HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-29 Info Packet~ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
(~]TY OF IOW2, (~ITY May 29, 2003
www.icgov.org
I MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS I
IPI Tentative Future Meetings and Agendas
IP2 Memorandum from City Manager: Budget Reduction Plan
IP3 Memorandum from City Manager: Appointment of Public Works Director
[includes Letter of Retirement from Public Works Director Schmadeke]
IP4 Memorandum from City Engineer to City Manager: Flood of 1993
IP5 Memorandum from Associate Planner Yapp: Residential Housing Inventory
IP6 Meeting Materials: May 29 ECICOG [VVilburn]
IP7 Article [American City and County]: Public Transit: Software, Public Help
Design Land-Use Plans [Kanner]
IP8 Ordinance [City of Sana Fe, NM]: Minimum Wage Requirements [Kanner]
IP9 Meeting Materials: May 28 Johnson County Emergency Management
Commission [Pfab]
IP10 Minutes: April 23 Johnson County Emergency Management Commission
[Pfab]
Pay Parking Tickets and
Register for Recreation Programs
www.icgov.org/EZPay
City Council Meeting Schedule and M
c,T~ oF ~ow^ C~T~ Work Session Agendas
www.icgov.org
I TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS I
· MONDAY, JUNE 9 EmmaJ. Han/atHall
6:30p Special Council Formal Meeting
To Follow Formal Special Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, JUNE 10 EmmaJ. Ha~atHall
7:00p Special Council Formal Meeting
· MONDAY, JUNE 23 EmmaJ. HarvatHall
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. HarvatHall
6:30p Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, JULY 15 EmrnaJ. HarvatHall
7:00p Council Formal Meeting
· MONDAY, AUGUST 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:30p Council Work Session
· TUESDAY, AUGUST 19 Emma J. HarvatHall
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
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 28, 2003
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Budget Reduction Plan
Attached is the current status of the Budget Reduction Plan discussions to
date. We will await the results of the May 29 State Legislature. I believe
we can assume Congress and President Bush will authorize some sort of
financial aid to cities. I expect it to be for only one year, and the
distribution of the monies will be the responsibility of the State.
Attachment
Updated 05-27-03
BUDGET REDUCTION AND REVENUE PROPOSALS
Council
Proposed OK'd or
04 Amended
1. Reduction of one Associate Planner. Will result in delays in implementing -40,000 -40,000
the Comprehesive Code Update.
2. Elimination of neighborhood newsletters, preparation, printing and -16,000 NoAction
mailing. Will consider use of web page and encourage neighborhoods to
create their own financial resources.
3. Eliminate PIN grants from General Fund. Street and related right-of-way -15,000 No Action
improvements can be financed from Road Use Tax. A PIN grant program
related to right-of-way improvements could include minor street repair,
trees in right-of-way, neighborhood signing, trails, bikeways.
4. Reduce contribution to ICAD by 10%, or $5,000. This contribution has -5,000 -5,000
been $50,000 for many years. Note the Department of Planning and
Community Development also has not filled the Economic Development
Coordinator position. These duties have been assumed, part-time, by our
Community and Economic Development Coordinator.
5. Reduce Library printing and postage by $15,000. Library newsletter and -15,000 -15,000
circulation notice distribution will be reduced. They will be sent
electronically to the fullest extent practical.
: 6. Reduce Library materials budget to FY03 levels and establish this as the -15,000 -15,000
new base amount. The reduction is $15,000.
7. Elimination of one FTE position. Library operational policy will determine -45,000 -45,000
the specific positions.
8. Increase Library fines and fees. +15,000 +15,000
9. Library commercial space to be leased and rental income accrue to 0 To be
General Fund. The space represents 4200 square feet on first floor and Considered
7000 square feet in basement. Originally the income was to be used to Later
retire library building debt. The estimated income would be directed to the +s0,000 in 05)
General Fund, not debt service. An annual income when fully leased
$100,000.
10. Eliminate library parking reimbursement ($10,000) begun in 2000 to -10,000 -10,000
address library users' most persistent complaint.
11. Reduce the complement of Police personnel by 5. Immediate impact will -250,000 -250,000
be the elimination of DARE, reduction in Community Relations activities,
reduced patrol strength and investigative work. Other possible staffing
reductions, in lieu of, will be considered as alternative reduction options
continue to be explored.
12. Eliminate 2 full-time equivalent permanent employees in parks and/or -80,000 -80,000
recreation. Final positions vacated to be determined by program
reductions, attrition and retirement effects on total departmental
employment.
Council
Proposed OK'd or
04 Amended
13a. Reduce all Aid to Agencies for FY04 by 5%; and 5% for FY05. Each -16,275 -16,275
recipient would be notified of the reduction of 5% in the amount the
Council approved for FY04. It would become the new base for FY05.
13b. Reduce Community Event and Program Funding (not including Just Jazz) -3,540 -3,540
for FY04 by 10%; and 10% for FY05. Each recipient would be notified of
the reduction of 10% in the amount the Council approved for FY04. It
would become the new base for FY05.
14. Reduce the complement of Public Works, Engineering, and related -130,000 -130,000
support staff by 2½ full-time equivalents. Much of the staff time is devoted
to design, management, inspection-related services for capital and
maintenance related projects.
15. Reduce the complement of Finance and General Administrative support -130,000 -130,000
by 2½ full-time equivalents. These positions support our internal
management programs/policies and provide support to other City
depadments.
16. Charge the Housing Authority for the administrative time of the Housing +10,000 +10,000
Assistant in performance of Housing Quality Standards required by the
Department of H.U.D.
17a. For the Housing Inspection Division to be fully funded by fee revenue and +90,000 +90,000
maintain the same staff level, the fees would need to be increased by
42%, or $93,000 a year.
17b. Option - To be fully funded AND hire an additional inspector would need 0 0
to increase by 66% and generate $145,000.
18. Eliminate Saturday Bus service. This service represents 11% of our -180,000 Withdrawn
revenue miles/cost, but only 4% of our ridership.
19. Reduce advertising budget for Transit (current budget is $20,000) -5,000 Withdrawn
20. Charge a $.25 fare for the Downtown Shuttle. +30,000 0
21. Re-do our employee training and education policies to concentrate on -75,000 -75,000
continuing education requirements, training and education transferable to
other employees. Review all out of state travel related to training and
education. Discourage City employee participation in leadership roles for
professional association.
22. Increase Building Inspection fees by $70,000. Current fees amount to +70,000 +70,000
$800,000 annually. An increase of $70,000 or 8% - our fee schedule
would remain similar to other area communities.
23. Eliminate the Saturday night concert series planned for downtown (-8,600for05) 0
pedestrian mall.
Council
Proposed OK'd or
04 Amended
24. Reduce Parkland Acquisition Fund from $320,000 to $50,000. These +100,000 +100,000
Funds would be payable to the General Fund for FY04 of $100,000; FY05
of $100,000; and $70,000 in FY06. This eliminates capital Project
contributions and a means for financing the Parks & Recreation Master
Plan.
25. Increase parking violations from $3 to $5, assuming the State Legislature +75,000 +75,000
authorizes the ability to increase.
26. Reduce Hotel Tax contribution to the CVB from $140,000 to $123,750, -16,250 -16,250
and change annual % contribution of Hotel tax from 25% to 22.5%.
27. Eliminate Public Power study for FY04. This preliminary study was -50,000 -50,000
financed in FY03 for $18,000. This would have the effect of no additional
financing available for any follow-up studies and related costs such as
litigation for consideration of this proposal.
28. Increase cable revenues paid to the General Fund from current $30,000 +70,000 +70,000
annually (was new in FY04) to $100,000. Will require program reductions
in cable operations.
29. Reduce Fire staff from 59 to 55. The Department is currently one over -184,000 -184,000
staff (authorized 58). In 2002, 6 new firefighters were hired in anticipation
of the proposed 4th station. The new station will be on indefinite hold.
30. Good bids, mild weather "fund." +50,000 +50,000
Reductions Approved for FY04 $1,065,065
Revenues Approved for FY04 $ 480,000
TOTAL FY04 REDUCTIONS/REVENUES $1,545,065
m gr~proposalsO4-28.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 27, 2003
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Appointment of Director of Public Works
As I am sure you know, Chuck Schmadeke has announced his retirement
from the City. Attached is a copy of his retirement notice.
I have appointed Rick Fosse, currently our City Engineer, to the position of
Director of Public Works, effective Saturday, June 25, 2003.
All of you know Rick, as he has served the City for approximately 20 years.
The future for the Department of PubLic Works is challenging, and Rick has
had much to do with the department's history and I believe can lead the
department's future.
I look forward to Rick's continued service to the City in his new
responsibilities.
Attachment
rngr/mem/pw.doc
.January 9, 2003
Stephen .]. Atkins
City Manager
City of ]~owa City
Dear Steve:
]~t is my desire to retire from my position as ]~owa City Director of Public Works on .June
27, 2003. This letter is my formal notice to do so.
! have thoroughly enjoyed serving the City as Public Works Director the past 21 years
and my employment at the City the past 36 years.
T have especially enjoyed working under your leadership. Your professional courtesy,
respect for others, and your desire to seek advice and council from City staff is
unparalleled in my professional career.
For me, my years here have provided a wonderful challenge, an experience filled with
satisfaction and joy, and an association with very talented, dedicated and hard working
City employees. ! will have many fond memories of my days and years with the City.
Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,
Charles ]. Schmadeke
Director of Public Works
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 1826 · (319) 356-5000 * FAX (319) 356-5009
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager
FROM: Rick Fosse, City Engineer ~
DATE: May 23, 2003
RE: Flood of 1993
This is the 10-year anniversary of the flood of 1993. As such, there has been renewed
interest in the flood and the City's efforts to cope with it. I understand the Press Citizen
will have an article in Saturday's paper regarding this.
I have assembled a slide show on this topic to share with my staff. If you have requests
from service clubs that are looking for a speaker, I will be happy to share it with them.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 20, 2003
To: City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Associate Planner'~',,,~/v'"~'''
Re: Residential Housing Inventory
Staff has updated the Subdivision Inventory through 2002. This inventory tracks the size and
location of single-family and duplex subdivisions, and the location of vacant lots versus
developed lots.
We have added a new category to this housing inventory, Manufactured Housing and Planned
Development Housing. This gives a more complete picture of the number of housing units being
created. This category includes condominiums, townhouses, manufactured housing, senior
housing, and other types of planned developments. Single-family lots in planned development
zones are counted in the single-family and duplex subdivision inventory. The location and
number of units of these planned developments are included on the subdivision inventory map.
The average number of planned development units approved per year over the past five years
is 253 units per year. In comparison, the average number of single-family and duplex lots over
the past five years is 127 lots per year.
This inventory shows that housing units in planned developments are becoming an increasingly
large share of the housing market. In fact, over the past five years the number of dwelling units
approved as part of planned developments or manufactured housing developments has been
double the number of single-family subdivisions. Housing units in planned developments are
also a more compact development pattern that appears to be desirable to many buyers judging
by the number of planned developments being constructed. Since 1995, the units per acre for
planned and manufactured housing developments is 5.4 units per acre, versus a 1.6 unit per
acre average for single-family developments in the same time period.
A map showing the location of subdivisions created since 1990 and planned and manufactured
housing developments created since 1995 is available at the Department of Planning and
Community Development. The only housing type not included in this inventory is multi-family
apartment buildings - we hope to add this category next year to give a complete picture of the
number and location of the housing units being constructed.
cc: Steve Atkins
Karin Franklin
Bob Miklo
ppdadr~VmerWjy-res inventory doc
Residential Manufactured Housing and Planned
DevelopmentHousing Inventory, 1995 - 2002
acres units Units percent
Development name
subdivided approved Constructed developed
Morman Trek Village - REZ95-0009 29.00 232 214 92%
Total: 29.00 232 214
acres units Units percent
Development name subdivided approved Constructed developed
Village Green Part XIV - Sub96-0016 3.09 8 8 100%
Total: 3.09 8 8
Development name acres units Units percent
subdivided approved Constructed developed
Village Green, Part XV - Sub97-0032 36.75 16 16 100%
Total: 36.75 16 16
Development name acres units Units percent
subdivided approved Constructed developed
Village Green, Parts XVI and XVII - REZ98-
10.00 36 36 100%
00012/SUB98-00021
Resub of Walden Hills, Lot 53 - Sub98-0022 8.66 120 114 95%
Galway Hills Part 5 - Lot 117 (Melrose 10.00 80 80 100%
Retirement Community) - Sub98-0026
Louis Place Condominiums - Sub98-0012 4.37 32 31 97%
Total: 33.03 268 261
Development name acres units Units percent
subdivided approved Constructed developed
Windsor Ridge Part 12 - REZ99-00006 16.33 72 0 0%
Windsor Ridge Part 13 - REZ99-00007 3.62 24 0 0%
Silvercrest Part 1 - Sub99-0005 8.70 68 68 100%
Total: 28.65 164 68
Residential Manufactured Housing and Planned Development Housing Subdivision Inventory, 1990-2002 Page 1 of 2
acres units Units percent
Development name subdivided approved Constructed developed
Duck Creek Condominiums - Sub00-0008 2.72 12 12 100%
Scott Boulevard Part 3 Lot 68 - Sub99-00027 8.20 75 75 100%
Windsor Ridge, Part 15 - REZ99-00011 13.26 98 98 100%
Total: 24.18 185 185
Development name acres units Units percent
subdivided approved Constructed developed
Saddlebrook, Part 2a ' SUB00-00015 69.75 290 76 26%
Village Green Parts XVIII, Lot 57; XXI, Lot 65 - 4.33 36 23 64%
SUB01-00028
Washington Park, Part XI, Lot 236 (Arbor Hill) - 8.20 17 10 59%
SUB01-00017
Total: 82.28 343 109
Development name acres units Units percent
subdivided approved Constructed developed
Silvercrest Part 2 - Sub02-00017 12.17 112 0 0%
Windsor Ridge Part 16 - Sub02-00014 29.40 182 6 3%
Village Green Part XXlI-Lot 24 - Sub02-00013 2.97 13 0 0%
44.54 307 6
Grand Totals: 281,52 1523 867 57%
Approved, Undeveloped Units as of Dec 31, 686
2002:
Residential Manufactured Housing and Planned Development Housing Subdivision Inventory, 1990-2002 Page 2 of 2
Chart I: Number of Units Approved
Planned Development Housing and Manufactured Homes, 1995-2002
400
35O
250300 ~ ~ 307
268
232 '~5
* Units
200 -- .... trend ne~
150 ,.. - ' '
100 ~
50-
16
0~
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Chart Il:Number of Acres Used
Planned Development Housing and Manufactured Housing
1995-2002
90
80 ,82.28
70
. - ' ' * Acres
·..... - - ' 44.54 . .....acreage trendline
40
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX SUBDIVISION INVENTORY, 1990-2002
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1990 Subdivisions" Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Hunters Run Part 6 13.07 17 17 100%
Scott Blvd. East Part 1 13.21 39 37 95%
total: 26.28 56 54
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1991 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Apple Ridge 7.42 22 19 86%
Galway Hills Part 1 18 39 38 97%
Hickory Hill Ridge 8.05 16 15 94%
Walden Wood Parts 3-7 26.17 79 79 100%
Walnut Ridge Part 1 12.74 8 8 100%
Walnut Ridge Part 2 22, 99 12 12 100%
Whispering Meadows Part 1 36.3 71 58 82%
total: 131.67 247 229
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1992 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Hunters Run Port 7 8.33 20 20 100%
Mount Prospect Part 5 7.6 25 25 100%
Park West Part 1 9.48 23 23 100%
Village Green Part 12b 9.77 22 21 95%
Walnut Ridge Part 3 19.59 14 14 100%
Willow Creek 6.15 20 20 100%
total: 60.92 124 123
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1993 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Hunters Run Part 9 5.7 16 16 100%
Mount Prospect Part 6 5.06 16 16 100%
Park West Part 2-4 17.1 39 38 97%
Scott Blvd. East Part 2 9.23 28 19 76%
SouthPointe Add. Part 1-6 21.79 92 91 99%
Southwest Estates Part 5 5.3 14 14 100%
Village Green South 28.95 74 63 85%
Walnut Ridge Part 4 20.21 13 13 100%
Windsor Ridge Part 1-4 67.2 78 77 99%
Whispering Meadows Part 2 26.14 103 30 29%
total: 206.68 470 377
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1994 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Mount Prospect Part 7 8.95 32 32 100%
Southwest Estates Part 6 10.21 25 25 100%
Village Green Part 13c 6.49 16 16 100%
Walnut Ridge Part 5 18.64 12 11 92%
Wild Prairie Estates Part 1 9.84 20 20 100%
Wild Prairie Estates Part 2 12.05 33 31 94%
Windsor Ridge Part 5 9.31 16 15 94%
total: 75.49 154 150
5/14/{)3 SF&D Sublnv.xls, Sheetl 1
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1995 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
East Hill 13.04 36 31 86%
Galway Hills Part 2 14.71 24 18 75%
Longfellow Manor 7.64 20 8 40%
Oakes Fifth Add. 6.52 14 14 100%
Pelsang Place 1.02 3 1 33%
Rober 1,19 2 2 100%
Walden Wood Part 9 3.01 5 5 100%
Windsor Ridge Part 6 7.80 7 7 100%
total: 54.93 111 86
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1996 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Broken Arrow Estates 1.88 3 3 100%
Galway Hills Part 3 21.29 53 35 66%
Hunters Run Part VIII 7.58 17 10 59%
Jacob Ricord's 1.26 6 4 67%
Meadow Ridge 2.29 4 1 25%
Mt. Prospect Part VIII 9.02 13 13 100%
Windsor Ridge Part 7 8.75 16 16 100%
total: 52,07 112 82
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1997 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Court Park 1,69 6 4 67%
Irwin Subdivision 3.07 4 2 50%
M&W Additiond 0.24 1 1 100%
Walden Hills~ 13,00 49 49 100%
Windsor Ridge Part 8 13.31 25 25 100%
total: 31.31 85 81
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1998 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided issued Developed
Boyd's Fashionable Acres 11.51 16 0 0%
Galway Hills Part 5 3.63 7 0 0%
Green Mountain Meadow 6.53 15 8 53%
Walden Hills Lot 51 2.9 25 25 100%
Walnut Ridge Part 6 20.44 12 8 67%
Walnut Ridge Part 7 11.09 8 7 88%
Windsor Ridge Part 9 20.33 46 28 61%
total: 76,43 129 76
............. ~ ...................... ~ ................................ ~.~:~.~:o:~ ............. .~i:= :~::: ~ .......... ~::: ::~:: :::.::~:&.;:.o~ ............. ~ ......... ~:. := ~ :~::=~::: · :~:.:~.::~o:~,:.: ....~ ...........
Acres Lots Permits Percent
1999 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Country Club Estates 10.4 20 16 80%
Galway Hills Part 6 4.82 13 6 38%
Hollywood Manor Part 6 8.32 24 23 96%
Scott Blvd. East Part 4 7.36 12 4 33%
Wild Prairie Estates 3 49.19 30 21 70%
Windsor Ridge Part 10 19.4 32 17 53%
Windsor Ridge Part 11 12.58 37 4 11%
total: 112.07 168 90
5/14/03 SF&D Sublnv.xls, Sheetl 2
Acres Lots Permits Percent
2000 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Lot 52, Walden Hills 4.89 19 17 89%
South Pointe Part 7 8.08 25 7 28%
Hollywood Manor 7 5.32 20 1 5%
Washington Park 11 1.8 7 3 43%
total: 20.09 71 28
Acres Lots Permits Percent
2001 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided Issued Developed
Stone Bridge Estates Part 1 4.93 16 11 69%
Walnut Ridge Parts 8-10 35.14 22 5 23%
Peninsula Neighborhood First Add.r 35.99 24 3 13%
total: 76.06 62 19
Acres Lots Permits Percent
2002 Subdivisions Subdivided Subdivided issued Developed
Oakes Sixth Addition 30.11 18 0 0%
First and Rochester Part 4 24.25 40 1 3%
Stone Bridge Estates Parts 2-4 13.98 1 8 3 17%
Lindemann Subdivision Parts 1 2 32.02 62 4 6%
Hickory Heights 18.2 20 0 0%
Wild Prairie Estates Part 4 34.55 24 0 0%
Village Green Part XXll~ 6.34 23 0 0%
total: 159.45 205 8
Grand Totals: 1083,45 1994 1403 70%
Platted, Undeveloped Lots: 591
a: This inventory includes single family and duplex subdivisions platted since 1990. It does not include commercial or industrial
subdivisions, nor does it include multi-family or condominium developments.
b: Includes only the single-family and duplex lots associated with this plat.
c: Does notinclude Vglage Green Part XIV, a 40.19 acre, 1 lot townhouse development.
d: This was a twodot subdivision; however, one lot with an existing home was subdivided into two lots.
e: Walden Hills contains 49 single family and zero-lot line lots. The subdivision also contains 13 detached single family
condominium units, 25 detached townhouses, 8 foul-unit buildings (32 units), and 4 30-unit buildings /120 units).
The numbers in the subdivision inventory only reflect the single family and zero-lot line lots,
f: Includes only the single-family and duplex lots (Excludes Lots 8, 15, 17, 18, 25)
g: Excludes Lot 24, an OPDH development of 13 townhouse style units
5/14/03 SF&D Sublnv.xls, Sheetl 3
Chart I: Number of Subdivision Lots Approved
Residential Single Family and Duplex Lots, 1990-2002
550
5O0
· LOTS
450 ~
trendline
4OO
350 ~
"" 300
250
200
15°i 454
,
129 .....
100 q 124 111 112
50 - 85
i 56 71 62
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Chart I1: Number of Acres Subdivided
Residential Single Family and Duplex Lots, 1990-2002
220 '
· ACRES
200 -
i 2( 38 ...... acreage trendline
180
160 ~
140
120 ~ 1:
1 O0 i ,7
80
60 75.4~~.
60.92
~ 54.93 52.0~'.~
4o I
20 26.28 31.31
20.09
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Submitted by ~/oun'cil
'ECl Member Wi~fn ~
EAST CENTRAL IOWA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
YOUR REGIONAL Pba, NNING AGENCY
MEM~ORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2003
FROM: Doug Elliottl~E~¢'~utive Director
SUBJECT: Ne~t Meeting - Thursday, May 29, 2003
The ECICOG Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, May 29, 2003, 1:00 p.m., at the
ECICOG offices in Cedar Rapids. An agenda for the meetin~ and minutes of the April 24th
meeting are enclgsed. Other items are highlighted beldw:
Item 2.0 Routine Matters: Financial statements for the month of April are enclosed.
Items 3.4, 3.5, & 3.7 Community Development, Housing, & Solid ~v'aste Reports: Staff
reports are enclosed.
Item 3.6 Circuit Rider Report: A report will be provided at the board meeting.
Item 3.8 Transportation Report: Staff is requesting board direction on replacement o fan East
Central Iowa Transit vehicle, which was totaled in a recent accident. Additional information is
included in the packet. \
Item 4.4 Transit Operators Group: Minutes of the TOG's most Tecent meeting are enclosed.
Item 4.5 Solid Waste TAC Report: The Solid Waste TAC. chose ,not to meet during the month
of May.
Item 4.6 Transit Services Review Committee: The committee will .meet prior to the board
meeting m review current requests (copies enclosed), and will make recommendations for your
9onsideration at the meeting.
Please review the remainder of the enclosed materials, and contact us if you have questions
before the meeting on the
Enc.
108 Third Street SE, Suite 300 Cedar Rapids~ Iowa 52401 319-365-9941 FAX 319-365-9981 www. ia.net/-ecicog
East Central lowa Council ~ 'Governments Board Meetin Notice
TEL 365-9941 FAX 365-9981
pages
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
.1 Recognition of Alternates
.2 Public Discussion
.3 Approval of Agenda
2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS
1 - 5 .1 Approval of Minutes (April 24, 2003)
6 - 8 .2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets
3.0 AGENCY REPORTS
· 1 Chairperson's Report
.2 Board Members' Reports
.3 Director's Report
9- 10; 21-24 .4 Community Development Report
11 - 13 .5 Housing Report
.6 Circuit Rider Report
14 .7 Solid Waste Report
15 - 18 .8 Transportation Report
4.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
.1 Executive Committee
.2 Personnel Committee
.3 Budget Committee
19 - 20 .4 Transit Operators Group
.5 Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee
.6 Ad Hoc Committee Reports
Enclosure · Transit Services Review Committee
5.0 IOWA INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM
6.0 OLD BUSINESS
· 1 Approval of Expenditures
7.0 NEW BUSINESS
8.0 NEXT MEETING: June 26, 2003
ECICOG is the Region 10 planning agency serving local governments in the counties of Benton, Iowa, Johnson,
Jones, Linn, and Washington.
MINUTES
East Central Iowa Council of Governments
Board Meeting 1:00 p.m. - April 24, 2003
108 Third Street SE, Suite 300, Cedar Rapids
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ed Brown-Mayor of F/ashington
Larry F/ilson-Johnson County Citizen
Ric Gerard-Iowa County Supervisor
Henry Herwig-Coralville City Council
David Vermedahl-Benton County Supervisor
Aaron Chittenden-Jones County Citizen
Dennis Hansen-Jones County Citizen
Ann Hearn-Linn County Citizen
Gary Edwards-Iowa County Citizen
Ed Raber- Washington County Citizen
Pat Harney-Johnson County Supervisor
Ross F/ilburn-Iowa City City Council
Lu Barron-Linn County Supervisor
MEMBERS ABSENT
Tom Tjelmeland-Mayor of Ely
F/ade F/agner-Cedar Rapids Commissioner
Don Magdefrau-Benton County Citizen
Bob Stout-Washington County Supervisor
Charlie Montross-Iowa County Supervisor
Dawn Pettengill-Mayor of Mt. Auburn
Leo Cook-Jones County Supervisor
James Houser-Linn County Supervisor
ALTERNATES PRESENT
Linda Langston-Linn County Supervisor for James Houser
OTHER'S PRESENT
Carol Spaziani-League ofF/omen Voters of Johnson County
STAFF PRESENT
Doug Elliott-Executive Director
Gina Peters-Administrative Assistant
Mary Rump-IT/TransportationPlanner
Lisa-Marie Garlich-Planner
Chad Sands-Planner
Catherine Hankey-Circuit Rider
Jennifer Ryan-Planner
Tracey Mulcahey - Grants Administrator
Robyn Jacobson- Transit Administrator
Lisa Treharne-Planner
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson, Ed Brown at 1:12 p.m.
Because of a lack of quorum, Brown suggested staff give their reports first.
3.4 Community Development Report
Sands gave an overview of the ISU Extension Planning and Zoning Workshop at which he presented last night.
Chittenden asked why the City of Center lunction's wastewater collection and treatment system project was not
funded. Mulcahey said USDA wants to wait until 2000 census data is in place before deciding whether or not to fund
the project. Mulcahey stated she would be submitting another application in August.
1
3.5 Housing Report
Mulcahey told the board IDED has not received confirmation from HUD regarding funding for housing projects.
Raber stated the FHLB application submitted for Washington was not funded and asked when an application could be
re-submitted. Mulcahey stated she had submitted an application for funds earlier in April.
3.6 Circuit Rider Report
Hankey told the board her last day at ECICOG is today. Treharne will be taking her place as Circuit Rider and
Hankey has introduced her to the communities she will be working with.
(Harney and Wilburn joined the meeting)
A quorum was present.
1.1 Recognition of Alternates - None at this time.
.2 Public Discussion
Brown welcomed Carol Spaziani fi.om the Johnson County League of Women Voters.
.3 Approval of Agenda
M/S/C (Hansen/Raber) to approve the agenda. All ayes.
2.0 ROUTINE MATTERS
.1 Approval of Minutes (March 27, 2003)
M/S/C (Wilson/Gerard) to approve the minutes as written. All ayes.
.2 Preceding Month's Budget Reports/Balance Sheets
Elliott gave an overview of the March fmancial statements.
M/S/C (Harney/Gerard) to receive and file the March financial statements for audit. All ayes.
3.0 AGENCY REPORTS
.1 Chairperson's Report
(Langston and Barron joined the meeting at this time.)
Brown handed out a copy of an email regarding HF 691 and noted he was going to Des Moines tomorrow and urged
others to do so as well. (handout attached)
Brown welcomed Linda Langston, Linn County Supervisor to the meeting.
.2 Board Members' Reports
Wilson gave a power point presentation of sustainable landscape at the University of Iowa.
Vermedahl told the board Dawn Pettengill recently had back surgery and wasn't able to attend the meeting.
.3 Director's Report
Elliott gave an update on HF 683, the Iowa Values Fund Bill. General discussion on legislative issues followed.
.7 Solid Waste Report
Ryan told the board the final report for the recycling evaluation project has been received and is available if anyone
wanted to review it.
She also announced $20,000 in funding for recycling equipment in Benton County has been awarded.
.8 Transportation Report
Rump gave an update and handed out an article on ortho photography. (handout attached)
4.0 COMMITTEE REPORTS
.1 Executive Committee - None
.2 Personnel Committee - None
.3 Budget Committee - None
.4 Transit Operator's Group - None
2
.5 Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee~'r"
Elliott noted ECICOG has offered Bluestem interim staffing assistance while they search for a planner. DeVries will
spend a couple of days a week in the Blucstem office.
.6 Ad Hoc Committee Reports - None
5.0 IOWA INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SYSTEM - None
6.0 OLD BUSINESS '
.1 Approval of Expenditures
M/S/C (Herwig/Wilson) to approve payment of expendiRu'es. All ayes.
7.0 NEW BUSINESS - None
8.0 NEXT MEETING: May 29, 2003
The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
David Vermedahl, Secretury/Treasurer
May 29, 2OO3
Date
MSN Hotmail - [ Page 1 of 1
Hotmail® x. ox
Rom = <tombredeweg~waleague~rg>
To: <da~y~l.com>
Subject: Cu~ to Oties NO~ A Done Deal - You Can H~p
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:45:29 -0500
I kno~ you have heard a lot from us lately. In fact, some o~ you may have gotten
a ~essage similac ~o th£s seYeca~ mlnutes ago, and ~ apologize ~or the e×tca
trafflc. ~e have had to "go to the well" ~an¥ times this session. ~ want to
underscore our action call sent yesterday. If we have a presence at the Capitol
tomorrow (Friday), we can make it difference.
Your representatives will tell you that this has all been decided, that there is
nothing you can do. Frankly, those are the sounds of a caucus trying to hold
together as cracks are beginning to show. I cannot guarantee success, but I can
tell you that we still have a chance. You can make the difference.
These cuts are easy to make in the abstract-cuts to cities and counties. It is
much more difficult to vote for these cuts when a legislator has to look'
constituents in the eye and say that he or she is cutting their own communities.
The House bill, HF 691, was approved with the cuts by the House Appropriations
Committee, and will be debated Friday. The Senate has decided to come with their
own bill, with similar cuts. The bill, SSB 1205, will be taken up in Senate
Appropriations this morning (Thursday) with the intention of taking it to the
Senate floor Friday afternoon or evening. Both bills are still entitled,
"Re-invention."
Keep calling, faxing, and emailing (in that order of preference), including
Senators. If ~t all possible, come tomorrow. Bring police officers,
firefighters, librarians and library board members, park board members, and
others.
There are alternatives to these cuts, and we still can make a difference.
Tom
http://byTfd.bay7.hotmail.msn.com/cgiOoin/getmsg 4 mbox=F000000005&a=ba48fa3caS... 4/24/2003
Mary Rump, Ext. 28
Robyn Jacobson, Ext. 34
East Central Iowa Transit (ECIT)
Vehicle Replacement for Iowa County
In April, a standard van leased to Iowa County was involved in a one-vehicle accident. The
County's insurance carrier has since determined that the vehicle was totaled, and offered a settle-
ment of $18,375 (not including thc County's $500 deductible). Iowa County Transportation (ICOT)
has indicated an unwillingness to provide any local funds to replace the vehicle. Replacement op-
tions are noted on the following page; and related sections of the Purchase of Service contract with
ICOT are attached.
Required Action: The board will be asked to provide direction for replacing the vehicle.
Request for Additional Services
A number of Requests for Additional Services have been received for the upcoming fiscal year.
Copies of the requests are attached. The Transit Services Review Cornrmttee will be meeting prior
to the board meeting and will have a recommendation for action.
Regional Planning Affiliation
FY 2004 Transportation Planning Work Program (TPVCP)
The staff was notified ~y t!~va Department of Traii~tt0~ (IDOT) that the TPWP, which was
submitted in April, h~ be~en accepted and approved. Ti~e:~PWP documents how planning funds will
be used in the upcoming fiscal year.
Trails Planning
While work on the regional trails plan continues, the staff has been meeting with representatives
from the Hoover Nature Trail Committee and IDOTto discuss the possible route the trail will take
through the region. Of particular concern is the link through Johnson County. Proposed routes will
be identified in the region's draft plan, and will be considered by the Transportation Technical Ad-
visory Committee and Policy Committee.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Data
The staff has completed contracts with Johnson and Washington Counties to acquire data at no, or
relatively low-cost.
15
Option 1
The vehicle (#118) currently has federal "useful life" remaining (less then 4 years old and fewer
than 100,000 miles). The region could seek to replace #118 with a comparable vehicle (Model year
2000 with 40,000 miles). Ifa comparable vehicle can be located, the region must pursue some type
of competitive process to ensure a fair price is obtained. Any purchase will also require concurrence
from the IDOT. The exact cost will not be known until an available vehicle is identified.
Option 2
The Office of Public Transit has asked that we discontinue the purchase of standard vans for transit
services, so the staffhas been looking to replace the vehicle with a minivan. The staff has identified
a new minivan that is available on an open state bid for $19,507 (may require price adjustment to
extend the purchasing deadline beyond May 7, 2003). Purchasing this new vehicle will not require
the region to seek additional bids. In addition, make ready costs to sign the vehicle, and install the
radio and necessary equipment will cost approximately $1,300. The insurance settlement will offset
Iowa County's local share:
Purchase price: $20,807
Less insurance settlement: $18,375
Less signage expense: $ 800
Cost to Iowa County: $ 1,632
Option 3
Same as Option 2, however, funds from the Regional Transit Account will cover all expenses in ex-
cess of the insurance settlement. All proceeds from the eventual sale of the vehicle will be depos-
ited in the Regional Transit Account.
Option 4
Purchase the new vehicle for another provider who will pay the required local share, and transfer a
comparable vehicle from their fleet for Iowa County's use. Unfortunately, the region does not own
a vehicle comparable to #118.
16
In the workshops, participants used Submitted by C0unci~ °~_'_29'°a ~
a software program called Planning Kanner
for Community Energy, Economic
and Environmental Sustainability Workshop participants were divided
(PLACEtS) evalu- into groups, and the groups used
to
I $ $ U E $ & ate potential land-use PLACE3S to develop their own land-
plans. PLACE3S is a use plans and measure the effect of
T R E N D S GlS.based program that their plans and those proposed by
allows users to compare the city. The participants examined
such factors as the number of jobs and
land-use plans in a
number of ways, includ- residences the plans would support,
ing their impact on jobs, and they studied the projected energy
use, air emissions and the vehicle
environmental resources,
PUBLIC TRANSIT access to transit and miles traveled (VMT). In the end,
access to schools. Pack- the workshops produced a mixed-use,
Software, public aged as an extension to transit-oriented plan that projects a
help design land- ArcView software from 50 percent increase in train boardings
Redlands, Calif.-based over existing conditions and about a
use plans ESRI, PLACE3S is non- 20 percent decrease in VMT. The plan
From Februar~ 2001 until the proprietary software, calls for a mixture of residential con-
summer of 2002. the Sacramento A team of consultants struction- apartments, condomini-
ICalif.) Regional Transit District held led by New York-based urns and student housing and retail
a series of public workshops to help Parsons Brinckerhoff developed and office space in the half-mile sur-
determine the type of development PLACEtS. Funding for the software rounding the station. The city council
that will surround light-rail stations development was provided by the Cali- approved the plan, and it is now being
in the region. During the workshops, fomia Energy Commission, the U.S. implemented.
residents and local officials used a GIS- Department of Energy, the Association "PLACE3S was a great help because
based technology to test alternanve of Bay Area Governments, San Diego, it democratizes the planning process,
land-use plans. 5 Sacramento, the San Diego Associa- and really puts it in the hands of stake-
' lAlthough light rail tion of Governments and the Georgia holders," Pascoe says. "[The public]
has been in place in Regional Transportation Authority, can immediately see and feel the con-
the Sacramento area along with other state and federal sequences of land-use policy decisions.
for about 15 years, agencies. "Community members gained a
no substantial land- A portion of the public workshops sense of ownership in the project and
use planning had held in Sacramento focused on the learned about the important connec-
occurred for the areas land-use plan for the 60-acre area tion between land-use and transit
around the stations, surrounding the 65th Street light-rail ridetship," she adds. "Planning profes-
Local officials con- station. Before the workshops were sionals gained access to land-use plans
ducted the "Transit held, the city and Parsons Brinckerhoff that have gone through community
for Livable Commu- used PLACE3S to develop six potential review very early in the project's life,
nities" workshops to land-use plans for the area. Three of which provided better guidance and
develop public sup- the plans used the zoning present at better support for planning decisions."
port for concentrated, the time, and the rest incorporated
development near the smart-growth initiatives.
stations.
"As communities
have come to under-
stand the benefits of effective land-use
planning around light-rail stations.
they have sought greater [public]
involvement in the process." says Mau-
reen Pascoe, former real estate admin-
istrator for the Sacramento Regional
Transit District. "Early in the [Transit
for Livable Communities] project, we
identified three major components
that needed to be addressed equally:
community involvement and support,
economic vitality of the communities For more than a year, the Sacramento {Calif.} Regional
around the stations and land-use plans Transit District held a series o! public workshops to
that are grounded in sound planning help determine tho type of development that will sur-
principles." round light-rail stations in the area.
16 April 2003 AMERICAN CITY ~ COUNTY
Submitted by Council Member Ka~
1 CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
2 ORDINANCE NO. 2003-8
3
4
5 AN ORDINANCE
6 AMENDING CHAPTER 28 SFCC 1987 ESTABLISHING MINIMUM WAGE
7 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL BUSINESSES WHO OBTAIN A BUSINESS LICENSE OR
8 BUSINESS REGISTR~kTION FROM THE CITY OF SANTA FE WHO EMPLOY
9 TWENTY-FIVE (25) OR MORE WORKERS OR, IN THE CASE OF NON-PROFIT
10 BUSINESSES, WHO EMPLOY TWENTY-FIVE (25) OR MORE WORKERS.
11
12,~ BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE:
13 Section 1. Section 28-1.2 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. #2002-13, §2) is amended to
14 read:
15 28-1.2 Legislative Findings. The governing body of the city has determined that:
16 A. The public welfare, health, safety and prosperity of Santa Fe require wages and
17 benefits sufficient to ensure a decent and healthy life for workers and their families;
18 B. Many Santa Fe workers earn wages insufficient to support themselves and their
19 families;
20 C. Many Santa Fe workexs cannot participate in civic life or pursue educational,
21 cultural, and recreational opporttmities because they must work such long hours to meet their
22 households' most basic needs;
23 D. Minimura wage laws promote the general welfare, health, safety and prosperity of
24 Santa Fe by ensuring that workers can better support and care for their families through their own
25 efforts and without financial governmental assistance;
1 E. The average eamings per job in Santa Fe County is 23% below the national average
2 and the cost of living is 18 % higher than the national average;
3 F. Housing costs in Santa Fe are much higher than in most other parts of New Mexico,
4 and low income workers must therefore spend a disproportionate pementage of their income
5 sheltering themselves and their families;
6 G. Livable wages also benefit employers and the economy as a whole by improving
7 employee performance, reducing employee turnover, lowering absenteeism, and thereby improving
8 productivity and the quality of the services provided by employees;
9 H. When businesses do not pay a livable wage, the community bears the cost in the
10 form of increased demand for taxpayer-funded social services including homeless shelters, soup
11 kitchens and healthcare for the uninsured. Coupled with high real estate values, low wages reduce
12 the ability of low- and moderate-income residents to access affordable housing. As a result, the
13 city has had to invest significant tax dollars to support affordable housing including funding to
14 non-profit organizations, purchasing land, building infrastructure and waiving fees. In addition,
15 the city has allocated significant tax dollars to operate after school and summer recreation
16 programs and to support non-profit organizations offering an array of human services and
17 children and youth services, all of which are needed by very low-income residents and their
18 families;
19 I. It is in the public interest to require employers benefiting from city actions and
20 funding, and from the opportunity to do business in the city, to pay employees a minimum wage, a
21 "living wage", adequate to meet the basic needs of living in Santa Fe;
22 J. According to the 2000 Census, approximately 12.3% of the Santa Fe community
23 lives below the poverty level; and
24 K. According to the New Mexico depamnent of labor, 23.5% of Santa Feans who are
25 employed in the non-governmental sector earn hourly wages of $10.50 per hour or less.
2
I Section 2. Section 28-1.3 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. #2002-13, §3) is amended to
2 read:
3 28-1.3 Authority of the City of Santa Fe.
4 This Living Wage Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the general welfare and police
5 powers conferred upon the city of Santa Fe by {}3-17-1 et seq. and {}3-18-I et seq. NMSA 1978,
6 pursuant to the powers conferred upon the city of Santa Fe by New Mexico Constitution, Article
7 X §§6(D) and 6(E) and the Municipal Charter Act, {}3-15-1 et seq. NMSA 1978, which have been
8 exercised by the city's adoption of its "Santa Fe Municipal Charter".
9 Section 3. Section 28-1.4 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. #2002-13, §4) is amended to
10 read:
11 28-1.4 Purpose. The purposes of this ordinance are:
12 A. To have the city of Santa Fe set an example for the public and private sectors by
13 paying its employees a minimum wage adequate to meet the basic needs of living in Santa Fe.
14 B. To raise the income of low-income employees of employers who contract with
15 the city, receive grants, subsidies or other benefits from the city or benefit from the opportunity to
16 do business in Santa Fe.
17 Section 4. Section 28-1.5 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. #2002-13, §5) is amended to
18 read:
19 28-1.5 Minimum Wage Payment Requirements.
20 A. The following shall pay the minimum wage:
21 (1) The city of Santa Fe shall pay the minimum wage to all full-time
22 permanent workers employed by the city. However, the provisions of this ordinance are
23 expressly limited by and subject to future union negotiations in compliance with the Fair
24 Labor Standards Act and subsequent appropriations by the governing body in compliance
25 with the Bateman Act;
1 (2) Contractors for the city, who employ more than twenty-five (25) workers
2 that have a contract requiring the performance of a service including constmction
3 services but excluding purchases of goods, shall pay the minimum wage to their workers
4 and subcontractors performing work under the contract if the total contract amount with
5 the city is, or by way of amendment becomes, equal to or greater than $30,000. This
6 provision shall not apply to leases of city real property or to contractors who are non-
7 profit organizations;
8 (3) Businesses receiving assistance relating to economic development in the
9 form of grants, subsidies, loan guarantees or industrial revenue bonds in excess of
10 $25,000 shall pay the minimum wage to those employed by such entity for the duration
11 of the city grant or subsidy; and
12 (4) Businesses required to have a business license or business registration
13 from the city of Santa Fe who, during any given month, have twenty-five (25) or more
14 workers, or in the case of not-for-profit organizations, who have twenty-five (25) or more
15 workers, shall pay the minimum wage to their workers for all hours worked within the
16 city of Santa Fe that month. For proposes of this paragraph, worker shall not include any
17 person who is related by blood or by marriage to any person who may have or possess
18 any ownership interest in the business that employs them. For purposes of calculating the
19 number of workers under this ordinance and identifying persons entitled to be paid the
20 minimum wage, all individuals employed by or providing work to the business for
21 compensation, whether on a part-time, full-time or temporary basis, dating a given month
22 shall be counted as a worker. This definition shall include contingent or contracted
23 workers, and persons made available to work through the services of a temporary
24 services, staffing or employment agency or similar entity. However, intems working for a
25 business for academic credit in connection with a course of study at an accredited school,
1 college or university or persons working for an accredited school, college or university
2 while also attending that school, college or university, or persons working for a business
3 in connection with a court-ordered community service program such as teen court or
4 workers who are in an apprenticeship program in a 501C(3) organization (such as the
5 Santa Fe Opera) shall not be counted as a worker for such purposes.
6 B. Beginning January 1, 2004, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $8.50.
7 In computing the wage paid for purposes of determining compliance with the minimum wage, the
8 value of health benefits and childcare shall be considered as an element of wages. On January 1,
9 2006, the minimum wage shall be increased to an hourly rate of $9.50. On January 1,2008, the
10 minimum wage shall be increased to an hourly rate of $10.50. Beginning January 1, 2009, and
t 1 each year thereafter, the minimum wage shall be adjusted upward by an amount corresponding to
12 the previous year's increase, if any, in the consumer price index for the western region for urban
13 wage earners and clerical workers. For workers who customarily receive more than $100 per
14 month in tips or commissions, any tips or commissions received and retained by a worker shall be
15 counted as wages and credited towards satisfaction of the minimum wage provided that, for
16 tipped workers, all tips received by such workers are retained by the workers, except that the
17 pooling of tips among workers shall be permitted.
18 C. Non-profit organizations whose primary source of funds is from Medicaid
19 waivers are exempt.
20 Section 5. Section 28-1.6 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. #2002-13, §6) is amended to
21 read:
22 28-1.6 Prohibitions Against Retaliation and Circumvention.
23 A. It shall be unlawful for any business, employer or employer's agent or
24 representative to take any action against an individual in retaliation for the exercise of or
25 communication of information regarding rights under this ordinance. This section shall also apply
5
1 to any individual that mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance with this ordinance.
2 B. Taking adverse action against an individual within sixty days of the individual's
3 assertion of or cntmnunication of information regarding rights shall raise a rebuttable
4 presumption of having done so in retaliation for the assertion of rights.
5 C. It shall he unlawful for any business or employer to intentionally circumvent the
6 requirements of this ordinance by contracting portions of its operation or leasing portions of its
7 property.
8 Section 6. Section 28-1.8 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. # 2002-13, §8) is repealed and
9 a new Section 28-1.8 SFCC 1987 is ordained to read:
10 28-1.8 [NEW MATERIALd Enforcement;Remedies.
11 A. Administrative Enforcement. The city manager, or his/her designee, is authorized,
12 as appropriate and as resources permit, to enforce this ordinance. The city manager is authorized
13 to investigate possible violations of this ordinance. Where the city manager, after a proceeding
14 that affords a suspected violator due process, concludes that a violation has occurred, the city
15 manager may issue orders to the employer appropriate to effectuate the complaining person's
16 fights, including but not limited to back pay and reinstatement. The city manager also has the
17 power to order termination of any and all economic benefit derived by any offending party from
18 the city and has the power to revoke the employer's business license or registration.
19 B. Criminal Penalty. A person violating this ordinance shall be guilty of a
20 misdemeanor and, upon conviction, for each offense may be subject to fines and imprisonment as
21 set forth in Section 1-3 SFCC 1987. A person violating any of the requirements of this ordinance
22 shall be guilty of a separate offense for each day or portion thereof and for each worker or person
23 as to which any such violation occurred.
24 C. Other Remedies. The city, any individual aggrieved by a violation of this
25 ordinance, or any entity the members of which have been aggrieved by a violation of this
I ordinance, may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to restrain, correct, abate
2 or remedy any violation of this ordinance and, upon prevailing, shall be entitled to such legal or
3 equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation,
4 reinstatement, the payment of any wages due and an additional amount as liquidated damages
5 equal to twice the amount of any wages due, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and
6 costs.
7 D. Nonexclusive Remedies and Penalties. The remedies provided in this section are
8 not exclusive, and nothing in this ordinance shall preclude any person from seeking any other
9 remedies, penalties, or relief provided by law.
10 Section 7. Section 28-1.10 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. #2002-13, §10) is amended to
11 read:
12 28-1.10 Severability.
13 The requirements and provisions of this ordinance and their parts, subparts and clauses
14 are severable. In the event that any requirement, provision, part, subpart or clause of this
15 ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held by a court of
16 competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it is the intent of the governing body that
17 the remainder of the ordinance be enforced to the maximum extent possible consistent with the
18 governing body's purpose of ensuring a living wage for persons covered by the ordinance.
19 Section 8. Section 28-1.11 SFCC 1987 (being Ord. #2002-13, §11) is repealed
20 and a new section is ordained to read:
21 28-1.11 [NEW MATERIAL:] Notice; Posting; and Publication.
22 Any business subject to the provisions of this ordinance shall as a condition to obtaining
23 and holding a city of Santa Fe business license or registration, post and display in a prominent
24 location next to its business license or registration on the business premises a notice, in English
25 and Spanish, that the business is in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and in
7
I particular post the text of Sections 28-1.5, 28-1.6 and 28-1.8 SFCC 1987. Failure to comply with
2 this section shall be construed a violation of this ordinance and, in addition, shall be considered
3 grounds for suspension, revocation, or termination of the business license or registration.
4 Section 9. Section 28-1.12 (being Ord. # 2002-13, §12) is repealed and a new
5 Section 28-1.12 SFCC 1987 is ordained to read:
6 28-1.12 [NEW MATERIAL.I Living Wage Review.
7 The city will conduct a review of thi's ordinance on or before July 1, 2005. In conducting
8 said review the governing body may, at its discretion and pursuant to a duly-adopted resolution,
9 appoint an ad hoc committee to advise and assist in making recommendations regarding this
10 ordinance and to investigate the economic and social effects of this ordinance on Santa Fe. The
11 city will contract with an independent third party to develop an evaluation that will generate
12 objective measures on the effect of the Living Wage Ordinance on the health, security, and
13 livelihood of Santa Feans by March 31, 2003. Data necessary for such an evaluation on Santa Fe
14 city businesses will be compiled and presented to the governing body for their review on or
15 before July 1, 2003. In compiling the data, consideration should be given to potential impacts on
16 youth employment and possible recommendations that might prevent unforeseen consequences
17 hurting children in the community.
18 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of February, 2003.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Submitted by Council Member Pfab I q'~~
JOHNSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Thomas L. Hansen
Emergency Management Coordinator
May 21, 2003
The Johnson County Emergency Management Commission a.k.a, the Civil Defense
Board will meet in regular session on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Sheriff's Conference Room at the Johnson County Jail Building at 511 So.
Capitol Street in Iowa City, Iowa.
AGENDA
1. Meeting called to order by Chairperson at 7:30 p.m.
2. Reading and action on the minutes of ApHi 23, 2003 meeting.
3. Reading and action on expenses since the April 23, 2003 meeting.
4. Reading and action on the receipts since the Apd123, 2003 meeting.
5. Discussion by the Emergency Management Coordinator.
6. Discussion and Action by Commission
a. Old Business
1. Update on Supplemental Grant- Brady Robbins
2. Homeland Security
3. CriER-CAP - Melissa Jensen
b. New Business
1. Computer
2. EOC Grant Application
3. IMAC - iowa Mutual Aid Compact
4. Iowa Emergency Management Association
7. Discussion by Commission Members
8. Discussion by General Public
9. Call for Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be
Wednesday, September 24, 2003.
51 1 S. CAPITOL / EO. BOX 169 / iOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 / TELEPHONE (319) 356-6028
Submitted by Council Member Pfab
IPIO
JOHNSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Thomas L. Hansen
Emergency Management Coordinator
The Johnson County Emergency Management Commission met in regular session on
Wednesday, April 23, 2003 in the Conference Room of the Sheriff's Building located at
511 So. Capitol Street, Iowa City, Iowa.
In attendance were:
Gary Kinsinger - Coralville George Murphy - Hills
Ron Stutzman- Iowa City Dave Smith - Lone Tree
Don Saxton - Chairperson/Oxford Bob Carpenter - Sheriff
Greg Morris - Solon Tom Hansen - EMA Coordinator
Guests included: Brady Robbins, Melissa Jensen, Cringer Atcheson
1.) The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Don Saxton.
2.) The minutes of the March 2003 meeting were read. Gary Kinsinger moved that the minutes be
accepted. Greg Morris seconded the motion to approve the minutes. Motion carried.
3.) The record of expenses since the March meeting were reviewed. George Murphy moved that
the expenses report be accepted. Bob Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion carried.
4.) The report of receipts received since the March meeting were reviewed. Dave Smith moved
that the report be accepted. Greg Morris seconded the. motion. Motion carried.
5. Discussion by Tom Hansen, Emergency Management Coordinator. A lot of tornado classes
happening and a three day bio-terrorism class at the Memorial Union that was well attended with many
law enforcement attendees. There's a meeting tomorrow in Cedar Rapids and Tom has been involved
in the HRSA (the hospitals group) and CDC (public health group) meetings. These groups have
received a great deal ofmuney and Tom attends to monitor things and to be able to share the plans and
proceedings with the Commission and the County. The County's volunteer reception was held
recently. Grant work continues.
1
511 $. CAP[TOL / P.O~ BOX 169 / IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 / TELEPHONE (319) 356-6028
FAX: (319) 339-6175 EMAIL: jocoema@co,johnson.ia.us
6.) Discussion and Action by the Commission
A. Old Business
1. Supplemental Grant. Brady Robbins was introduced to the Commission. Brady
represents the Midwest Development and Planning Service that the Commission has
contracted with to complete the Supplemental Grant. Accompanying Brady was Ginger
Atcheson, the community development planner with Midwest Development. Brady told
the Commission members that he had been with the Iowa Division of Emergency
Management for 6 years as a program manager, lead planner for the mitigation/recovery
bureau and has worked in operations, preparedness and recovery. The EMAP assessment
is a self-assessment of the emergency management function. This is nnt just an
assessment of the local emergency management office but also of law enforcement, fire,
public health and everyone that has a tie with the entities that would have anything to do
with emergency management during an event. Brady and Ginger will meet with
representatives throughout the next weeks and plan to be back for the next Commission
meeting. Brady would also like to meet with the Commission members twice during
June since the EMAP is supposed to be completed by the end of June. Brady handed out
paperwork for the Commission members to look over. There are 14 key clements that are
involved in the self-assessment. There is also an accreditation that the States have done
but it is not a requirement for Counties yet. In the future grants and funding may be tied
to this assessment and eventually to the accreditation. R is okay to not have a perfect
plan because this will develop a plan for what will be done in the future. The information
gathered during the assessment will become part of the County's strategic plan and will
help with the improvement plans. This will include all communities, the unincorporated
areas of thc county and all fire departments and law enforcement. The lime commitment
for the assessment will be minimal for individuals but the Commission will need to be
involved in the process. Brady will be meeting with Tom starting next week to gather
information and then Brady and Ginger will start collecting the rest of the information.
The Commission is tasked to develop a Citizen Corps or Council. The Council could
include elected officials, representatives of EMA, 1 ~t responders, EMS, health care
entities, i.e. the Red Cross and Salvation Army, neighborhood watch groups or other
citizen committees, industries, hospitals and the University. This is to be a
comprehensive, County-wide (Commission) group that speaks on behalf of the County.
The Citizen Corps and the Community Emergency Response Teem (CERT) are part of a
public education program in planning for disaster. These groups are not intended to
replace existing agencies but to provide civilian support in non-critical support services -
more of an awareness level of l~aining. This would work best in the smaller enmmunities
and rural areas but there was disenssion on how it would work in the Iowa City/Coralville
ares There was also discussion about funding items identified in the "action plan" and
Brady assured the Commission that the plan would include language indicating that plans
would be based on federal funding availability.
Now through the end of June Brady and Ginger will be doing the EMAP and assessment
because these are due to the State by the end of June. There was discussion about the
possibility of doing part of this electronically.
2. Homeland Security. For now it looks like thc primary thing is watching how money
will be divided and dispersed and it is something that Torn will be watching.
B. New Business
1. HazMat billing - HazMat bills will be mailed out early in May and the Commission
Members need to be aware of this in case they get calls from their mayors. This will be
the last $ .75 per capita billing with the extra $ .50 going toward the purchase of the new
HazMat response vehicle. The HazMat team has been operating on the quarter and
should be able to continue on that and if there is additional need identified in the future
that will be addressed later. It was explained that Emergency Management does not have
direct control over HazMat but just helps disperse the money.
2. Melissa Jensen, LEPC Chairperson, was introduced to the Commission.
10. Discussion by Commission Members
Gregg Morris advised that the City of Solon has been looking for a generator for a couple of
years and that Tom fmally helped them locate one and that it was a good price.
11. Comments from the General Public.
There were none.
12. Call for adjournment
Greg Morris moved that the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by George Murphy.
Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned 9:00 p.m.
The next meeting of the Emergency Management Commission
will be Wednesday, May 28th at 7:30 p.~.