since if it is not included it cannot be adjusted in later (page 50 transcripts dated 1/28/03). Vanderhoef then makes a request that the remaining $18,000, that is not a part of the $105,000, be allocated to the city's "Aid to Agencies" program. This program makes awards to agencies independent of HCDC recommendations. Vanderhoef's reasoning is... "since there is only $18,000 left, that amount would probably be too insignificant a figure to do much good by the HCDC Commission awarding and evaluation process." Keep in mind, $105,000 comes off the top without the HCDC Commission involvement, advice or recommendations. Vanderhoef's desire is to effectively close-out social services and that the discretion of who gets what portion is decided by the two councilpersons (Vanderhoef and Champion), with final approval by the city council (page 50). Vanderhoef's reasoning is since her tenure on the council, no increases to the CDBG's $105,000 had occurred (page 51, transcripts dated 1/28/03). The city manager then speaks to what the purpose of CDBI3 is, and the fact that Iowa City is "untitled" to the funding. I argued that the inspector is a general revenue position .and should be funded accordingly (page 52, transcripts dated 1/28/03). I understand and interpret the intent of CDBG is to benefit low to moderate-income people, and see the inspector as a position for the general welfare and public safety and health of all citizens. Council Karmer (on page 53, transcripts dated 1/28/03) concurs with my view, and further indicated there may be other ways to fund the position. Councilperson Champion (page 53, transcripts dated 1/28/03) indicated that if not funded through CDBG, the city "just will not have a new housing inspector position." All of the aforementioned should clearly indicate not only my interest in getting HUD to investigate these matters, but a considerable number of persons in the city who have voiced strong opposition to the manner in which the city council and via, it's Economic Development Committee, co-mingle the funding received from HUD with general revenue funding Although the reasoning reported by the council for creating the economic development committee was timeliness. The city's rationale was HCDC met · only on an annual basis, the proposed economic development committee would meet monthly to fund projects it determined were worthy of being funded (see article written in local newspaper, the Press Citizen, February 23, 2001). On November 13 or 14, 2002, the HCDC was informed by memorandum from Tmcy Hightshoe, Associate Planner for the City of Iowa City that the City Council had voted 5- 1, not to accept HCDC recommendation to limit the city's council's economic development set-aside to 9% of CDBG funding. Currently the Council takes 9% offthe top of the entire HUD allocation, which includes HOME Funds. On August 1, 2002, the council engaged in a robust discussion of the funding of the Englert Theatre. This theatre was once owned by the city. The issue discussed which caused considerable attention was whether, the city would loan the Englert Theatre Group, a non-profit, $75,000 against a grant for which the Englert had applied. Council Kanner and I viewed such an allocation of CDBG as a misuse of funding targeted for low and moderate-income persons (see pages 7, 8,9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, and 18, oftbe August 1, 2002 council meeting transcripts). In the January 16, 2003 City Council Economic Development meeting, the committee discussed the skateboard park which it had funded. The skateboard park was returning for another allocation after it was turned down at the state level for funding. Council agreed the skateboard park did not meet the CBDG guidelines and would be a "hard sell" to the community. At the same meeting, the city council indicated the State of Iowa Vision program had extended the deadline until July 15, 2003, in order that the Englert secure a matching grant, if all necessary funding was raised (see minutes dated January 16, 2003, pages 2 and 3). On May 7, 2002, another robust exchange occurred between council members as I was attempting to ascertain the amount of economic dollars that were presently on-hand. Specifically, I wanted to know the status and balance of the funds transferred offthe top of CDBG funds (see discussion which commences on page 7 of City Council meeting transcripts). Vanderhoef indicated the CDBG monies had not been spent but were allocated (page 8, transcripts dated 5/7/02): She also indicated the intended purpose was to use those economic development funds to support road paving and other apparent city revenue type functions. Christina Canganelli, Director of Shelter House, formerly known as the Emergency Housing Shelter, appealed to the council to fund a housing study based upon the recommendation of the HCDC that had approved and recommended the study for funding. Thereafter, the city council declined to fund the housing study (see page 64, transcripts dated 5/7/02), Not only did the council transfer the housing study HCDC approved amount to a small home repair initiative, it then granted $16,000 additional dollars to that prOgram from the economic development set aside. Canganelli pointed out that the small amount of funding ($14,000) it had received from the council had been used to leverage $400,000 for the local community (see page 62 of the transcripts dated 5/7/02). My comments during this meeting was, "... it's almost unconscionable to watch money being spent in the downtown area for commercial projects (the Englert Theatre) and it is not enough money to do a study for homeless people because we don't have the money .......... "(see page 63 of May 7, 2002 transcripts). On March 6, 2003, HCDC received the FY04 Allocations (see city memorandum dated March 6, 2003). In that breakout, of the $1,612,448 dollars awarded by HUD, $871,000 was intended for CDBG use; $741,448 was allocated for HOME use. Then the Community and Economic Development office, directed by Steve lqasby, earmarked funds for city projects. CDBG set-asides totaled $520,000 and HOME set-asides totaled $171,645. This left the HCDC with a total of $351,000 in CDBG and $569,803 in HOME funds. As you can see in the city set a-sides, all economic development is under the discretion and authority oftbe city council and its economic development committee comprised of three city council persons. All but $18,000 of the Public Services monies are allocated because the "Aid to Agency" allocation is $105,000. The city's total administrative cost exceeds $240,000. My question is...after the economic development funds are co-mingled with the city's funds~ are the funds again subject to administrative costs of operating the City's Community and Economic Development office? The city memorandum of March 10, 2003 shows how the HCDC allocated the remaining funding to the various community agencies and other entities that applied for funding assistance. I am including a chart of the Aid to Agency Recommendation Allocations for FY04. Again, as you can see, two council members (Council members Vanderhoef and Champion) arc appointed by the city council to make specific recommendations of funding, independently of the HCDC. There is no input as far as review, evaluation, rankings, ratings or recommendations by the HCDC. Finally, enclosed are the rankings by the HCDC of all proposals it reviewed for possible FY04 funding. If you notice, the housing inspector position is the "lowest ranked" project of all those projects evaluated (dated March 10, 2003). Also in the Average Allocation of Funding sheet, you may notice, out of nine HCDC members on the commission, five members allocated- O- dollars to the housing inspoctor position. Only two allocated an amount at all,both being significantly lower than the city's request. Yet it appears the city's intent is to fund this position out of CDBG funding nevertheless. Please see the P.S. below. I look forward to meeting and speaking with you concerning the matters described herein. I may be reached at 319-351-4094. Respectfully Submitted, Irvin Pfab Taxpayer and City Council Member P.O. Box 2446 Iowa City, IA 52244-2446 Phone: 319-351-4094 Enclosures: Ron Sullivan letter dated December 26, 2002 HCDC Minutes dated March 13, 2003 (pages 1-7) HCDC Minutes dated March 20, 2003 (pages 1-6) City Council Budget Work Session dated January 28, 2003 (pages 49-54) Newspaper Article dated February 23, 2001 November 14, 2002, City Council vote to not accept HCDC Recommendation August 1,2002 Transcripts of Council Meeting, Pages 6-18 Economic Development Minutes dated January 16, 2003, pages 2 & 3 HCDC Minutes dated February 20, 2003 Budget Highlights FY04, #3 re: Housing Inspector Council Transcripts dated May 7, 2002, pages 58-64 March 6, 2003 Allocation Amounts from HUD, City Memorandum March 10, 2003 HCDC Allocations, City Memorandum March 13, 3003 Aid to Agencies, "Two-Council Member" Recommendations March 10, 2003 HCDC Ranking Worksheet March 10 FY04 HCDC Project Rankings March 10, 2003 HCDC Funding Allocation Recommendations **March 31, 2003 HCDC Housing Inspector CDBG Application (Pages 1-2) & **March 31, 2003 HCDC FY04 CDBG and HOME Recommendations (Pages 1-6) **P.S. I am furnishing two additional documents that became available to me today. It is the HCDC letter to the City Council iustifying why it ranked the "Housing Inspector" proposal sd Iow. As indicated above~ the housing inspector was the "lowest ranked proposal of all' submitted proposals. Also included are the final recommendations to the Ci~ Council regarding CDBG and Home projects for FY04. 2003 May 21, MS. Patricia M. McCauley Program Manager £ommunity Planning and Development Division U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Executive Tower Centre 10909 Mill Valley Road Omaha, NE 68154-3955 Re-' Complaint of Intin Pfab Dear Ms. McCauley: This is in response to the complaint submitted by Irvin ~ab dated April 16, 2003 and your letter to me dated May 15, 2003. The City of Iowa City strongly denies any misuse of or impropdety in its use of CDBG and HOME funds and welcomes the opportunity to respond to Mr. Pfab's allegations. HCDC The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) is a seven-member advisory body appointed by the City Council to review programs and policies related to the implementation of Iowa City's CDBG and HOME programs and to make recommendations to the City Council as applicable. Although it is solely an advisory commission, the City Council has been very receptive of HCDC's funding recommendations, rejecting only 5 out of 76 recommendations in the last five years. Code Enforcement- Housina lnsoector Although a City department did make an application for CDBG funding for a housing inspector for code enforcement, which is permitted under 24 C.F.R. 570.202(c), the City Council accepted HCDC's recommendation and did not approve this request. "Earmarks" Mr. Pfab complains that CDBG Economic Development Funds are "off the top." CiTY STEPS, which is "Iowa City's Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs, and Services for Low- Income Residents," identifies and prioritizes how CDBG and HOME funds will be utilized. Earmarks for housing, public services, public facilities, economic development and administration are established within this plan and have been used as a guide to allocate funds since 1995. C1TY STEPS, as well as all subsequent yearly Action Plans, has been approved by City Council resolution following public hearings. CDBG Economic Develooment Fund To aid in a resurgence of the economic development portion of the CFI-Y STEPS plan in 2001, a new mechanism for allocating CDBG economic development funds was created known as the CDBG Economic Development Fund. Instead of businesses going through HCDC's annual allocation cycle, the CDBG Economic Development Fund is open year- 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 Ms. Patricia M. McCauley May 21, 2003 Page 2 around and available on a first-come, first-serve basis. No funds are allocated without the City Council passing a resolution. Moreover, the CDBG Economic Development Fund does not contain any HOME money. To date, the City Council has approved three projects including $75,000 for the Englert Theatre for the creation of at least five jobs. Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from me to you dated October 17, 2002 without the enclosures, which provides extensive information on the Englert Theatre. Additionally, the City Council allocated $12,500 to Revolt Skateboard Park for the creation of one job and the retention of another job, but the project was cancelled because the applicant was unable to secure a Targeted Small Business Loan ('~-SBL") from the State of Iowa. Most recently, the City Council passed a resolution authorizing disbursement of $25,000 to The Rack BBQ for the creation of 2.5 jobs, and it, too, is premised on the receipt of a TSBL. "Set-asides" Iowa City has two on-going activities that the City Council has decided to prioritize. They are Aid to Agencies and the Housing Rehabilitation Program. The Aid to Agencies account is comprised of CDBG monies and general fund revenue, to provide operational funding to 14 local human service agencies. Since 1993, the City Council has annually set aside $105,000 of the CDBG funds to allocate to these local agencies. In 2000, HCDC recommended that the Housing Rehabilitation Program, which has been in existence for over 20 years, be allocated CDBG\HOME funds on an annual basis instead of going through the yearly application process, and the City Council unanimously approved a resolution adopting HCDC's recommendation. This resolution established a set-aside for the Housing Rehabilitation Program at $200,000 or 13% of Iowa City's CDBG\HOME funding, whichever is less. Funds Generally The City maintains separate accounts for CDBG and HOME funds and does not co- mingle either with general fund revenue. ~onclusion I believe this addresses all the concerns raised in Mr. Pfab's letter. A~er your inquiry is complete, please confirm in writing HUD's conclusions. Sincerely, Steven Nasby Community and Economic Development Coordinator Enc. Stephen .1. Atkins, City Manager-w/enc. Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development-w/enc. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Patricia FIr McCauley, Program Manager CPD Nebraska State Office, Region VII ExecuUve Tower Centre 10909 Mill Valley Road Omaha, NE 68154-3955 RE: Response to Citizen Xnquiry on CITY STEPS and Economic Development Dear Pat: Thank you for forwarding the letter you received from Shelly Sheehy, as we were not contacted diredrJy by her. The following is our response to the items ouUined in Ms. Sheehy's letter dated October 9, 2002. Iowa City's Consolidated Plan 2001-2006 (a.k,a. C1TY ~i ~PS) was adopted by the City Council Resolution 99-426 on December 7, 1999 and amended by City Council Resolution 01-367 on November 13, 2001. This document has been reviewed and approved by the Nebraska State HUD office. Enclosed please find a copy of the C1TY STEPS Plan labeled Exhibit A. C1TY STEPS gbal is "to encourage and support families and individuals in achieving their highest degree of self-suffidenc~' (page vii). To achieye this goal Iowa City facilitates the use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds as well as other monies for housing, jobs and services for Iow-income persons. This continuum of care approach is evident within the CITY STEPS plan's goals and objectives (see Strategic Plan, pp. 87-123). Ms. Sheehy /s quest/on/rig the C./TY'.STEPS a//ocab'on of .~ of federa / resources for econom/¢ development act/Y/t/es. Tn CITY STEps Table I%2 (page 92) we have estimated the CDBG and HOME funding the City expects to receive over the five-year period covered in the plan. Since the basis of the consolidated planning process is to coordinate the allocation of resources, Iowa Qb/has chosen to represent the utilizaUon of these two funding sources as a whole and "earmark" funds for categories (e.g. housing, public services, etc;). This may be better illustrated in the City of Iowa City's letter to Mr, Gregory Bevirt, dated November 26, ' 2001 which ouUines the City's earmarks for allocating CDBG and HOME funds within CI-I'Y STEPS, as amended (identified herein as Exhibit B). 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY., IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 When c~rY STEPS Was amended In 2001 ~here was a public process undertaken bY the City when the nine percent set-aside for economic development was discussed and fully deliberated in public forums before the HCDC and Ob/Coundl. Ns. Sheehy states that "City staff c/aims that there are no HONE funds in the "spec/a/" fund, but use the HONE funds In calculating the amount eligible for use'; As stated above, the Ct-I'Y STEPS Plan does use a consolidated approach to planning. As such, the activities shown in Table IV.2 include activities that are eligible under CDBG, HONE or both programs. However, when funds are allocated to specific projects (within each Annual Action Plan) the allocations are identified and are fund spedflc. In the FY03 Annual Action Plan (identified herein as Exhibit C) the Economic Development Fund (page 22) is idenUfied as a CDBG funded addvib/. In addition, this activity is also set-up within the HUD's Integrated ]Information and Disbursement System (ID[S) as a CDBG-funded act/v/b/. Ns Sheehy states that "All {ernphasis added} other organizations'previous appl/caEons for CDBG funds had been reviewed by the Housing and Community Development Commission charged w/th reWew/ng and scoring applications and for~vard/ng recommendations on to the fu// Council': This statement is incorrect. The £ib/has two methods in place for allocating CDBG and HONE funds. First, there are the monies that are "competitive", which means they are in a pool that is open to the general public to make applications. Second, there are monies that are set-aside for specific activities. The competit~e funds go through the allocation process that is referred to by Ms. Sheehy. HSD¢ and Qb/staff implements this process. HSD¢ is a nine-member citizen board that is appointed by the City Council to make recommendations to the Qb/Council regarding communi[y development and housing issues. Among HCDC's tasks is the review of applications for CDBG and HONE funds and subsequent funding recommendations to the City Council. The HSDC recommendations help form the budget for the Annual Action Plan. The remainder of the Annual Action Plan budget is comprised of funds set-aside for projecl~\addvlties. Starting in FY03, funds ~TOm the ~ib/'s SDBG were set-aside for the new Economic Development Fund as identified in the FY03 Annual Action Plan. Please note that a set- aside of funds for spedflc activities is not unique to the Economic Development Fund, For many years the S/b/has'set-aside funds for Aid to Agencies, Program Administration and more recently Housing P, ehabilita~ion. According to P, obert Duncan, HUD Headquarters, there are no federal requirements that SDBG or HONE funds must be competitive, jus~ that all addvi§es or projects must be consistent with the jurisdiddon's adopted Consolidated Plan, Identified in the Annual Action Plan and comply with the applicable HUD rules and regulations. The Economic .Development Fund referenced by Ns. Sheehy as a "special#fund was established by the S/b/Coundl as a way to encourage more economic development activity. By setting aside funds in an Economic Development Fund businesses would be able to apply for funding year-around and not be subject to the once-a-year funding cycle process. The Economlc Development Fund is open to any applicants that propose a CDBG eligible project. To implement the Economic Development Fund and .other City-funded assistance programs, the City Council established an Economic Development Committee (comprised of three Council members) that will review applications for assistance. The CDBG-funded Economic Development Fund operates on a first-come, first-serve basis and will continue reviewing projects until all the FY03 funding is committed. Alter the Council Economic Development Committee reviews an application it will make a recommendation to the full Council for consideration. All of the meetings of the Council Economic Development Committee and City Council are public meetings and subject to compliance with Iowa law specified in Iowa Code, Chapter 21. Ns, Sheehy states that "no other organization that was refused funds during the regular process ~as /nv/ted to apply for th/s "spec/al" fund even though the redp/ent of th/s grant was refused funds during the regular process'; The City does not "invite" anYOne in specific to apply for CDBG or HOME funds. In fact, it tries to do its best to notify the public that the funding Is available. When the Economic Development Fund was established in .luly 2002 the City contacted local organizaUons (e.g. [nstitute for Social and Economic Development and the Small Business Development Center) alerting them to the availability'of these funds and requested that they market the City's Economic Development Fund to participants in thelr programs, In addition, the City has marketed the CDBG-funded program within its Economic Development Rnancial Assistance brochures and on the City's web site (see Exhibits D and E), Ms. Sheehy's reference to a refusal of funds to the Englert Theatre project is somewhat misleading In that the City considered two separate CDBG applications. The EnglerL Theatre originally requested CDBG funding for accessibility and other modificaUons as a public fadliUes project. In March - May 2002 this applicaUon was reviewed and not recommended for FY03 funding by HCDC or allocated funds by the City Council. Although the project was not recommended for funding for this public faciliUes project HCDC voted to recommend the project to the Council Economic Development Committee 'for conslderaUon (Exhibit F - HCDC minutes from Harch 21, 2002). In August 2002 the EnglerL Theatre submitted another CDBG applicaUon. This second applicaUon was submitted to the Economic Development Fund; the allocaUon of this fund is based upon the creation of jobs. Since the focus of the Englert Theatre's applicaUon changed from public faciliUes to job creaUon it was ellglble for the CDBG funded Economic Development Fund. After a revlew of the proposed Englert Theatre project this applicaUon was recommended for funding by the Council Economic Development Committee and approved by the Clty Council. Ns. Sheehy's expressed her concern that the pub//c process was "c/rcumvented /n the worst way': The FY03Annual Action Plan meet or exceed all of the ciUz~n parUcipaUon standards identified within the Ct-PC STEPS Plan, HUD mgulaUons and Iowa law. The enUre chronology related to the adoption of the FY03 Annual Action Plan is shown within said plan on pp. 32-33. As noted above, this Annual ACtion Plan was discussed and fully deliberated in public by the HCDC and City Council. Additionally, applications for the CDBG Economic Development Fund are subject to a public process that starts with the applications being disseminated to the City Council (which makes all information available to the public and it is also displayed on the City's web site). lin Ms. Sheehy's reference to the Englert Theatre application she is correct in that the Englert Theatre did have a deadline for action on the CDBG Economic Development Fund application in connecUon with their Vision ]~owa - Community Attraction and Toudsm funding request. This deadline was August 14, 2002. To suggest the Council acted to circumvent the public process to accommodate this deadline is false. [n fact, the most important element in meeting the deadline was the availability of a meeting date that worked with the schedules of all seven City Council members. /Vs. Sheehy states that '7 was surpr/sed to/earn that the Iowa C/b/ C/b/ C°unc// had set the meeUn9 w/th on/y a nobce /n that day's Iowa C/ty Press C/b'zen newspaper': Information relating to the EnglerL Theatre application and subsequent meetings by the Council Economic Development Committee and City Council was made available to the public and posted on the City's web site on July 30, 2002 with the Council Economic Development Committee and City Council meeUngs scheduled and held on August 1, 2002. Enclosed as Exhibit G are copies of City Council records for their August 1, 2002 meeting related to the Englert Theatre application. These items include the Council Agenda, voting summary and transcript. As noted earlier, meeUng notices for both the Council Economic Development Committee and City Council are.posted according to the requlrements of ]Iowa law. Ms. Sheehy's concern that a story on the Englert Theatre's Economic Development Fund applicaUon was in the newspaper the same day of the City Council meeting is beyond the City's control. As stated above, the information was made available to the public on July 30, which was the same day as the City received.the appltcaUon. [f your office has questions or needs additional informaUon please contact me at 319- 356-5248. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Steven Nasby Community and ECOnomic Development Coordinator Cc: Stephen J. Atldns, City Hanager Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development Andy Hatthews, City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: May 16, 2003 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Civic Center Flower Pots For several years, we've had a group of interested Civic Center employees work on planning and planting the flower pots around the building. This year, Barb Coffey (our Document Services Supervisor) took it upon herself to raise the majority of the flowers from seedlings using her home greenhouse. Barb supplied us with very nice looking plants for the front of the Civic Center. We hope you and others working in and visiting the Civic Center enjoy what are sure to be beautiful petunias all summer long. Had we would purchased them outright, the cost would have been over $415. We appreciate Barb's extra effort. cc: Kevin O'Malley City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 21,2003 To: City Council From: Jeff Davidson, Asst. Director, Dept. of Planning and Community Development ~ Re: Intersection of Dubuque Street and Foster Road; Proposed Meadow Ridge Condominiums Development At your May 19 work session there was discussion of the Dubuque Street/Foster Road intersection as it pertains to the proposed Meadow Ridge Condominiums development. There are concerns about the adequacy of the intersection in its existing configuration; it does not have turn lanes on Dubuque Street or a traffic signal. There were also questions pertaining to the extension of Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien Road. We have been monitoring traffic conditions at this intersection since the late 80's. Traffic Signal Warrant #2, which applies to operating conditions where traffic volume on the major street is so heavy that traffic volume on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay, has been met by a small margin since the mid-1990s. However, there was not an excessive collision history at the intersection, and Foster Road traffic as a percentage of total intersection traffic was so Iow that we did not recommend installation of a signal. With traffic volumes on Foster Road steadily increasing, as well as the potential for even greater volumes given the ongoing development of the Peninsula, we now believe installation of a traffic signal at the Dubuque/Foster intersection should occur. This is a substantial project; the horizontal and vertical geometry of the intersection must be completely reconstructed before it is safe to install a traffic signal. This precludes a temporary span wire signal being installed on an interim basis. Such a temporary installation with the existing street geometry would create more safety problems than it would solve. The horizontal and vertical geometry of the Foster Road approaches must be constructed so that east-west movements through the intersection can occur safely. On Dubuque Street the most substantial improvement needed is the addition of left turn lanes in each direction. Our preliminary calculations indicate that these turn lanes plus the required tapers will require reconstruction of Dubuque Street for 350 to 400 feet in each direction. We estimate this intersection reconstruction to be an approximately $1.9 million project. It is currently on the unfunded list of the CIP. During FY04 budget deliberations this project was initially shown in the final funded year of the CIP (07), but it was deleted due to budget constraints. City staff had initially begun concept design of the intersection improvements, but this was stopped when the project was deleted from the CIP. In order to complete concept design in FY04, we would need to recommence our design process as soon as possible. Doing so would allow property acquisition and final design to proceed during FY04 and FY05, and construction could occur at the earliest in construction season 05. Once again, this project is not currently in any funded year of the CIP. A couple of other questions were raised pertaining to related projects. We hope to work with Iowa DOT on reconstructing the 1-80 interchange at Dubuque Street when the May 21, 2003 Page 2 reconstruction of 1-80 between 1-380 and Iowa Highway 1 occurs. This is tentatively scheduled in the Iowa DOT program for FY05-07. There is some likelihood that this project may be moved out even further. The project would consist of converting the interchange from its current rural design to an urban design with signalized ramp approaches, similar to First Avenue in Coralville. We will ensure that our design of the Foster Road intersection project is consistent with Iowa DOT's project, but they will occur as separate, independent projects. There was also a question raised about the extension of Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien Road. The grading for this project occurred with the water main extension through this area last year. The paving for this project is in the unfunded years of the CIP at a cost of $940,000. This project cannot occur without the aforementioned $1.9 million intersection reconstruction project, but the intersection project can occur without the extension of Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien Road. Let me know if you have any questions. cc: City Manager Director of Planning & Community Development Director of Public Works City Engineer jccogt p/mem/jd-d u buqu e&foster.doc 1620 Spruce Court Iowa City, Ia., 52240 Nay 16, 2003 Ns. Karin Franklin, Director City Planning and Development Dept. 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Ia. 52240 Dear Ns. Franklin~ Members of the Spruce Court Neighborhood Watch wish to give special thanks to Narcia Klingaman for the assistance and direction she has provided in helping our group get established and moving. Her professionalism and cheerful attitude--even when dealing with those who are not always so cheerful is certainly to be commended. We are pleased to report that our nuisance tenant at 1616 Spruce Court moved out last week. Again, we wish to thank Marcia for her help and efforts in this matter. cc, Mr./Steve Atkins, City Manager City of Iowa City 1620 Spruce Court Iowa City, Ia., 52240 Nay 16. 2003 Mr. R. J. Winkelhake, Police Chief 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Ia., 52240 Dear Chief Winklehake, Nembers of the Spruce Court Neighborhood Watch wish to thank Lt. Jackson for attending our A. pril meeting. His insight and experience was enlightening and has opened new avenues for our neighborhood to pursue in dealing with nuisance tenants. Lt. Jackson was subsequently requested to visit the neighborhood where his conversations with residents and the problem tenant had remarkable positive effects for both ~he neighbors and tenant. Thanks again for the extra effort. We are pleased to announce that the tenant of 1616 Spruce Court moved to Coralville this week. ~.ger~ City of Iowa City Steve Atkins IP7 From: Lisa Mollenhauer Sent: Wednesday, May 21,2003 10:46 AM To: Steve Atkins; Dale Helling; Kent Bliven; Gary Cohn; Kevin O'Malley Subject: FW: compliment From: Jann Ream Sent: Wednesday, May 21,2003 10:40 AM TO: ^lana Vavra; Lisa Mollenhauer; Barb Coffey Subject: compliment I wanted to pass along a compliment the City received on it's web site. I was helping an out-of-town architect yesterday who is in process of putting a new business in the Karlberg Tanning building (the building between the Bread Garden and the old Amoco station on Clinton Street). He said that he uses a lot of city web sites in the course of his business in several states and he thought the Iowa City web site was one of the best and most useful he has come across. Good job! City of Iowa City, Iowa - Official Web Site search [ ] city services ] city facts ] council ] documents ] city code ] non-city links III coo~ Morning! Thursday, Hay 22, 2003 III Pay Parking Tickets Online ICGov introduces the ability to pay parking tickets online using a credit card. No more standing in line or escalating fees while payments are stuck in the mail. Pay when it's convenient - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Parking Tickets: Look Up and Have the Option to Pay Having technical problems with this feature? Contact our Web Support Staff. home I services I business I calendar[ news ljobsldepartments City of Iowa City - 410 East Washington Street - Iowa City, iA 52240 Copyright © 2003 City of Iowa City. All Rights Reserved. Contact Website Manager Web Policies http://www.icgov.org/ezpay/ 5/22/03 Minutes APPROVED r~ City Council Economic Development Committee Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 9:00 AM Civic Center - Lobby Conference Room Members Present: Ernie Lehman, Dee Vanderhoef, Ross Wilburn Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: Diana Bryant, Christine Pigsley, Sarah Fancher, Don Morrison, Rochelle Davis, George Davis Call To Order Ernie Lehman called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. Approval of Meetinq Minutes from February 27, 2003 and March 13, 2003 MOTION: Wilburn moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 3-0. Wilburn excused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest concerning any items related to Community Development Block Grant Funds as his employer was a recipient of CDBG funds. Discussion of Request for CDBG Assistance - The Rack BBQ This application was reviewed previously by the committee. The applicants have since submitted a packet containing a revised personal financial statement, documentation of purchase for equipment and a revised list of sources and uses of funds. The request by the applicant has also increased by $10,000, identified for working capital, as such, they are now requesting $40,738. The State of Iowa has approved a targeted small business loan of $25,000 for 5 years at a 3% interest rate, and that funding is contingent upon the City being a participant in the project. After reviewing the application and new information, Lehman stated that CDBG funds are appropriate for building remodeling for $15,000 and working capital of $10,000. A recommendation to Council for $25,000 seems reasonable and it would be contingent upon confirmation of State approval for the Targeted Small Business Loan. Vanderhoef agreed and stated that they will present the request to the Council at the May 6, 2003 meeting and the Council would also consider the terms of the assistance. Discussion of Request for CDBG Assistance - ISED Microenterprise Development Present at the meeting was Christine Pigsley from ISED and Sarah Fancher, a Vista volunteer, working in new program development. The application is requesting $15,000 to conduct two sessions of an entrepreneurial microenterprise development training class in Spanish. They have received Iowa City's CDBG funding in the past for a similar program that targeted Iow-moderate income individuals. They are expecting 40 persons to be enrolled and the Program and anticipate that 30 of these persons will complete the training and eight will then start or expand businesses that will create 10 new jobs (including owners). Pigsley explained this program has been in place in Des Moines for 8 years and for 2 years targeting the Hispanic population. The program has also been in effect in Sioux City for several years. ISED follows the newly created businesses continually for the first year and annually for the next 3 years, and offers assistance if needed. Lehman and Vanderhoef agreed that this is a worthy program but would like more information to present to the City Council. Lehman recommended that Pigsley provide a report of the Des Moines and Sioux City program that gives a history of what has been accomplished. Pigsley agreed and will provide this information as soon as possible. Discussion of Request for CDBG Assistance - The Pet Deqree This project is an existing business, located at Pepperwood Plaza. The applicant is requesting $100,000 from the City CDBG funds for operating capital. The business owner, Don Morrison was present to answer questions concerning the application. He stated that the request is to increase the number of employees and to keep the business in operation as business activity has significantly declined and the Pepperwood mall is at less than 25% occupancy. Lehman and Vanderhoef reviewed the submitted financial information and questioned if other sources of financial assistance had been pursued. Morrison stated that he had looked to the Small Business Association and was told that he probably would not Economic Development Committee Minutes April 23, 2003 Page 2 qualify; this was also the situation with the Department of Agriculture. It was determined that the submitted profit/loss statement was not really an accurate reflection of the business. The statement does not include accrued rent and interest costs on payments, due in part to the decrease in sales. Vanderhoef stated the she believed the current risk is too high for the City to participate. Lehman asked Morrison to submit new financial information that more accurately reflects the business; to approach a bank and get documentation of either approval or denial of a business loan and to also decrease the amount of the request as the City would not fund such a large request. Lehman thanked Morrison and stated that with this new information, the committee will review the application again. Discussion of Request for CDBG Assistance - A Cut Above The application is for $25,000 to expand and remodel an existing hair salon located on the Pedestrian Mall in downtown Iowa City. The business currently employs 2 full-time employees and with expansion, plans to hire 1 full-time and 2 part-time employees. Lehman and Vanderhoef reviewed the submitted financials with Rochelle and George Davis, the business owners, and noted the large decline in sales over the last year. Lehman stated that the request does not appear to be appropriate for CDBG funding as the need for expansion is not warranted as sales have declined. He stated that the CDBG purpose is not to give an existing business a competitive advantage over another just for operational funding, or to promote unfair competition. Lehman and Vanderhoef concurred that this project was not a good risk or use of CDBG funds and decided to decline the application but thanked the Davis's for applying. Adioumment Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting concluded at 10:20 AM. ***** THE NEXT MEETING DATE AND TIME IS PENDING ..... data on cilynt/pcd/min ut es/edC04o23-03 doc IP10 DRAFT MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 - 4:00 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Robnett, Alan Ellis, Randy Hartwig, Rick Mascari STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ellis called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. Ellis said this was the regular monthly Commission meeting that had been moved from the regular time on Thursday, May 8, to accommodate Michael Hodges, from Airport Business Solutions. He said there would not be a meeting on Thursday. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: O'Neil said there were two corrections. The first was under the discussion of the Aviation Commerce Park. At the April meeting, the Commission directed Dulek to file suit against Rob Nichols to recover rent from the parcel he leased in the ACP. The second change concerned the vote for the officers at the Mamh meeting. O'Neil said for the vote for chairperson was 4 - 0, with Thrower abstaining. For vice-chairperson, the vote was 3 - 0, with Thrower and Mascari abstaining. After some discussion, the minutes of the April 10, 2003, Commission meeting were approved with the corrections. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Ellis asked about the bill from Hardware Specialists? O'Neil said it was for service doors for Building H. The building was built in 1987 and all five of the service doors were rusting out. Robnett made a motion to pay the bills. Mascari seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0, with Thrower being absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Harry Hinckley, the tenant from Hangar #31, said he had received a lease that was quite different from anything he had received in the past. Hinckley said he has been a tenant at the Airport longer than anyone else has and he did not think the lease was appropriate for a corporate hangar. He said the lease was too vague and general. He said he has been in his office and hangar for 15 years and thinks the previous leases were better than the lease presented to him. Mascari asked what specifically he didn't like? Hinckley said there were several things but he didn't feel he needed to write the lease for the Commission. He said for one thing, after fifteen years, he didn't think a damage deposit was necessary. He had several other suggestions for the Commission on wording changes that would clarify the lease. He said there were two or three things he is permitted to do and thirty or forty things the Commission can do to him. Ellis said the Commission can not discuss this as an agenda item, but if Hinckley was interested, he would put this on the agenda for the next meeting. Hinckley said he would suggest the Commission read the lease the Manager wrote and compare it with this new lease that the Commission wrote. He said the old lease is more appropriate for his hangar space. He said that, as an example, the new lease does not address who pays utilities or that other hangar tenants have to maintain enough heat in the building to keep the water pipes from freezing. Ellis said the Commission developed the lease and solicited public comment. He said this would be on the agenda at the next meeting and asked O'Neil to send the Commission the old lease and the current lease. Mascari invited Hinckley to attend the next meeting. Hinckley said he is not comfortable coming to the Commission meetings. He did not feel he should have to help the Commission write their leases. He suggested the Commission not micro-manage and let the Manager take care of the day to day management. Mascari said the Commission does not micro-manage. He said he used to be involved with the day to day management, but not any more. Robnett said the intention was to create equitable standards. She said the Commission has hired Michael Hodges to help standardize the Airport policies. Hinckley said he would like to review the lease before the next meeting. In other public discussion, Ron Duffe, from Jet Air, said he had put some additional signage on the 100LL fueling station to help direct pilots to it. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Obstruction mitigation project- Mike Donnelly, from Stanley Engineering, said they have been making contacts with owners of the obstructions. He said they sent out letters and have been making personal follow-up interviews. Ellis asked what would happen if they can not mitigate all of the obstructions? Would the FAA deny them a precision approach? O'Neil said that the FAA could deny giving a precision approach or may even raise the minimums for the Airport. He said the obstruction mitigation is not just to get a precision approach. The obstructions affect the current safety zones. Hartwig said someone had questioned him about some obstructions that seemed to be quite a distance from the Airport. Donnelly said he met with the Public Works Department to discuss obstructions on City property. He said he also discussed the new flagpole on top of the Old Capital dome with the University. They didn't know they were required by the FAA to file for an airspace study. The flagpole will be lighted and the airspace study should let them know what they can do so they will not be in violation of federal airspace. Donnelly said he would be getting a report to O'Neil to discuss the costs of the actual obstruction mitigation. b. Environmental Assessment project - Dick Blum, from H.R. Green, said all drafts had been submitted to the FAA and there had been no response as of yet. He said O'Neil had reviewed the initial report and his suggestions were being incorporated into the report. Blum said all FAA deadlines have been met to stay on track ~or FAA funding for this year. All the fieldwork has been completed. Ellis asked if the United hangar disposition was included in the EA? Because it is an obstruction, Blum said there were two options for the hangar. One was to move the hangar and the other was to tear it down. Blum said there would be costs associated with refurbishing the hangar if it was moved. Robnett said if a cost benefit analysis showed that it would cost a substantial amount to rehab the building, given the current budget crisis, the building may have to be torn down. She said even if it is restored, the Commission might not be able to afford to keep up the maintenance on the building. Mascari said the only way he would support moving the building is to move it off the Airport. Ellis said he would like to move forward with moving the hangar instead of tearing it down. He said funding might dictate it would be torn down instead of moved. Mascari said that it is important to remember that Airport safety comes first and if the hangar is an obstruction, it can not remain where it is. Ellis said this should be on the agenda for the next meeting for the Commission to decide what they should do with the hangar. Blum said he would develop a working paper to discuss the Commission's options. He will sent that to O'Neil before the next meeting. c. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) - Ovedon said he is getting a lot of inquiries, but no one is taking the next step to make an offer. He said he is somewhat surprised, but because of the economy, commercial sales are slow. He said there has been plenty of Ioca~ publicity. He said he is disappointed in the amount of activity. Mascari asked if Overton was advertising nationally? Overton said they had discussed that at an earlier meeting and decided that the cost of advertising nationally in some of the trade magazines was cost prohibitive. Michael Hodges said there are some trade magazines that the Commission can advertise in without being a member of the organization. Mascari said the Commission needs to get something going on the ACP. He asked Overton what happened to the potential buyer for Lot #17. Overton said the buyer wanted the property at well below market price and has decided to look elsewhere. Overton said the land is not overpriced. He said the property is priced about in the middle of where other similar property is priced. Mascari wanted to know if the Commission could offer any type of financing for buyers? He said that could attract the first one or two tenants. Ellis said the value of the property would go up over time. Overton agreed, but said the pricing structure now in place would be realistic for at least the next year. Robnett said the ACP got some free advertising in an article Overton did and she wanted to thank Overton for that. Robnett commented that it was her understanding that the commercial market was extremely flat at this time. Overton said there has not been a lot of commercial activity around the area. He said that sales would just be a function of time. Ellis asked about leasing? Overton said it does not come up very often and he does not think it is something that will be much of an option in the future. Ellis asked what the Commission would think of trading control to the City of enough property to pay off the infrastructure and erase the debt. Then the land that was left could be leased. Mascari asked why would the Commission what to give up control? He would not be in favor of that idea. Mascari said the Commission should set a deadline for sales. Dulek said the Commission does not have a sales contract with Overton. Their contract is for leasing the property. Mascari said that when the contract expires, if Overton has not sold any property, the Commission should recommend the Council hire someone else. Mascari said something has to be done. Hodges and Overton will contact each other to discuss marketing advertising. Hodges said he knows of an airport in California that is similar to the ACP that has through-the-fence access. Overton said the development was planned to have through-the-fence access, but there would be some devetopment cost for the taxiway. Mascari said that the Commission needs someone to get the job done of selling the lots and he expects Overton to get the lots sold. Overton said it is also his responsibility to keep the Commission informed on the realities of the market. Overton said he has invested two years of his time on this project and has not received any compensation. He said he has plenty of motivation sell the property. Mascari said he is tivid that nothing has happened and he expects results. Overton said he is on the advisory board for ICAD. He said he is reporting to the Commission what is going on for commercial property throughout the area. The market is flat. O'Neil asked Dulek to provide an update on the Nichols contract. Dulek said she had filed a lawsuit and the papers were served on May 1. She said that she had not had a response. If he does not respond within a certain amount of time, he basically loses by default. O'Neil said there was a memo in the packet written by the Director of Finance, explaining what he thought was the debt owed by the Commission. O'Neil recommended the Commission reply to the Mayor in writing, stating their understanding of the Airport debt and what the Commission thought should be repaid. O'Neil said he thought it should be clarified what will be done with the funds from sale or lease of the ACP. Ellis said he would draft a letter to the Mayor. He will have Dulek and O'Neil review the letter. d. Strategy/business plan project-- Ellis introduced Michael Hodges from Airport Business Solutions. Hodges said he met the Council last night. He said from meeting with the Council, he was under the impression that the Council wanted something to happen right away. He said the strategy plan is somewhat different than the business part of the plan. He said it would take a little time to gear up. He said ABS will need input from the Commission to see where they have been, what was tried, what has worked, and where the Commission wants to go. Hodges said he was surprised when he first saw the Airport. He said he wasn't sure what he woutd have to deal with. He said he thought this was a great general 4 aviation airport. It has a tremendous infrastructure. He said even though this is a small community, because this is a University town, there should be more potential for student pilots. Hodges said that ABS will explore every possibility for generating funds from aviation uses. If it is not possible to be self-sufficient, ABS will tell the Commission that. ABS will try to put the Airport on a track to be as self-sufficient as possible. That is a FAA goal. It is not a mandate, it is a goal. ABS will try to minimize the amount of the Airport budget that comes from the General Fund. Hodges said that general aviation airports that are se~f-sufficient do not become self-sufficient through aviation services alone. Usually only a small amount of their budget is from aviation uses. Having property to lease for non-aviation uses will assist in the goal of self- sufficiency. Marketing the Airport should be a joint effort between the Commission and the fixed base operator. Hodges said ABS has experience in working with government agencies and private aviation businesses. Hodges said he would be looking at how the Airport is managed. He will look at the existing structure of the Airport Manager and the Commission and what their roles are. They should put policies and procedures in place that will minimize the amount of required interaction needed between the manager and the Commission. This will create continuity when there is change on the Commission. He said they would review leases to see if all the basic items are covered. Hodges said they would gather information, format it and give it back to the Commission for review and comments. He said a plan is a political document as well and will need comment from the Commission on whether certain recommendations will work. Hodges said they would interview the FBO and get their opinion on what it will take to grow business on the Airport. Robnett asked what ABS needed from the Commission. She said she knew of several data sources that would be helpful to ABS. Hodges said it would be important for the Commission to provide input when the draft reports are completed. Ellis asked Hodges if the Commission should sit down with a facilitator and have a meeting or several meetings on strategic planning? Hodges said he would wait until the Commission sees the initial draft of the plan before deciding whether they needed to have a facilitator. e. Commission meeting agenda format- Ellis asked that this be deferred to a future agenda. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Ellis said he did not have anything that had not already been discussed. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mascari asked O'Neil how much the renovation was to be in Building D and how did he get funding? O'Neil said it would be between $14,000 - $15,000. He said he got proposals from several contractors and presented the information to the City Manager. This was all part of the exchange of space with Jet Air, IOW Aero and trying to find a place for the Civil Air Patrol. Mascari said that he saw there was a response from the DOT concerning a precision approach. He said the DOT thought the FAA would pick up the maintenance for the ILS. O'Neil cautioned that the person from the FAA that said they could pick up the annual maintenance was the person that designs the approaches, not the person that approves funding. O'Neil said an ILS would cost between $1 million and $1.2 million. He said that if the FAA would not pick up the maintenance costs, he did not think the Commission could afford it. He said Ankeny installed their own ILS and now there is a question of whether or not the FAA will provide maintenance. O'Neil said an ILS is a high maintenance item that costs between $60,000 and $80,000 per year. Mascari said he thinks the Commission should consider this a top priority for money received from sales of the ACP. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said that because of budget cuts at the State level, the City would receive several hundred thousand dollars less than expected. He said the Commission would need to review their FY 2004 budget. All City departments will be affected in some way. The property west of the Airport, including some Airport property, is scheduled for final annexation on May 20. That is the same day the bids are due for the Mormon Trek project. The airport is required to put together a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. (SPCC). O'Neil is getting a proposal from Stanley Environmental, who is working on plans for other City departments. Hodges said ABS writes those plans and he will have someone from his office contact O'Neil. O'Neil provided the Commission with Commission and Council meeting schedules for the summer. There were copies of letters in the packet to John Ruyle and Harry Hinckley concerning their leases. O'Neil said there was a request to store non-aviation items in the United hangar. Mascari said it would have to be on the agenda. There was not additional interest from the Commission. O'Neil wanted to know if the Commission was interested in reviewing the conference room policy, particularly as it related to fees. There was not interest by the Commission to put this on the agenda. A developer west of the Airport wanted to know if the Commission was interested in water storage on the Airport and easements over some of the Airport property? Mascari said he thought this is something the Manager should dea~ with. O'Neil said he would take care of this. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for June 12, 2003, at 5:45 p.m. O'Neil asked if there were any questions about the summer schedule? He said some of the meetings were not on the regular dates. No one had questions about the schedule. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:31 p.m. Alan Ellis, Chairperson MINUTES Preliminary IP1 1 IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 - 5:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, Vince Maurer, Carol Alexander, Eric Gidal, Dennis Keitel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: John Adam, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Paul called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Alexander, Keitel, Paul, Gidal, and Maurer present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 12, 2003 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Keitel moved to approve the April 9, 2003 minutes. Alexander seconded, Motion carried 5- 0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC03-00005. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Chris Cart for a special exception to allow a drive-through / carry-out restaurant (an auto- and truck-oriented use) in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1621 S. First Avenue. Adam stated that the property owner of the former parking lot for Pla-Mor Lanes bowling alley is currently developing a four-unit commercial building on the lot. He said that this development received a special exception in November (EXC02-00019) to permit a drive-through window for the dry cleaning business on the west end. The restaurant on the east end is the subject of the current application. The restaurant will conduct most of its business through carry-outs and deliveries, and is devoting less than 50% of the floor area to seating. Adam said that because of this, it is defined as a drive-through/carry-out restaurant in the Zoning Chapter and is, therefore, an auto-oriented use. Auto- and truck-oriented uses are permitted only by special exception in the CC-2 zone because of possible impacts associated with increased vehicular traffic. Adam stated that it is staff's opinion that this application conforms with the regulations of the CC-2 zone and meets the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in 14-6W-2B. In particular, Adam said that the proposed use is similar to the surrounding commercial uses, including a fast food restaurant, a lube shop, a car wash, and a dry cleaning business with drive-through window. Therefore, this proposed use should not impede further development or redevelopment in the area. In addition, Adam said that, in the prior auto-oriented use exception for this development, the Board approved recommended internal circulation changes to improve flow within the site and enhance accessibility from First Avenue. He stated that staff does not feel that the proposed restaurant use will have an impact that warrants any further conditions. Adam stated that the proposed development conforms to the requirements of the CC-2 zone, including parking, landscaping and dimensional requirements as approved during site plan review. Adam said that staff recommends that EXC03-00005, an application for a special exception to establish an auto- and truck-oriented use in a Community Commercial zone at 1621 South First Avenue be approved. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 2 In response to a question from Alexander, Adam clarified that there will not be a drive-threugh window for the restaurant; however, it is definitionally a drive-through/carryout in the Zoning Chapter. Public Hearinq Opened None. Public Hearin,q Closed Motion: Gidal moved that EXC03-0000$, an application for a special exception to establish an auto- and truck-oriented use in a Community Commercial zone at 1621 South First Avenue be approved. Maurer seconded. Keitel stated that he believes this use goes along with a dry cleaner drive-through and he does not see a problem. He does not see any infringement on the immediate properties. He said he will vote in favor. Paul stated he will vote in favor. He said that he does not believe that this proposed use will impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property, nor will it be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. He does not feel it will substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He said that, in his opinion, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Paul said that in all other respects, he feels the proposed exception conforms to the application regulations or standards in the zone. Alexander said she would vote in favor for the reasons given by Keitel and Paul. Maurer said he would vote in favor. Gidal said he would vote in favor for the reasons given. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0. OTHER Discussion of the April 23rd ISU Extension Office's Planning & Zoning Workshop for Local Officials, including proposed changes to opening statement. Adam stated that he and Keitel attended the workshop. He said they were impressed with the opening statement that Ames used to use, and he has made suggested changes to the Board's opening statement. The general consensus was that the proposed opening statement was a good idea. After discussion, he said he will add the "Statement Following the Vote on a Motion" to the Board's ~rotocol. WORK SESSION Holecek presented a training orientation outline to the Board. She explained that the Board ~s a quasi- judicial body rather than legislative. She said that the most important thing to be taken from this is that the Board has ethical requirements not to make ex parte contacts, although as a member of the community it is impossible to preclude that totally. She said that if people do provide comments, the Board member should bring it to the record. Holecek said that, because the Board is a quasi-judicial body, it is important that they articulate their findings of fact and conclusions, because that is the basis for defending their decision on appeal. She said that record is akin to a judge's decision, so it is important to address the issues verbally so that it appears in the minutes and decision. In response to a question from Paul, Holecek stated that any aggrieved person can appeal a ruling, so it is important to articulate findings and conclusions even in a favorable finding. Keitel cautioned that if a Board member refers to standards or parts of the ordinance as a cite for part of his reasons, he must know what they are because he could be challenged on that if he was erroneous. He said that he is careful when giving engineering opinions because he could be challenged by another expert witness. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 3 Holecek said that usually those items are flushed out faidywell in the staff report, but Keitel had a good point. Gidal questioned the Board's practice in findings of fact, and whether deliberations would be warranted. He said there have been cases where it may have been useful to discuss and hear the opinions of other Board members prior to making a decision. Holecek said that, typically, bodies such as the Supreme Court go into their chambers and talk about the issue. She said that the Board does not have that luxury since they are a public forum. However, she said that the Board can deliberate, taking into consideration the public forum aspect. She said that the Board could address that by speaking to the other Board members, for instance, asking "Is anybody having the same difficulty I am with Issue A?" Paul questioned whether this would be better done after the staff report and before the public hearing. Gidal opined that the public hearing is important because you are taking new evidence which could impact Board discussion. The consensus was that the Chair should call for deliberation after closing the public hearing, then the Board will go on to findings of fact. Keitel questioned what is the best way to handle approaches by a community member, either by phone or in person. Holecek said that this should be put on the record at the meeting where the application is being taken up. For instance, the Board member could say, "1 was called by the applicant to discuss this matter. I did tell them I can't discuss the details of the matter. I just want to put that on the record." Paul said that often the people who approach him don't have any idea they are doing anything wrong. Holecek agreed that, typically people think it's a political process when it really isn't. In response to a question from Keitel, Holecek said that if you are approached while viewing a site, the best way to handle the situation is to advise the person that it puts you in a bad position, that you are simply viewing the site and advise the person that it would be best if they make their comments at the public hearing. Adam asked the Board to remind that person that if he is unwilling or unable to come to a public hearing, they have the option of sending a letter to Planning and it will be included in the packet or else provided to the Board at the meeting. Holecek briefly reviewed other parts of the training outline and encouraged the Board members to read the outline, including reviews of the tests for special exceptions and variances. Paul reiterated that it is important for the Board to remember that the applicant has to meet each and every one of the tests on an application for variance. Holecek said that due process means providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. She said that staff always provides for notices in ordinances, and the Planning Department mails out notices to property owners within 300 feet of the applying property, as well as posting it. She said the bottom line is the Board needs to allow particularly applicants the ability to fully flesh out their case before the Board, and be careful not to cut them short. In response to a question from Keitel, she said that the Board could hurry witnesses along if they are providing the same testimony. Holecek said that the most important thing is fleshing out the findings of fact and conclusions of law, providing the reasons for reaching a conclusion based on the particulars of the application before the Board. She said, given that the Board probably will not find themselves in the exact same position between two properties in the same city, that may take away from precedential value. However, if there are applications that are similarly situated and the decision comes down differently, there better be a good reason. She said it is important to differentiate each situation and articulate the uniqueness of each application. Paul reiterated that the Board must make their decisions on the value of the application, not their personal opinion on the project or the person speaking. He said that the Board's position is to look at the application and determine if the points presented hold up. Gidal asked what the appropriate way would be to let staff know that they feel a section of the Zoning Code should be addressed. Holecek said that the Board could present a motion, separate from the case, asking that a problematic section of the Zoning Code be put on the pending list for review and study, setting out their concerns. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 4 Keitel questioned the appropriate procedure for a Board request for reconsideration of a vote. He said that his understanding is that Robert's Rules of Order set out that the reconsideration request must be a member of the prevailing side. Holecek stated that, while that's true, the Board has the power to make a motion to suspend the Rules, if necessary. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION None. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn, seconded by Maurer. The meeting adjourned at 5:53 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor data on Ctynt/pcd/minutes/boa05-14-03.doc